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 \| 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 for policy problems; request listings, questions and discussions.	Requests for deletion/Others add new \| history Requests for deletion for pages not in the main namespace, such as categories, appendices and templates.	Requests for moves, mergers and splits add new \| history Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.
{{rfc-case}} - {{rfc-cjkv}} - {{rfc-trans}} - {{rfdate}} - {{rfd-redundant}} - {{rfdef}} - {{rfe}} - {{rfex}} - {{rfap}} - {{rfp}} - {{rfphoto}} - {{context needed}}

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

Scope of this request page:

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

Templates:

{{rfd}}
{{rfd-sense}}
{{rfd-passed}}
{{rfd-failed}}

Shortcuts:

[edit] December 2010

[edit] Peabody

The w:Peabody Award. Consensus on including this kind of proper noun. If so, why? If not, why not? DCDuring TALK 15:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

If we delete this, we really ought to delete Nobel Prize as well. While the latter is much more well known, in linguistic terms they're no different. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Also Oscar and Emmy. Equinox ◑ 17:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Google Book hits for "the Peabody of", I would say that if anything we're missing senses. DAVilla 17:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

When we had the attributive use rule it was relatively easy (IMHO) to distinguish between proper nouns that had usage that implied meaning beyond the original referent itself. Opponents, however, deemed it too hard to understand and apply. Any thoughts about some basis for discriminating or are we to duplicate the content of Wikipedia articles, which increasingly have translations/transliterations into multiple languages/scripts? DCDuring TALK 17:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"the...of" is an easy wrapper to use for discovery of metaphorical use, the basis of my earlier proposal mentioned above. DAVilla 18:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Input needed: This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

[edit] January 2011

[edit] M and M boys

Not dictionary material. I have a sneaky feeling (with no concrete evidence behind it) that this is actually a protest entry by DCDuring (talk • contribs) in an attempt to show ridiculous our criteria for inclusion actually are. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep; I think famous nicknames are includible, just not the actual people of their referents. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 02:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know this nickname, but it could be more acceptable than Mickey Mantle: a definition can be provided and help readers, while Mickey Mantle is any Mickey with Mantle as his surname. Note that Charlemagne, too, can be considered as a nickname. Lmaltier 06:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Is your point about Mickey Mantle#Proper noun or Mickey Mantle#Noun or both? DCDuring TALK 11:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

the proper noun (and the common noun because I think that the figure of speech does not make it a common noun). Lmaltier 17:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If DCDuring is sincerely in support of the entry, I am too. If not, I probably would be anyways in the absence of specific criteria, but I could support strict criteria that would not allow this as well. DAVilla 02:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

My sincerity is in believing that this low-quality entry is consistent with our current policies and practice, which I sincerely believe ought to be uniformly applied or modified in broad terms which can be uniformly applied. I think this entry is a typical consequence of our rules and practice. I also sincerely believe that we would be better served by rules and practices that were vastly more restrictive of the definitions of terms that are proper names, along the lines of our treatment of personal given names and surnames. DCDuring TALK 16:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Amen. Equinox ◑ 10:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete per DCDuring. --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep under current rules. DCDuring TALK 14:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I propose that the solution to such marginal cases is to have an appendix of famous nicknames for specific people or groups. We can define King of Pop and the like without having entries on them. bd2412 T 17:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

{{look}}

kept, no consensus -- Liliana • 04:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] drill in

This doesn't look like a phrasal verb to me. --Downunder 21:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Debatable, to drill does mean in sports, to hit the ball/puck hard. So that could be drill + in. How about the sense drill something into someone? That would surely meet CFI. So... not sure. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

In sports one could "drill a ball/shot/puck/serve/ace/liner/line drive/drive/spiral/pass/rocket/fastball", all with a sense that seems basically the same to me, whatever the sport. Usually this would be followed by a prepositional phrase with an adverbial function. But one-word adverbs like "fair", "foul", "out" (out of bounds). I find it hard to see how "in" is different or that any of these cause a semantic change. Delete. DCDuring TALK 23:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Definition is inaccurate, you can drill the ball in and not score - it might be saved or blocked on the line. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a phrasal verb because in doesn't have an object. Keep but correct definition. DAVilla 06:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Is that a sufficient condition? That would seem to indicate that any verb followed by any word that can be both adverb and preposition is a phrasal verb. We have never had the benefit of any adequate definition of what a phrasal verb was, let alone criteria. DCDuring TALK 10:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If in is an adverb in this case, then which sense applies? DAVilla 18:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

in#Adverb sense 2 is the best wording we have for it. DCDuring TALK 21:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In that case I'm not so sure. DAVilla 06:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep. --Dan Polansky 08:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Why? DCDuring TALK 10:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete. The sense of drill used here does not require the word "in," and neither does "in" change the sense. Pingku 14:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

So how do you explain the existence of that particle? The up in ~~grow up, tear up~~, wake up doesn't do anything either, nor out in trying out something new. DAVilla 18:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I would explain it away as an optional adjunct in this case, adding some precision to "drill". "Out" and a vast number of prepositional phrases could also add analogous precision. I would argue that up changes the meaning by changing the lexical aspect of the associated verb in at least grow up and tear up. There is an element of completion (telicity ?) to the growing in the phrasal verbs not present in the verbs without the particle, just as in the use of explain away vs explain in the first sentence. DCDuring TALK 21:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Input needed: This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

[edit] beat

Rfd-redundant:

(impersonal): It beats X Y = X cannot understand Y, where Y is an indirect question.

(said by Fred Dibnah): It beats me how she [= the Queen] keeps tabs on everybody

This seems to be a particular use of the "overcome"/"defeat" sense and/or it is idiomatic in beats me/it beats me. DCDuring TALK 18:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the latter: it's idiomatic in beats me. (Not in it beats me, though, as "How he did that beats me" works well. It can redirect, though.) (I'm reminded of why transcripts, which don't include tone of voice, are, well, lacking: Attorney: And what does your husband do every night at nine o'clock? Witness: Beats me.)—msh210℠ (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

There are several Google Web results for it beat me why, past tense, but not nearly as many as for present. There are few results for third-person, but some. What to do?—msh210℠ (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

{{look}}

Deleted as redundant; I agree with DCDuring's interpretation. - -sche (discuss) 18:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] February 2011

[edit] sotto voce

Rfd-redundant. The music senses are exactly the same as the others AFAICT, but tagged {{music}}. I think the senses should be removed, the tag should be converted to an explicit categorization, and the etymology should mention that the term was originally used in music and is still more common there. Thoughts?—msh210℠ (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the term, but if sotto voce is fairly widely used outside of music, I would do exactly that. If it's almost always music, I would use {{chiefly|music}} and combine the sense, unless they are distinct in a way I don't know of. Like I say, I don't know the term so I will trust others' judgment. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It definitely isn't used only in music, and more surprising (to me, when I looked it up), it wasn't even used first in music. I think two senses are justified, because in the non-musical sense it means ‘in a low voice’, ie only of speech, whereas as a musical term it doesn't only refer to singing but anything – you can play a piano piece sotto voce, for example. Which I never realised. Ƿidsiþ 20:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Kept per Widsith. - -sche (discuss) 18:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] social ecology theory

w:Social ecology + theory. NISoP. Also, the kind of entry to which WT:BRAND ought apply. DCDuring TALK 23:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Delete (we should probably have social ecology though). Ƿidsiþ 13:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
But our definition of this term doesn't match WP's explanation of social ecology at all AFAICT.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

As a dictionary we are supposed to be focused on usage. I am not entirely sure what WP's choice of terms and definitions reflects. Possibly the weight of all authority, possibly just select authority. A dictionary is not an abridged encyclopedia. DCDuring TALK 18:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably SOP, but the point is moot until social ecology is defined. DAVilla 06:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

{{look}}

Moved to social ecology. - -sche (discuss) 18:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] rainbow

Rfd-redundant: "Having, or shining with, the colors of the rainbow: iridescent." redundant to "Multicoloured". Am I missing something here? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Delete sense per nom. Pretty clearly redundant. bd2412 T 17:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

deleted -- Liliana • 21:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] -ium

Latin section (not English), taken from rfc. EP thinks these are not formative suffixes in Latin. -- Prince Kassad 18:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If it's not proper Latin, then I agree, it should not be in the "Latin" section. But let's not delete the content, let's move it to "English". So, I don't think this should be a deletion request, it's more of a reorganization. And one that a proper authority should just go ahead and do. PatrickFisher 18:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Please leave here as many users will look here.

Although I'm not sure if it's productive, there are plenty of nouns formed this way. e.g., artificium (< artifex), auspicium (< auspex), arbitrium (< arbiter), etc. These are all of the form <person who does something> + ium → <thing person does>, but that might not be the only thing -ium is used for. My Latin isn't amazing, so I could be missing something obvious about this, but it seems to me it should be kept under Latin, maybe with the note that it isn't productive (unless it is - I don't know). 124.169.231.62 03:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The New Latin sense should clearly be kept. I added a note that the other sense "May no longer be productive", but have otherwise kept it. (It's found on loads of words!) - -sche (discuss) 18:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] countable noun

[edit] uncountable noun

Sum of parts. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if it is the reverse of SoP, are countable and uncountable used to describe anything other than nouns within the scope of grammar? I know they can be used on their own, but do those usages imply while eliding the word noun or are they truly independent? - TheDaveRoss 19:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Even if they are only used for nouns, you could still say "this noun is uncountable"; you are not bound to saying "uncountable noun". —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 02:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Note, translations could be at mass noun and count noun if these two got deleted. Most of the translations seems to be SoP anyway, I think one of the French ones is wrong to the point where I couldn't get three citations for it. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Unfortunately I don't see how this is keepable under our current CFI. ---> Tooironic 03:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Not idiomatic, but I don't see what would be so terribly wrong with keeping the most common collocations for words like countable in this sense. DAVilla 06:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, this may be idiomatic; you can count "money", and it's a noun, but it's not a countable noun (at least, not normally). ---> Tooironic 06:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep or merge. "Count noun," "non-count noun," "countable noun," and "uncountable noun" are very definitely terms used in ESL textbooks, and in the classroom, as well as on Wikipedia The fact that they are essentially professional jargon as far as most native English speakers are concerned does not make them illegitimate. And no, they are not idiomatic. See the Wikipedia article. "Money," isn't a count noun, but "dollar" is. A merge is probably a better idea, but I don't know which would be the better title. "Countable/uncountable" seems to be more common, based on Google, and is definitely more grammatical, but it seems like the official linguistics terminology is "count/non-count." It could be that "count/non-count" is the linguistics term and the one I use in my ESL classes. --Quintucket 06:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge into what? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] March 2011

[edit] abarbeiten

Rfd-sense: to work hard. Redundant to the sense to work off, which I corrected because it's not restricted to debts but is used in all kinds of contexts. -- Prince Kassad 19:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"To work off" is restricted to debts, at least in my mind. I don't see "to work hard" being a subset of "to work off" at all.--Prosfilaes 22:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Then I guess the sense needs improving. abarbeiten can be used in quite a lot of situations, such as working off hours in a job, processing a to-do list, etc. The reflexive sense is really just an application of the other sense, but if it's written that badly, of course nobody will understand it. -- Prince Kassad 22:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The way it's currently worded (that is, the English translations), I can't see how it can be redundant. But I don't know the German word. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Just for reference, my dictionary has this: abarbeiten (Verb) 1.) work off (Schuld), work (Überfahrt, Vertragszeiten), run (Computerprogramme), execute (Befehle) 2.) slave away. -- Prince Kassad 23:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

After de:-ab this seems to be a differnet meaning of the prefix: [2a] ganz und gar, bis zur Erschöpfung, bis zur Untauglichkeit, bis zur Tilgung - to do something completely until exhaustion, incabability, extinction.Matthias Buchmeier 09:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit] sideways

Rfd-redundant: "askance, sidelong". Seems the same as the "towards one side" sense.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete, please. --Pilcrow 16:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, Nelly. We lack the figurative sense of askance as a meaning of "sideways". Check OneLook for MWOnline's, AHD's, RHU's, and other views before jumping on senses. Our definitions often don't cover meanings very well compared to what professional lexicographers have. —This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talk • contribs) 30 March 2011.

Oh, is the figurative sense of askance what was meant here? That's... unclear. Perhaps it just needs a rewrite, then. (If such sense exists.)—msh210℠ (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the literal sense of askance is even current. Encarta, for example, doesn't include it. DCDuring TALK 18:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

google books:"glanced askance" gets a fair number of recent hits, most of which seem to be literal. —Ruakh_TALK 19:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

¶ Perhaps that etymology is required, firstly? --Pilcrow 18:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit] April 2011

[edit] queen of hearts

Rfd-sense: A character from Lewis Carroll's book Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. I don't think we want these as definitions. -- Prince Kassad 20:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Delete. (Wrong caps, too, incidentally.)—msh210℠ (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete especially per msh210. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This is an empirical question, not suitable for a vote. DCDuring TALK 21:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right! "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." Sorry! Keep here and move to RFV if citeability isn't obvious.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

So, it is correct caps? -- Prince Kassad 21:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleted.--Jusjih 10:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Queen of Hearts

Delete also.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This is an empirical question not suitable for a vote. DCDuring TALK 21:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right! "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." Sorry! Keep here and move to RFV if citeability isn't obvious.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete proper noun sense, delete the common noun as just queen of hearts with unneeded capitals. See one of the citations for pæninsula with a capital letter that we accept for the lowercase form. Oh and it's not yet cited. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete them all, and also I'd like to see more entries solely based on movie characters gone. --The Evil IP address 18:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleted.--Jusjih 10:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] quadriga

Sense: A sculptural form featuring a representation of the subject riding a quadriga.

I did not read the citations as referring to the figure of the person, rather than the chariot, the team of horse, or both together. Whether it also clearly refers metonymically to the charioteer as well would be unsurprising, but hardly entry worthy. Further, quite apart from the apparent circularity, which could be remedied, to include this as a separate sense would be a precedent for including additional senses for every noun used to refer to something represented in an imagined or represented world (painting, sculpture, computer game, advertisement, film). Thus man (“a form representing a man (sense 1), as in film, photography, etc.”). DCDuring TALK 23:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC) IFYPFY.—msh210℠ (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, delete. --Hekaheka 13:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Weak keep - this refers to a class of scuplture known after a particularly famous one. I would normally agree with deletion completely, along the lines that "lion" defined as "a scultpure of a lion" is an unnecessary definition. But a quadriga seems to be a special case of a class of sculptures, like nudes, busts, etc. I say "weak" keep because (offhand) I can't think of another class of scultpure so narrowly focussed ("landscape" comes to mind in painting), but in modern English "quadriga" more often refer to a sculpture than to an actual chariot team, which is the reverse of most other concrete nouns that might be rendered in art. --EncycloPetey 20:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

"in modern English "quadriga" more often refer to a sculpture than to an actual chariot team" - it may depend on the fact that in modern world one sees the sculptures more often than actual chariot teams. --Hekaheka 22:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Weak delete: this seems like (as I recently mentioned re catgirl) having a sense for tree meaning "a model of a tree made of metal, plastic, etc.". My vote is "weak" because I don't really know the word and EncycloPetey seems to know something we don't. Equinox ◑ 21:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] May 2011

[edit] fuck me

rfd-senses:

Used imperatively when one wants a partner to have sex with oneself, often in a rough manner

And rfd-redundant, 2&3 are the same

(vulgar, slang) An expression of dismay at undesired events happening to oneself.
(UK) expression of surprise, contempt, outrage, disgust, boredom, frustration.

My first though seeing the first definition was to add this to Category:English phrasebook which I suspect would have met with opposition. Nevertheless, I don't object to a "used literally" definition with the phrasebook cat, while vulgar I can see why this would be useful to holidaymakers in anglophone countries; I'm merely sensing that this might not be uncontroversial enough for me to do with without further consequences. --Mglovesfun (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I could add more translations for the first sense if it's kept. I'd say keep but we'll see what the community says. I think it's useful and not only in anglophone countries and vulgar words and expressions are allowed. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 00:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's hella an interjection that get's used a lot, I hear it all the time!Lucifer 03:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] neuro-associative physiology

SoP, physiology associated with neural synapses. TeleComNasSprVen 00:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Unsure. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] pseudounipolar neuron

pseudounipolar + neuron --Hekaheka 08:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete, now that pseudounipolar is actually defined. ---> Tooironic 22:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this is SoP by reading the definitions, but if neither of the definitions is wrong I could still be missing something. DAVilla 15:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

If we trust Wikipedia, our current definition of "pseudounipolar neuron" is wrong. It is difficult to write a correct definition without stating that it is a neuron that is pseudounipolar, which makes this an archetypal SoP. --Hekaheka 22:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] squaring the circle

Noun, both senses. This would seem to be a form of the lemma verb (phrase) square the circle. I could not find the putative plural "squarings the circle" on the Web. DCDuring TALK 20:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, presumably it's uncountable if a noun. I doubt it is one, but I'm not sure what criteria to apply.—msh210℠ (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Modification by adjectives (but which ones?) or determiners (the ones appropriate for uncountable nouns: "some", "any", "much", "enough", "more", etc. I'm not sure about "no".). It is possible that we should have quantitative criteria comparing "squaring the circle" with "squaring of the circle". Note that "squarings of the circle" would be attestable, though not entry-worthy. DCDuring TALK 04:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] organic matter

One sense: The residues of dead plants and animals in various stages of decomposition. This seems to be wrong. Linseed oil or my sandwich are organic matter whether decomposing or not. If one tries to correct the definition, it seems to become the mother of all SoP's. --Hekaheka 09:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was just matter that's organic. Inorganic matter google books:"inorganic matter" gets 368 hits, suggesting this isn't a set phrase either. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This might be a keeper. It looks like organic matter is more commonly used in this specific sense of decomposition. Of course there is the broader sense you both speak of, the antonym of inorganic matter which is not at all idiomatic, but if this phrase implies a certain state in the life cycle then that's worth noting. DAVilla 06:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

keep common scientific term.71.142.73.25 20:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] June 2011

[edit] fairy-tale hair

Apart from anything else, the Google image results ([1]) seem to suggest this refers to all kinds of things. Ƿidsiþ 16:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

But... it doesn't seem very sum of parts. Does it mean this? I've certainly never heard of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

A quick search shows that it is used in hair-extension adds (along with Rapunzel hair), but also in many other contexts. I'll say it's sum of parts (hair like in a fairytale).--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 17:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

But there are lots of types of hair in fairy tales. If this is the correct definition, keep.—msh210℠ (talk) 07:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete this is bullshit made up, gotta have citations for me to believe it, upon lqqing at it all I could think was barbie doll hair, move to Repunzel hair rofl.Lucifer 03:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] ranching

Adjective and noun senses —This unsigned comment was added by 75.104.157.95 (talk • contribs) 18.48, 5 June 2011.

Move to RFV. There does seem to be a countable sense of ranching which we lack, meaning either a ranch, a farming area or something similar, evidence by a couple of valid hits for ranchings. Some of those hits are scannos or not English. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think more than 2 are "valid" (not, eg, scannos that missed an apostrophe). The really seem mistaken. DCDuring TALK 02:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Keep this is used.Lucifer 03:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] 善意第三人

Delete. Sum of parts. 善意 ("good intentions") + 第三人 ("third party"). ---> Tooironic 23:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't pretend to be any kind of expert on Chinese law, but from what little I know, my sense is that this is a set phrase, i.e., that other combinations appearing to have the same meaning would be seen as incorrect. bd2412 T 20:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Google hits: "善意第三人"

Google Books: "善意第三人"user:ddpy

Kept for no consensus, while http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/index.html does have this legal term.--Jusjih 10:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] limiting adjective

Defined as "an adjective that limits a noun".

The definition would seem to be NISoP. It seems to exist to be a hyponym. DCDuring TALK 15:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] big fat

No non-wiki reference at OneLook has this. It looks like big + fat to me. Even if the spelling bigfat is attestable, I'd bet it's pronounced with stress on both syllables and is arguably a misspelling of "big, fat". But, I could be wrong. DCDuring TALK 18:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would delete it, but I got my knuckles rapped for deleting big phat! SemperBlotto 08:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

As a note speedy delete big phat if this fails

As a reply, I don't see this as sum of parts. A 'big fat liar' is usually a childish way of calling someone a liar. The person doesn't have to be big or fat, even in figurative senses of big and fat. I don't see how this could ever be sum of parts. My question to DCDuring and SemperBlotto is what meanings we would need to make these sum of parts? --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of Talk:fat-ass. Equinox ◑ 10:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The sense of big in this collocation is about the same as that in the even more common collocation "big old" or dialect "big ole". This spoken citation from w:Dan Rather shows productiveness of "big" in this intensifying adverb use: "RATHER: That would strike a lot of people as big ugly." This transcription is an interesting contrast of adjectival and intensifying adverb use of "big": "I mean, sometimes it's a big, huge, big huge moment in your life.".

As to "fat", I think it is the sense shown in google books:"fat liar" -"big fat liar", excluding the odd scanno and the occasional literal use. "Fat" seems to be be an intensifying pejorative adjective that occurs with negative valence nouns.

IOW, I think "big" and "fat" are productive in the relevant senses. DCDuring TALK 16:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

keep but move to big fat-, i.e. big fat liar, big fat phoney, big fat idiot.71.142.73.25 20:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep because I have a BFFFF big fat fucking faggot friend, who i love very much!Lucifer 03:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] -fier

Ignoring the fact the definition doesn't make any sense, I think this is SoP of -ify an -er. The only derived term is quantifier which is surely quantify + -er and not quant + -ifier. --Mglovesfun (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right, this should be deleted. —CodeCa t 18:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this is productive in a sense in English. Though "logically" it is clearly as MG says, I think that individuals produce nouns ending in "fier" by suffixation of -fier to adjectives and especially nouns, rather than a two-step suffixation process or necessarily thinking of the verb ending in "fy". Following w:Anatoly Liberman, the most telling evidence of productivity would be rare instances (even hapax legomena) of forms ending in "fier" (or, better, "fiers") without corresponding forms ending in "fy", "fies", "fying", and "fied". Unfortunately, I know of no tool that allows wild-card searches of big fat (?) corpora (or even Wiktionary !). DCDuring TALK 17:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] have a funny feeling

Looks sum of parts to me. And the definition given seems to be only one possible interpretation of the meaning behind a "funny" feeling. ---> Tooironic 02:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. But "funny feeling" should probably appear in usexes at [[funny]] (strange) and [[feeling] (intuition). DCDuring TALK 03:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

In my experience funny feeling means “a suspicion” (perhaps “a sneaking suspicion”), and have a funny feeling means “to suspect”. I think we should have an entry for the former, at least, if not the latter. —Ruakh_TALK 19:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, "funny feeling" appears in no OneLook reference. DCDuring TALK 20:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

My experience matches Ruakh's. The CFI don't mention Onelook.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

CFI doesn't mention OED either. But I generally have respect for the fact that professional lexicographers have made judgments about includability words. OneLook includes idiom dictionaries and glossaries which are highly inclusive. Introspection by amateurs is a poor substitute for such judgments, let alone for some corpus-based evidence. We still don't have as many English lemmas as AHD, RHU, and MWOnline. We might have as many as WNW. If you subtract our flaky and erroneous entries, we are farther behind, despite our alleged advantages. [BTW, Encarta is no more.] DCDuring TALK 19:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Definitely cites rule. Impressions don't, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Really you didn't. The value of "authorities", aka lemmings, is that, at least for common collocations, their lack of support for what someone has proposed as a term might give us pause. This is also true when the term falls within the purview of a reference that purports to cover idioms or use of a term in a particular field. Lately our biggest RfD problem is probably collocations common in some context (readily attestable in the sense given) that involve an unusual word or unusual sense of a relatively common word, that may have been heard by and been memorable to more than one contributor, especially not en-N. I still have trouble noticing some "mild" forms of idiomaticity, so a non-native perspective is useful. But forming a judgment is not always easy. So the opinions of authorities/lemmings has some evidentiary value. DCDuring TALK 22:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English glosses "funny feeling" as "strange feeling"^[2] — which may be evidence of SOPness, insofar as one sense of funny is "strange". (Indeed, DCDuring recently added a "have a funny feeling" usex to [[funny]] under just that sense.) To this I'll add that "odd feeling" and "weird feeling" also seem to have roughly the same sense. There's something funny/strange/odd/weird going on here, but maybe it's some figure of speech rather than actual idiomaticity. —Ruakh_TALK 20:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it has more to do with feeling. Delete. DAVilla 06:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

keep a foreigner would find this useful to understand this in a way an SOP search would not be helpful. —This unsigned comment was added by Gtroy (talk • contribs). in this edit

You think feeling means a suspicion? Perhaps so.—msh210℠ (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete, and create funny feeling if needed, since it can also occur in "I've got a funny feeling". Equinox ◑ 16:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] happener

I would have deleted this immediately, but I'm not sure if this word isn't used at all. I am quite sure the definition is wrong, though. —CodeCa t 10:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added a sense that reflects the meaning in all of the first 10 bgc hits I found. The sense challenged should be at RfV if there is no a priori reason to delete it. DCDuring TALK 11:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

More added, though not all may be be sufficiently citeable to be safe from RfV. Regarding the disputed sense, the verb sense of happen collocated with on/upon looks the only likely interpretation. The hyphenated forms happener-on and happener-upon are possibly the more common, though still hard to find, and I'm not completely sure how (i.e., where) they should be documented. — Pingku^dimmi 10:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw that usage. If it is attestable it would seem to be happener-upon. It is awkward and therefore not common. Other similar phrasal-verb/agent-suffix terms exist and are similarly uncommon for the most part. If someone had a good reason why such awkward expressions don't meet CFI, I wouldn't miss them. DCDuring TALK 17:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] anejo

Adjective: aged; usually in reference to cheese or liquor

Is this ever used to modify any thing other than a Spanish noun, so that it represents a part of a Spanish phrase embedded in English text rather than English. Also I don't think that we have Spanglish as a language code. We would not treat Spanglish as either Spanish or English would we? DCDuring TALK 16:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

On the last point, all words in all languages means that if it's a word that's used, then it's to be included. If anejo composes Spanish phrases then why isn't it in any of the Spanish dictionaries? If it occurred in a Spanish context then it would be a Spanish word. Since it occurs in an English context, it's an English word. You may not delete it just because you find its use objectionable. DAVilla 16:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Without getting into a long technical discussion, I came looking for this word because I encountered it in an English context, and had no idea what it meant. It was very useful to me to find it here, since I don't know where else I would have looked. —This unsigned comment was added by 98.30.112.138 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 18 September 2011.

@DAVilla --

The word anejo isn't listed in any Spanish dictionaries as "aged" because the correct word for that in Spanish comes with the tilde -- añejo, from añejar (“to age”).

@Everyone --

I strongly recommend that any English term anejo meaning "aged" be moved to añejo, unless folks can find strong evidence of it being spelled in English without the tilde (and not just because someone's typing with a limited input method and can't be bothered to call up a character list). -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 06:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Concur with Eirikr but with a see also in the entry for anejo (Spanish, adj.). Since añejo (Spanish, adj.) article does not yet exist, this should be created as a first priority. Donama 23:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I have just created an entry for añejo. Please revise/correct as necessary. Donama 23:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] anti

Adjective sense: against, opposed to.

The defining terms are both prepositions. The usage example shows it complemented by a noun, in the manner of a preposition. There already is a preposition L3 section. DCDuring TALK 16:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Do things like google books:"very anti the" happen with prepositions?—msh210℠ (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] midwinter

X 2: Adjective and Adverb

Adjective: Happening in the middle of winter.
Adverb: In the middle of winter.

Almost all time nouns can be used in each of these ways. For whom does this add value? It certainly subtracts from the utility of the entry for someone who wants a good English monolingual dictionary. OTOH, all such time nouns could use good usage examples and possibly a usage note. DCDuring TALK 04:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, if the word has several meanings, including all of them won't "subtract from the utility of the entry". Clear widespread use for both, keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Those aren't meanings, they are PoSes for the same meaning.

This is about the difference between what it is in the lexicon and what is part of grammar. It is a grammatical feature of all nouns that they can be used attributively without necessarily behaving in any other way as an adjective.

It is a grammatical feature of time nouns that can serve as an adjunct. How would you characterize "Wednesdays" in: "He races Wednesdays."? or "June 23, 1988" in "He last raced June 23, 1988"?

We usually don't subject our definitions to the rigors of "substitutability". That we happen to do so here is possibly part of a desire to inflate some counts of lemmas. DCDuring TALK 21:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete the adjective as an attributive use of the noun as in "midwinter night", unless someone convincingly argues otherwise. Delete the adverb per DCD and his "He races Wednesdays" and "He last raced June 23, 1988". As regards the speculation on the motives, the senses were added in diff on 17 November 2004 by Paul G, and I doubt he had an ulterior motive to inflate anything; it just looked like a good idea to him back then. The rigor of substitutability is what I try to apply, though, finding definitions of adjectives that start with "Describing" worth rephrasing. --Dan Polansky 08:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] drunk as a cunt

Sum of parts. Nearly shot it on sight, but thought better of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Why delete this and not drunk as a skunk and drunk as a lord? Are there quantitative or other criteria to distinguish them? DCDuring TALK 21:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair point, though that illustrates my sum of parts argument, as opposed to refuting it. Counterargument: cunts, skunks and lords aren't necessarily all that drunk. --Mglovesfun (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

McGraw-Hill idioms and Cambridge Advanced Learner's have drunk as a skunk and drunk as a lord. "Drunk as a cunt" seems older, but we aren't ageist, are we? DCDuring TALK 22:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I would be happy if we simply had a rebuttable presumption that a simile is not an idiom. DCDuring TALK 22:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That means a lot of deletions, though. For the moment I think we have to keep it. DAVilla 18:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a byword/proverb and its awesome, keepLucifer 03:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

kept -- Liliana • 16:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] last sixteen

This just seems to be last X where X is an integer. Last 64, 32, 16, 8, 4 and 2 are most common just because that's how knockout tournaments work; you can be in the last three as well (the gap between one semi-final and the next one, there are three competitors remaining). SoP, delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

IMO this ought to be at RFV, where it would need to be cited as defined (a particular round in a tournament) distinct from the number or group of competitors that make up the round. Equinox ◑ 22:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep: it is a correct term. See also w:Single-elimination tournament#Nomenclature. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] clucking

Adjective. Doesn't seem to behave like an adjective, except for attributive use. DCDuring TALK 19:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally I think there's another sense where it's used as a euphemism for (adjectival) fucking. "That clucking bastard!" Equinox ◑ 19:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] July 2011

[edit] Gramophone

"(obsolete) A brand of phonograph that introduced disk records." So it's the w:Gramophone Company? Ultimateria 00:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Might now be attestable in accordance with standards for company/brand names, because of genericized gramophone. DCDuring TALK 13:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I only know it as a classical music magazine. Would that be OK? SemperBlotto 13:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That's still a brand. Maybe that sense would meet brand attestation in some context. DCDuring TALK 14:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, the Grammies are (or were) short for Gramophones Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 02:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] MiniDisc

Needs to meet brand name standards. DCDuring TALK 13:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Note there is a lower-case minidisc entry as well. Equinox ◑ 14:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That might even meet "widespread use" as the standards are lower for the genericized word, which may or may not be derived from the brand name. DCDuring TALK 21:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] plywood saw

The existing definition is encyclopedic. Of OneLook references only we and WP have entries. Very many configurations of physical objects might be called a "plywood saw". If we had images, we would find how different they all were, an encyclopedic fact. What they have in common is that they are "saws" for "plywood", a language fact that suggests that "plywood saw" is compositional. DCDuring TALK 15:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

For example, a panel saw is a commonly used device for cutting plywood, but also other kinds of boards of similar dimensions. Also, a circular saw or table saw or radial arm saw fitted with a certain type of blade. I'm sure plywood factories have very large special-purpose plywood saws. It is also quite possible that there have been various designs of hand saws for the purpose. The changing variety of technologies is probably what makes it seem obviously encyclopedic to me and to the lexicographers of the OneLook references. DCDuring TALK 16:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Google Images seems to show primarily things that do not match the description in our 'definition'. Delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Finnish-Canadian, Swedish-Canadian, Danish-Canadian, among others

None of these "Nation-Nation" words are useful and don't convey any additional meaning when compounded together, and some possible combinations seem implausible and unattestable (e.g. Nauruan-Luxembourgian, etc.) Full list available at Special:Contributions/Hans-Friedrich Tamke. Delete as sum of parts. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not against deletion of those mentioned in the header, but shouldn't we at least name beforehand those that will be deleted? I would think there are words formed according to this pattern that we want to keep, such as African-American, Anglo-Norman or Anglo-American, and probably also Hiberno English, just to name a few quick examples? --Hekaheka 22:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm voting specifically against those created by Special:Contributions/Hans-Friedrich Tamke. I do agree there are certain very famous compound examples that need to be kept, but surely not these. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised that anyone would object to adding adjectives such as: "German-Canadian/German Canadian", "English-Canadian/English Canadian", "Italian-Canadian/Italian Canadian", "Indian-Canadian, Indian Canadian, Indo-Canadian" to the English-language Wiktionary. There is often a difference in spelling or form between the adjective and the noun when translated into other languages. Also in English we may say or write English-Canadian or French-Canadian when we actually mean "English-speaking Canadian", "anglophone Canadian", or "English-language Canadian" "this or that". (cf. de: deutschkanadisch/deutsch-kanadisch, Deutschkanadier, Deutschkanadierin; englischkanadisch, englisch-kanadisch, anglokanadisch, anglo-kanadisch, anglophon kanadisch; fr: canadien-allemand, germano-canadien, Canadien allemand, canadien anglophone, etc.) We need to add more words such as these (and their multilingual translations), instead of deleting them. Hans-Friedrich Tamke 00:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The pages mentioned in the title of this section seem useful to me, and I don't see how they could be considered as harmful to the project. Of course, such compounds should be included only when attested. Lmaltier 17:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

With all respect, how are they useful? And is it practical to try and attest them on an individual basis? To me it seems a standard sum of parts, i.e. several words that say just what they seem to say when combined. It appears similar to phrases like "quasi-[any adjective]", "semi-[any adjective]", etc. The biggest value I can see from these are for translation purposes, but I'm not fully convinced it's worth keeping them for that reason. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

They are useful for definitions given. These definitions are not obvious at all. But we must check these pages, and improve them: the WP page is spelt w:Finnish Canadian: are both spellings used ? for both senses? I don't know. These questions show that useful linguistic data can be provided.

Of course, paper dictionaries don't include these words, and they are right: they lack space, and they use space available to them for more useful definitions. But this does not mean that these definitions are not useful. Lmaltier 19:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree that the compounded forms are clear as-is. This is perhaps a bit of a strawman, but: would Nauruan-Belgian or Monegasque-Tasmanian strike you as being useful at all, even if attestable for some bizarre reason? There are literally thousands of possible combinations to be formed. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Assume that somebody reads it on a website, and wants to know what it means (it's clear that the sense is not obvious: he might imagine at least two possible senses). He might select the word and use WikiLook to get a definition. But only if the page exists! I feel that you think that there are more useful entries still missing, and you are right. But why do you believe that the site would be better without these pages? Lmaltier 19:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The pages just seem unnecessary. Anyone with a decent grasp of English would probably think to search for Monegasque and Belgian separately. I've seen not infrequently the combination of two adjectives via a dash. E.g.: "the architecture was quasi-baroque" ... "I'm sorta-okay today", etc. The terms do not change their meaning when combined into a pseudo-compound word via a dash. They are still separate words. And if they're separate words, they should not be listed under the same combined entry in Wiktionary. That's called "Sum of Parts". That's my reasoning, anyway; feel free to disagree or attack my not infallible logic. I'm a minimalist, so that might influence my opinion. :-) Tempodivalse [talk] 00:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You're influenced by the fact that English is your native language. In addition to senses already given, you could imagine two other senses: person with a Finnish father (or mother) and a Canadian mother (or father). Or person with both nationalities. Yes, I can tell you that these pages are useful to people reading these words. And you don't answer me: why do you believe that the site would be better without these pages? If you don't think so, then why do you propose to delete them? Lmaltier 06:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually am natively bilingual, although my userpage wouldn't indicate it (not enough practice in the "passive" language lately to be comfortable labelling myself with the native template. I may eventually switch it back). Why I think the site would be better without the pages? Not because it's necessarily "harming" the project (they aren't), but because I don't think they fit the project mission and are redundant. In all the languages I know, these compound words can be easily figured out by looking up each half individually (i.e., канадско-финский, or kanada-finlanda). I do see your argument and I think it's a good one, I'm just not sure whether I support it. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] superstar

Adjective. I can't imagine it meeting any test for a true adjective. DCDuring TALK 01:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete this POS. These "senses" merely describe attributive usages of the noun. · 05:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe RfV. A possible citation here, though the "more" looks italicised. — Pingku^dimmi

Citations and other facts are allowed here. It is quite conceivable that there is some usage, preferably not in quotes, possibly in entertainment-oriented articles in News. DCDuring TALK 15:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Citations and other facts are encouraged here! Pingku's citation ("The more superstar they are, they harder they are to get to because they're so protected by agents, bodyguards, managers, […] ") is interesting, because there "the more superstar they are" clearly means "the more they're superstars", such that superstar there means "being a superstar". That doesn't accord with either of our adjective senses, and it's hard to imagine anyone using superstar as an adjective with that sense in a more typical syntactic frame: *"she's superstar", *"she's so superstar", etc. ("She's superstar" does get one relevant-at-first-glance b.g.c. hit, but it's in "she's superstar enough to […] ", where I think other nouns work as well: "she's fool enough to […] ", "she's liar enough to […] ", etc.) So I'm inclined to chalk Pingku's citation up to speech error caused by complex syntax. Even after thinking about it, I don't know a great way to "fix" that quotation to not treat "superstar" as an adjective — I suppose "the more of a superstar they are", but it's awkward because the they there is a true plural they, not a singular they — so it's not surprising that the speaker failed. —Ruakh_TALK 15:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps "too|very superstar" at News. "That dress is so superstar" seems plausible. DCDuring TALK 15:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

But not in the same sense as Pingku's citation. —Ruakh_TALK 20:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] make it

NISoP: To reach a place. This is make#Verb sense 12 + it. (Other senses seem idiomatic.) DCDuring TALK 03:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah redundant to {{&lit|make|it}} (sense #1). Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure any more, though the idiom may be "make it to" and/or "make it as far as". DCDuring TALK 11:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't feel right to me to say that it is the place you've made it to. If I was running into work at the time I was scheduled but didn't get there quite fast enough to punch that time on the card, I would say that I had not made it on time. If it isn't the place, is it the punch clock, or the act of punching the card, or something else? I say none of these. It's just part of the expression. DAVilla 05:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep. "Hey, come on in. I'm so glad you could make it." Seems to mean arrive at this place, my house, this party, etc. But you could never substitute and sound natural. I think this sense should stay as it is. It seems to be somewhat greater than its SoP. I think deleting this one sense would impoverish the entry. -- ALGRIF talk 12:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

"I'm so glad you came." "I couldn't make the party".

The idiom is much narrower and often more figurative in its application. One can say "I couldn't make it to the party." for which the "it" must not be anaphoric. Meditating on this, my problem with the definition may be that the idiomatic use is not in reference to any place, but rather is further restricted to an event (at a place). I think that addresses what both Algrif and DAVilla are saying.

The essence of it is that one is reaching ones goal, whether it's a physical place or a metaphorical destination. Chuck Entz 02:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

There is another usage, nearly synonymous to a sense of "get": "I couldn't make it to a TV in time for kickoff.", but I don't think the time element can be omitted. DCDuring TALK 15:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

"Did you see the game?" ―"No, I couldn't make it to a TV."—msh210℠ (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Strong keep. Idiomatic. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 11:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] ℩

Nominating both definitions. The first definition listed does not define the term, it is rather an etymology. The second definition is plain wrong, it should be at ɿ. -- Liliana • 13:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Not the most useful comment, but I have absolutely no idea. If it doesn't mean what it says it means, what does it mean? --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I added a third definition which should be correct, conversely I tagged the other two senses with rfd-sense. -- Liliana • 17:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] de

rfd-sense: Translingual, "Germany". Should be uppercase DE I think. -- Liliana • 13:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Lowercase "de" stands for German (the language). Just correct the entry. —An gr 17:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

But language codes don't meet CFI, see Talk:jv. -- Liliana • 17:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

What about Internet domains? Or is the period considered part of the domain, so it should be .de? —An gr 06:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you just answered the question yourself, just check .de... -- Liliana • 02:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] first innings

[edit] second innings

[edit] third innings

[edit] fourth innings

First, second, third and fourth is simply the order of the innings chronologically. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Not according to the definitions. SemperBlotto 21:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Like in baseball, each side bats once each innings, the follow on issue just changes the order that the sides bat. And like in baseball, sometimes the final innings isn't needed as one side has already won. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Delete: sum of parts. Actually I didn’t know innings is singular in British English. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] up the middle

The unhelpful definition is "being hit up the middle of the field, usually around the second base area.", which is entirely correct. Sure a ball hit up the middle is just hit + up + the + middle. By way of comparison, would we want an entry for in the corner for a ball hit, um, in the corner? --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoever entered all the {{cricket}} definitions clearly had a better ability to skirt WT:CFI. In contrast with this and some other {{baseball}} definitions, those definitions carefully avoid any obvious NISoP wording, no matter how NISoP or vacuous they actually are. See, for example, the cricket sense at [[middle]], which unwarrantedly enshrines what is either an ellipsis or a fused-modifier-head construction. DCDuring TALK 19:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually we are missing a second cricketing sense of middle. See, as an example from Google books "... Little Dando, who took middle, patted the ground, and looked round at the fieldsmen ...". SemperBlotto 21:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Also down the line (in baseball) up the line (in tennis), neither of which we have. Down the line has a different, idiomatic meaning. Referring to baseball pitches, you could have down the middle or on the corner. All of these I've just cited, seem to me to be just literal use of the words, but in a sentence. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] 1.0

[edit] 2.0

[edit] 3.0

Oh c'mon, please tell me you're joking. -- Liliana • 21:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete, quite funny though. --Mglovesfun (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

See google news archives "Obama 1.0 OR 2.0". It looks to me as if the construction is used as a postpositiive adjective. I might stop at [[2.0]] though and do usage notes for both. DCDuring TALK 22:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep. They have meaning beyond the sum of their parts. Especially the way the decimal is placed, they are not intuitive to non-native speakers. ---> Tooironic 22:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

~~Keep~~. I'm not sure that older native speakers quite get it either. But is this Translingual? It would certainly qualify as English and would seem to meet CFI as meaning "version X.Y of" what is modified. Rather than having entries in non-intuitive "X.Y" format, having the two most common forms seems adequate to me, however logically unsatisfying or unsystematic it might seem or be. DCDuring TALK 22:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete: formed according to a set pattern, and not language, merely a certain use of numbers; we do not have or need entries at 1 and 2 saying "number for the first, second house in a street". Does the creator not realise how versioning works? The zero can be meaningful and is not always zero, e.g. Windows 7 is version 6.1. Equinox ◑ 20:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

But numbers are a part of language too. And quite often the things which are described as "2.0" are not the things a reason person would expect to have different versions, e.g. Obama 2.0. ---> Tooironic 21:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The RFDed definition is purely for technology version numbers; your proposed additional sense is not there. (Incidentally it's just struck me that the defs are wrong: 3.0 is the third major version; the first three might have been, say, 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0.) Equinox ◑ 21:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete per Equinox.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I have withdrawn my "keep" vote above. I have added and cited English (postpositive) adjective entries at [[1.0]] and [[2.0]] that seem valid to me. DCDuring TALK 16:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It's no longer clear to me what's nominated for deletion, and which sections the above comments refer to. I think it would be a good idea to delete the translingual sections though. As to the English definitions, it hardly makes sense to define changes in a person as a “second major version”. DAVilla 19:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep 1.0 and 2.0 in any case, as they heve bled out of the engineering world and into ironic commentary. bd2412 T 15:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep at least 2.0: it has a certain meaning that is not transparent, it has good references, and I have seen it several times personally. It is clearly a part of modern English and not a joke at all. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] fire storm

Tagged but not listed. Unless I don't understand something here, delete as redundant to the first definition. -- Liliana • 12:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This RFD misses the point a bit; DCDuring added {{alternative form of|firestorm}} and decided to use {{rfd-sense}} instead of straight deleting the other definition. Probably because our definitions at firestorm are inadequate. Ergo, delete the challenged since and improve firestorm. --Mglovesfun (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] pass stool

SOP. One can pass stool, blood, etc.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

We do have pass water and pass wind. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Both of which have now been tagged with an {{rfd}} tag linking to this section. Delete 'em all, I say.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it conceivable that a non-native speaker of English might think that a person having difficulty in passing water had a psychological problem with walking past a lake? SemperBlotto 21:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

And sometimes it does mean that: [3]. But if he looks up pass he'll know another meaning of that verb. But I take back my "delete" for pass water, as water doesn't mean urine. (I'll keep the nomination, since it's here already.) I maintain pass wind and (especially) pass stool should be deleted as SOP.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: "water doesn't mean urine": Actually, it does. (Our sense 9.) It seems to occur most often in pass water, make water, pass one's water, and make one's water, but a b.g.c. search for "the patient's water" finds cites like this one and this one. —Ruakh_TALK 13:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks. Delete that one, too.—msh210℠ (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ambivalent about the term in question, but definitely keep pass water and pass wind. Ƿidsiþ 08:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Note that we have this sense for wind, with a usex with pass.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There seems to me to be a semantic difference between passing water/urine, gas/fart/wind, and stool, etc. and passing (“eliminating, excreting”) something (blood, poison, indigesta, etc) in those media (or other excreta such as vomit, hair, perspiration, exhalation). The latter sense views the excreta as a sort of ~~container~~ vehicle for the object. Also, the latter sense is medical or nearly medical in its context, whereas the others are perhaps euphemistic, but in general usage. DCDuring TALK 17:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the difference you point out here, and couldn't figure out whether it was inherent in the word (two senses) or not (two referents, same sense, like how brown refers to many different colors which don't get their own sense lines). Still can't, in fact.—msh210℠ (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It is only because there might be a context difference that the modest semantic difference might be worth recording. I won't lose any sleep over combining these putative subsenses. DCDuring TALK 22:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

As a non native English speaker, I looked for the expression "pass wind" and have found it in the dictionary. I have found it useful, so why should it be deleted?--93.32.52.65 23:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hesitant delete for pass stool. DAVilla 03:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

keep pass wind as I just looked it up to see if we had an entry here. --Rockpilot 21:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Fantasyland

"A section of several Walt Disney theme parks noted for containing imagery relating to fairy tales." Equinox ◑ 21:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete, a section of a theme park, way off topic. --Mglovesfun (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe I created this to distinguish the proper noun usage of the term from fantasy land and fantasyland. There are actually some sourced that capitalize "fantasyland" in its generic usage, for example:
- 2009, John C. Maxwell, Put Your Dream to the Test: 10 Questions That Will Help You See It and Seize It, p. 50:
  
  If your dream depends a lot on luck, then you're in trouble. If it depends entirely on luck, you're living in Fantasyland. ... People who build their dream on reality take a very different approach to dreams than do people who live in Fantasyland.
- 2007, Colleen Sell, A Cup of Comfort for Writers, p. 28:
  
  Yes, I escaped into Fantasyland. However, I could just as easily have become a serial killer, a prostitute, a child beater, or a politician.
- 2003, Richard G. Lipsey, Christopher Ragan, Economics, p. 327:
  
  On a scale diagram, with the percentage of households on the vertical axis and the percentage of aggregate income on the horizontal axis, plot the Lorenz curve for Fantasyland.
- 1999, John Clute, John Grant, The Encyclopedia of Fantasy, p. 341:
  
  A typical Fantasyland will display - often initially by means of a prefatory MAP - a selection, sometimes very full, from a more or less fixed list of landscape ingredients..."
- 1997, Jay Gummerman, Chez Chance, p. 174:
  
  Maybe this Fantasyland, as the egg woman called it, would counteract all the weirdness that had been accumulating since. ... Once this Fantasyland had kicked in, he would be on autopilot: all the necessary motivation would be provided for him.
- 1986, Elma Schemenauer, Hello Edmonton, p. 15:
  
  Now leave Fantasyland and go back to the days of fur traders.
Maybe this can be resolved with a usage note at fantasyland, but we need to do something to inform users that the term most often references the fairy-tale part of Disney parks, but sometimes just means a land of fantasy. bd2412 T 21:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you could put a link to Wikipedia's piece on the Disney park under See also. Equinox ◑ 09:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, the earliest use of the capitalized, undivided version of the word does not seem to come until after the establishment of the Disney element, which was first written about around 1952. bd2412 T 14:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] loaded

Tagged but not listed: a whole four adjective senses:

Burdened by some heavy load; packed.
(of a projectile weapon) Having a live round of ammunition in the chamber; armed.
(baseball) Pertaining to a situation where there is a runner at each of the three bases.
(gaming, of a die or dice, also used figuratively) Weighted asymmetrically, and so biased to produce predictable throws.

I guess one would need to show how they're actual adjectives, rather than being the past participle of load. -- Liliana • 01:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Pingku has already found cites supporting adjectivity (for the first and fourth senses) that look good to me. DCDuring TALK 01:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Move to rfv. I'd instinctively say that loaded has at least one adjectival sense. Apparently that's already supported by citations, so I'll shut up now. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] gegründet

Adjective section. These are just applications of the verb form. -- Liliana • 12:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This topic is currently being discussed here. Longtrend 13:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine

Unlike the German case, this can be easily analyzed as sum of parts. It is bad enough that we already permit almost one million number entries in German (a bot to upload all of them is currently underway), and we should not allow the same for English as well. -- Liliana • 20:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. No discernible need. Delete. DAVilla 03:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete per nom.--Dmol 05:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think most of the million German entries should be deleted, too. Instead an appendix discussing the rules for formulating numerals could be written for each language. If a robot can create an endless number of formally correct entries, they are not dictionary stuff. If there's no rule that says so, it should be written. We need to define a standard set for numerals allowed for all languages. It might consist of numerals for 0 to 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 1000, and thereafter the numbers of the form 10³ⁿ. In addition to these, only numerals which do not follow the standard rules should be accepted. We might also rely on appendices. We already have this: Appendix:Cardinal numbers 0 to 9. --Hekaheka 19:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you, the problem is that the majority of people think they're useful for whatever reason, so nothing can be done about it. -- Liliana • 19:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Clearly I'm in a minority here, but I would keep. Ƿidsiþ 16:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep. We are not going to run out of space. Also, in some regions, this would be written as ninety-nine hundred and ninety-nine, and for clarity's sake we should explain that they mean the same thing. bd2412 T 19:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Pretty strong keep. I don't know why numbers written as words should be excluded from "all words in all languages". — [Ric Laurent] — 13:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think for the same reason that sentences written from words are excluded from "all words in all languages", people just seem to agree that they aren't very useful to have around. - TheDaveRoss 19:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete: it is definitely a word, but it is a sum of parts and not special. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] experiential advertising

Tagged but not listed. -- Liliana • 16:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess the question here is why was it tagged :). Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 22:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] how one rolls

Probably just how + one + rolls. Can be re-expressed as "the way one rolls", "how does he roll", "how can you roll like that"?, etc. ---> Tooironic 12:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it can be altered that much and retain its meaning. It barely works with nouns instead of pronouns for "one". The question is whether "roll" has this meaning outside this expression. We have forced out a sense at [[roll#Verb]], but I'm not convinced by the made-up usage example. The quotation has "how we roll". DCDuring TALK 13:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I do hear "X [do]'nt [roll] that way", which is a specific transformation of the core idiom. DCDuring TALK 13:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Also with auxiliaries. DCDuring TALK 13:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] leave everything on the road

This is the cycling version of the snowclone "leave X somewhere". The X can be "it", "it all", "everything", or some specific emblem of effort. "Somewhere" is usually a prepositional phrase referring to an arena of competition, such as "on the field". The prototype is probably "leave it all on the field".

1965, Scholastic coach, volume 35:

And then if you've left your guts on the football field and you can say to yourself, "I left everything I had out there, and if I had it to do tomorrow I couldn't do it any better," then there's no disgrace in losing.

If we keep this, we should certainly have the readily attestable expression leave someone on the field, meaning to "lose to death a member of one's military unit in battle". DCDuring TALK 21:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] gristle

RfD-sense: 1. (by extension) Anything hard to accept. 2. (possibly metaphorical) Bone not yet hardened by age and hard work.

These senses seem like rare or uncommon literary metaphorical uses of the basic sense ("cartilage"). They don't seem to me to rise to the level of being understood in any other way than as metaphors. The reader has to resort to the literal sense to determine what meaning the author might intend. DCDuring TALK 21:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The unhardened bone sense I thought might be from an outdated, perhaps popular theory of the relationship between gristle and bone (presumably implying a rudimentary at best understanding of anatomy). One of the citations is from a non-fiction work, less likely to be dealing in metaphor, but possibly indulging a pop theory. — Pingku^dimmi 16:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we should try to word our general context definitions so as not to be dependent on any but naive theories, but not ones that are "obviously" wrong. Metaphors sometimes reflect those naive theories.

The first sense above seems to build on a "chewing"/"digesting" metaphor for incorporating (metabolizing?) facts into one's mindset/worldview, "gristle" being hard to chew. This does not involve much of a reach beyond everyday experience, except for the very rich and vegetarians. But it still seems like an optional, occasional extension of the more basic metaphor of chewing/digesting than a meaning in itself.

The second does not seem to fit with the popular experience of embrittlement of bones with age. It also relies on what is neither observable directly nor supported by a social system of broad effect, like a religion, or a knowledge community.

Not every metaphor makes it into the lexicon. DCDuring TALK 00:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep, I think. I'm a bit confused by Pingku's comment. It is in fact literally true that most of the bones in our body, including for example the major bones of the arms and legs, develop from cartilage that is slowly replaced with bone tissue, and that this process isn't totally complete throughout the body until late adolescence or early adulthood. (See w:Bone#Formation.) This is why children's bones are generally much more flexible than adults'. That said, this literal anatomical fact clearly took on a life of its own as a figure of speech, a symbol of the softness of youth; and it's often even applied to non-physical firmness, e.g. in "Persecution and controversy wrought her [Christianity's] gristle into bone." It's no coincidence that all three of our cites are speaking of men; literature of the time did not portray women in a way compatible with the gristle-to-bone symbolism. (Don't get me wrong, you can find uses on b.g.c. that apply the metaphor to women, but they are clearly in a tiny, tiny minority, and the ones I've found are all of the non-physical-firmness type.) —Ruakh_TALK 02:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I sheepishly rescind sneering rights with regard to anatomy. Perhaps I was thinking of sinew, which has much the same constituents as cartilage, but in different proportions, and has different functions. I gather that cartilage acts something like a matrix, out of which the bone develops, with the matrix disappearing by the end of puberty. In any case, the metaphorical usages don't match the established reality and seem to indicate a different model. — Pingku^dimmi 12:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this an example of the differences among definitions based on popular/naive theories, dated "scientific" theories, and current scientific theories? The first may be also considered simple metaphors. The latter two (also often built on metaphors) seem to me to require context tags and non-topical categorization. The latter two especially also run the risk of becoming encyclopedic. (I use the existence of more than one sentence or more than two or three clauses as an indication of an encyclopedic definition.) DCDuring TALK 12:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It's perhaps influenced by Aristotle, from such as: "The ears proceed from a dry and cold substance, called gristle, which is apt to become bone; ..." I suppose that would make it a dated "scientific" theory. — Pingku^dimmi 15:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Udupi district

looks like SoP to me -- Liliana • 03:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Move to ಉಡುಪಿ ಜಿಲ್ಲೆ. —Stephen ^(Talk) 05:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

No strong feelings. Is it the official name? I suppose since Udupi is a city, this would be about equivalent to Washington State, to distinguish from Washington, DC. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] drab

My interpretation of erroneously placed {{rfgloss}}: Rfd-redundant: "(dated) A slut" seems redundant to following sense: "(dated) A lewd wench; a strumpet; a prostitute." DCDuring TALK 17:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It's OK, for the relevant value of slut, i.e. "untidy or dirty woman". I'll have a look at the entry. Ƿidsiþ 08:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] public library

Is it sum of parts? Does it mean anything beyond a library which is public? Note we have public school, though not public hospital or public park. ---> Tooironic 08:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

or public garden, which could merit entry --Boody Roody 21:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Public school is at least set aside by the possible difference in intonation. There are a lot of things to know about what makes a library public, the free borrowing of books principally, but I think this is covered by the meaning of public. Weak delete. DAVilla 16:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Technical term, see: w:Category:Types of library. --Chris Boston 05:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

This not Wikipedia. Wiktionary does not include terms which can be broken down into the sum of their parts. There are over 30 different "types" of library in that list, and I imagine most of them would not be includible here. ---> Tooironic 00:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want to read Wikipedia, grab a book. I recommend William John Murison: The public library: its origins, purpose, and significance as a social institution (London 1955). It's technical term. --Chris Boston 02:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary's Criteria for Inclusion does not look at technical terms, it looks at whether terms have meaning beyond the sum of their parts (apart from other things). How does this term mean anything beyond a "library" that is "public"? ---> Tooironic 14:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Start with the question: What is the meaning of "public"? Public funded or open to the public? Is a national library a public library? And what is the meaning of "literal translation" (Finnish) if "public library" is SoP? --Chris Boston 21:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] August 2011

[edit] shot on goal

Looks spuriously like a shot on goal. Note, definition is incorrect, what it describes is a shot on target. A shot on goal (in the UK anyway) is just any shot at the opponent's goal. Accuracy doesn't matter. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it has a more particular meaning in ice hockey. It is one of the main statistics reported for a professional game thereof. DCDuring TALK 13:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the meaning in ice hockey in the States is a shot on a goal, even if it one of the main stats reported. It does have unusual structure (no article before goal); see [[WT:SURVIVOR#Once upon a time test]].—msh210℠ (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

In baseball they have the games played statistic, I don't think we want an entry for that here, outside of appendices. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the unusual grammatical arrangement makes it worth keeping. bd2412 T 04:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

kept -- Liliana • 12:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] county

Adjective. I don't think this is attestably used as an adjective in any way distinguishable from attributive use of county#Noun. DCDuring TALK 14:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's comparable, but it seems to be modified by the adverbs purely and solely. I've added citations. I think the usage notes belong with the noun, though. — Pingku^dimmi 15:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Focus adverbs (from which an anon removed [[solely]] by deleting the context/grammar tag), are not a discriminating test for this purpose, IMHO. DCDuring TALK 15:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Well, it didn't seem that great a test the first time. See your comments at WT:RFV#business. I'd like to know what the difference is, precisely. — Pingku^dimmi 16:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I can explain without risking violating CGEL's copyright. But, to see the problem, take a look at Google "strictly OR purely OR solely OR especially OR mainly Cadillac" (Books • Groups • Scholar • News Archive). You can substitute most nouns and get some hits.

I'm trying to read up a bit on syntactic and lexicographical classes and may eventually be able to offer an explanation. DCDuring TALK 16:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

deleted -- Liliana • 21:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] bang on

[edit] bang on#Preposition

Called a preposition. This would seem to be bang#Adverb (“precisely”) (just added) + on#Preposition. Same problem as many multiword entries beginning with all and certain other adverbs. DCDuring TALK 11:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Though it can be re-expressed many ways using 'on' as the last word, I'm not sure how we can cover this in a way that makes this sum of parts. Examples include dead on, and smack on. In other words, I remain unconvinced. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Right is a fairly exact synonym for bang#Adverb in this usage. MWOnline doesn't seem to have any trouble. They use a non-gloss definition as they do for most simple prepositions: used as a function word to indicate a time frame during which something takes place <a parade on Sunday> or an instant, action, or occurrence when something begins or is done <on cue> <on arriving home, I found your letter> <news on the hour> <cash on delivery>. DCDuring TALK 13:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, one of the usage examples uses on the dot which is itself an idiom even in the opinion of the editors of MWOnline (one of the least inclusive of MWEs). But perhaps someone can attest to the spelling bangon and invoke WT:COALMINE. DCDuring TALK 13:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

By fixing attention on the time aspect of the preposition on, we seem to be ignoring staple phrases such as Bang on the nose. and Bang on target. Not to forget the simple exclamation Bang on!!. -- ALGRIF talk 14:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

bang on#Interjection is not part of this. BTW, it is not really an expression of emotion and thus not really an interjection by my lights. It is a colloquial ellipsis of a sentence and should probably be under the L3 header "Phrase".

I simply assumed that MG's problem with the definition of on had to do with its temporal senses rather than its spatial senses. I usually find the physical sense of prepositions obvious, the spatial ones sometimes less so, and the more "grammatical" ones much, much less so. on the nose and on target are also themselves idioms. "Bang" seems to go well with other idiomatic (or nearly so) prepositional phrases like to rights, on the spot, on the mark, and in form (“of horses”). But it is also followed in its adverbial use by many other phrases headed by prepositions with spatial or other non-temporal senses such as "into", "opposite", "in line with", "in front of", "against", "next to", "onto", "over", "on top of". It is also occasionally followed by adverbs. To convince yourself you would probably need to avail yourself of the BNC. DCDuring TALK 18:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] bang on#Adjective

Isn't "bang on" also an adjective? If you say "My guess was bang on" you mean "My guess was correct".--Arthurvogel 08:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Er, yes. — Pingku^dimmi 13:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Um, are you sure? It seems largely NISoP to me as an adjective. See ["on" at MWOnline]. Our [[on#Adjective]] seems quite lame and inadequate.

"Bang on" seems to me mostly just more emotion-laden and unusual than other adverb-"on" collocations and so is more likely to be remembered. I suppose that such considerations are potentially relevant to inclusion, but they are not part of WT:CFI. DCDuring TALK 14:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think on has a sense to fit the Las Vegas citation, where would seem to mean "appropriate" or "fitting." If you can demonstrate such a sense (apart from this collocation), I will defer. — Pingku^dimmi 03:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that is exactly the sense in the collocation "just not on". I'll be looking for it. DCDuring TALK 03:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that the same sense as in "spot on"? —Ruakh_TALK 03:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

By Jove, another bang-on contribution from Ruakh.

In "spot on" and "bang on", the sense seems the same. In "right on", the sense of on may be virtually identical, but my experience with the 60s and 70s usage makes the whole seem idiomatic. In each of these the stress seems to be on the first word of the expression. In "not on" the stress seems equal on each. I think that is a feature of collocations of "not" rather than evidence of some distinction of sense. All four seem related to the idea of "on target", "on point".

Many dictionaries have right on. A few non-US dictionaries have both spot on and bang on. We and UD alone have not on. DCDuring TALK 13:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Only Collins Pocket among OneLook references seems to have the right sense of on as adjective: "tolerable, practicable, or acceptable". DCDuring TALK 13:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] 梗塞する

Tagged by Haplology on 5 March 2011, but not added here. FWIW, I disagree that this should be deleted. The term does appear to have some non-medical use, meaning "a blockage", in addition to its more specific medical sense of "infarction". -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 18:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As an amendment to my previous post, I would agree with simplifying this entry and referring users to the 梗塞 page as the main entry, as would be ideal for all [noun] + する constructions (equivalent to "do + [noun]" in English, like "do sports", but much more common in Japanese). -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 18:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] marriage counseling

User:Pilcrow nominated for deletion. Seems okay to me, but needs a lot of work. —Stephen ^(Talk) 02:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems like counseling for a marriage to me, I don't see how else a reader could interpret it. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it could be advising somebody to get married! Equinox ◑ 10:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

...or whom to marry, or how. Borderline... keep, I think.—msh210℠ (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete, while it's hypothetically possible to misunderstand this term, I can't imagine anyone actually doing so. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Irish

Sense: "(as plural) The Irish people." Couldn't this be a sense of any adjective? Feed the hungry, read to the blind, etc. This is just the (sense #5) plus an adjective. Plus, take away the the and you get something awkward like "Irish have faced many hardships." Ultimateria 04:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It’s a plural noun. There are a lot of demonyms that have this pattern: the Irish, the English, the French, the Chinese, the Choctaw, the Cherokee, the Navajo...but, the Danes, the Russians, the Americans, the Germans, the Mexicans. I think the rule is that if the singular takes -man or -woman, as Irishman, Englishman, then the plural can take any of several forms: Irishmen, Irish people, or the Irish. The "regular" pattern does not take -man or -woman, and the plural doesn’t need people: a Dane, the Danes; a German, the Germans; an American, the Americans. Americans Indians seem to be a special case, and most tribal names are invariable and can refer to an individual or the whole nation: a Cherokee, the Cherokee; a Navajo, the Navajo. All of these are nouns, but adjectives can also be used: German people, Irish people, English children, Choctaw women, Danish men, American teenagers. —Stephen ^(Talk) 07:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't completely agree with Stephen, but I find "many Irish immigrated" much more acceptable than ?"feeds many hungry" or *"reads to many blind" (the latter seems out-and-out ungrammatical, actually, though it may be citeable per the CFI; here's one use), so I think it may be worth covering this sense as a plural-only noun even if it's still technically just an adjective. (That said, if we do keep it, we need to improve the def. "Many Irish immigrated" doesn't mean "many the Irish people immigrated".) —Ruakh_TALK 11:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Your three examples all sound very wrong to my ears. the nomination sounds about right. But if cites say Irish is used as in feeds many hungry, then I suppose we should keep. Or at least if it's widely used that way.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Like Stephen, I would analyse it as a noun, but that may be under the influence of German, where the division is clear (die studierende und die trinkende Menschen sind..., die Studierende sind...). It passes the lemming test, however; dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage Dictionary all analyse it as a noun meaning roughly "inhabitants of Ireland". Notably, Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster include descendants: "the inhabitants of Ireland and their descendants elsewhere", "natives or inhabitants of Ireland or their descendants especially when of Celtic speech or culture". - -sche (discuss) 18:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] attack dog

A dog for attack.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm I thought this was an idiom but Wikipedia says "An attack dog is any dog bred, trained or used for the purpose of attacking a target either on command or on sight." which backs up what msh210 says. Our Wiktionary definition says "A specialized police or security dog", which contradicts Wikipedia, which says the definition of attack dogs including dog fighting (that is dog-on-dog, not planes!) Mglovesfun (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, our definition didn't say that at the time of nomination. As you note, WP says it's wrong anyway. Most cites for "attack dog" do seem to be in the context of security, but not all.—msh210℠ (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep and add the sense of a person who engages in rhetorical attacks on behalf of another. See, e.g.:

2001, Mark Jaffe, The Gilded Dinosaur, p. 146:

It was, however, as Charles Darwin's alter ego, an attack dog for the theory of evolution, that Huxley gained his greatest notoriety.

Cheers! bd2412 T 15:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep, want to add translations like Kampfhund (literally "fight dog") Mutante 22:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep both the literal sense and metaphorical place about people instead of dogs Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 01:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] September 2011

[edit] back-

Prefix. Sense: Situated, located, or toward the rear; backward or in reverse; in return; again.

The words using this purported prefix would seem to actually be compounds formed from back#Adverb. backbite is from back#Noun (ahistorically, anyway). backfriend might be from the other, unchallenged sense of back-. DCDuring TALK 02:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we remove the first sense, leaving only the second, wouldn't that cause confusion? Especially for words like backfill (“to replace, refill”)? Leasnam 04:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

What about backformation, backdating, and others like them, indicating reversal in time? bd2412 T 04:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

All of those seem to be formed by compounding of the adverb to me. Is everyone really sure that even the "backfriend" instance is not a compound. Does "back" have a similar extended meaning to that sense of "back-" with the same dialectal distribution?

How is it less confusing to suggest that back- is a prefix? We could always remedy the "confusion" by adding a usage note or directing users to back#Adverb in some way analogous to {{&lit}}. DCDuring TALK 13:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

back-friend doesn't seem to be limited to the sense of "false friend". Some scholars seem to think it is derived from back#Noun and spell it without a hyphen. A synonym would be shoulder-clapper, "arresting officer".

I believe this may be another etymology (not shown at the entry), where backfriend = "a friend who's got your back". Quite the opposite meaning to false friend. Leasnam 16:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Are there any other instances of a term derived using "back-" in the sense of "false"? There may be another way of avoiding all this confusion. DCDuring TALK 14:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I would say that backdate implies not only putting an earlier date on something, but in some cases doing so for purposes of falsification. For example, an author might backdate a manuscript in order to claim that his writing came before someone else. bd2412 T 19:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

But it isn't the back- part of the word that carries that meaning. The word backdate means merely "to put an earlier date on"; the fact that people often do so for fraudulent reasons isn't part of the meaning of the word, and certainly isn't part of the morphology of the word. —An gr 20:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] poor white trash

I'm having trouble considering this an idiom. Isn't it just white trash preceded immediately by the word poor? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

WordNet and RHU have it. It might be a set phrase. DCDuring TALK 11:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Chambers has it too, under trash: "(also called white trash or poor white trash) poor whites, esp in the southern US". Equinox ◑ 14:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete this is a sentence.Gtroy 10:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Where's the verb? SemperBlotto 10:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] multiply

Rfd-redundant: Same as #2. --The Evil IP address 17:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep. 5 is intransitive, 2 is transitive. DCDuring TALK 17:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps merge them and use the ambitransitive gloss...? Equinox ◑ 17:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the need. Keep.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] playing in

This is really just the present participle of play in, which in this case is sum of parts anyway. In baseball you can also play back, that is, not as close. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] dating

Sense "A form of romantic courtship typically between two individuals ..." — Looks like this is probably the gerund. The definition as it stands seems overly detailed. No plural was claimed; I added that for the other (cited) senses. — Pingku^dimmi 14:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted as redundant to the infinitive at date. Although there is a plural, datings, it is found in phrases like "radiocarbon datings" and apparently never in this romantic sense. Equinox ◑ 14:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It comes down to whether gerunds, when acting as nouns as they do, should be forbidden from Wiktionary as nouns. My position has been that what acts as a noun should be documented as a noun, hence keep. As regards the alleged redundancy, you might also say that "fairness" is redundant to "fair" and that "fairness" is a form of adjective. See also Wiktionary:English -ing forms and Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2010/September#CFI for -ing form nouns and adjectives in particular. --Dan Polansky 18:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I find it very hard to accept any reasoning built on a general principle that has the following implications:

all Proper nouns should have full sections for Proper noun, common noun, and adjective, subject only to attestation.
uncle should be have a verb section because Shakespeare(in a "well-known work") used it as a verb.
all terms attestably used as exclamations should have interjections.
all common nouns should have adjective sections and definition lines for each sense subject only to attestation.

But that's just me. Perhaps others find such a principle desirable and would enjoy participating in the effort to attest and maintain such sections. Or perhaps the problem is in ~~reasoning~~ arguing from slogans. DCDuring TALK 20:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

"Fairness is a form of adjective"? You've lost me. That definitely has nothing to do with the point I made. Equinox ◑ 20:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

@Equinox: If "dating" in "Dating is a form of courtship" is a form of verb, then I do not see what prevents "fairness" from being a form of adjective. While I admit that you did not say that "dating" is a form of verb, I understood your "I think it ['dating' in the particular sense] should be deleted as redundant to the infinitive at date" as your implying that the sense of "dating" requested for deletion is redundant to dating#Verb. In any case, I do not think we should delete "fairness" as redundant to "fair", whereas having no major entry for "fairness" is a strategy chosen by Merriam-Webster online. --Dan Polansky 08:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Constructions like "online dating" and "speed dating" make this seem nounier than many gerunds. (By comparison, note that "online communication" is fine, while ?"online communicating" is pretty bad; that "speed chess" is fine, while ?"speed playing" is pretty bad. That said, the pretty-bad ones do get some relevant hits, so if we refuse on principle to distinguish between a phrase with three cites and a phrase with hundreds, then all gerunds are created equally nouny.) —Ruakh_TALK 00:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Compare swimming#Noun, rowing#Noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep: widely accepted phrase that often goes above and beyond going on dates. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 01:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] accelerando

Adjective. (music) There is also a noun section. I doubt that this can be shown behave as a true adjective. DCDuring TALK 22:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] overseas Chinese

[edit] outland Germans

Renominating based on Talk:overseas Chinese. In my opinion, in the single worst outcome of an RFD debate that I've seen. Can be attested in parallel forms such as overseas Irish - heck overseas Catholics and overseas Muslims are also attested. It's not even limited to nationalities! Mglovesfun (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, regarding it being a translation or equivalent of "华侨": compare "overseas Germans" / "Germans abroad", and especially "outland Germans", the most direct calque of "Auslandsdeutsche". - -sche (discuss) 18:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I am considering adding outland Germans (which I just created) to this RFD. It is distinguished from "overseas Chinese", however, in that it uses a sense of "outland" only used (AFAICT) in two other places, both of which are also calques: a calque of a Danish phrase, and calques of 华侨! "Overseas Chinese", on the other hand, uses a sense of "overseas" that can be used with every other nationality/ethnicity, and even, like Mglovesfun points out, with religions. I just added the sense to [[overseas]]. - -sche (discuss) 20:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I asked my wife (who is overseas Chinese) and she just shrugged and said "It's two words; putting it together doesn't make a new word". bd2412 T 19:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of outland Germans, but looking up outland it seems to be "foreign, from abroad" and Germans of course means more than one German, so it's SOP and easily decodable from its parts (as I've just decoded it). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Technically (and importantly), it's not "foreign, from abroad", but rather "native (not foreign) but living abroad". But note that sense of "outland" is (AFAICT) only used in three unrelated calques, thus I ask if we should have a sense of "outland", or only the three complete calques. - -sche (discuss) 23:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"Outland" would itself be more of a calque (of German Ausland) than natural-sounding English. Isn't expat the term generally used for such phrases? -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 23:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] inocubate

I believe this is just a rare mis-spelling of incubate. A month ago, someone added it to Webster's list of protologisms, but I cannot find any real usages. The only three usages in Google Books are clearly just errors. Dbfirs 17:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I see GB results for inocubate, inocubating, inocubated, inocubation... I just friggin hate doing book citations, ugh.... — [Ric Laurent] — 17:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me where I can find them. All of the results that I came up with were either scannos or spelling mistakes. There are many hits in Google Books for "inocubated" but, as far as I can ascertain, they are all scannos for "inoculated". Please add inocubates, inocubated and inocubating to my suggestions for deletion. Fortunately we don't have inocubation yet. Dbfirs 17:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't look that closely, I have a tiny laptop that's slow as hell. Is what you're saying that when you go to the actual viewer to look at the pages that the words that the search reports as inocubat* actually appear as inoculat*? — [Ric Laurent] — 19:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have a similar problem with an inadequate internet connection, so cannot do extensive research, and I don't have access to the original books, but all of the hits that I found clearly meant either "incubat*" or "inoculat*". Looking at a few "pictures", they seem to be typos rather than scannos. If anyone can find a genuine usage, I would be happy to revise my view. Dbfirs 19:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I checked Usenet. A couple hits were using the string of letters in the wrong temporal tense and with a different meaning, suggesting that they were misspelling some other word, but I have found one hit that seems to use the term to mean "incubate". - -sche (discuss) 19:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that could have meaning if the surrounding text explained the method, but I believe that it is just an error and should have read "incubate" and that the "o" slipped in by accident. Dbfirs 20:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Move to rfv? Mglovesfun (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I originally put it there, then decided that there wasn't much point in trying to verify a spelling mistake or typo. If anyone can find even one actual clear usage that is not an error, I'm happy to restore the word to rfv. Dbfirs 12:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Fat and Skinny

From RFV. There are three quotations which use the phrase on the citations page, but no consensus was reached on whether they verified the term or not, or on whether the term was SOP or not. - -sche (discuss) 18:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Laurel and Hardy

From RFV. There are four quotations which use the phrase on the citations page, but no consensus was reached on whether they verified the term or not. See also WT:RFV#Mona Lisa. - -sche (discuss) 18:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] overtype mode

Redundant to overtype. Equinox ◑ 13:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Right: SOP, delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please explain. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The mode in which overtype ("A feature in wordprocessing whereby each typed character replaces the character after the cursor rather than being inserted before it") is in effect, or, in other words, the mode of overtype. Like any other non-count noun followed by a count noun to form a single noun. (Configuration settings, stenography school, etc.) SOP. Incidentally, should the computing sense of mode be sub "Etymology 2"? (It's currently not.)—msh210℠ (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] free morpheme

It's free + morpheme. Note the existence of google books:"morpheme is free" (not to mention all the hits with intervening words). I've now added this sense to our entry [[free]].—msh210℠ (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep per my arguments from Talk:free variable. An aside: all the hits with intervening words has 17 hits, as is apparent when I press "next" to get to the page 2. --Dan Polansky 08:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep : SIL lists it as a linguistic term [4]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 07:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- But msh210 is not challenging its existence, he's challenging it's includability. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The required sense of free is now present. Its really nice that folks use concepts to generate possible lexical entries, but it seems amateurish or lazy lexicography to simply assume that the multiple words for a concept constitute an entry. This is an illustration of why inclusion in glossaries may not be a reliable basis for inclusion here. We are a still a dictionary, aren't we? If we need to simply accommodate the overwhelming tide of sloppy lexicography, we will be a lesser dictionary for it, sliding down the spectrum toward Urban Dictionary. DCDuring TALK 13:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  
  You can say this morpheme is free, but isn’t it because of the existence of the term free morpheme? If you just say nouns are free, that would be incomprehensible. Compounds allow splitting, such as The demon I am talking about is Maxwell’s, not Laplace’s, which doesn’t mean the existence of the adjectives Maxwell’s or Laplace’s. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  
  But you also find things like "in English cats, cat is free" and "un- is bound; happy is free".—msh210℠ (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  
  In both books, they first use the terms free morpheme and bound morpheme. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] אשה

Rfd-redundant: "Each (woman)". Doubtless this is a reference to things like (Exodus 3:22)

וְשָׁאֲלָה אִשָּׁה מִשְּׁכֶנְתָּהּ ― "But every woman shall borrow" (KJV)

But that's how singular nouns work in (at least Biblical) Hebrew. The same use can be found for אִישׁ (“man”) (Num. 31:49, וְלֹא נִפְקַד מִמֶּנּוּ אִישׁ ― "and not one is missing" (NIV)), בַּיִת (“house”) (Maimonides, בית סתום שהמת בתוכו ― "A house, closed, that the corpse is within" (my own translation)), and doubtless, many other nouns. (It is, in fact, how singular nouns work in English, also. "A house that a corpse is within" means "Any house that a corpse is within", the difference from Hebrew being that in English that's inherent in a (and IMO deserves a separate sense there (we lack it currently)), whereas Hebrew has no indefinite article.) I think this is not worth a separate sense at [[אשה]] (or any other Hebrew noun).—msh210℠ (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I would have assumed that that sense was referring to the usage of אשה אשה to mean "each woman", such that one of the ishá-s means "woman" and the other, I suppose, means "each (woman)". (I don't remember ever encountering that usage, but I'm certain it must exist, since איש איש, as I'm sure you know, means "each man".) —Ruakh_TALK 18:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Perhaps so. (I, too, don't recall ever having heard of such a duplication of אשה.) Even so, I doubt it's a sense of אִשָּׁה meaning "every". More likely IMO it's either (a) some feature of Hebrew I'm unfamiliar with outside of איש איש but whihc actually exists more generally or (b) worthy of a definition at [[איש איש]] (and [[אשה אשה]] if attested) but not at the unreduplicated forms.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. (Even if this does exist more generally, we should probably have [[איש איש]], as the seeming sole survivor of this construction into Modern Hebrew.) —Ruakh_TALK 20:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added the sense to [[a]].—msh210℠ (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Hand of God

Sure this is an inclusible term? -- Liliana • 03:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete, encyclopedic. Or should we add the Holy Roller? bd2412 T 03:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete. The term was Maradona's excuse for the goal, not the goal itself, but in any case this would still be encyclopdic.--Dmol 21:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

When asked about the goal, Maradona said that he did it "un poco con la cabeza y un poco con la mano de Dios" , i.e. "a bit with the head and a bit with the hand of God", which means that he thinks he was lucky. Since then, the goal has been known as "hand of God goal". In this context "hand of God" looks more like an adjective than a noun. Anyway, I'm for delete.--Hekaheka 05:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Sort of. I don't see how this is different from World War II so I'll go for a very, very weak delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

keep. I've heard this being used in football. With good enough searching, this is surely valid, with a change of meaning, adding Maradona's quote to etymology. The definition could be "a deliberate handball, especially one to score a goal or save a goal" --Rockpilot 20:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That definition would definitely require some quotes:

AFAIK, the words refer to a specific goal in a specific game, not any goal made in a similar way.
There was no handball involved. The word "hand" refers to the invisible hand of God. Maradona pushed the goal with his head.

--Hekaheka 02:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep: and hasn't "Hand of God" been used for a number of other fateful or fortuitous events, to the point that there could be a second definition vis-a-vis any fateful or fortuitous event? Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 02:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You are probably right, just provide the citations that prove your point! If you are right , Maradona's famous statement becomes just one example of usage. I proposed deletion because I believe the current definition is wrong or at least not properly cited. There's no proof that Maradona's famous goal would ever have been referred to as Hand of God but rather as Hand of God goal, which we luckily do not have. --Hekaheka 06:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] mediocer

Moved from RfV. It was questioned whether this misspelling should be kept.

I vote keep, it is a likely error for someone who is used to type er in all other words (i. e. most Americans). Case in point for the longest time I used the erroneous spelling massacer. -- Liliana • 16:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete. We have no evidence for the existing sense (a valid though obsolete spelling of mediocre), and some evidence against it (see Ruakh's comment at the RfV). It doesn't seem a common enough spelling mistake to warrant inclusion, with only 87,400 Google hits, versus 42,200,000 for "mediocre". For comparison, looking at the occured/occurred example given in the CFI, "occured" gets 111 million Google hits, even more than the 78 million hits for the correct spelling "occurred". --Avenue 08:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment. The Google Ngram Viewer shows that "mediocer" was never anywhere near as common as "mediocre" — its highest popularity, relative to "mediocre", was around 1:1000 (0.1%) — but it seems to be very obsolete. It looks like "mediocre" first became relatively common in the 1920s (though its popularity has dropped somewhat since then), and "mediocer" spiked in the 1930s before dying out. (This sort of pattern makes sense if you think about it: a relatively obscure word suddenly became relatively popular, and people tried to use it who didn't have much experience with it yet, and therefore weren't sure how it was spelled. Over time, as it remained common, people became more familiar with it, and therefore were less likely to misspell it.) So, I think "mediocer" was always a misspelling. Nonetheless, I don't really see much harm in keeping it as an obsolete spelling, or put another way, I don't really see much point in distinguishing between obsolete spellings and obsolete misspellings, as long as they're not too rare. —Ruakh_TALK 03:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Addendum. I should mention that the Google Ngram Viewer only indexes books — and maybe periodicals and such, but still, edited works. The proportions in the 1930s equivalent of Usenet might have been quite different; and on present-day Google Groups, the ratio in raw hits is a still bit more than 1:1000 (not that I set much store by raw Google-hits of any stripe), which is much, much higher than the Google Ngram Viewer would have suggested. —Ruakh_TALK 03:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep as an obsolete (mis)spelling per Ruakh, perhaps with a usage note. I don't think we can distinguish obsolete spellings from obsolete misspellings, if they're used consistently in at least three works. - -sche (discuss) 03:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] foreign

As noun, "foreigner". The (non-durably archived) citation shows the kind of "fused-head" construction that is possible in principle for every sense of every English adjective. To keep such things would mean adding a noun sense for every sense of every adjective not derived from a noun. DCDuring TALK 22:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Move to rfv, if it exists, keep it. Otherwise, don't. --Mglovesfun (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

And yet we have a noun sense at poor. (Isn't foreign as a noun often a deliberately facetious parody of ignorance? "I 'ate them foreigns.") Equinox ◑ 20:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I would RFV except I can already see that Google Books shows the noun in genuine use. DAVilla 06:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Cyrillic alphabet

[edit] Cyrillic script

These are sum-of-parts, examples of the normal use of the adjective Cyrillic (“Denoting an alphabet devised for writing the Old Church Slavonic liturgical language, and its adaptations used for several languages of Eastern Europe and Asia; of or relating to this writing system”). —Michael Z. 2011-09-22 04:43 z

keep both are really common, a new speaker or child would find it useful. i recall seeing these terms in dictionaries as well.Gtroy 23:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Convert to an {{only in}} pseudo-entry directing users to WP. DCDuring TALK 00:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete, it's not a question of how common these are, but a question of if they are difficult to understand from Cyrillic + alphabet (or + script). --Mglovesfun (talk) 08:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

These are synonyms - Cyrillic = Cyrillic alphabet = Cyrillic script. In many languages translated as one word. I think Cyrillic is only used in these combinations, cf. Roman (e.g. Roman empire). Keep. Also, I feel sorry for my work on translations, if anybody cares. --Anatoli 06:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete both per nom. (Or, I suppose, convert to "only in" per DCDuring, but I don't really see the point.)—msh210℠ (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] cycle per second

Looks sum of parts to me: cycle + per + second. -- Liliana • 21:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

To me too. Delete. DCDuring TALK 00:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Ditto, assuming it's used only for things that can be called cycles.—msh210℠ (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

In the Netherlands on a busy day you can see at least one cycle per second pass by. :) —CodeCa t 12:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete: it might be a specific (obsolete) unit of measure, but we don't even have entries for the modern ones (metre per second) and I think per explains what is going on. Equinox ◑ 21:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete. DAVilla 06:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Broken Britain

The two cites given spell this term in lowercase. This gives me severe doubts on the idiomaticity of this term. -- Liliana • 21:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit of a political catchphrase right now. I wonder if this weren't alliterative would we even consider including this, e.g. would we speedy delete Broken Ireland of Broken France? --Mglovesfun (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I added this entry and can't really remember why. I can assure you it's been a big catchphrase in UK newspapers in recent years, though, with the capitalisation you'd prefer to see. Equinox ◑ 21:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] not so great

Sum of parts. You can also write not so good, not so wonderful etc. and it'll have the same meaning. -- Liliana • 20:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

But we might need not so. "I'm not so great" doesn't seem to be an antonym of "I'm great", which suggests a lack of SoPness. But delete this, naturally. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Suppose the not so entry might have merit. Equinox ◑ 11:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] eru tygum

I have to admit I have no knowledge of Faroese, but this doesn't seem particularly idiomatic to me: eru and tygum seem to cover the definition given adequately. -- Liliana • 01:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] menstrual blood

Seems pretty SOP to me. Our definitions of menstrual and menses are mutually pathetic, though. — [Ric Laurent] — 17:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's menstrual (menses-related) + blood. Seeing that it probably comes from the uterus is not a great leap. Delete. Equinox ◑ 20:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete, if you can work out the sense from menstrual + blood, we don't need it. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Technically, it's not actually blood in the usual sense (though it does contain some blood); but that should be addressed by adding an appropriate sense at [[blood]]. As for this entry — it's like the "adjective noun" entries I recently started a discussion about at the Beer parlour, except that there it's an adjective-specific sense of the noun rather than vice versa. The discussion there leaves me very unsure about how to know which such entries are worth keeping . . . —Ruakh_TALK 21:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think of menstrual blood as describing the blend of blood and endometrial matter. I separate them in my brain, but I don't know whether doctors do. I know in layspeak they're inseparable, but do layspeak versions of actual medical jargon warrant inclusion when the medical term is SOP? (note that at no point am I likely to weigh in on that question, just putting it out there) — [Ric Laurent] — 12:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe that "menstrual blood" has the same meaning both in medical use and in lay use: it always refers to the menstrual fluid as a whole, and never refers specifically to its sanguinary component as you suggest. (The common phrase "menstrual blood loss" does refer specifically to the loss of normal-sense-of-blood, but that's because it's "menstrual {blood loss}" rather than "{menstrual blood} loss".) —Ruakh_TALK 18:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] chalk

Rfd-redundant: "(uncountable, climbing) A white powdery substance used to prevent hands slipping from holds when climbing." AFAIK climbers use actual chalk when climbing, as do wrestlers use it when wrestling, gymnasts when performing. Isn't this really a way of using chalk rather than a definition for it? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

And players of snooker etc. use it on the cue. The question is whether climbers' chalk is actually chalk (in the mineral sense). I do not know. Equinox ◑ 22:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be magnesium carbonate not calcium carbonate [[5]] Fugyoo 23:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

In snooker, it normally refers to the little cube of blue material, rather than the material itself. SemperBlotto 06:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Is that a separate sense, one that has a plural ("there are three chalks on the rack")?—msh210℠ (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It's uncountable, but none of our definitions seems to cover it right now. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a different sense. Note that, in French, it's called magnésie, not craie (= chalk). Lmaltier 16:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, different especially because it's not always the same material. Keep. DAVilla 06:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] October 2011

[edit] error-ridden

User:Rockpilot points out that this is SOP. Isn't it? - -sche (discuss) 18:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

error, ridden. Primary meaning of the first term, only meaning of the second (although a baseball game where many "errors" are committed would also properly be described as "error-ridden". Classic SOP. Keep anyway, as it is usually spoken without a pause between the words. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- So is nail infection.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nomination and bd2412.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Nail-infection? bd2412 T 22:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  - and I quote "it is usually spoken without a pause between the words". Mglovesfun (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
    - I'll modify that. It is a common hyphenated term that is usually spoken without a pause between the words. It may be SOP, but it is much closer to the edge of what differentiates individual words. bd2412 T 01:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] have a mountain to climb

I don't think this is really an idiom, but a metaphor instead. ---> Tooironic 09:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. From google:"have a mountain to climb" and google books:"have a mountain to climb", this seems a common expression, one that, when rendered word-for-word in Czech in order to mean "To be faced with a difficult task or challenge", sound weird and non-native, and may not even be understood. The term is attestable, and it is not a semantic sum of parts. --Dan Polansky 07:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete. It looks like a mere multi-word metaphor to me. Moreover it is a live metaphor that can be reworded in various ways. I wonder whether it is the translation of any English expression of the general grammatical construction that would seem "weird and non-native", ie, "have a NP to V", eg "have a car to sell". DCDuring TALK 11:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you voting outside of CFI? Or are you saying that the term in question is a semantic sum of parts? Great many idiomatic expressions are metaphors, including "add fuel to the fire"; being a metaphor does not make a term exclusion-worthy. --Dan Polansky 15:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep, and furthermore I would personally assert that DCDuring's delete vote is despite WT:CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What part ? DCDuring TALK 14:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] leash up

This is nothing more than leash + up. DCDuring TALK 11:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Which sense of 'up'? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Possibly just an intensifier, but MWOnline offers a few other possibilities among the 23 other senses and subsenses (and subsubsenses) they offered. DCDuring TALK 18:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] pendant ce temps-là

looks SOP to me --Rockpilot 14:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So it means "during this time there"? —Stephen ^(Talk) 16:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Best to avoid translating SoP. For example the French term for red box is boîte rouge, and it doesn't mean 'box red' but that doesn't mean that therefore it's includable. For this one, yeah it's SoP and the definition isn't really right, it really means 'during this time' rather than 'meanwhile', though if you take 'meanwhile' to mean 'during a given time' I suppose they could be equivalent, hence both correct. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Kinda, it does mean "during this time there". Having thought more, we are missing a French entry for -là (and -ci) which would be very useful. I'll investimagate. --Rockpilot 19:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

boîte rouge is truly SoP and even the most amateur French student would make "red box" of it, and not "box red". The SoP translation of boîte rouge is "red box". This is not comparable to an SoP translation of pendant ce temps-là, which will not yield the correct meaning no matter how diddle with the word order. SoP means that if you translate the phrase word-by-word into English, then a reasonable English-speaker should be able to get the meaning from it. Nobody would be able to turn "during this time there" into meanwhile or in the mean time. —Stephen ^(Talk) 12:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

In reponse to your question, yes it means "during this time there". Mglovesfun (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

or "during that time". Seems fairly SoP to me. Fugyoo 19:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, in terms of numbers, on Google Books this gets 266 000 hits, "durant ce temps-là" gets 18 000, much less but still a heck of a lot, "pendant ce moment-là" 399 hits. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The common phrase is pendant ce temps. pendant ce temps-là is a familiar variant. I think that both are set phrases worth inclusion, despite the fact that they can be understood easily. Otherwise, where would you explain what I just explained? Lmaltier 17:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] go live

Rfd-sense: (broadcasting) To commence a live broadcast.. Looks like go + live to me. -- Liliana • 19:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Rfd-sense: Sole other sense: "To make some system, which had been under development or operating in a limited test mode, fully active so that its intended users can access it."

Unsurprisingly, our entry for live#Adjective lacks a dozen senses, including one, present in most competing on-line dictionaries, that makes this definition SoP. DCDuring TALK 22:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete, straightforward, uncomplicated. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] overworld map

Rfd-sense: (video games) a map of the overworld. Definition says all. -- Liliana • 18:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete and I might dispute the other sense, since I think "map" in general can be used in this way in video game terms, not just "overworld map". Equinox ◑ 22:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] horse armor

Rfd-sense: Armor for a horse in battle. *sigh* -- Liliana • 18:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there some rule that says it's okay to have an obvious literal sense when there is also a non-obvious one (the second video game sense here)? Equinox ◑ 19:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

There's {{&lit}} for that. -- Liliana • 19:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep if the non-SOP sense is real. Convert to use {{&lit}}.—msh210℠ (talk) 07:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure we'd consider the citation for the other sense durably archived. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] metropolitan area network

As it is, the definition suggests this is just metropolitan area + network. -- Liliana • 21:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

We also have this proper-cased as Metropolitan Area Network. Note that there is a set of these: MAN, LAN, WAN, WLAN, VLAN... And very high frequency might be comparable as a "fixed term" that nonetheless looks SOPpy. Equinox ◑ 22:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

My initial reaction is how come metropolitan area is an idiom, surely we can write a definition for metropolitan to cover it. Do we also want rural area and urban area? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Arab World

this doesn't look particularly idiomatic to me. -- Liliana • 04:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It does to me, though, like New World, Old World. It's not exactly a "world". It's a cultural area. We don't have "English World" or "French World" - countries where English or French is spoken. Admittedely it's controversial, since non-Arabs living in these countries dislike it or don't want to belong there. Keep --Anatoli 05:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

If a term is used widely in newspapers we should define it, that way people unfamiliar with it could find out exactly what it means. If not someone could think it means a world wide caliphate, a theme park, or something other than the middle east, which is in fact not all arab, so we should keep it.Acdcrocks 09:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Arab and world should cover this. If they don't, it's because our definitions are not good enough. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

What’s the difference between the criteria of western world and Arab World? — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether we should keep Arab World--I'm tending to no--but the western world is not the world west of something, or in the western hemisphere.--Prosfilaes 21:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Esperanto forms of aklimatig*

The Esperanto forms of aklimatig* (59 in all) were created by a bot (MewBot) because of a typo in the conjugation table of alklimatigi (e.g. aklimatigas, aklimatiginto etc. etc.). This is the version with the typo, all blue links in the conjugation table should be deleted. --JorisvS 17:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The old pages can be moved, they don't need to be deleted then. —CodeCa t 17:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You feel like doing that? --JorisvS 18:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It's probably no more or less work than deleting them all. I'll start moving them. - -sche (discuss) 18:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I think I've moved and corrected the contents of all of them. - -sche (discuss) 19:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I've found a few more: disiĝi with stray "r"s[6], dekalkuli with missing "ul"s[7], and rimarkigi with stray "k"s[8]. I would have moved them already, but I can't suppress the redirect. --JorisvS 21:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I've taken care of disiĝi now, too. - -sche (discuss) 02:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] I am Canadian

Do we need this for all ethnicities in the world? We have Appendix:I am (ethnicity) already. -- Liliana • 18:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the point (of having it) is that we're to have it for all anglophone ethnicities, not all ethnicities: see [[Appendix talk:I am (ethnicity)#Deletion debate]]. (Somewhat relevant also is [[Appendix talk:I am (ethnicity)#Canadian is not primarily an ethnicity]].)—msh210℠ (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep if we must have a bloody phrasebook. You're just showing one of the reasons why mixing this stuff with a general-purpose dictionary is very stupid indeed. Equinox ◑ 22:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete, no added value. Wiktionary's mission is "every word in every language", not "every phrase". --Hekaheka 04:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete - as above. SemperBlotto 07:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete but I suggest to keep at least one complete example - I am English, no offense to other nationalities/ethnicities. I chose "English" without any bias, perhaps because it's the English Wiktionary. The effort to replace "English" with anything else - "Canadian", "Mexican", etc. is minimum, although can also cause problems like using adjectives where a noun is required or incorrect ending or gender, etc. For example Polish uses instrumental case to make this phrase - Anglik -> Anglikiem m., Angielka -> Angielką f.. --Anatoli 22:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. --Yair rand 16:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Northern California

If what Wikipedia says is correct, this isn't a set phrase at all, and pure SoP. -- Liliana • 21:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete, encyclopaedic. Equinox ◑ 22:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ditto, delete. --Hekaheka 04:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep it is a very specific place. Like saying Upstate New York or the Florida Panhandle. It has merit etymologically because it has led to the creation of new words such as Norcal and Socal.Acdcrocks 06:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

In those entries you could write [[Northern]] [[California]]. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It gets treated like its own state a lot of times on forms as does Southern California, this is a unique treatment not afforded to any other state in the nation.Acdcrocks 11:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have added 6 citations showing it is commonly treated as a proper noun in books and print media.Acdcrocks 11:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't this a valid toponym under whatever rules and interpretations we have for toponyms? DCDuring TALK 13:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

So what does this prove? I'm sure you could find cites for Southern California, Western California, Eastern California, and stuff like Southern Florida, Western Wyoming, etc. as well. That doesn't make them any inclusible. -- Liliana • 13:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

@ DCDuring I think the rules we had on toponyms have since been deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

So any attestable toponym is includable, without limitation. Cool. That way we can have a really big entry count and provide lots of opportunities for transliteration and translation practice. With this success under our belts we should move on to further dismantling of CFI. DCDuring TALK 17:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Per nom.—msh210℠ (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. The quotations provided in the entry show that the term is used not only with lowercase "n" as "northern California" but also with capital "N" as "Northern California", all that in the middle of sentences and outside of titles, a significant lexicographical fact. The term does seem to border on being a semantic sum of parts, but then, whence the capitalization with "N"? --Dan Polansky 15:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

google books:"Western Wyoming" mostly finds "western Wyoming" with lowercase "w" in the middle of sentences and outside of titles, in a response to a post by Liliana from 12 October 2011. --Dan Polansky 15:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you proposing quantitative criteria for the relative frequency of capitalized and uncapitalized forms to justify in-/exclusion? All of "Upstate|Downstate|Eastern|Western|Northern|Central|Southeastern New York" (capitalized) can be found with sufficient diligence or patience at this bgc search. Perhaps some refer to administrative districts as they may have been defined from time to time. DCDuring TALK 18:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Weakish Keep. Northern California differs in demographics, geography, climate, and maybe even culture from Southern California and--more so than distinct portions of most any other US state--can be thought of (at least by some) as a separate entity. All of this is sometimes in the sense of the term. This means that this sense is a little more than SOP (sometimes). I'd give it the benefit of the doubt. · 15:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Strong delete, unless it can be proven that Northern California may be used to refer to something else than northern part of California. Generally a Northern Foo differs in many ways of Southern Foo, yet it is just Northern + Foo. --Hekaheka 16:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If Northern California means the northern half of the state, then it is SoP. If it means something different and more specific (I have not read the entry), then it is no SoP. —Stephen ^(Talk) 16:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The term is somewhat ambiguous because there are different definitions applied. I have split the entry to reflect this. DAVilla 06:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Also worth mentioning, it's not everything north of the Tehapachi pass, that is just the furthest south that people would consider to be Northern California, some people say its north of the Fresno/Monterey County lines (either north or south bounries), other yet consider north of the bay area, or north of Sacramento urgo just the literal northern half to be Northern California.Lucifer 22:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] just because

In its purported idiomatic sense it looks to me like just + because. "Just" is certainly optional. It might make a lovely referral to a phrasebook wiki. Here, it seems to be, at best, a hard redirect to because. DCDuring TALK 13:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The first definition is unnecessary; that one is just just + because. The second definition is not covered in the definition of because. Mcornelius 18:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

But would that be an indication of a need for [[just because]] rather than a reason to improve [[because]]? In fact, it would seem that sense 3 of because#Adverb is the relevant meaning. DCDuring TALK 18:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Hard redirect, I suppose.—msh210℠ (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] scene safety

- -sche (discuss) 04:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Strong delete, also not limited to emergency medicine. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

keep this has strong police/fire/rescue idiomaticity, it is not just any scene, it is a crime scene. Also the definition I put in has a very specific EMS definition, which is determining if the place you have arrived requires additional paramedic (advances life saving skills) or if it needs (police intervention), altered mental status situation, violent gun shit goin down, ya feel me?Acdcrocks 18:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] I'm twenty years old

Please see Talk:I'm eighteen years old and I'm ... year(s) old. -- Liliana • 18:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Kill with fire. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete per eighteen. Equinox ◑ 21:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

In accordance with "I'm eighteen years old", delete. I also think that I'm a Muslim, I'm a Christian, I'm a Buddhist, I'm a vegetarian, I'm an atheist, I'm allergic to nuts, I'm bisexual, I'm blind, I'm bleeding, I'm burned, I'm cold, I'm dying, I'm deaf, I'm divorced, I'm English, I'm fine, I'm full, I'm gay, I'm hungry, I'm horny, I'm hot etc. add little if any value to this project. We already have I'm. --Hekaheka 03:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Knowing translations for I'm + hungry does not allow you to translate (e.g. French has j'ai faim, "I have hunger", and not literally "I am hungry"). As it happens, that's the same with this phrase ("I have twenty years"), and any of them might have any kind of quirky idiom in any translating language. Just a thought. I mean, I kinda feel that you should know the basic grammar of a language before speaking it, but I'm probably old-fashioned. Equinox ◑ 03:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

A non-speaker of French can find this out relatively easily. First he checks hungry and finds a strange looking adjective avoir faim as one of French translations. He clicks that and the whole secret is revealed to him on the French page. I think this old-fashioned approach to using a dictionary is far better than adding randomly selected "I'm something" -sentences as individual entries. --Hekaheka 06:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

But that French translation is wrong. hungry is an adjective, avoir faim is a verb. SemperBlotto 07:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I know that, but if two languages have a different approach to a concept, like in this case to being hungry, it makes sense to make a link that shows the user the normal usage of the looked-for language. Also the adjective affamé is there, but "j'ai faim" gets about 20 times as many Google hits as "je suis affamé". --Hekaheka 21:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

And affamé is not the right translation, it's much stronger. Yes, it makes sense to mention avoir faim, but 'only if there is an explanatory note. Lmaltier 15:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I am twenty years old soft redirects to I'm twenty years old. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I've now tagged it linking to this section.—msh210℠ (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedily delete as already having failed RFD.—msh210℠ (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

At least one of these complete phrases should be kept. It is handled very clumsily at old (#5) and in its translation section. If someone didn’t already know how to say it in a given foreign language, he would probably not be able to put it together from what is shown for most of the languages there. That section is virtually useless. If we have a complete phrase such as I'm twenty years old, then the translation section in old could be amended to "see translations at I'm twenty years old". —Stephen ^(Talk) 11:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

SGB, by that logic, why not hard-redirect the entries with numbers to [[I'm_..._year(s)_old]] and have the translations there? (In fact, why do we need "I'm"? But that's another issue.)—msh210℠ (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep, per Stephen. Keep at least one of these complete phrases as part of the phrasebook rather than relying on "I'm ... year(s) old". Given "I'm eighteen years old", the reader can figure out that he has to replace "eighteen" with other number word. Twenty is a round number, so "I'm twenty years old" seems to be a fit example entry to represent all the other phrases with different number word. "I'm eighteen years old" would also be a nice example entry, but it is now deleted. --Dan Polansky

Keep, per Stephen. Also, I don't see the Estonian or Ojibwe translation in I'm ... year(s) old. I added the Hungarian after some checking. "I'm twenty years old" in Japanese is a remarkable example. 二十歳 ("twenty years old") is not pronounced "nijussai" or "nijūsai" as expected (a number + sai) but "hatachi".

"I'm eighteen years" old is gone, so, one complete example is worth keeping for the phrasebook but no more than one. We have too many phrases like "I need ...". This could be cleaned up. --Anatoli 22:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete. --Actarus ^{(Prince d'Euphor)} 12:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep — [Ric Laurent] — 23:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. --Yair rand 16:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] ELIZA

Specific software program. Encyclopaedic. Equinox ◑ 03:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Send to RFV to see if it meets the CFI for brand names. bd2412 T 15:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] illegal formation

Surely just a formation that is illegal? -- Liliana • 04:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete —Saltmarsh^{talk-συζήτηση} 06:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. It has a specific meaning, not guessable from the parts. Requires prior knowledge--Dmol 09:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC).

Delete. IMO it is very much guessable from the parts. Equinox ◑ 15:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete current definition, if there is a definition not guessable by the sum of its part, Dmol should add it and then we'll discuss it. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

~~Keep~~. Illegal generally means against the law in the larger sense of legislation governing a civil society, not against rules of a game. Is this used in any sport other than football, by the way? bd2412 T 16:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Illegal meaning against the rules is very common, it might even be more common than the against the law sense. In effect a law is a special type of rule, so there's not even different definitions. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

As for the second question, I looked at b.g.c, and illegal formation also occurs in football (the American one), volleyball, and even military aviation, so no, it is not specific to soccer at all. -- Liliana • 18:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I meant American football. Wikipedia only has one sense of illegal formation (the term redirects to w:Penalty (American football)); and that is:

Fewer than 7 players line up on the line of scrimmage(NFL/High School); more than four players in the backfield (NCAA only); eligible receivers fail to line up as the leftmost and rightmost players on the line in the NFL; or when five properly numbered ineligible players fail to line up on the line.

Ah! For some reason, {{football}} redirects to {{soccer}}. It should not do that. -- Liliana • 18:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a very specific definition, one that does not even include formations that break the rules by having the wrong number of players on the field or having a player offsides. We should have a definition of the very specific sense used in American football. bd2412 T 18:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it. What does it prove that that there are more ways than one to end up in an illegal formation? --Hekaheka 21:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The point is that there are four specific formations that constitute an "illegal formation", even though there are other formations (one with twelve players, or one with a player on the other side of the field) that would be against the rules. Therefore, an illegal formation, in American football at least, is not any formation that is illegal, but only formations falling into one of those four specific rule violations. bd2412 T 23:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That makes it even more SoP. There are various conditions which determine what is "illegal parking" and what is not, what is "unlawful killing" and not, and so on - it doesn't mean we create a specific legal definition for each, that is what an encyclopedia is for. ---> Tooironic 23:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

In this case, however, there are "illegal" formations that are not "illegal formations". bd2412 T 23:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

In that case, the definition being challenged is wrong, because the definition says that it can be any formation that is illegal. Equinox ◑ 23:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I've added the missing senses, and narrowed the RfD to the SOP sense, which I agree is SOP and should be deleted. bd2412 T 00:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Replace remaining sense with {{&lit|illegal|formation}}. DCDuring TALK 00:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

What makes the formation illegal isn't part of the definition; it's just any formation which is illegal. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If anyone cares, I this doesn't seem to meey WT:CFI#idiomaticity as the meaning is easily derived from the sum of the parts. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No more so than many of the cricket expression which we so lovingly include. DCDuring TALK 17:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I find this comment vague and provocative, hence not very useful. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to provoke looking at this kind of entry with respect for the possibility that this term has as much idiomaticity as comparable cricket terms, some of which have seemed SoP to me, at least at first. Terms in certain fields seem to get a much more sympathetic view than those from other fields, in a way that suspiciously reflects the background, training, and interests of active contributors. I have the feeling that our recent treatment of emergency medical technician jargon was a little less sympathetic than our treatment of, say, linguistic, cricket, or internet jargon. It is a reason why formal criteria, rather than pure votes, would make for more objectivity and a better Wiktionary. DCDuring TALK 20:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and would add that I think our evaluation criteria should consider whether a phrase would be likely to appear in a specialized dictionary on a given topic. I have no doubt that illegal formation would appear in a dictionary of football terminology, just as equal rights in fact appears in every current legal dictionary, and various EMT phrases would appear in a dictionary directed towards that field. In a sense, I think when a phrase like this actually appears in another dictionary, the authors of that dictionary have done the work for us of determining whether the term belongs in a dictionary. bd2412 T 22:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is that simple really, but we could decide to let it be that simple. Many glossaries seem to include in their definitions a great deal of content I would characterize as encyclopedic. They often have, say, both "Adj" and "Adj + N" as entries, where N is not limited in its meaning to the area covered by the glossary. I would argue for only "Adj" being included. OTOH, the benefits of simplicity are such that it is tempting just to accept such terms without qualification, at least for now. DCDuring TALK 22:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I edited Talk:caught and bowled to express why I think it's an idiom and I'd happily do the same for other cricket terms. There are some terms in Category:en:Cricket that I'd like to delete, but where I'm not confident enough of getting a majority so I'm not gonna even try. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] plastic bag

Total SOP? — [Ric Laurent] — 23:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. -- Liliana • 23:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It's an everyday item like handkerchief, even if it's written with a space in between, it's a word.

It's included in foreign language dictionaries: Mandarin: [9], Japanese: [10], Russian: [11], why don't we include it? Keep, of course. --Anatoli 01:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly and we should keep it because it is an everyday consumer good. It is unique. Translations are useful. It is too common a term to make it hard on people looking it up having to cross reference plastic and bag which both have tons of convoluted info on em. Some plastic bags aren't even made out of plastic they are made out of starch or corn, some are singleuse some are multiuse some are permanent, some rot, some not. All that is not something you could expect to find with plastic+bag defs yaknowhamean?Acdcrocks 02:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Your rationales for keeping things make no lexicographic sense and you never seem to learn from these discussions. Equinox ◑ 15:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Depends if any bag made out of plastic is a plastic bag. FWIW I don't care how many non-English dictionaries have it, we're not trying to be other dictionaries, we're just trying to be Wiktionary. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

For one thing, a bag made of a woven fabric of plastic fibers would not be called a plastic bag in normal usage that I am familiar with. For another, the plastic bags (or bag-like things ?) enclosing electronic items inside the cardboard and foam are not normally called plastic bags in my experience.

FWIW, I have a great deal of respect for the inclusion decisions of lexicographic professionals vs. our own votes. DCDuring TALK 15:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I sometimes get sent things in plastic envelopes which are in effect bags (just of a squarish shape) but I wouldn't call that a plastic bag. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Some are not made out of petrochemicals they are biodegradable but resemble the petro ones almost exactly and they are still called plastic bags due to their exact same purpose.Acdcrocks 21:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The bags enclosing electronics and the envelopes I would call (and have called) 'plastic bags'. Woven, I guess not. FWIW.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

CALPERG is working on a series of plastic bag bans, but these laws don't target any old transport invention made from plastic, just the one's handed out by stores.Acdcrocks 03:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Washington D.C. has imposed a 5 cent tax on plastic bags, which is understood only to apply to grocery bags, including those made of plastic-like materials that are technically not plastic, but not to garbage bags or to plastic purses. I would be inclined to keep and note the paper/plastic dichotomy. bd2412 T 03:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I find it difficult to come up with any solid reason for keeping this, so a legal one is a bit of a stretch, but it does show that a priori we think of plastic bags in the specific context of shopping even when we would consider a trash bag to be, you know, a bag made of plastic and technically fulfilling the request if not quite what we had in mind when we asked the host if she had any plastic bags we could borrow. DAVilla 05:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Treat like day after tomorrow. -- Gauss 07:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

No deserves a definition.Acdcrocks 21:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

keep, not just a bad made outta plasic. --Rockpilot 06:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] danger zone

A zone of danger. -- Liliana • 02:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. NiSoP. Delete. Actarus ^{(Prince d'Euphor)} 06:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete, fails WT:CFI#Idiomaticity as the meaning is easily derived from the sum of the parts. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe there are substantial idiomatic senses not included in the current definition. These should be added. See, e.g.

2010, Misty Evans, I'd Rather Be in Paris, p. 160:

A low moan sounded in his throat and the intensity of their kisses shot back up into the danger zone.
2007, Pat Tucker, Led Astray, p. 68:

When he eased into the danger zone and gently fingered my clit, I shamelessly spread my legs a little wider.
2006, JoAnn Ross, E. C. Sheedy, Jill Shalvis, Bad Boys Southern Style, p. 175:

He slid his hand to her waist, across her tummy, and every butterfly in her body was set loose to flap and fly. She shook a negative even though it killed her — and his hand was slipping down toward her danger zone.

Not actual "danger" in either case. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but perhaps it's just a poetic use of danger, so in that case it is actual danger, just a poetic form of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with MG, except I don't think there is much "maybe" to it. It might be metonymy (2010) or an extension of zone to non-physical spaces (2006 and 2007). The extension of "zone" is an example of what seems to me to be the nearly universal extension of any spatial term to time and to other realms that are not literally spatial but commonly thought of and spoken of in spatial terms. DCDuring TALK 16:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I see you point. As I have often demonstrated to my wife, almost any sentence is susceptible to a non-literal connotation if said with the right emphasis. For example, she will say "Honey, can you put a little celery in my soup?", and I'll say "Oh, I'll put a little [air quotes] celery in your soup!", and then she'll roll her eyes and say, "you're disgusting". It's a little ritual that we have. bd2412 T 16:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing that :) 86.176.209.178 20:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC).

keep this is a common phrase that is not easily understand by sop searching.Acdcrocks 21:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

At least I understand easily danger + zone. --Hekaheka 02:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say delete, especially as the suggested definition introduces the idea of a region to be avoided, and this is not supported by the citations claimed. Dbfirs 08:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Having thought it over further, I say keep because danger is a noun, not an adjective, making the phrase grammatically unintuitive. If a place presents danger, we would say it is a "dangerous place" or a "dangerous field", "dangerous building", etc., not a "danger place", "danger field", or "danger building"; however, I would find it at least somewhat awkward to say we are going to a "dangerous zone" or "zone of danger" rather than a "danger zone". I would be interested to see what sort of collocations come with "danger" as opposed to "dangerous". bd2412 T 03:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep per figurative use. DAVilla 05:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] buncha sign languages

Category:Definitionless terms has a few entries for sign languages, which have no usable content. I guess they could all be deleted. --Rockpilot 22:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Would it not be easier to simply provide a definition for these? They're all valid anyway. -- Liliana • 22:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You serious? Deleting things is loads easier than defining things! --Rockpilot 22:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep, no AFAICT-valid reason given for deletion.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it's always acceptable to delete entries with no definitions at all. And I'd include a couple of entries that I've created. The only possible exceptions could be definitionless entries which are valid words, and have citations. Correct etymologies and pronunciations also seem like possible but weaker reasons to keep a wholly definitionless entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking back, many of these are garbage and should be deleted. -- Liliana • 21:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I think some of the sign language names aren't even attestable. Anyway, if an entry's entire content is "definition requested", it should be at WT:REE or similar. Equinox ◑ 22:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone up to the task? -- Liliana • 14:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] understand

Rfd-sense: To apply values (axioms).

I don't understand the definition, or in any case how it related to "to understand". It was added by an anon in diff, on 8 March 2004. My take is delete, unless someone can convincingly argue otherwise. --Dan Polansky 16:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the sense in "How do you understand X?" is meant. That sentence sometimes means something like "What values or axioms do you bring to the table when you comprehend X?" — but the "What values or axioms" part of it is in the word "How", not in the word "understand". Anyway, this belongs at RFV, no?—msh210℠ (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happier with an RFV, where I expect it to fail as a mistake. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Move to RfV or keep it here and get it cited. DCDuring TALK 18:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] authorization

Rfd-redundant: (computing) The permission to use a specific resource; access control. Tagged but not listed. DCDuring will surely comment on this. -- Liliana • 21:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] capacity

Sole adjective sense: Filling the allotted space. Usage examples might be: It was hauling a capacity load. and The orchestra played to a capacity crowd.

I have not yet found this sense as predicate, nor in gradable or comparative use. The noun senses:

3. The maximum amount that can be held and

5. The maximum that can be produced.

in attributive use seem to cover the usage I have found. OTOH, MWOnline has something very similar as an adjective sense. DCDuring TALK 19:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I would keep as I don't think this is intuitive. DAVilla 05:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. Note that it's pronounced with stress on the second word, as if capacity were an adjective, not on the first, as if capacity were a noun. (Contrast "I put an LP on the record player" to "I put a gold medal on the record player" (okay, not the best example).)—msh210℠ (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Ha! — we don't even have record as an adjective. Definitely not the best example, then. :-) —msh210℠ (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] water 2

Rfd-sense: (uncountable) Tap water, or well/pump water, as opposed to bottled water.

Added by an IP here. I have serious trouble considering this separate from the general sense 1. In the example sentence given (Do not drink the water.), there isn't really anything that semantically distinguishes tap water from bottled water - you could fill a well with bottled water and the writing would still hold true. -- Liliana • 18:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What the context of the usage example (not the usage example alone, let alone the word "water") usually implies is a definition such as "that local-source water that possibly might make one sick (whether tap water or other water, such as locally bottled, unpurifed water, or possibly local well water from low-lying wells)." Another definition might be: "water that is likely to be inhabited by bacteria (or other contaminants) to which the auditor is unlikely to have developed a resistance or tolerance." Another definition might be "the locally sourced water". Or it might just mean "any water around here" or "the water the auditor is likely to drink". That seems like context or, from another point of view, encyclopedic content. In fact, that definition presupposes knowledge on the part of the auditor of the current generally accepted theories of infection from such sources, sanitary conditions, and the economics of local water supply and other beverages.

At the very least we need more diverse illustrations of this purported sense, preferably from durably archived sources. DCDuring TALK 23:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The water in Mesquite is hard. DAVilla 05:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete or, at the very least, move to a sub-sense of the primary sense. I don't think it's necessary. Equinox ◑ 23:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete, just plain wrong isn't it? I've never heard anyone say that bottle water isn't water, which is what this sense is trying to say. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's plain wrong; I think the idea is that statements such as "You shouldn't drink the water here", "The water's bad here", etc. often implicitly mean tap water and exclude bottled water. However, whether this usage requires or justifies a separate sense is doubtful in my opinion. 86.186.9.168 13:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. It would be a subsense except I've rarely seen that here. Keep. DAVilla 05:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] 功課達人, 功课达人

Sum of parts: 功課 ("homework"), 達人 ("a person good at something"). Not a set phrase, not in common use, uncited. Hbrug 03:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete, no added value. Fugyoo 21:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] November 2011

[edit] prairie dogging plus prairie doggings, prairie-dogging and prairie-doggings

[Latter three entries added by--Enginear 21:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)]

Sense: An incident of a fecal solid involuntary exiting the anus as the person having the involuntary bowel movement fights the undesired exiting with his rectal muscles. nt because it is vulgar, but because the cites given for it don't match the definition, and I can't find any that do --Rockpilot 13:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I did find some better ones if you wanna have a look.Acdcrocks 10:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Definition is very strange - as if the author does not speak English as a native language. I would delete it. SemperBlotto 08:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ouch semper! English and Spanish are both my first language, maybe I have fucked up syntax to show for it. I would have written in "when you are fighting off a bowel movement and the shit keeps poking out" but that isn't quite phrased in the form of a noun or proper dictionary jargon. Help?Acdcrocks 10:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A sense of "fecal matter poking out" is attestable so ideally this would be fixed rather than deleted. Fugyoo 18:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Awesome job citing this, Acdcrocks. --Rockpilot 23:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought that prairie dogging is a present participle of the verb "to prairie dog", but there doesn't seem to be such verb definition. Should somebody correct something? Second, I think the verb should be defined in more general terms, e.g. "to pop up from a hole or similar in a manner that resembles the way a prairie dog pops his head up from his burrow". This would make the undeniably interesting poo-related "sense" a mere usage. Third, the noun sense appears unnecessary. --Hekaheka 16:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it needs cleaning up into 'noun' and everything else should be covered by {{present participle of|prairie dog}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

That won't work because "I'm prairie dogging" doesn't mean "I" am popping up from a hole. Fugyoo 13:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It does. If you read carefully, the examples referring to an urgent need to defecate, say "I'm prairie dogging it". I take back a little of my earlier comments. To "prairie dog" seems to have a transitive sense. Whether it is limited to the specific use our examples are of, remains to be seen. --Hekaheka 06:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

A figurative burrow/hole is what cubicle workers etc are popping their heads up from.

If seems that the "popping one's head up" sense should not have a noun or a verb definition. It should just be a present participle of "to prairie dog". I think we could find the past participle and possibly the other forms attestable in this sense.

I found only one cite (now on Citations:prairie dog) in our customary sources for the past participle of the other sense, so perhaps it should be defined only in this entry. OTOH, if verb is attestable in each form in some sense, wouldn't we assume it to be a full verb in every sense, even though we cannot find each form attested in each sense. DCDuring TALK 19:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've modified the definition, to what I hope is an improvement, under the assumption it remains where it is. — Pingku^dimmi 09:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I've just added prairie doggings, prairie-dogging and prairie-doggings to this RFD, since if the noun sense of prairie dogging falls, so will they, as they are only claimed in that sense. If they pass, it would be helpful to have added some cites to each, to avoid RVFs later. --Enginear 21:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] seismic fitness

SOP: fitness in the face of an earthquake.—msh210℠ (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought it meant "the ability to not fall down in a earthquake" but whatever. Fugyoo 11:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Important scientific term, I would expect someone to look for in a dictionary if they read it in the paper and didn't know what it meant. It is read as one word because it is a compound two-word word.Westernstag 03:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] hadaway and shite

Geordie SoP = hadaway (“go away”) + and + shite (“shit ”) (imperative}. Might be worth including in a usage example or citation on [[hadaway]] and [[shite]]. DCDuring TALK 14:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It isn't SoP if the definition is correct, since the and shite doesn't actually contribute to the meaning. —An gr 18:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Then we need eat shit and die and many others in which some vulgarity is used as an intensifier in some way. For that matter, hardly any intensifier of any kind adds "meaning". DCDuring TALK 20:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] stunt cock

Hekaheka (talk • contribs) thinks this is SOP, I don't. Discuss. — [Ric Laurent] — 23:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Not SoP to me, because the penis isn't performing stunts. Equinox ◑ 23:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Some snippets from Google Books:

It is her hands we are watching as the pizza comes out of the microwave — the other hands are all stunt hands
"I bet there was a stunt ass standing by in case I chickened out and lost it."
"stunt pussy noun a female pornography performer who fills in for another performerfor the purposes of genital filming" (no uses on Google Books, just mentions it seems. Also none for "stunt cunt" even though it rhymes)

Fugyoo

Stunt cunt. Fucking lawlz <3 — [Ric Laurent] — 01:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Even stuntman would not be inclusion-worthy were it not for the application of WT:COALMINE. So all we need are three cites of stuntcock to pass this RfD. DCDuring TALK 02:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Or a sense at stunt meaning "stand-in, substitute". The cock, hands, ass, etc. above are not performing stunts. Stunt man could be sum of parts (if two words) but that's because he performs stunts, not because he is a substitute or stand-in. Equinox ◑ 13:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. There are multiple possible meanings of "stunt" and "cock" which objectively make sense, but would be incorrect. One might call a rubber chicken used in a practical joke a "stunt cock", but this would be wrong, idiomatically. bd2412 T 17:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

If there are are multiple possible meanings, why pick just one? If I make a movie of the adventures of a rooster, I might want to use a stunt cock in a cock-fighting scene. There are situations in which the reader must figure out themself, which of the possible combinations best fits the context. I'd still delete. --Hekaheka 05:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we are missing a sense of "stunt". It seems that the word has acquired by extension a sense that is close to "substitute". No dangerous performances in these examples picked from the internet:

That's the movie where Kirk refused to kiss the actress playing his wife so they had to get Kirk's real wife to be stunt lips.

I asked my husband if he could just hire a stunt wife for this. ("this" = a social occasion in which the real wife did not really like to participate)

You ever look at a picture of yourself and think, “Do I really look like that?” Sean was taking happy, rumpled Easter morning pics and as I scanned them I thought, “Damn, that looks like a stunt belly.”

--Hekaheka 18:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Hekaheka that we're missing a sense of "stunt". - -sche (discuss) 19:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, add the sense to 'stunt' unless of course it's not attestable. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Didn't have a clue what it meant before looking at the page. Keep entry and revert my innocence if possible. DAVilla 04:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I bet there are a lot of two-word combinations that any of us does not have a clue of, but that isn't necessarily a justification for inclusion. This is not a set term either, as one could as well use stunt dick, stunt penis or even stunt organ. Penis is not the only organ that may be replaced by a stunt in a movie: stunt hand, stunt finger.... And, with the added sense for "stunt", it is (or will be, I did not check) a sum of parts. --Hekaheka 05:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hand, finger, penis etc. I would have figured out. My first guess for stunt cock was a trained rooster. DAVilla 20:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep pretty oddLucifer 02:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Since when has oddnessbecome an inclusion criteria? --Hekaheka 05:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

kept no consensus -- Liliana • 04:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] pillar of the community

Probably just pillar + of + the + community. Not particularly set as a phrase. Can be replaced by "pillar of society", "pillar of the city", etc. No hits on OneLook. ---> Tooironic 05:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say we need another, figurative sense for "pillar". --Hekaheka 05:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Or is this use of pillar a "live metaphor"? DCDuring TALK 09:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added the two missing senses. ---> Tooironic 12:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The new senses look good. I don't see any sense to the RfDed term that has meaning beyond the SoP sense. DCDuring TALK 23:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a common idiomatic phrase meaning an informal leader, it has nothing to do with the marble columns of a greco-roman building.Westernstag 03:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Now that the figurative sense is added to pillar, I don't see how we can prove this is not SoP. ---> Tooironic 06:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

@Westernmark. What is the evidence that it is idiomatic? I stipulate that it may be more common than phrases like "red car" and agree that it doesn't have the straw-man definition that you suggest. The implication of your line of reasoning would be that we should have all attestable phrases whose component words are polysemic. Since the polysemy of a word itself seems to depend greatly on the patience, care, and analytical mindset of those who attest to and author definitions, very few words indeed would fail to be polysemic. DCDuring TALK 17:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No strong feelings. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep per discussion above; unique definition of pillar. bd2412 T 05:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep. The term 'pillar of the community' is a common expression. --Bunnyboi 22:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 23:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete. SOP.—msh210℠ (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] dynamic IP address

I'm not sure, but to me it is an IP address that is dynamic. -- Liliana • 21:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

keep, if attested the use of "dynamic" makes this a highly technical term, non-compsci majors/geeks would unlikely understand.71.142.73.25 08:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Cf. polymorphic constructor, petroleum hydrocarbon. A phrase made up of two bits of specialist jargon can still be NISoP. Looking up two words won't kill anyone. Equinox ◑ 09:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Not obvious from the several meanings of dynamic.--Dmol 09:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Could be SOP, but I think we need a new meaning of dynamic, something like "(computing) Dynamically assigned; subject to change or reconfiguration". 81.142.107.230 10:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yup. IP addresses are by far not the only thing that can be dynamic, check out w:Special:Prefixindex/dynamic to see a whole bunch of dynamic things in the computer world. -- Liliana • 12:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete if we have a good definition of dynamic. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] child bride

Definition: "A very young bride." That's SoP and if anything less helpful than the simple words.--Prosfilaes 03:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This term has a very specific connotation when used in the media, it refers largely to islamic and ~~moron~~ [mormon] child marriages where a girl is married to a much older man, often against their will, this is a richer meaning ~~that~~ [than] you would get from say kid+groom71.142.73.25 08:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you mean moron or Mormon? Both fit in the context somehow... —An gr 09:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Funny enough, they did. But yes I meant mormon.71.142.73.25 22:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep as amended.--Dmol 09:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Because 71.142.73.25 mentioned the media, which I took to mean the news media, I checked http://news.google.com for the term. the first result (here, now, for me) was an article about "Hollywood child bride Courtney Stodden". (There were other results about her also.) So it doesn't only mean someone "coerced or pressured into nuptials with a much older man in a conservative culture". Is it ever used to mean that, to the exclusion of other brides who are children? (E.g., a book that distinguishes "child brides" — who are those pressured into marriage in a conservatve culture — from brides who are children.) If (as I suspect) not, then the definition should be reverted to "a very young bride" and IMO it should be deleted.—msh210℠ (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Then that's a separate definition that would be sum of parts. As it stands it is a valid meaning.--Dmol 23:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we have a more-specific "an organism of the species Prunus persica" sense for tree, but only a broader "large plant" sense, whereas we have both the more-specific "line of connected cars with a locomotive" and the broader "sequence of vehicles" sense at train? Because there are citations that support it: specifically, there are citations that use train to mean a line of connected cars with a locomotive, to the exclusion of any other sequence of vehicles: they say things like "take a train or a caravan" or the like. If there are citations saying "a tree or any other kind of large thing bearing fruit" (where by tree they meant what we call a peach tree), then we should have a separate "Prunus persica" sense for tree. (I highly doubt that that's the case.) If there are citations saying "a child bride or other bride who's a child" (where by child bride they meant someone coerced into marriage in a conservative culture) then we should have a separate "coerced into marriage in a conservative culture" sense for child bride. (I also doubt that that's the case.)—msh210℠ (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The first hit child bride gets on bgc is Child Bride: The Untold Story of Priscilla Beaulieu Presley. (Interestingly enough, she was 22 when she married Elvis.) I don't see that this is a separate definition, instead of a common use of the normal meaning.--Prosfilaes 07:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

In this case, "child bride" must surely be idiomatic, since a 22 year-old is hardly a child. ---> Tooironic 11:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? On BGC I find "Children remain eligible for TRICARE benefits while they're in college up to age 23"[12]. Child is a pretty elastic word.--Prosfilaes 03:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Another BGC hit is Sister of the Bride by Beverly Cleary, where the bride is 18-years old. '"My child bride," he [the groom] teased.'[13]--Prosfilaes 07:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably keep per Prosfilaes. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

But the definition was "A very young bride". If you want, we can argue about its SOPness, but IMO that depends solely on whether child generally is used for contextually relatively young people who are not strictly children in the usual sense.—msh210℠ (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

If we're having an argument about what child bride actually means, I think it's worth keeping. DAVilla 05:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

That;s a really good point, I agree.Lucifer 00:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] computer engineering

Sum of parts. SemperBlotto 08:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, but why, then, do we have electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, systems engineering and probably yet a few others? --Hekaheka 14:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep because it is a set term.Lucifer 06:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] rock hard

This seems to be an example of a common construction for a large class of adjectives, better treated under the adjective or as an element of grammar in an Appendix. For example consider this bgc search for "gun-barrel straight".

Also, under WT:COALMINE shouldn't the use of a spelled-solid form be attested for each sense? DCDuring TALK 12:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

We had a similar discussion for apple pie, and the consensus there was that the literal sense needed to be included in order to balance out the figurative senses. That is, it would be misleading to only indicate figurative senses for the term, when the literal meaning is also in common use. See also w:Mohs scale of mineral hardness to see why the literal sense of rock hard needs a definition. --EncycloPetey 18:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

One issue is whether any one of the possible senses combining senses of rock#Noun and hard#Adjective should be on the first sense line rather than {{&lit}}. Another is whether the open class of constructions of the form N + Adj, with some restrictions on Adj, is appropriately represented. Including every such combination seems absurd, though many seem to believe that each attestable combination would merit an entry. Combined with the absurdity of WT:COALMINE, we seem to be committed to an exceptionally foolish course. DCDuring TALK 00:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I attested all the meanings, but someone moved most of them to rockhard, which seems to be a disservice, as its not clear which sense they are directed at there.Lucifer 22:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I moved them because they are not of rock hard which is the headword in question. It may be that all attestation should be devoted to each sense of rockhard. I would expect that any sense attested in the form rockhard would also be attestable in the form rock hard. DCDuring TALK 00:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Since the page for rockhard states only that it is an alternative form, I'd argue that the senses should be moved back to the lemma page. They might be duplicated on the alternative form page, but they shouldn't reside only there since, as Lucifer points out, they are not tied to any senses there. --EncycloPetey 18:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

keep under all circumstances. rock hard doesn't really mean as hard as rock, but very hard. There could be a verb here too, i.e. "this concert rocks hard" --Rockpilot 05:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that "rock hard" differs from "gun-barrel straight", "ramrod straight", "petal soft", "chrome shiny", and many, many similar N-Adj constructions, almost all of which don't mean anything more than Adj like an N, where N is a paradigm of Adj.

"This concert rocks hard is transparently a simple use of hard#Adverb. DCDuring TALK

I've almost never seen it said "rockhard". What I've seen, and no one's mentioned, is "rock-hard". I agree with Pilot that there is enough content to be placed somewhere Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 05:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you think that all the possibly less common, but attestable collocations of similar form Adj-N can have entries. DCDuring TALK 05:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this thread about rock hard, or about all the possible words of the same construction? If the latter, then a separate thread should be started in the Beer Parlour, as this discussion pertains to a particular tagged entry. And why must the decision be all-or-nothing? Language isn't Boolean. --EncycloPetey 18:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I was interested in the "principle" being applied to the term in question. Any such principle that is so invoked and is not generally accepted needs to be addressed and its validity challenged, especially here at RfD, which is principally based on reasoned argument Or is it just voting with a figleaf of rationalization.

I think that each of the senses of rock hard needs to be confirmed as being used with the spelling rockhard, because I do not believe that the solid-spelled form is commonly used. The rationale for inclusion of the senses of this term is partially WT:COALMINE, after all. DCDuring TALK 23:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

For you, perhaps, but not to my mind it isn't. I don't think WT:COALMINE has anything to do with the discussion that was started here. It applies only to a tangential topic that invaded the current discussion. Only one sense was raised for discussion, and whether it has a single-word form or not is not critical to retention of the sense. --EncycloPetey 05:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I want to extend this discussion also to the other senses given in the entry. I'd say "rock hard" simply means "very hard" and that's basically what the rfd'ed definition currently says. There are two other senses, one referring to "rock hard" i.e. "very hard" muscles (muscles of abdomen, it says, but there's nothing in the quotations that would connect them with the abdomen) and the other referring to "rock hard" i.e. "very hard" penis. As a minimum development to the entry, I would like to combine these three senses into one, defined as "very hard". The quotations could be kept as examples of "very hard" sense. --Hekaheka 10:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

But it's very clear from the quotations that these do not all mean the same thing. If sentence begins "He was very hard...", the first sense means rigor mortis (or petrification), the second sense means his muscles are toned, and the third sense means his penis is erect. The second and third sense imply an unstated noun that is not implied by the first sense. These cannot be meaningfully combined. --EncycloPetey 02:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Not convincing. Saying that "rock hard penis" means "erect penis" is equal to saying that "red tomato" means "ripe tomato" and thus we should add the sense "ripe" to the word "red". It's true that rock hard penis is erect, but if I'm using "rock hard" I'm discussing a different aspect of the penis than when using "erect". --Hekaheka 21:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You're clearly not understanding what I'm saying, so please look at the quotes. I am not talking about situations where "rock hard" is used to modify the word "penis". Rather, I am pointing out that "rock hard" implies "penis", even if the word "penis" is omitted. --EncycloPetey 23:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Nah, it's evident from the context. It's not so uncommon to refer to the state of one's penis as if it was equal to one's person, like "I am flaccid", "I am only half-erect". What would make rock hard so special? If you just say "He is rock hard" you may as well refer to the other guy's willpower or physical strength. The first quote clearly mentions "cock" and I suppose it does not refer to a sexually aroused rooster. --Hekaheka 07:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact that "He is rock hard" has so many possible meanings is what demonstrates that there are multiple senses. The "first quote" you mention is misplaced. --EncycloPetey 04:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Vichy water

Isn't this just water from Vichy? Or am I missing something here? There are several other brands of water which we do not include either, no matter whether or not they're carbonated. -- Liliana • 14:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's from particular springs or spas. Formerly supposed to have health benefits. It's not any old tap-water from Vichy, and it isn't a brand. Equinox ◑ 14:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Right in front of me, I have a bottle labeled "Bad Vilbel water". By your logic, we should include that as a separate entry, because it doesn't refer to tap water from Bad Vilbel, but only to water from particular springs. To me, that doesn't make a lot of sense. -- Liliana • 14:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Anybody here seen the end of Casablanca? That somewhat makes the case for this entry's inclusion. Not completely, but somewhat. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 05:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's a kind of water, what kind is it?Lucifer 06:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

When I was growing up, my parents used sometimes to buy bottled carbonated (artifically carbonated, not with natural bubbles) water with certain salts/minerals in it — IIRC baking soda was one of them. They called this Vichy water. Seemingly that was not just their idiolectic word for it: First of all, see La Republique Francaise v. Saratoga Vichy Springs Co., 107 F. 459, aff'd, French Republic v. Saratoga Vichy Spring Co., 191 U.S. 427, which, though they discuss the use of Vichy by a specific company, may be weak evidence of its use generally. But more convincingly, see [14], which sounds like so-called "vichy water" may have had some antacid in it. (Baking soda is an antacid.) Similarly, see [15], where so-called "Vichy water" is made, so is clearly not from the Vichy (France) springs. (And it contains baking soda.) (Don't let the italics there throw you off: italics are used throughout that text for English words.) Now, certainly Vichy water also refers to water from the Vichy springs, as in [16]: I'm arguing merely that it has another meaning also.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure (but have difficulty in proving) that this was a generic term for mineral water before there were any commercial brands of the stuff. SemperBlotto 08:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] oats

"Seeds of an oat plant", redundant to "plural form of oat". Or am I missing something? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's used as singular (as in one usex provided). Probably deserves its own sense therefore.—msh210℠ (talk) 09:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, is it? Is it anything more than just nonstandard English? It's not so uncommon to here is with plural nouns anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Can't definitions #1 and #2 of oat be in the plural too? Also, keep in mind that "oats" is one of those words that's used more in the plural than singular, and people would look for the definition at oats rather than oat (Keep) Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that "oats" isn't really a plural, but the same category as you would use for a noun like water or wheat. I can't envision reaching into a bowl of oats and picking up a single oat, and I would would say "less oats" rather than "fewer oats". Chuck Entz 01:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] base isolation, seismic load and seismic performance

To me, as a building design professional, these appear to be clearly sum-of-parts, but perhaps I am too close to the subject. What do others think? (And if we do keep them, the wording needs tweaking for clarity.) --Enginear 07:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

They look specialized enough to warrant inclusion to me. — [Ric Laurent] — 13:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

They do to me too.Lucifer 21:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete, except possibly "base isolation", which seems to become opaque because of dropping seismic from seismic base isolation. The others seem quite transparent once a context of use is suggested. DCDuring TALK 00:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

After thinking about it a bit more, I'm going to have to say keep to all. I wouldn't understand any of the given meanings of these terms looking at our entries for their constituent parts. — [Ric Laurent] — 20:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep all, per Mr. Laurent's point. bd2412 T 18:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] contents of Category:Cantonese jyutping

Unlike Chinese pinyin and Japanese romaji, Cantonese jyutping has never been approved for inclusion in Wiktionary, and I doubt it will, since I cannot see it passing CFI. Similarly, Korean Revised Romanization already failed to be approved, so there's a precedent case. -- Liliana • 22:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this more of a Beer Parlor thing? Mglovesfun (talk) 08:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably. — [Ric Laurent] — 12:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

We don't have many editors knowing and willing to contribute in Cantonese, let alone its multiple romanisation schemes. Pinyin and romaji are much more widely used for romanisation and as a learning tool. Not so much with Korean Revised Romanization - learners switch to Hangeul much faster - Korean writing easier to learn. Cantonese is seldom romanised in a standard way and Yale is perhaps more common than Jyutping. --Anatoli 03:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I add Cantonese from time to time and always use jyutping. — [Ric Laurent] — 18:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] law

Rfd-redundant: The two definitions for scientific law seem redundant, but there might be some worthwhile elements in the newly added sense, however tendentious it may be. The contributor of the new sense evidently believed it the previous scientific sense to be redundant to his. DCDuring TALK 02:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That's kinda funny, we should give him the Eric Cartman award! That way we can tell him he's being a punk while at the same time complimenting him.Lucifer 02:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Good grief. I just didn't have the time or energy to fix his ramblings. SemperBlotto 08:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I was talking to another user the other day (offsite) and was saying I would be surprised if I hadn't blocked him within 24 hours. That was more than 24 hours ago, and I've gotta say, I was right. I'm surprised. It would be one thing if the community were tolerating a poor editor who weren't so lazy. Recent examples: the one horrid quotation on tribbing, a quotation for throat-gagging where the two words were technically not connected to each other, a completely wrong inflection on be a man, adding superfluous and unverifiable information to the etymology of pussyboy which only applies to one of the several definitions... — [Ric Laurent] — 12:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that there's a misunderstanding. The new sense was a modification of the old one, but then the old one was brought back in this edit. You can tell because they both have the same wording. —Internoob 06:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

deleted -- Liliana • 21:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] table scrap

¶ I had a soupçon someone would attempt to get this deleted, so here I am. Could this be interpreted as sum‐of‐parts? --Pilcrow 22:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that scrap could be interpreted as a fight. Anyway, I have never heard of this term. RfV? SemperBlotto 08:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It's the small pieces of food left over on your plate that you would throw away, shove down the disposal, or sneak to your doggy.Lucifer 08:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Widespread use. Not a set phrase or idiom. A mere collocation. Picnic scraps would be attestable, for example. But many seem to believe that all attestable collocations should be, some (eg, SB) restricting inclusion to collocations involving polysemic components. No OneLook reference has this.

Scrap in this sense can be found in many phrases of the form "NP scrap(s)". The NP can be a food that constitutes the scrap(s) or a place or event that may be the source of the scrap(s). A near synonym is scraping(s). DCDuring TALK 16:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

In this situation, I'd favor keeping it, since table scrap refers to leftover food, and not to junked bits of a table. The combination "table scrap" could have more than one possible meaning, but only one is usually intended. Additionally, table scrap is an exact synonym of one sence of scrap, just as ice hockey is a synonym of one sense of hockey. The additional word does not add any meaning to the definition that was not there before, so it isn't really an extra word (since it lacks independent meaning in the collocation), but the additional word does clarify which sense is intended. --EncycloPetey 17:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The principle on which your argument relies are a poor basis for making replicable decisions about inclusion. The first argument applies to all phrases including at least one polysemic terms. Thus it puts us on the wrong side of a combinatorial explosion of potential entries, given the poor quality of our entries for single words, despite having the benefit of copyright-free dictionaries for all basic words and many others, including some not yet included. In addition polysemy is an artifact of the care with which we (or anyone) subdivide meaning in words. Does head have 10 or 100 senses? Does barometer have one, two, three, or ten senses?

The second argument (if it is not an observation) just seems wrong. The sense of scrap that appears in table scrap is the same sense that appears in picnic scrap or kitchen scrap. A picnic scrap, for example, could be from a blanket as well as a table and a kitchen scrap' from a counter. Butcher scraps would be from a chopping block. The same sense also appears with NPs referring to the type of food in which "table" is potentially completely irrelevant.

This kind of discussion also illustrates the somewhat arbitrary nature of what one calls a "sense". DCDuring TALK 18:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The second point was indeed observation more than argument, but your reply is not error-free. In fact kitchen scrap does not always refer to food in the quotations I'm finding:

Boys' Life - Oct 1976

Kitchen Scrap. Here's a way to recycle kitchen throwaways such as popsicle sticks, disposable ice-cream spoons, and soda straws.

The combination "kitchen scrap" (as food bits) seems to be more British, whereas "table scrap" is more used in the US.

In any case, "table scrap" does appear in crossword dictionaries, FWIW, even if not in the OneLook sources. --EncycloPetey 19:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I never said that kitchen scrap meant only food. Another use of scrap is to refer to materials of any kind by their source. "Foundry scrap", "picnic scraps", "household scraps", "factory scrap". DCDuring TALK 20:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting variation:

1911, C.A. Rogers, "Raising Chickens-The Principles Involved", Agriculture of Vermont, p. 97:

The domestic chick must be given the animal food in some concentrated form also, such as meat scrap, meat meal, milk or buttermilk; the latter alone, however, will not provide enough protein to properly balance the ration. It can be supplemented with table scrap or meat scraps. DCDuring TALK 20:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This seems to suggest a meaning that is, at least, exclusive of meat scraps. bd2412 T 18:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Maybe meat scraps are only scraps of meat, while table scraps are scraps of anything (possibly including meat) from a table. Equinox ◑ 18:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. DCDuring TALK 20:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The second sense should be verified, it seems to be the sense justifying inclusion. Lmaltier 18:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

How about this: 2008, Kim Powers, Capote in Kansas: A Ghost Story, p. 3:

She was not a retiring woman, about to roll over and accept table scraps.

Cheers! bd2412 T 03:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't look very SoP to me, for example it's not a scrap of a table (a bit of wood or metal or plastic). But having never heard of the term, I will decline to make further comment. --Mglovesfun (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Taking an example from close at hand (BD2412's cite), "retiring woman" could have any of a few meanings (referring to personality, relationship to employment, specific activity with respect to a vehicle or other machine, an occupation} depending on context, though the personality one tends to be the most common sense and probably the default. If I build an entry around one of them, wouldn't it be necessarily included by your logic? DCDuring TALK 20:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's fair to draw a comparison between those, since retiring is a participle instead of an attributive noun. I wouldn't apply Mglovesfun's rationale except in a [N + N] combination. I'm not arguing for full and unmitigated validity of the reasoning in all such cases, but I agree with the principle of his reasoning. --EncycloPetey 17:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that the context of the phrase as used in the sentence I cited can be gleaned by reading the surrounding text more broadly. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] strength training

SoP -- Liliana • 22:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a sport, and is the set term for this sport, it's a two word not sop compound.Lucifer 22:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Set phrase, keep. — [Ric Laurent] — 00:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

For once, I agree with GT/Lucifer. It's borderline, but possibly distinct from the expected sum of parts. Dbfirs 11:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not a sport, it's a form of exercise used in training for many a sport. --Hekaheka 12:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree for now, but I'm not sure if or how strength training differs from body building, except that body building gets to the point of being gross, whereas strength training actually makes you kinda hot. I think of strength training as body building for people who don't care to do steroids and look like aliens. — [Ric Laurent] — 14:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I can think of at least two differences: 1) there are competitions in body building but not in strength training 2) in body building one tries to get good-looking and voluminous (in somebody's eyes, at least) muscles but in strength training the focus is in adding the performance (and as by-product often also the volume) of the muscles. --Hekaheka 22:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of competitions for people who use strength training, but they're not called "strength training competitions". They're called sports. --EncycloPetey 18:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that it matters whether strength training is different from body building or not. A dictionary can and does contain words that mean the same thing. Leonxlin 18:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

As I read the definition it would be SoP were it not for the prepositional phrase "through anaerobic exercise." As no citations support this (or any other aspect of the definition) the entry is not really defensible as it stands. Move to RfV. DCDuring TALK 18:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Citations added; definition amended. --EncycloPetey 17:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete. --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Strength training is a specific form of resistance training that utilizes low numbers of repetitions with higher resistance. As Harvey Newton put it in 2006 (see another quote in the entry): "Strength training, a relatively new term, is applied to athletes who use resistance training to increase strength with the express purpose of improving performance in their chosen sport. Strength training implies that the athlete is actually using a high enough resistance, applied with a relatively low number of repetitions, to actually gain stength. Not everyone engaged in resistance training actually trains for increased strength." Strength training is a very specific form of resistance training, such that many major athletic teams now have strength coaches. --EncycloPetey 18:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Definitely a lexical item whose precise meaning cannot be deduced from the constituent words themselves. Leonxlin 18:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep, essentially agree with EncycloPetey (talk • contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] fatbitch, fat bitch

I think fat bitch is a really common set phrase and should be kept.Lucifer 00:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

All you have to do is create the article with three appropriate citations — i.e. ones that aren't scannos, proper nouns ("he signed the letter Henry Fatbitch" is unusable, as I said), or misunderstandings on your part. Have you really personally read books with fatbitch as one word? You seem to have a weird idea of when spaces are used and when they aren't. Equinox ◑ 00:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep very common set phrase, insult. Call me weird but it's dictionarian to me.Lucifer 11:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] machine-readable dictionary

This seems quite like a dictionary that is machine-readable, which is to say readable by a machine of some kind. That the machine would, at present, be electronic seems immaterial to the concept. DCDuring TALK 20:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

All English dictionaries printed in the traditional way on paper are machine-readable. The term machine-readable dictionary excludes those kinds of dictionaries, and something more specific is meant. Without reading more about these MRDs, I am not sure if they include all electronically digitized dictionaries, or if they are even more specific than that. But, clearly, not every dictionary that is machine-readable is a machine-readable dictionary. —Stephen ^(Talk) 21:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article backs Stephen up, in fact even the initial 2007 version of that article does. --Mglovesfun (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that machine-readable dictionary = electronic dictionary (in the form of database) + API, where API allows manipulate dictionary data (e.g. search, insert) from the computer program. So MRD is a subset of all electronic dictionaries. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky 11:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Paper books are not machine-readable. For the large scanning projects that Google and the Internet Archive do, a human has to manually turn the pages on the books. Even then, while one might claim that OCR can handle some books appropriately, dictionaries are not those books. OCR will make a hash of phonetic notation and will not segment the text appropriately.

Every dictionary that is machine-readable is a machine-readable dictionary; however, like many adjectives, not everyone agrees how machine-readable something has to be to be machine-readable, and the answer tends to depend on context.--Prosfilaes 12:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete: sum of parts. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] pageable memory

memory that is pageable. -- Liliana • 20:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC) (addendum: I have to admit, though, that the definition of pageable is horrible and definitely needs some sort of improvement)

I don’t know what pageable memory is (since I have not read the definition there), but if I look at pageable, it eventually tells me that it means the pages can be marked, or else that the pages can be turned. I still don’t understand how a page of memory is marked or numbered (or how that would be a useful feature), or else how a page of memory can be turned. If I don’t read the definition at pageable memory, but look up the separate words, I will never have any idea what it is. —Stephen ^(Talk) 21:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This is what {{only in}} would be for. DCDuring TALK 21:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone who doesn't understand "pageable memory" also wouldn't understand "pageable virtual memory" or "Most of the kernel's memory is not pageable". That doesn't mandate entries for those. Equinox ◑ 12:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete if we have a good definition of pageable. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] brain cancer

¶ Does anybody think this is sum‐of‐parts? --Pilcrow 02:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't. WP says it can also occur in the spinal canal. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 02:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There's also lung cancer and skin cancer. -- Liliana • 12:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

And prostate cancer. I'd say delete any bodypart + cancer where it refers to cancer of the said bodypart. For English speakers, this is SoP as the meaning is easily derived from the sum of the parts, so it failed WT:CFI#Idiomaticity. Ergo delete this. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily refer to cancer of the said bodypart in this case. A cancer in the w:Central canal of spinal cord is a brain cancer. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 22:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep if this is true. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this should be removed to RfV, if (as it seems) we cannot reach sufficient consensus of deleting it. The only source I could find which claimed that also cancer in the central canal of spinal cord would be classified as brain cancer is Wikipedia, which does not mention its source. In fact, our entry, as it currently stands, says nothing else than that brain cancer is a cancer of the brain. Instead, I could find several references to "spinal cancer" in the web. I wonder what the heck is that if the cancer in the central canal is a brain cancer? --Hekaheka 11:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

keep and hope sara palin reads this and get's it.Lucifer 11:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 07:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep, unique, clinical term. -- Cirt (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] start button

start + button. The rest is completely encyclopedic and not part of the actual definition. -- Liliana • 15:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Compare Start and (capitalised) Start button, the thing in Windows. Equinox ◑ 15:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Any button/key/arrow can be known this way, like up button, down button, etc. 'Button' is just a qualifier to make clear what the context is, delete. --Mglovesfun (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. The function of the Start button depends on the game and the context in the game, just like all the other buttons on a controller (left/right trigger, left/right bumper, select button, dpad, etc.....) and should thus not be included in a dictionary. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 03:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete if it doesn’t have another meaning like reset button does. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't delete. It can additionally refer to the button in Windows. Foreigners find the definition handy. —This unsigned comment was added by Knowledge Permeating Your Cranium (talk • contribs) 2011-12-02T05:58:55.

Keep, I think "start" means to begin and that "start [button]" means to open up the main directory of a computer's various software programs, I also know this is a hard to translate term and would be useful for that too.Lucifer 11:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The button in Windows is capitalized though, as in Start button. That might merit inclusion. (We have taskbar too, for example, as well as Start Menu.) -- Liliana • 13:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I think its used in the singular too, I'll look for sources and create the capitalized version too.Lucifer 23:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the term is misleading because it's not generic. The menus in other graphical interfaces like KDE or Gnome are not called start menus despite matching the definition. The start menu is specifically the one in Windows. —CodeCa t 23:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I wrote a new, more generic definition, but to be honest, it still looks very much like start + button. --Hekaheka 23:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Any on button is sop but start button is the graphic user interface "button" used in operating systems and is both idiomatic and a set term. start means to begin and button is something on your shirt or or something you literally press.Lucifer 00:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Variation selectors

[edit] ︀

[edit] ︁

[edit] ︂

[edit] ︃

[edit] ︄

[edit] ︅

[edit] ︆

[edit] ︇

[edit] ︈

[edit] ︉

[edit] ︊

[edit] ︋

[edit] ︌

[edit] ︍

[edit] ︎

These aren't terms in any language. See Talk:͏ and Talk:Unsupported titles/Tab. -- Liliana • 17:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Repeating what I said at Talk:͏: "I'd support a single-page appendix for control characters. People will inevitably look them up. Probably shouldn't be in mainspace though." (I know I created these entries. I had a big Unicode chart at the time and didn't like seeing the red links!) Equinox ◑ 17:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I imported Appendix:Control characters from Wikipedia, and am currently working on it. Be sure to link to it from somewhere so anonymous users will find it! (Possibly {{only in}}?) -- Liliana • 17:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] arpeggiated chord

SOP.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably, though arpeggiated and arpeggiate do not seem to cover it. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The first sense of arpeggiate seems to cover it nicely.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it's written like it's intransitive, but the quotation uses it transitively. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] get the axe

we have axe#Noun sense 3, which occurs in more instances than just this one -- Liliana • 17:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Right. Hard-redirect or delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree; redirect or delete. --EncycloPetey 03:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Do not agree. To "Get the ax[e]" and variants means, primarily, to get fired. Any other use (e.g. "my girlfriend gave me the axe" is secondary and possibly derived. Note that the example given for axe#Noun sense 3 is the phrase "gave him the axe" (not just the word "axe") and the example from literature ("[O]ne day the axe just fell" from Tangled Up In Blue) describes the person getting fired from his job. It's true that the word "axe" is, by itself, used as a shorted version ("The company axed me"), sometimes, I suppose. But "The company gave me the axe" is probably more common.

At the very least, axe#Noun sense 3 should be rewritten to indicate that it means getting fired, and "A dismissal or rejection" either eliminated, or given as a secondary meaning, or added as separate sense (and a non-firing literary example would need to be found). Herostratus 04:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] item of data

Basically for the reasons Hippietrail gives on Talk:item of data. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

But (for better or worse) we have item of clothing and piece of furniture, which seem to deserve the same treatment as this gets. Incidentally, data item is probably commoner. Equinox ◑ 21:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

We also have piece of clothing and piece of paper. Do we really need them? — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

SOP, delete. Incidentally, data point gets many more hits; I have never heard anyone say item of data AFAIR.—msh210℠ (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] porn

Adjective. I don't think it meets the CGEL tests for ajdective. See WT:English adjectives. DCDuring TALK 02:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree; delete the adjectival senses. --EncycloPetey 03:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete (or cite, I suppose). Mglovesfun (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I haveno idea what rules we're supposed to be using. (Wt:English adjectives hasn't AFAICT met with community support yet.) But this doesn't sound like an adjective to me. (Specifically, some of the wt:English adjectives tests sound off.) So probably delete. Cites would help determine whether it meets the wt:English adjectives (or other) tests.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It's used as an adjective for lack of a proper term "pornsome" "pornly", or instead of the complicated "pornographically" or the ignorant sounding "porny" but it is used in an incorrect but idiomatic manner. I added a usex to exemplify the usage that I have heard. I highly suggest we hold off on deleting this and put in an honest search for citations. I think it will take a while since most searches would result in having to swim through the much more prevalent noun use.Lucifer 10:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

... but won't nearly all the cites we find be just attributive usage of the noun? I'm not sure that the idiom "so (noun)" counts as evidence of adjectival usage. Dbfirs 10:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

What about "very porn", "its porn", "too porn"? It's definitely used as an adjective because their is lack of a clear and usable one, such as "pornly"Lucifer 07:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

deleted -- Liliana • 21:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] hormone replacement therapy

to me this seems entirely guessable from its components -- Liliana • 23:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep as a set phrase. Isn't it specific to particular hormones and a particular set of patients also.--Dmol 23:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought the same, but surprisingly, no, it is not specific at all. It can refer to all hormones and all sorts of patients! -- Liliana • 23:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

If there is sufficient usage to indicate this specific meaning, I think it should be kept and the definition changed to match, even if this is not the "official" sense of the term.--Dmol 17:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete if this is correct. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 14:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep medical term for a disease reeks of a proper nounLucifer 10:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not a disease, it's a cure. Of what does it reek now? --Hekaheka 19:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Unsure. My relative gets insulin multiple times a day because she doesn't produce it herself. I've never heard anyone say she's on (or getting) hormone replacement therapy.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep, agree with analysis by Luciferwildcat (talk • contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] December 2011

[edit] timesing

Noun: "multiplication". I don't see it as attestably distinct from the verb form. DCDuring TALK 01:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete, not seeing any distinctness here. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It's almost impossible to find any evidence of a plural timesings, which IMO would be the strongest case to keep a noun entry. Probably delete. Equinox ◑ 21:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

*SIGN OF THE TIMESINGS AND DIVIDINGS — worksheet (doc format) from Logan Schools, Logan, Utah. Looks like the word is being taught.

*timesings are 2.5-2-2-6 is that good or what — overclocking

*the gigs timesings are 2,2,2,6 and the 512 is 2,3,2,5 or something like that — another forum

*Hot keys provide quick access to common functions such as timesings and sidecasts — Masterbill Elite checklist of features

*If I say to you multiply 1 x 1 six times, then indeed there are six timesings in a row, — Dailymail Health boards --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! 17:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I suspect this classification as a noun arises from confusion about what a gerund is, as timesing seems pretty clearly to be the typical English gerund formed of a verb + -ing. But then this also shows confusion about the part of speech of the word times: in the phrase, 6 times 7, some people clearly parse times as a verb, but the original meaning is that it is literally 7, six times -- i.e., as the plural of time. (NB: ... I just saw Talk:times#Tea room discussion and really wish I'd been active then in order to participate. Ah, well...)

I note that all of the citations for timesing appear to be from the same publication -- is that allowed? I thought we needed three citations from different publications to pass CFI muster.

*You need to look at that again. The links go to six different places. --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! 17:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

For that matter, I just went through the citations for times#Verb, and was quite surprised to see this gaining currency as a verb. Is this specific to any particular region? Is it limited to younger speakers, non-native speakers, or others with less educational experience in English? In terms of sociolect and register, I must admit that usages such as timesing and timeses sound to my ear as not just "informal" as currently marked, but flat-out grammatically wrong, and thus very low-class and undereducated -- quite similar to brung or taked, for instance. Of the three citations currently given, all appear to be quotations of students speaking, in which case the illustrated uses of timesed and timesing could be construed as childish mistakes.

*Really? Does this sounds like it was written by a child or an uneducated person:

If the table A has a yes in its cell I want the two respective cells in tables B and C to be times together and added to any other respective cells that are in the same row. — conditional timesing of cells --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! 17:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Checking the results of google books:"timesing", I find that the majority of hits on the first page are either apparent quotes of children's speech, or are from construction-related documents, which leads me to think this might be a domain-specific term for builders.

Perhaps some such explanatory note(s) would be in order? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a childish term, but not new. I think I learned times at school some years before I knew the word multiply — so what else would we have called it? (And grammatically, for a child, I think times works like plus or minus, as something you slot between two numbers, more than the plural of time to indicate repetition.) Equinox ◑ 23:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree in terms of slotting times between numbers, and for kids, POS is largely irrelevant. Though I do recall having multiplication explained to me using the phrasing X, Y times to clarify how Y times X works out, whereas I've never heard phrasing such as X, Y plus.

That said, in your experience, do you recall adults using times explicitly as a verb? I.e., conjugating to timeses, timesed, timesing, etc.? And what of the apparently common use by builders? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I think adults would only use it when talking to children. The builders' sense is new to me. It seems to be a shorthand when you want to order a particular component n times, and can be abbreviated by a slash ( / ). This reminds me of my father (who worked in technical drawing) using the same slash for "off", where e.g. "2 off" means you want two of a component. See off, Preposition, sense 7. Equinox ◑ 23:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Refs are uglily formatted but seem legit, keep I say it.Lucifer 10:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to the citations? They don't seem legit: they have no source citation, just the quote and a short reference that someone might be able to research to figure out where it came from. Also, they seem to be using the word as a verb.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess that I should check that little box to "watch this page" but, truly, didn't even think this would be controversial ... I came across this by accident. Since I made the entry, I'll defend it. ...

First, from the wiktionary for -ing:

3. Used to form nouns of the action or the procedure of a verb; usually identical with meaning 1. in the English language or expressed with -tion instead

The forging of the sword took hours. - where forging denotes a planned procedure of work rather than a specific physical action

I think we can agree that timetion is not the way to form a noun from times. In English, we would add -ing ... thus timesing is the normal and natural way to make a noun from the verb times.
Timesing is seemingly well established in the building industry as a noun. That ALONE justifies it as an entry. It is not a slang term.
If one can swap the word multiplication (a noun) for timesing, then is it not working the same as multiplication?

Calculation should be made as waste on the dimension paper and not mentally, and timesing should be done consistently." — Willis, et al, Willis's Elements of Quantity Surveying, 11th ed, p33, 2011, Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex, UK <<< Many byspels at the link.

Calculation should be made as waste on the dimension paper and not mentally, and multiplication should be done consistently.

Each UNIT can have a timesing factor of 1 to 999. The field must be used and 1 is entered by default. — Site Layout

Each UNIT can have a multiplication factor of 1 to 999. The field must be used and 1 is entered by default.

Create a timesing calculation using 'direct entry'. — Checklist

Create a multiplication calculation using 'direct entry'.

So, we know that the word exists; it is being used as a noun; it has a plural (see my answer upthread) ... So why shouldn't it be there? --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! 17:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

That -ing can be used to form nouns from verbs does not mean that every use of it does form a noun. In any event, are all -ing forms of verbs also nouns? If so, then in principle we would need to have at least one noun sense for each verb sense (each subject to attestation). This is much the same situation as arises for attributive use of nouns, which would require at least one adjective sense for each sense of the noun. Rather than waste time on multiple, largely redundant definitions we simply assume that users are aware of the rudiments of English grammar which includes the fact that (virtually ?) any noun can be used attributively and that -ing forms can be used as adjectives and as nouns. The very few (2 ?) valid citations provided in the entry do not make it indisputable that the word is be used as a noun. Clearly the sense is not distinct from the sense of the verb. We don't even have valid citations of it being used in the plural.

To avoid wasting time, please remove citations that are not durably attested or otherwise do not meet our standards for attestation and find valid citations of timesings. I personally don't find even those compelling, but others do and I agree that pluralization is a not unreasonable test for nounhood. DCDuring TALK 17:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Searching Google Books, News, Scholar, and Groups for 'timesings -timesing -"time sings" -"times kings" -"times ings" -"time signs" -"timesigns"' yields nothing but scannos. DCDuring TALK 17:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It uses times as an infinitive, so timesing is a gerund of times. A few Google Books are: here, here, here, and here. —Stephen ^(Talk) 18:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand that not all -ing words are nouns. However, here we have a competing word that is clearly a noun … multiplication. So if one can substitute multiplication for timesing then is not timesing being used as a noun? If you answer yes, then argument is over, it is a noun. It really is that simple.

Further, I think you'll agree that timesing is used much less multiplication. And the times that you will find the plural form multiplications used is far and few between. In fact, I did a run thru of the Corpus of Contemporary American English and got a mere 26 hits from 1990 … 21 from academia (no surprise there) … NO hits since 1999. What does that prove? Nothing really except that hinging the form of little used noun on whether you can find its plural in printed publications will not be very useful. After all, if I can only find 26 hits for a plural from of well-used noun like multiplication, that doesn't betoken well for a little-used noun like timesing. However, the use of plural by a school system and that software makers are putting the plural form on their checklists is enuff for me. Software makers seldom print handbooks anymore so you won't find their writings on your google book search not that their handbooks would be there anyway.

If that is going to be your criteria so that you can blatantly ignore the less formal but demonstrable uses, then you're going to be busy with that delete key because now you're applying the criteria for the entry of a word to the entry of a form. I suggest that you start with the adjective form of hench. I don't think that you'll find it your google book search.

I must say that I'm really disappointed by this type of illogical prescriptive pedantry on Wiktionary. The more the use of timesing grows, more vitriolic the foot stomping becomes from the pedants. But it won't put the genie back in the bottle. Timesing is a noun, it is being used as a noun, and the use of it as a noun is growing. Whether you choose to admit that or not won't stop it. --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! 19:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC).

As far as I know, gerunds are nouns... verbal nouns to be precise... —CodeCa t 19:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] nominative case

See [17] -- Liliana • 02:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete along with similar "X case" cases. As I said there, they seem clear SoPs at least in English, where case has its grammatical sense and the preceding term (lative, antessive) is typically technical and grammar-specific; and the only defence is that translations might be useful. Equinox ◑ 02:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Even that defense is easily bypassed; the translations can go to nominative (accusative, dative and so on) as they're commonly used without the word 'case'. I'd say these are analogous to computer mouse where the computer is only added to avoid ambiguity, and most of the time it isn't ambiguous. Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I see no analogy between "nominative case" and "computer mouse" at all. While "mouse" is used alone to refer to the pointing device, "case" is never used alone to refer to a particular grammatical case with the assumption that the choice of the particular case is made using the context. --Dan Polansky 10:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how "nominative case" can be considered SoP. A "nominative noun" is merely a noun that is nominative; however, the nominative case is the abstract set of word endings that signify use as a subject, subject complement, or modifier of such a word. It is not merely a case that is nominative. Note also that our definition of nominative as an adjective doesn't come anywhere near the relevant meaning that could make this SoP. --EncycloPetey 00:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Strong keep. What is wrong with it? In case a consensus is not reached. To you people eager to delete important entries - will someone take responsibility for translations and make sure they are merged nicely in nominative and ALL the other grammar cases? Before this is done, all the entries should be kept. These are very important grammatical terms! What's next? subjunctive mood, past tense? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 22:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I already did nominative, genitive, accusative, partitive and inessive. Will not do more before this discussion has been solved.

Keep per my arguments in Talk:free variable. In short, the definition of the adjective "nominative" that would make this term a semantic sum of parts is specific to grammatical cases, and "nominative case" is very often written together, much more commonly than the adjective "nominative" is used in a predicative position. An example of a term with this property that is much better known than "free variable" is "prime number". --Dan Polansky 08:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Nominative is also a noun meaning "nominative case". So are all X's in combinations "X case". Does that make any difference? --Hekaheka 10:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you analyse "nominative case" as "nominative" (noun) + "case" (noun)? I do not; I analyse "nominative case" as "nominative" (adjective) + "case" (noun). From how it appears to me, "nominative" (noun) is a shortening of "nominative case", possibly modeled on Latin, but I do not really know. Ditto for "subjunctive mood" and "subjunctive" (noun). --Dan Polansky 10:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Your analysis is correct. The noun sense derives from a shortening of the phrase "X case". --EncycloPetey 23:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete. There's nothing about nominative case that can't be said at nominative#Noun. Even translations can go there. It's quite a different case from free variable, whose information cannot really be given at free. —An gr 23:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

This is like Pacific Ocean and Pacific, or like parietal bone and parietal; we would not delete either item in either of those simply because they are synonyms with the shorter form noun sense developing from the longer phrasal one. And yes, both the phrase nominative case and the term nominative have grammatical features similar to "weak" proper nouns like Pacific Ocean, such as required use of the definite article. --EncycloPetey 23:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep - this is the noun phrase from which the first noun sense of nominative developed. The term nominative was originally an adjective, and only acquired its parimary noun sense through use in this phrase. Please note also that I've located and added a second definition to the entry. --EncycloPetey 23:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep too for the reasons that have been mentioned. —CodeCa t 20:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep per Dan Polansky. bd2412 T 15:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep please. I am not a native English speaker and to me it wasn't at all obvious that "nominative case" meant the nominative grammatical case until Wiktionary told me. It isn't inherently obvious from the two words what they must mean together.

Kept. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] sexual appetite

One's appetite... for sex? ---> Tooironic 12:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's that obvious. -- Liliana • 14:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be a technical term that contains more than "sexual" and "appetite." Haplology 14:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Definition seems wrong though: "the sex drive as a measure of a persons mental health". In general usage it is not a measure of mental health, to a psychiatrist it may be, but that's not part of the definition, more of an "this is also true "statement. But in essence, keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've redefined it a bit, could still do with work IMO. Also I think sex drive is a synonym but we lack the sense at sex drive. I still say keep as not easily derived from the sum of its parts. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

C'mon, what else could it be than what it says? And what does "technical term" mean in this context? If it really is one, there should be some explanation. I don't have strong opinion in either direction, but it just looks rather useless. If kept, shouldn't we add sexual desire by the same token? --Hekaheka 02:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete per nomination.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep per sex drive Lucifer 20:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind to explain? --Hekaheka 23:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Another entry with principally hormonal justification. Delete DCDuring TALK 14:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep, this is also used in clinical settings. -- Cirt (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] laugh

"(UK) A fun person." This seems to be part of the same sense as "Something that provokes mirth or scorn." --Yair rand 09:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? Saying 'paintball is a laugh' and 'your brother is a laugh', that's the same sense of laugh? To me they are separate. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

To me, if they're different, it's because one is fun and the other is funny. We may need two senses, but split along fun/funny rather than along person/thing. But I'm American: perhaps this is a pondian thing?—msh210℠ (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

They're instinctively different to me. It's what I call my 'native speaker instinct'. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep, I agree with Mglovesfun (talk • contribs). One is something fun or funny, the other is a person who is comedic in nature or fun to be around. -- Cirt (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] -istically

No such suffix, all the 'derived terms' end in -ic and are then suffixed with -ally, see -ally which covers this. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

To quote DCDuring from a similar discussion, "By what criteria does one evaluate the "existence" or, more importantly, includability in Wiktionary of a suffix?" As for the derived terms, this may not be the case for all. I would contend, at least, that realistically could as easily derive from realist + -ical + -ly as from real + -istic + -ally. This also raises a question as to whether -istical exists. Finally, there are numerous examples in the wild (in blog posts and forums and the like) of "-istically" being appended to words that do not usually combine with suffixes, for example "funistically", "foodistically", "beeristically", "stupidistically". More conventionally, see 2003, Don Michael Randel, The Harvard Dictionary of Music, p. 598:

Horns, trumpets, and trombones, both soloistically and sectionally, became central to the orchestral concept... His highly subtle orchestration elevates woodwinds, more often scored soloistically than sectionally...

bd2412 T 15:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

At the very least I think this is -istical + -ly... —CodeCa t 23:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't seem realistical to me... Chuck Entz 00:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Start

Does this belong? I'd say no, but what do I know? To me, this looks like an overly specific definition of a start button, which in itself is quite SoP-ish. And who needs Start button? --Hekaheka 23:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

note: this survived an RfD before: Talk:Start -- Liliana • 22:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I see, but the definition is still too narrow. Nowadays, there are cars that have a "Start" button instead of a key. There are also millions of pieces of machinery with "Start" buttons, and they have been around way earlier than joysticks.Also they are sometimes referred to as "start" or "Start" if you like. If we expand the definition to include also these, it will become the definition of a "start button". If we still want to keep this entry, maybe we should also have START, because the fully capitalized form is quite common on start buttons. It is easily attestable that START is used also in permanently archived texts. I still don't think that the mission "every word etc." should be understood as "every thinkable capitalization". --Hekaheka 20:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

There was a whole set of these that passed, like Up, Down, Rewind etc. (Those might not be real examples, but I do remember there were plenty that passed.) I don't agree with them either. Equinox ◑ 20:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

You seem to say that "Start" has a lot of different meanings. (presumably in running text, as to be attestable) Why only the video game button is defined at the entry Start, while the rest is not? --Daniel 21:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

None of the buttons should be there. They are just buttons marked with "start", which we define at the verb start. The fact that a video game's start button sometimes pauses the game is not additional information about the word start; it is encyclopaedic information about video game consoles. After all, you would never say you were "starting" a game when you were pausing it. Equinox ◑ 21:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

@Equinox: "None of the buttons should be there." Does this thesis apply to keyboard keys as well? (Both entries for keyboard keys and for video game buttons are kept together at Category:en:Buttons)

In particular, "Shift" is very well-known (even in languages other than English, probably because that key name is regularly left untranslated in foreign QWERTY keyboards) as the capitalization key; and the key for typing "upper" characters like Shift+2=@. But, these functions probably would be unclear to someone who is computer illiteratte, (like some people I've known) so I strongly support having a definition for that modifier key.

Differently, an entry for Start as a button of video games seems much less informative, because every game has its own use for it: choosing options, being a modifier key (like: "press Start+A to make something happen!"), activating cheats, pausing while displaying move charts, just pausing, etc. They are established functions, so people expect them (I'd automatically try to pause any game by pressing Start, even if I didn't read specific instructions telling me to do that), but they could be better and detailedly explained at each individual game's manual/article/fansite/chatroom/etc.

All these functions do have something interesting in common, nonetheless: they are "nondiegetic", they are not part of the action. A Start button rarely or never is used to make a character kick, jump, shoot, move, etc. but rather to give some kind of fourth-wall control to the player. If we have a video game definition for Start in the first place, we'd better mention this fact! But, as I said, the whole entry probably has not much practical use for someone who is reading sentences with "and you should press Start and blahblahblah".

Even after one year of creating that entry, I'm taking my time to think about it. Differently from other people, I don't have an absolute opinion either for deleting or for keeping it, even though I'm inclined to defend the second outcome for rather weak reasons: first of all, you mentioned the verb section of start, but I do believe it's a terrible place to look for information about the button. Nothing there suggests that a whole worldwide gaming culture has the custom of pressing Start to pause games. And, second, Start links to the category where people can see which buttons are defined here and learn more about them. --Daniel 08:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Daniel, yes, I believe we shouldn't have entries for keyboard keys unless they are abbreviations (e.g. PgDn for page down, which is no more intuitive than Ltd for limited) or mean something more than the word itself (whereby shift might qualify, because there (probably?) isn't a verb "shift" meaning "to change a character to upper case or a symbol", or if there is, it must be derived from the key name). "Start" does not fall under either of these criteria because the button is merely so named because it starts something. Should we have a "Volume" entry saying "used to mark the knob in a car that changes the volume of the radio"? Of course not. Same thing. As for "Start" also pausing a game, or bringing up menus, etc. — that's like a computer program where the "Space" key is used to move to the next e-mail message. It isn't a new sense for the word "Space"; it is simply a function of the hardware, using a key for something it wasn't originally designed for. It is not a lexicographical issue. Delete. Equinox ◑ 23:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, Daniel, you said: "Nothing there suggests that a whole worldwide gaming culture has the custom of pressing Start to pause games." Equally, nothing at butter knife suggests that many people use a butter knife to cut bread, even though it isn't designed for that, and they should traditionally use a bread knife. But is that something we want to write about here, in a dictionary, describing the meanings of words? Equinox ◑ 23:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

@Hekaheka: Do you oppose having any and all definitions for buttons? Or, maybe, you only oppose having multiple spellings and wordings for the same buttons (START, Start, start, start button)? --Daniel 08:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The previous RFD ended in no consensus. It's fair to start a new discussion (though IMO it's a bit soon to start it if there's nothing new to bring to it).—msh210℠ (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Or START I suppose. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] FD&C Yellow No. 5

Is this kind of thing appropriate as an entry? Should we add the Pantone colors while we're at it? -- Liliana • 14:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

1) I don't see why not. 2) Pantone asserts that their lists of color numbers and pigment values are the intellectual property of Pantone and free use of the list is not allowed. (but we should have an entry for Pantone and possibly for Pantone Matching System. SemperBlotto 15:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I ran across these things frequently in my long translating career. American foods, drugs and cosmetics are full of them. They’re important. If a company is going to export its products to Europe or Asia, these terms have to be translated to "E" numbers. —Stephen ^(Talk) 15:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

What's the name of the color? Is it "FD&C Yellow No. 5" (with some capitalization and some spelling of number), or is it "Yellow No. 5" (with some capitalization and some spelling of number) with the "FD&C" part just a reference to which definition of "Yellow No. 5" is being used? Compare "[chemical name] USP": the chemical name is just "[chemical name]"; the "USP" is added just to show whose definition of "[chemical name]" is being used.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep it would be useful to know exactly what yellow #5 is without reading a dissertation on it at wikipedia.Lucifer 13:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] unit

Rfd-redundant: 5. (military) A self-contained military organization; usually a battalion, regiment, or naval ship.

Seems redundant to either:

4. An organized group comprising people and/or equipment.

He was a member of a special police unit.

or:

6. (military, informal) A member of a military organization.

The fifth tank brigade moved in with 20 units. (i.e., 20 tanks)

or:

7. (US, military) Any military element whose structure is prescribed by competent authority, such as a table of organization and equipment; specifically, part of an organization.

But I'm not sure. There may also be other redundancies in that Noun section.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

delete #5 and #6 ... I agree that #5 covered by #7 and others. A regiment is unit but so is squad (that would fall under the TO&E of #7). A square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not necessarily a square. A regiment is a unit but a unit is not necessarily a "self-contained" organization. Anent #6, I held three MOSs in the Army ... one of them being Armor. I can't imagine someone saying that the 5th Armor (not tank, at least not in the US) Brigade moved in with 20 units with the "units" referring to the number of tanks. Military communications demand clarity ... and that isn't clear at all. I'v been out of the Army for several years now but I don't recall that even as slang but things change fast in the military. I'd be willing to listen to someone who is on Active Duty or in the Reserves chip in and defend it.

[edit] life support system

We seem to already cover both senses at life support. ---> Tooironic 09:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hold on, does life support ever occur outside of this collocation? I'd like to see cites for it. -- Liliana • 13:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

From Google Books: "His mother turned off his life support after a week", "The gas supply and life support facilities necessary to maintain habitable atmospheres", "the harm resulting from inappropriate use of life-support technology". Equinox ◑ 14:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Harumph. Might still deserve a redirect, just because it's one of the more common collocations. -- Liliana • 15:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete this is already covered under life support.Lucifer 13:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in redirecting. Otherwise, delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree that it's probably better to redirect this entry at this point in time. :) -- Cirt (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] MissingNo.

This passed RFV only because of certain inaccuracies regarding the definition of "fictional universe" as set in WT:FICTION. However, a regular RFD is still possible, which is what I am doing here right now, because if we were to include all game glitches... better not think about it. -- Liliana • 19:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

There's probably not ten game glitches with unique names. Keep.--Prosfilaes 22:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth my while to dig them up, but I dare say I could name fifty, dating right back to "Attic Bug" in Jet Set Willy (1983). Doom alone has at least three popular glitch names ("tutti-frutti effect", "Venetian blind crash", "voodoo doll"), plus the more widely-used hall of mirrors. Delete as before. Equinox ◑ 13:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete this entry is nonsense.Lucifer 23:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete, or move to an appendix. This seems specific to Pokémon, and should probably be moved to Appendix:Pokémon/MissingNo. as already filed under Appendix:Pokémon_species. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-10/Disallowing_certain_appendices banned the format "Appendix:Universe/Word" (for example: "Appendix:Star Wars/lightsaber"), so all the links in the current Appendix:Pokémon species are a relic of the past and are, in fact, obsolete. --Daniel 15:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep, as I see no compelling reason for deletion. The nominator Liliana seems to say that the term refers to an entity originating from a fictional universe. If that thesis is accepted, WT:FICTION applies; some citations for this term are at Citations:MissingNo., and the nominator would assert that none of the citations meet WT:FICTION. However, I find the thesis that a glitch of a computer game is not an entity originating from a fictional universe rather compelling.

Furthermore, this sentence from CFI is a useful commentary on the sort of extra-CFI arguments that say that if we include this term, we have to include other terms which will be the end of the world as we know it: "There is occasionally concern that adding an entry for a particular term will lead to entries for a large number of similar terms. This is not a problem, as each term is considered on its own based on its usage, not on the usage of terms similar in form."

I do not see what horrible thing would happen if we included all attestable names of game glitches. The notion that "better not think about it" seems free from any reasoning or articulation. --Dan Polansky 18:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Well said. Keep. --Yair rand 07:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Keep. --Daniel 15:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, this doesn't describe the glitch. It describes the character. It is clearly used to refer to a supposed Pokémon character who is not part of canon and can only be seen by exploiting the bug in the program. So it's as if a group of players of a certain game nicknamed a certain jagged spiky piece of wall (not intended by the level designers) as "Spiko". It's a name for a specific entity, not a generic word for a thing, and should fail on the same kind of grounds as Tiny Tim or Clifford the Big Red Dog. i.e., and in a logically consistent way, Delete this fan-made Pokémon character just like we have deleted the official Pokémon characters. Equinox ◑ 23:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

What are the grounds for deletion of Clifford The Big Red Dog? See Talk:Clifford_the_Big_Red_Dog. (I do not ask the same of Tiny Tim, since it is not deleted at the moment; it is under discussion at #Tiny Tim)
MissingNo. has two senses: one for the glitch and one for the character.
- (When you created the RFV discussion for it in 1 December 2011, it had only one sense: "A well-known glitch in the form of a peculiar Pokémon species, which is a common result of trying to access data for a nonexistent Pokémon species in the games Pokémon Red or Pokémon Blue.", which I don't think was well-worded: It may be for the glitch only, or it may be arguably ambiguous as to whether it defines a character as well. During that RFV discussion that focused on the existence of both the glitch and the character, I split the entry (diff) between two senses, whose wording was subsequently refined in the next months.)

--Daniel 15:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Hanging Gardens of Babylon

Do we need this? Apart from Great Pyramid of Giza, this is the only of the wonders of the world we have. -- Liliana • 00:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC) (addendum: note also that Statue of Zeus at Olympia failed not too long ago!)

Delete, not a word or an idiom. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Great Pyramid of Giza passed for no consensus in 2008. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's delete that too. There's no logic in keeping a pyramid and letting a hanging garden fall. --Hekaheka 15:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's nominate it separately though, right? Or just add it into the bottom of this debate? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep. This entry is governed by WT:CFI#Names of specific entities, which accurately states that there is no consesus on complete criteria for inclusion and exclusion of names of specific entitites. What I am looking at is whether the entry can carry useful lexicographical information. And it can: it states that "Hanging Gardens of Babylon" is capitalized as a proper name, whereas the same object is often referred to in Czech by "visuté zahrady Semiramidiny", capitalized as a phrase that is not a proper name. The entry contains Russian translation "висячие сады Семирамиды", capizalized just like the Czech translation. The Russian translation refers to the object by reference to Semiramis rather than Babylon, an interesting lexicographical fact.

As an aside, Statue of Zeus at Olympia mentioned by the nominator Liliana was deleted two years ago on 5 December 2009, with a RFD discussion that had 4 votes for deletion (Equinox, Visviva, Ruakh, DCDuring) and 3 votes for keeping (Bogorm, Stephen, DAVilla ), so it should not have been deleted, as there was no consensus for deletion. Admittedly, the text of CFI contained the unvoted-on attributive-use rule back then, so the entry probably failed to meet CFI at the time. --Dan Polansky 13:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep. It is also a place name, for which we have no consensus. The main objection that we have for place names is that there are so many of them, including streets, buildings, and parks. The Seven Wonders of the Ancient World hardly causes a prioritization issue for us, because as the name implies, there are only seven of them. We have entries for every major geological feature, country, city, and astronomical object. We even have the names of some important streets, parks, and buildings. The threshold for us is the small places.

The other problem with place names is the lack of any lexical information. As Dan pointed out, some entries should be kept when they provide lexical, and not just encyclopedic information. ~ hey zeuss 16:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

~~Kept~~ as no consensus.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Why so quick? We are not in a hurry. Let this sit here for a few more weeks (maybe until spring?). -- Liliana • 16:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. They are/were gardens, in Babylon, that hang. Anything further is for Wikipedia. Equinox ◑ 23:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Tiny Tim

Not a word or an idiom, just the name of a fictional character. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 12:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Though, WT:Votes/pl-2010-12/Names of individuals 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." Does this not apply to fictional individuals too? For example we have ~~Fred Flinstone~~ Fred Flintstone. Would be nice to avoid some RFDs and speedy delete some of these. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't have Fred Flinstone, and never have done. Mglovesfun (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment - the vote cited above does not apply here, as neither "Tiny" nor "Tim" is the character's family name or patronymic. I suspect this is an example of a fictional name that has come into attributive use in English, but right now I have neither the time nor inclination to bother. --EncycloPetey 23:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep, as the reason given in the nomination for deletion is invalid ("not a word or an idiom"), and the term seems to meet CFI by actually meeting the more stringent attestation criteria for fictional universes. Details follow.

The term in question is a name of a specific entity governed by Wiktionary:CFI#Names_of_specific_entities, a section that correctly states that "Names of fictional people and places are subject to the “Fictional universes” section of this page". As the term in question is a name of a fictional character, it is more specifically governed by Wiktionary:CFI#Fictional_universes; the entry of the term features quotations chosen to meet that regulation. See also Talk:Tiny Tim#RFV, which shows that the entry has passed RFV in April 2011.

Furthermore, WT:Votes/pl-2010-12/Names of individuals does not apply to "Tiny Tim", as pointed out by EncycloPetey.

As an aside, we do have Fred Flintstone (with "t" after "Flin"), sent to RFV on 15 November 2011‎. For other names of fictional characters, see Category:en:Fictional_characters. Some of these include Little Red Riding Hood and Sherlock Holmes. --Dan Polansky 13:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

WT:FICTION is vague enough that anyone can simply dispute that a term has passed RFV under those criteria. I'm tempted to say that WT:FICTION actually has no meaning for our purposes. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Also both word and idiom are mentioned in WT:CFI. Look 'em up. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you propose that "New York" should be deleted, as not being a word or an idiom? In this discussion, is it correct that you refuse to apply Wiktionary:CFI#Fictional_universes to "Tiny Tim"? --Dan Polansky 17:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I simply say that Wiktionary:CFI#Fictional_universes cannot be applied, as it makes no sense. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you propose that "New York" should be deleted, as not being a word or an idiom? --Dan Polansky 18:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it's a word. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

So "New York" is a word, while "Tiny Tim" is not, right? That's implausible to me. Anyway. --Dan Polansky 18:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

WT:RFV only verifies existence, not admissibility. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I assume Wiktionary:CFI#Fictional_universes doesn't trump "attested and idiomatic". Well, I don't dispute attested, just idiomatic. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Tiny Tim does not mean any Tim who is tiny. It refers to a specific young Tim, one who notably uses a crutch. All three quotations make this connection, yet there is nothing about disability in the individual words. Your claim that the term is not idiomatic makes no sense in the context of proper nouns. That's a keep for me. DAVilla 16:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep, I'm seeing some good citations present on the entry page. -- Cirt (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] lampoonry

Mis-spelling, but it seems it comes from Webster. lampoonery exists also. -- ALGRIF talk 12:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Though we really have no criteria to differentiate between misspellings, nonstandard forms and obsolete forms. Is it attestable? If so, keep with some sort of content. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Certainly appears to be attestable, there's hundreds of good results in Google Books. -- Cirt (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] not yet

as per not today, not now --Simplus2 11:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep: it may be useful for translations. Compare the following tables, and you’ll see not yet is rather in a paradigm with still. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

English
	Affirmative	Negative
No change	He is a student.	He is not a student.
Before the change	He is still a student.	He is not a student yet.
After the change	He is already a student.	He is not a student anymore.

French
	Affirmative	Negative
No change	Il est étudiant.	Il n’est pas étudiant.
Before the change	Il est encore étudiant.	Il n’est pas encore étudiant.
After the change	Il est déjà étudiant.	Il n’est plus étudiant.

Japanese
	Affirmative	Negative
No change	Kare wa gakusei da.	Kare wa gakusei de wa nai.
Before the change	Kare wa mada gakusei da.	Kare wa mada gakusei de wa nai.
After the change	Kare wa mō gakusei da.	Kare wa mō gakusei de wa nai.

The difference seems to be that not yet is not an antonym of yet. You can't have "Have you done it? Yet." but you can say "Have you done it? Not yet". Mglovesfun (talk) 11:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

In your example, you can see the different senses of perfect: Have you done it? — Not yet and Have you done it? — Never. A simple no cannot show the difference. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep: French and other translations have specific constructions for not yet that can't be translated as not + yet Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yet is a synonym of still, not yet is not a synonym of not still. What the translations show is that the negation is not as intuitive as we believe it to be. Keep not because of the translations but because the term is truly idiomatic. DAVilla 16:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

kept -- Liliana • 17:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] freak

Not likely to meet the usual tests of adjectivity. DCDuring TALK 18:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

As in "a freak [event]", e.g. "a freak accident"? It passes the smell test for adjectivity: I don't know about any others. If it's a noun, we're missing the sense.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Any English noun can meet that. Therefore it is not a test for adjectivity. Comparability, gradability and appearance as a predicate are sufficient to distinguish an adjective from a noun used attributively. DCDuring TALK 20:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Gradable, at least, which turns the question around: does it pass tests of nounness (as tested against adjectivity)?—msh210℠ (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

AGF: "a freak" not modifying a noun and/or "freaks" not a verb would suffice.

1907, w:Jack London, Before Adam, page 8:

And I may answer with another question. Why is a two-headed calf? And my own answer to this is that it is a freak.
1920, Onnie Warren Smith, Casting tackle and methods, page 67:

There may be good points about a freak reel, but because it is a freak it will stand little show of even a fair try-out
1938, Marian E. Baer, The wonders of water:

It is a freak that people talk about when they see it. Not everyone calls it by the right name, and few people know how it gets to be what it is. This freak is hail.

-- DCDuring TALK 23:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Great; thanks for the research. Did you mean "Comparability, gradability and appearance as a predicate are together sufficient" or "Comparability, gradability and appearance as a predicate are each sufficient"? And even if you meant the former, is there some smaller set that's also sufficient? (And on what authority?)—msh210℠ (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that meeting any one of the tests is sufficient for our purposes. I also think others agree, though the whole idea of fact-based challenges to PoS class membership doesn't seem terribly popular here. DCDuring TALK 00:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I've figured out part of the reason that it passes the small test for adjectivity: freak [event] is not stressed on the first word as (I think) [attributve noun] [noun] is usually but rather on the second as (I think) [adjective] [noun] is usually. Is that a test for nonadjectivity? If so, or if not, on what authority?—msh210℠ (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

That isn't a test I use as we don't have a corpus of pronunciations. It converts the verification process from fact-based to authority-based, IMHO. DCDuring TALK 00:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that the adj. form from this root is freakish. It was a very freakish accident. for example. Does this strengthen the argument for "freak" being simply a noun used attributively? -- ALGRIF talk 16:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If this is kept, we need to think about whether we need freak accident, too. Chuck Entz 00:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] aibítir na Gréigise

SOP, aibítir + na + Gréigise. And anyway, the usual Irish name for the Greek alphabet is aibítir Ghréagach. —An gr 17:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] January 2012

[edit] 一寸

Normally we'd delete such redirects or convert them into entries, but I don't know whether Japanese has special rules in this regard.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

No need to delete. Rather, it should be made into a complete entry. chotto is but one reading, but it should also include issun. I'll take care of it. Regards, Bendono 18:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Bendono 19:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. Striking. I note, though, that the new entry doesn't link to the entry it used to be a redirect to. Is that intentional?—msh210℠ (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That was an oversight. Fixed now. Thanks. Bendono 20:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah easy decision, 'rare' does not equal 'invalid'. But ちょっと and 一寸 don't say the same thing, and the usage note to me would be better formatted as an example sentence. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] s'apprêter & se résoudre

According to WT:AFR, these should be listed at apprêter and résoudre, right? —Internoob 23:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in fact I proposed on the talk page of WT:AFR to remove that sentence, and people opposed it. So definitely yes. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Redirect. (I might also be O.K. with keeping outright, but since Wiktionary:About French currently says to do otherwise, this is the wrong place for that discussion.) —Ruakh_TALK 15:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The entry mračit se is a Czech analogue of the French se résoudre in that it is a reflexive verb. I have entered mračit se as a reflexive form of mračit rather than a redirect. The Czech "mračit" is never used without "se", yet it is defined at mračit nonetheless. Redirect works too, I guess, instead of a form-of entry.

The discussion Mglovesfun refers to is Wiktionary_talk:About_French#Reflexive_verbs, I guess, which had two participants. The discussion links to Wiktionary:Beer_parlour_archive/2009/June#Pronominal_verbs, which had 5 participants.

IMHO what WT:AFR says is immaterial to the extent to which it is not supported by consensus.

The right place for this discussion is IHMO Beer parlour rather than Wiktionary talk:About French. --Dan Polansky 10:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The last discussion achieved nothing; but I don't object to another one, I'm just not all that optimistic about it. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I would rather keep the abbreviated form, as it is easy to imagine an English speaker not knowing that they must look up only the part after the apostrophe. However, I would generally agree to merge per Ruakh. bd2412 T 14:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd have redirected and merged the entry with the non-reflexive entry immediately upon spotting it. In the non-reflexive entry, simply write {{reflexive}} or {{reflexive|s'apprêter}} if you want to show the spelling. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 02:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have redirected them. The definition for s'apprêter was wrong anyway. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 02:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] immunoFISH

Specific software product, presumably won't meet WT:BRAND. Mentioned in a handful of books. Not on Wikipedia. Equinox ◑ 13:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

RFV it.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] sivrač

typo of svirač --BiblbroX дискашн 12:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] beschuit met muisjes

This is beschuit (“rusk”) met (“with”) muisjes (“sprinkles”). —CodeCa t 18:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 19:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] help

Interjection sense, "I/we desperately need assistance!", seems like either the noun ("assistance!") or the (imperative) verb ("assist!"). If the community agrees with that assessment, then the listed synonym (mayday) can be listed under "see also" instead and the translations moved to sub mayday or SOS if relevant (or in lemma form to sub the noun or verb, if that's what they are).—msh210℠ (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Weirdly, I don't interpret this as a noun or as a verb, but as an interjection. Don't ask me why, I don't know. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

In German, the normal cry for help is Hilfe and in Dutch hulp also occurs. This may mean that the English term is also a noun in origin, but that it has fallen together with the imperative in form. —CodeCa t 15:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

After his stroke, my father had trouble standing up, and needed assistance rising when he fell. When he shouted "help!", it sounded to me like an imperative. ~ Robin 18:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I definitely think it's the verb. You can also say "Somebody help!", which is one of the relatively rare cases in English that an imperative has an explicit subject other than "you". —Ruakh_TALK 14:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] mund', amig', agor'

These are poetical elisions. And they don't have apostrophes in the original texts, they just concatenate the following word (although they usually have in transcriptions). Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 04:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Since we have almost no Portuguese speakers here, you might have to explain a bit more, link to texts online, etc. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. These aren't actual words in Old Portuguese, they are just the words mundo, amigo, agora with the last vowel removed so the line has the correct amount of syllables. (occurrence of mund') (occurence of mundo). Notice that mund' only occurs when the next letter is a vowel, but mundo occurs anywhere.

Here is an example in the original source (E codex of w:Cantigas de Santa Maria), the 9th line of the left column here: do que o mund' á de salvar. Instead of mund' á it is written mũda.

Although poetical elisions are common in Old Portuguese texts (after all, most texts which survived are lyric poetry), if we were to include them in the Wiktionary we would need an extra entry for the elided form of every word which ends with a vowel. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 14:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for Portuguese, but poetical elisions are abundant in German, and if we included them all we'd easily have one or two poetical forms of every German word in existence. That said, delete. -- Liliana • 21:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep, as no reasons for deletion relating to CFI have been given. As regards the argument with the large number of what you call "poetical elisions" (a rare term per google books:"poetical elision"), consider the large number of obsolete spellings that Wiktionary is about to include: for "knowledge", there is cnaulage, cnoulech, knauleche, knaulege, knaulach, knaulage, knawlache, knawlage, kneuelich, kneuleche, kneuliche, knoleche, knolege, knoleige, knolych, knouelache, knouelech, knouelich, knoulecche, knoulegge, knouliche, knowlache, knowlage, knowleche, knowledg, knowlege, knowlesche, knowliche, knowlych, knowlech. --Dan Polansky 09:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

They aren't obsolete spellings; they are just terms with the last vowel removed for poetical purposes. This occurs in other languages, I've seen it at least in Esperanto and Latin. In the example given above, the writer needed the line to have 8 syllables, so instead of writing "do que o mun.do á de sal.var", he wrote "do que o mun.dá de sal.var". They aren't specific spellings like "kneuelich" or "knolych", it can be applied to any word which ends in a vowel. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 15:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I do think these should be kept by analogy with English elided forms like needin', wantin'. Attestation is a separate issue; RFV remains an option if these forms aren't actually in use. Though that could get a bit messy, as trying to get hold of the original texts with no modernization might be tricky, or very tricky. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Those are eye dialects; and their elision is phonetic not poetical. Facsimiles of the entire E and To codices of the w:Cantigas de Santa Maria are available at [18] Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 17:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] de naissance

Looks SOP to me. --81.9.132.96 12:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, it seems "since birth" rather than "of birth", I'd rather keep it. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

'de' can mean not just 'of' but also 'from', and 'from birth' is not idiomatic... —CodeCa t 17:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

To put it another way, you can't use just de + any noun, like "d'adolescence" (this exists, but does not mean "since adolescence"). I believe naissance is the only word that can be used this way. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep: the TLFi also has an entry ([19]). — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Actarus ^{(Prince d'Euphor)} 07:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep, but the definition needs to be tweaked slightly. It has two different meanings. One idiomatic and one non-idiomatic/sop. Firstly, for the idiomatic meaning, it is more like by birth. It refers to a charasteristic that has existed ever since birth (which is usually depuis la naissance, not de naissance), instead of something that's acquired later on in life. For example you can say, Je me ronge toujours les ongles depuis la naissance. — I have been biting my nails since I was born., but not Je me ronge toujours les ongles de naissance. - which doesn't really make sense. It's a habit that you pick up later on in your life, not from the word go. You can say, Elle est française de naissance. — She is a French by birth., not Elle est française depuis la naissance., as this is a fact that has existed since birth, not a later development. Secondly, we have the non-idiomatic meaning, which is of birth or from birth. Examples include cadeau de naissance (birth gift), liste de naissance (birth list or list of births) etc... I hope this has clarified it. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 02:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Creator of the World

SOP.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Creator of the World. bd2412 T 04:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete. OTOH World looks like a valid entry to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete ~ Robin 18:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete, agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 02:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Master of the Apostles

SOP.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. bd2412 T 04:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete ~ Robin 18:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 02:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] anything else

Also nominated (tagged linking to this section): everything else, something else, somebody else, someone else, no one else, everybody else.

SOP, delete all of 'em, per decision at [[#nothing else]] (presumably to be archived at [[talk:nothing else]]).—msh210℠ (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete all except something else, because (per the adjective sense in the entry) that one is really something else. bd2412 T 04:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, quite right. Sorry. Keep that one.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] disabled person

Stupidly sum of parts, also not a euphemism as the entry claims it is. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Inclined towards delete. I fail to see how this is euphemistic. It's a person who is disabled. That is all. No good or bad connotation. It's not idiomatic, as I can say disabled individual, disabled man and disabled bloke. The only reason this should be kept is this might be idiomatic/non-SoP in another language, but again, this is the case for many English SoP terms. We can't account for them all. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 02:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] gun culture

Sum of parts. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete as a bad definition. Gun culture is not "the use of guns in society", but rather a perceived acceptance and support of guns in society, and usually implies the pro-gun section of the population. It's hard to define, and might not be SoP.--Dmol 12:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Yes, a bad definition. It should be along the lines of a set of beliefs, values, etc. which concern the use of guns. It's not clear from the term what role the guns take (perhaps they are worshipped?), so I don't think it would be SOP. — Pingku^dimmi 16:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Reword the definition. I'm quite sure the term is not SoP in its proper meaning, as Dmol said too. —CodeCa t 18:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete as encyclopedic. DCDuring TALK 18:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

@ Dmol and CodeCat, compare gang culture and knife culture. Both of these use the same sense of 'culture'. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Cf. compensation culture. Equinox ◑ 18:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete. And drug culture and so on. I think they are all SoP, and any attempt at a definition would end up being encyclopedic anyway. -- ALGRIF talk 13:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I still don't know what this means. Can someone point to which definition of culture you're using to call this SoP?--Prosfilaes 01:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It's SoP with respect to the meaning of the word culture, not necessarily as we or Webster's 1913 define it. MWOnline has two relevant subsenses of their sense 5, the second being closer, I think:

b: the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life} shared by people in a place or time <popular culture> <southern culture>

d: the set of values, conventions, or social practices associated with a particular field, activity, or societal characteristic <studying the effect of computers on print culture>

HTH DCDuring TALK 01:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that we have a definition of culture to cover this, merely that such a sense exists. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete, sum of parts does seem to apply here. -- Cirt (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] cross-console emulation

easily guessable from its parts -- Liliana • 06:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, ergo delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

SOP. Do we include things like cross-console--it's SOP, but it's at least arguably one word.--Prosfilaes 22:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I would suppose not, because the hyphen indicates a word break, so anyone can look up cross-. Equinox ◑ 23:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete. DAVilla 16:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Brooklyn Bridge

I would've speedied it just like the other bridges the anonymous user created, but I feel that this particular one needs a more thorough discussion. -- Liliana • 14:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Why's that then? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Because it is part of two collocations/constructs that are idioms or nearly so: "could sell someone/try to sell someone/buy the Brooklyn Bridge" and "to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge". The Bridge being unsellable, the member of the first set refer to someone who is persuasive, untrustworthy, or gullible respectively. The second expression is commonly used in expressions like "If all your friends jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you jump too?". DCDuring TALK 23:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

In the UK we (or where I come from we do) say "if X told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it?" Mglovesfun (talk) 10:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

We have London Bridge. Either we keep both or we delete both. What is the reason for keeping them? (I hope there is one :-/ ) -- ALGRIF talk 13:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That one was created by the very same user, if you haven't noticed. -- Liliana • 05:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't have solution for 'names of specific entities'. It would seem very reasonable to keep entries such as France and Germany, totally unreasonable to keep the names of the specific shops in my area of Leeds, but stuff like notable landmarks like Big Ben, World Trade Center falls in the middle of this. I have no solution better than the current one, RFD anything dubious and have it go purely on voting, which comes down to who bothers to vote and what mood they're in. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The only solution is to make a clear difference between names and words/terms belonging to the vocabulary of the language. Excelsior Hotel, Third Avenue or Winston Churchill are names, but are never considered as words belonging to the vocabulary of the English language, while town names (such as London (Londres in French) or New York are considered as words of the language. Lmaltier 09:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's wrong to say "... are considered part of the language", but really you (and others) consider it part of the language. Also you could argue that some single words aren't part of a given language; product and company names for example, or names of films and books like Ghost (1980s film). Mglovesfun (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is another example, names of films or books are names, but are not considered by anybody as belonging to the vocabulary of the language (except, maybe, when they are single words existing only as this name?). Lmaltier 10:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

And some editors agree that something belongs to the vocabulary of the language, but want to delete it nonetheless (see below crankcase emission control system). This is a good discussion we should have. Lmaltier 10:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Various quotations:

Hockney's bridge, like the Brooklyn Bridge of culture, is fashioned from myriad juxtaposed images, each somehow in conflict yet also in accord with the others.
Galata Bridge, to the left, is the Brooklyn Bridge of Constantinople and, to the visitor, also is a veritable museum of peoples and costumes.
he was going to detail a special detachment to guard Kasr el Nil, the Brooklyn Bridge of Egypt, which crosses the Nile from Cairo to the residential suburb of Gazireh.

It's part of the language. Keep. DAVilla 16:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep, simply a great analysis here by DAVilla (talk • contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] buyback

Sense: The compulsory purchase by the government of most semi-automatic weapons following the introduction of new anti-gun legislation in 1996. — A specific example of the primary sense. — Pingku^dimmi 11:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

~~Strong delete~~. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Strong keep. The primary source is - The repurchase of something previously sold, especially of stock by the company that issued it -. Nothing in this definition applies to "the buyback". It applied to all newly banned weapons, and was a purchase by the government who were not the original sellers. It also applied to guns that had not been sold but may have been obtained generations before.--Dmol 09:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Any specific "buyback" or type thereof would have some kind of specific scope. Would each type need its own sense line? One can find "asset buyback", "real estate buyback", "aircraft buyback", "marine fisheries buyback" (another US government program), "matroid buyback program". Any of these could be referred to without the qualifiers in an appropriate context. I don't see anything particularly entryworthy about this specific one. DCDuring TALK 02:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

At the very least, it's a bad definition. google books:gun buyback makes it clear that there's many gun buybacks besides "the government" (presumably the US government) in 1996.--Prosfilaes 01:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It was not the IS government, it was the Australian government, as evidence by the Austtralian tag at the start of the defintion. But no-one has addressed the point that it is specific to this one historical event, and is not a buy back in the same sense of the primary sense. The Australian government did not sell the weapons in the first place, therefore they can't buy them back. As for the other entries, I am not familiar with them, but perhaps they can have their own entry.--Dmol 07:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I did address the point that it was not specific to this one historical event; [20] shows that the US cities of St. Louis and Seattle had "gun buybacks". I won't say that it should be merged into the main sense--I'm sort of neutral on that--but using it for one particular buyback is too specific.--Prosfilaes 07:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Should be modified then, removing the {{Australia}} tag along the way. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. User:Dmol's argument suggests that at least one sense of buyback should make it clear that "back" does not necessarily mean "back" to a previous seller, but rather in the opposite direction from the usual flow of the item in question. I believe that back#Adverb (“to or from a previous condition”) covers the sense at the lexical component level. DCDuring TALK 19:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we need a new definition, something along the lines of: A government purchase scheme intended to achieve a specific goal such as habitat protection or a reduction in firearm numbers.

This would cover the disputed sense, plus any other similar situations.--Dmol 23:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep per arguments above, but perhaps with a rewrite. Equinox ◑ 23:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The definition offered would include any simple purchase of, say, land by the government for, say, a park or a road or a pollution-control plant. Of course, it would exclude anything that was non-governmental.

There is no reason for the definition to be so particularistic. It is particularly pernicious that the original definition - not found in other dictionaries - was created without citations. The proposed definition similarly does not have the benefit of a citations-based reality check. Clearly, the existing definition is unsupported and unsupportable.

Whether a new definition could be found and supported is a separate matter, not part of this RfD. Similarly, whether a particularistic definition should not be subsumed under a more general one is also not properly part of this RfD. DCDuring TALK 01:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like you should RFV it. Equinox ◑ 01:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps when this is closed. DCDuring TALK 01:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete I agree with DCDuring. This is the same sense as sense 1; this first definition should be rewritten to include this case more clearly, but this is not another sense. Lmaltier 21:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] crankcase emission control system

Should be deleted as SoP. See: discussion for karteri õhutussüsteem above. --Hekaheka 09:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

keep, because it belongs to the vocabulary of the English language. But a real definition should be added. Lmaltier 21:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete; at the least, it's a crankcase emission control system, and probably even a crankcase emission control system. Very SoP.--Prosfilaes 23:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete on same grounds. Lots of things belong to the vocabulary of the English language that should not be in dictionaries. I've given examples before. Equinox ◑ 23:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Not in ordinary dictionaries, for space reason. But in a dictionary aiming to be complete, yes. Lmaltier 07:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe it's for space reasons but because professional dictionary compilers are also aware about sums of parts being pointless to include. Equinox ◑ 16:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It's in some dictionaries, see http://translation.babylon.com/english/to-arabic/Crankcase_emission_control_system/ Nobody can guess that this thing is called this way, this is why I consider that this is a technical term of the English language (and I understand that you agree). Imagine a technical writer or a translator who does not know this term, but needs it, and tries to find the right term. A good reflex could be: let's consult the Wiktionary categories. But this can work only if the term is present. Lmaltier 17:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Strong delete. Sum of parts. No proper definition. Useless. SemperBlotto 17:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Useless? Clearly, you're not in the situation I describe above. With a proper definition and appropriate categories, it would be useful. Lmaltier 18:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Should karteri õhutussüsteem be un-deleted then? --Hekaheka 18:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. If it's a technical term belonging to the vocabulary of the language, yes, I think so. Again, categories deserve much more attention. The added value of the Wiktionary would be invaluable. Lmaltier 19:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there any attestable phrase that is not part of the vocabulary of a language in your view? Is being a phrase even a requirement or are non-constituents OK, too? DCDuring TALK 22:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't you see the difference between a set phrase and something such as blue bicycle or his bicycle? The only difference between this technical term and a technical term such as brake is that is includes spaces. Lmaltier

Delete entry which apparently can escape being SoP only by being encyclopedically wrong. DCDuring TALK 22:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

deleted. -- Liliana • 16:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] quite a bit

Actually quite + a bit, note that of the onelook hits, only one is for quite a bit, the others are for quite or bit, which list quite a bit under these headings. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

keep. This seems obvious. Many dictionaries include it, it belongs to the vocabulary of English. And it does not mean quite + a bit. Lmaltier 21:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

How many dictionaries? Name some, please. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Most dictionaries have no separate entries for phrases, but include definitions nonetheless. This is not a criterion. Here are some examples of definitions for this phrase:

the link you provide yourself
http://www.englishclub.com/ref/esl/Idioms/Q/quite_a_bit_of_quite_a_lot_of_222.htm
http://www.proz.com/kudoz/english_to_french/surveying/886534-some_quite_a_bit_a_lot_a_great_deal.html
http://www.yourdictionary.com/quite-a-bit
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/quite
http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild/quite%20a%20bit
and my Concise Oxford Dictionary does not include quite a bit but includes quite a few, which is exactly the same case.

Lmaltier 09:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That's sort of what I meant to say, only online dictionaries have it, no printed dictionaries have it. And anyone can create an online dictionary, it's (quite obviously) totally unregulated. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Paper dictionaries too are unregulated. Anybody can create a paper dictionary. But my point was that many dictionary authors(and the creator of this Wiktionary page too) found it useful to include this phrase (or quite a few). This shows that they consider it useful. And I agree with them. Do you think that you know better than all these authors ? Lmaltier 12:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Chambers has quite a few (but not quite a bit or quite a lot). Equinox ◑ 18:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... quite a bit, quite a few, quite a lot... There is some kind of pattern with these, even though "quite" appears to be specifying a larger amount rather than (as is usual, e.g. "quite a bad film") a smaller one. Equinox ◑ 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Quite. DAVilla 15:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep, strongly agree with analysis by Lmaltier (talk • contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] solar energetic particles

They are solar energetic particles. SemperBlotto 17:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

keep. This belongs to the vocabulary of English. The existence of the acronym SEP is an evidence. Wikipedia provides a definition. Lmaltier 22:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Could this possibly be an argument similar to WT:COALMINE? —CodeCa t 22:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

No. We have acronyms for all sorts of crap that should never be included. -- Liliana • 22:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that singular solar energetic particle is missing. --Hekaheka 04:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Weak keep. May be a technical term, but energetic solar particles is also prevalent in Google Books. There's a stronger case for solar energetic particle events which is more common in that order and seems more idiomatic anyway. DAVilla 16:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep, agree with assessment of DAVilla (talk • contribs) regarding Google Books analysis. -- Cirt (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] drive away

Both senses are the verb drive followed immediately by the preposition away. Doesn't function as a single unit. Other prepositions can be used; drive into; drive towards; drive up; drive down; drive across etc. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The first sense yes, the second one I'm not so sure about. -- Liliana • 16:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the second sense, "to force someone to leave". I know the sense "to cause someone to leave", which is probably what's meant, and that's SOP. The first is certainly SOP. Delete (or bring the second to RFV and delete the first).—msh210℠ (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Some lemmings say keep. McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Idioms and Phrasal Verbs has both senses. A few other dictionaries have one or both of these. See drive away at OneLook Dictionary Search. DCDuring TALK 18:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Believe it or not, we don't seem to have a sense at drive to cover #2, the closest seems to be "To herd (animals) in a particular direction." If you generalize this to include things that aren't animals (though I suppose, a human is an animal) and change the word 'herd' which chiefly refers to animals, it should be ok. I think this sense of drive that we lack is usually used with 'away' when referring to people. However, [books.google.co.uk/books?id=Hce8_tXv63EC&pg=PA104&dq="drove+him+into+a+corner"&hl=en&sa=X&ei=H9smT7OoK5SQ8gOHw7XABw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q="drove him into a corner"&f=false this citation] "Eventually, Sullivan drove him into a corner and knocked him down." referring to boxing uses 'into' instead of 'away', so it can refer to humans without the preposition away being used. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep both senses outside CFI as phrasal verbs and translation targets. The tentative translation target criterion that I am using: "The term has to be useful for translation into at least three languages and the three translated terms (i) must be single-word ones and (ii) they must not be closed compounds." DCDuring's consideration of lemmings is also of interest. --Dan Polansky 12:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, it is rather questionable that "away" is a preposition; it can be a preposition only with the non-traditional part-of-speech model that allows prepositions without complements. In any case, "drive away" seems rather disanalogous to "drive into", "drive towards", and "drive across". --Dan Polansky 12:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

A similar entry is go away, although it has some fairly clearly idiomatic senses. --Dan Polansky 12:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep both senses, as per Dan Polansky. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 00:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems we all agree this doesn't meet CFI, apart from Liliana who isn't sure. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per msh210; one sense is SOP and the other is apparently an error for something that's SOP. - -sche (discuss) 21:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep of course. It is a phrasal verb. To my mind in both the definitions. The first might be &lit if you insist, but the second is a good example of a typical phrasal verb. I've added a usex where the word away is clearly a separable particle, and not a preposition. If you are not clear about this, then I recommend that you look at the category we have recently set up; Category:English phrasal verbs with particle (away) to see more examples. -- ALGRIF talk 10:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

One possible argument is that if we keep these definitions, there are more SoP definition we can add, for example a golf might drive away from an obstacle. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see how finding SoP definitions like that can in any way make drive away a non- phrasal verb. You might as well say that if we allow look after the baby, we might as well include look after you leap and anything else that comes to mind, and use that to argue for deletion. If in golf, you drive away from something, then away is a proposition. But if somebody drives you away from the golf course, then you would immediately recognise the two phrasal possibilities:- (i) in a car or (ii) as in "And don't come back, or I'll call the police!" You would not assume (iii) "-with a nº 6 iron". (or would you??) -- ALGRIF talk 13:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The first sense is literal, but the second means more than compelling someone to do something; that something is to leave. Even if it were sum-of-parts, this is not a primary sense of the word drive and not obvious in meaning. Strong keep. DAVilla 15:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

All of the meanings seem linguistically possible, though some are much more likely in specific contexts.

As I hear it, the particle away adds the notion of successful completion of the activity of driving. It seems to me to be like the meaning added by up in clean up (base meaning) and away in run away. I'm not sure that we have this function defined for either word. There may be other adverbs that have a similar meaning or function, like through or over. IMHO, whether or not the particles can be deemed to have such meanings, there may be sufficient semantic difference between verb + particle and the meanings of the components so that the phrasal verb merits. But, IMHO, there probably are cases in which the potential phrasal verb is more economically considered SoP. DCDuring TALK 17:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. And I'd say "drive to" and "drive down" also merit entries. ("You drove him to insanity" is metaphorical, since drive is usually a physical action. "It was the night they drove old Dixie down" would seem to mean something similar to "crushed" or "suppressed") —Quintucket 17:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi DCD. Well, yes. Particles in phrasal verb constructions are considered to contribute as much (if not more) to the full meaning of the verb, as the verb half itself. Hence we can find that away forms phrasal verbs with meanings commonly of - but not limited to - elimination (throw away, chuck away, take away), distancing (run away, slip away, break away), and action without control (blaze away, fire away, fritter away). Drive away seems to be mainly about distancing. -- ALGRIF talk 18:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

re: Algrif: I hadn't thought about the out-of-control sense. It would be a worthwhile project to document the meanings of these adverbs or particles.

In this case, though the lexicographers at some other dictionaries seem to think there is idiomaticity, I don't yet see it.

re: Quiontucket: Drive, as many verbs, has metaphorical meanings with which metaphorical meanings of away would associate.

DCDuring TALK 18:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per Mg's original comment. Both senses are drive + away. Equinox ◑ 23:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete; not phrasal or idiomatic. The second sense, which appears to be of concern, can be expressed also as "drive out" or "drive off". There is nothign special about the prepositional/adverbial element in the combination. --EncycloPetey 22:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] !!

Rfd-sense: dramatization of the ! punctuation.

Really? Not just ! + ! for added emphasis? You can say that something is very very hard, this doesn't warrant an entry on very very though. -- Liliana • 17:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yet we tend to include SOP meanings of terms that also have idiomatic meanings.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep per msh210, but rewrite. (And [[!]] should mention that this sort of usage is possible. Note that people don't use .. as a sort of emphatic period, nor ,,, nor ;;. Offhand, in fact, the only other punctuation mark that I can think of that seems to be emphasized by duplication is ?.) —Ruakh_TALK 17:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Same as Ruakh. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Same as Ruakh and Mglovesfun. :-) —msh210℠ (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

~~:If anything, redirect to [[!]] with the usage note there per Ruakh. DCDuring TALK 18:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)~~

We have idiomatic senses of !!, so no can do AFAICT.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] троюродный правнук

translation of RFD-failed entry -- Liliana • 04:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The English term may be rare, but the Russian term isn’t. Also, it is not a translation of an RFD-failed entry, it is an independent entry that predated the English entry by three years. The English term is almost unheard of, but the Russian term is part of a symmetrical system, and the English meaning of the Russian term is very difficult to get unless you find a translation entry such as the one we have here. —Stephen ^(Talk) 09:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 10:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] February 2012

[edit] sexually suggestive

Mean sexually + suggestive. Poor definitions though that in itself is not a reason to delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Strong keep It is a notable word with over 6 million google search results. Pass a Method 11:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

But it's not a word; John Smith gets 23 million hits, almost four times more than sexually suggestive. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete SOP. —This unsigned comment was added by Robin Lionheart (talk • contribs) 20:13, 3 February 2012‎.
Deleted (no vote needed) SemperBlotto 08:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete, for the record. DAVilla 15:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] your guys's

This entry apparently failed RFD years ago, with Visviva commenting in the deletion log on 20 September 2007 that "RFD appears to have wide agreement for deletion; recent vote on possessives also seems prejudicial". I can't find the RFD discussion. The talk page has an RFV discussion (an archive which shouldn't have been deleted, but was!). I'd like to know why the entry was deleted... it's cited and idiomatic. I dispute that the vote on possessives is relevant, because this isn't just the addition of an apostrophe, s or combination thereof, it's also the change of "you" into "your". (posted here because RFD is the appropriate forum for debating deletions and undeletions) - -sche (discuss) 19:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ per Wiktionary:AEN#Criteria for inclusion. It used to be in WT:CFI but was removed because it was deemed that issues only relating to English (or any other single language) should not be in WT:CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That passage doesn't apply, though. It says to delete possessive forms "which are otherwise not idiomatic". "Your guys's" is idiomatic when used to mean "your". It would be unidiomatic if I told a football coach "your guys's uniforms are dirty" (meaning, "the uniforms of your players are dirty"), but when I tell a husband and wife "your guys's house is lovely", it's idiomatic. - -sche (discuss) 19:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. I was going to say much the same thing, but we had an edit conflict, and with the example of the coach, you said what I wanted to say, only better. --Quintucket 19:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep as recreator. First of all, I'd like to thank you for bringing this to RFD this time, and for undeleting the old revisions. I note that every deletion except the first appeared to be on administrator discretion. Any rate, as you noted, it's cited and attested. I'd also like to note that this is a possessive pronoun, rather than a possessive noun, and I assume that the discussion on possessives (could you link it?) only applies to nouns, given that we have entries for your, yours, and every other (standard) possessive pronoun, including one's, which is formed in the same way as nouns, and not irregularly, as you noted, is the case here. --Quintucket 19:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

@-sche yes it does come down to idiomaticity and attestation. I've certainly never heard of it; only of "you guys'" or "you guys's", so I'd welcome unambiguous citations, which would probably mean citations with lots of context around them. As for idiomatic, I'm not sure. I neither accept your claim nor reject it. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by citations with a lot of context? It's colloquial, which means most of the usages I can find are either a. prescriptivists railing against hearing it used, or b. casual usage on low-brow sites like Yahoo Answers, YouTube, and Sodahead. --Quintucket 20:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Strong keep. —Ruakh_TALK 21:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I have added one more discussion from the archives to Talk:your guys's. --Dan Polansky 11:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

@Quintucket enough context so that the meaning is clear, other than that, WT:CFI#Attestation. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Mglovesfun, can I ask why you keep posting below the post after the one you're responding to? Any rate, a Google search provides attestation, per 1 & 3:

Widespread use, more than half a million hits in the Google search. On the first page we have examples from Yahoo! Answers, YouTube, Sodahead, City-data.com.
A definition at Urban Dictionary and another one at UMBC.
We also have a bunch of prescriptivist complaints about usage in various language-y blogs that fairly clearly demonstrate usage.
Most of these are from the past year, demonstrating a recency effect, however the UMBC example is from 2005, and a result from 2009 is first on the second page.

The latter two in particular seem to demonstrate it's a possesive form of you guys. (Several of these note that "you guys's" is another form, though it's far less attested with 47 k results. I may still create page for that if/when this one defeats deletion.) —Quintucket 17:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Strong keep, descriptive vs. prescriptive, idiomatic and all that. DAVilla 15:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

@Quintucket I see it's now cited, ergo I abstain. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep per nom: it's not SOP, is attested, and the vote on possessive's doesn't seem to apply.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete It is SoP in dialect speech, equivalent to "you guy's", "you guys", "your guys'", or "your guys", the last three being more or less standard informal, the informality a consequence of guy. Consider "those guys's", "these guys's", both of which would be attestable. I also don't understand why you guys is any more entry-worthy than you men, you workers, you fellars. All of the forms with forms of guy should probably simply be redirect to the corresponding form of guy, appropriately defined. DCDuring TALK 12:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, the specific cites could use correction or replacement. Context, ie, a url, is particularly important for determining what the standard equivalent definition is. The 2000 cite does not have a link that works for me. The 2005 cite is not "durably archived". The quote didn't show up for the 2006 cite and I couldn't refind it by searching for the passage. DCDuring TALK 12:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep, great use of cites at this entry! -- Cirt (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] first grade

twelfth grade · eleventh grade · tenth grade · ninth grade · eighth grade · seventh grade · sixth grade · fifth grade · fourth grade · third grade · second grade

The US/Canada difference is already noted in the example sentences of grade, which makes all these sum of parts. -- Liliana • 22:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably delete but put something in the usage notes at grade. I doubt we will keep this up to date with changing education systems, so link to the relevant topic on Wikipedia. Equinox ◑ 22:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep all. (and we need to get rid of the US and Canada tags, it's more wide-spread than that). The terminology used to describe class levels varies widely throughout the world and also changes over time. Several other terms get used as synonyms, such as scholarship, junior, senior, leaving, inter, prep, O-levels etc. On top of that, I use the example of Ireland, where "first year" is not the first year of a child's education. There are too many variations to rely on usage notes as we would run the risk of becoming encyclopaedic.--Dmol 23:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

first year might be idiomatic in Ireland, but we are not talking about that entry. first grade means first + grade anywhere on the world, from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, and presumably on Moon and Mars too once these planets are colonized and an education system is created there. -- Liliana • 12:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep all: Can be defined as follows, "the year between X and X, when a child is generally Y-Z years of age". Not SoP, and should be kept even if it was Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 23:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

If they can all be defined mathematically then they apparently are sums of parts. If we're going to have these I suppose we should also have the British first year, second year, etc., but it seems silly to me. Equinox ◑ 23:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep all and recreate first year, second year, etc. (Those uses seem idiomatic.) —Quintucket 09:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Administrative note. I've now tagged the entries nominated above, linking to this section of RFD.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to [[grade]] or delete. This is pure SOP, the first grade, the second grade, etc. Our entry for grade should have a usage note indicating that [whatever]th grade is often used without the and perhaps a usage note indicating what age [whstever]th grade refers to and synonyms therefor, but the entries are useless.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. One can also be in the top year or final year of school. Equinox ◑ 18:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete; grade already makes its usage clear. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 20:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. --Hekaheka 00:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete, and make sure we have adequate usage notes (which apparently, we already do). Trying to define every individual institution's definition of grade is not the way to go here. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The variations don't seem to be based on individual institutions, but rather on regions, and to a lesser extent, generational changes. These are definite specific meetings that vary locally and over time. We need the basic entries to hang the synonyms on. Nothing in the usage notes for grade covers this. Just to elaborate on the example I used earlier, the order from youngest to highest for Ireland is junior infants, senior infants, first class, second class etc - none of which can be deduced from its parts. (I think the UK is similar) Again, all should be kept if only for the variations that occur. --Dmol 12:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Either keep [[first grade]], etc., or greatly improve [[grade]] and redirect there, or perhaps create an appendix and redirect to it. But right now, the relevant sense at [[grade]] is not nearly sufficient to help someone figure out what "eighth grade" means. For example:

it rather implies that fifth grade lasts for multiple years (which is not the case, no matter how much it may have felt that way);
it doesn't make clear that e.g. "third grade" has approximately the same meaning nationwide (so that a phrase like "he has only a third-grade education" makes sense; as opposed to, say, each school having its own definitions of grade-levels);
it doesn't indicate that kindergarten doesn't count;
it refers to primary and secondary schools as "pre-collegiate education", as though people who don't plan to go to college go to schools that aren't divided into "grades".

(Actually, that stuff probably needs to be improved even if we don't redirect [[first grade]], etc., but redirecting them would make it all the more important.)

—Ruakh_TALK 17:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This smells encyclopedic. Are we going to start include school year systems from all countries in the world? (Form 1, Form 2 - British system, Year 1, Year 2 - Australia/NZ system)?? Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 21:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

In which case, greatly improve grade. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Why are we complicating something that is really quite simple. It won't require "school year systems from all countries in the world", just the English speaking places. That alone cuts it down dramatically. All we need is to keep the above entries, and add the synonyms for each level. There won't be more than a dozen or so for each entry, and as I have discussed already, they won't all be as simple as one to twelve.--Dmol 11:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn't make it non-SoP. --Hekaheka 15:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That may be the case, but there's a few things to consider about the SoP argument.

Eg, the meaning of grade is not immediately and exclusively obvious.
Not all places use grade, and the words year, form, class, etc are use.
Not all places use 1 - 12 ordinal numbers, eg, some restart the numbers at high school, others start counting after two or three years of early education.--Dmol 08:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC).

Delete all entries of the form 'ordinal' + grade, replace with redirects, and improve sense of grade. DCDuring TALK 16:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact that grade is broadly interchangeable with year, form, class, etc. makes it seem all the more SoPpy to me. Equinox ◑ 15:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

But that's not even remotely true. If we're all allowed to make up facts, we'll be here all day! —Ruakh_TALK 16:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

They are interchangeable conceptually and cross-culturally. "What grade are you in?" = "What year are you in?" even if the specific values vary wildly by locality. Equinox ◑ 16:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Weak keep [[first grade]] etc or greatly improve [[grade]] etc, per Ruakh. These can be made SOP, but only if we expand [[grade]], [[year]] (to the extent that they become, arguably, borderline encyclopedic). "One of the sequential, numbered, one-year long levels of education through which pupils pass after kindergarten and before any further education, beginning (with first grade / grade one) around age 6 or 7"? - -sche (discuss) 01:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] showcase

"The final round on the TV game show The Price is Right." This is incorrectly capitalised; it is Showcase (apparently). But in any case (uh, no pun) I don't believe we should have this. Compare the Gold Run in TV's Blockbusters, or the Conundrum (anagram) round in Countdown, or even the stage called Green Hill Zone in the video game Sonic the Hedgehog. These are not generic terms, just particular stages or phases in various specific commercial game products. Equinox ◑ 01:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, though I think something similar that was governmental or NGO-derived should also be deleted. Delete. DCDuring TALK 01:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Maybe WT:CFI#Fictional universes could be expanded to ban such definitions. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 03:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. That sense only, of course. —Quintucket 11:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per DCD.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] حسن كامل الصباح

This is a fine entry for an encyclopedia, but it doesn't belong in a dictionary

deleted, fails Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-12/Names of individuals -- Liliana • 07:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Siddhartha Gautama

Name of an individual, isn't it? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Delete. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 12:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right, deleted. -- Liliana • 17:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] excise tax

Don't we already have the sense at excise? Wikipedia defines "excise" and "excise tax" as the same thing. ---> Tooironic 15:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no evidence, but a sneaking suspicion that this is a dialectal difference, with Americans now using excise tax and others (Brits now? Brits formerly? Americans formerly? someone) using excise alone. Evidence for or against that suspicion shouldn't be too hard to find.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I support msh's suspicion. Excise without tax is not very common in the US. DCDuring TALK 19:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. excise is the abbreviation of excise tax. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 01:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep as well. I don't ever say excise to mean excise tax. Never heard of the former being used to refer to the latter either. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 21:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep: per Atitarev Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 20:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep, essentially per Jamesjiao (talk • contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Tcheco

In Portuguese language names and nationalities aren't capitalised. See Wiktionary:About Portuguese. The correct term is tcheco. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 14:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is any doubt here. I will speedydelete Tcheco, Tchecos, Tcheca and Tchecas, and correct the translation entries at Czech. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 21:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I also would have speedily deleted these. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] ectomycorrhizal fungi

Sum of parts. (and should be singular) SemperBlotto 19:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. (of fungi) is written clearly at ectomycorrhizal. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 20:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I will go ahead an speedydelete this and the one below as the author seems to be in two minds about it. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 21:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi

As above. SemperBlotto 19:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Depends on whether every mycorrhizal fungus with arbuscles is an arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus. (If kept, the plural/singular problem should be dealt with anyway) Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 20:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This is effectively another name for the glomeromycetes (Division Glomeromycota). --EncycloPetey 16:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Names of individuals from the w:Romance of the Three Kingdoms

A-cai (talk • contribs) is a huge fan of this novel (so am I). As a result, he's created entries for the names of various generals over the years in this dictionary. According to this vote, such entries should not exist. Here are some examples 虞翻, 王朗, 严舆, 嚴白虎, 孙权, 陈横 and 于糜, just to name a few. I suggest deletion of all the entries that satisfy this criteria. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 21:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we need a consensus here, such a consensus was achieved in the vote. However it should be 'this criterion' not 'this criteria' but I've even seen policitians make this mistake on the news, so hey. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Strong delete. Move it to Wikipedia. There is nothing to say about these terms definition-wise. Equinox ◑ 23:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this should be debated, but I'll put some preliminary thoughts here, since my entries were the ones that were singled out. As some of you may know, I have been working on a bi-lingual translation of Romance of the Three Kingdoms for Wikisource. I hyperlink each word or phrase (including names) to a Wiktionary entry, so that a student of the language can know how the sentences should be broken up. Proper nouns are not always easy to spot in the text. Here's an example from the title of Chapter 14: 孫伯符大戰嚴白虎. My feeling is that it is helpful to students of the language to point out that 孫伯符 and 嚴白虎 are proper names in this sentence, and not necessarily the most common versions of these names at that. For example, 孫伯符 is more popularly known as 孫策. The fact that each of these entries has an entry on Wikipedia is not a good argument in my mind. Most nouns have Wikipedia articles. This very subject has been debated in the past, and the decision was to keep proper nouns, provided that they appear in a significant literary work. (The debate took place several years ago. I don't remember the exact date). -- A-cai 20:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about trying to find this old discussion you speak of, Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-12/Names of individuals supersede's it in any case. Like I say, there really is nothing to debate here. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If there's nothing to debate, then why are we debating? -- A-cai 20:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

To allow you to replace the links on the Wikisource page so they don't turn dead. -- Liliana • 20:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, that's fair. I'll do all the work, and all of you can vote on whether you like it or not. Thanks for your support. -- A-cai 20:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No because Jamesjiao started a debate on this, in my opinion to cover his back in case someone disagrees with him. But I'd rather he just have deleted them outright. FWIW in reply to A-Cai for readers who don't read the Latin alphabet George Washington and Adam Smith might be 'useful' but surely that's not a reason to include them. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If I understood you correctly, you just said that usefulness is not a valid reason for including something. That doesn't make any sense to me. If a word is useful, and if it doesn't hurt anything, why would you want to delete it? What's happened to Wiktionary? -- A-cai 21:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You really haven't understood me correctly. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you like to clarify your position? -- A-cai 21:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

On the one hand the vote mentioned above would disallow some of these names in the Main namespace; this does not mean that they could not appear in the Appendix namespace, particularly as some of the individuals appear to be characters in the novel with possibly no historical person atached to them. However, not all of the names are disallowed by the aforementioned vote. For example, 嚴白虎 is not disallowed, as it includes no given name nor diminutive; rather, it includes a descriptive nickname and family name. The vote did not consider this possibility, and thus does not disallow it. --EncycloPetey 22:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand your argument, A-Cai. However, I see this as an opportunity to actually improve the Wikipedia articles, rather than dumping the names in a dictionary. The fact that they are not easy to spot in a text is not a valid reason why the names should be included in a dictionary. If they can't be spotted in the first place, how would a dictionary be of any help here? Besides, we are talking about a subset of proper nouns, not just proper nouns in general. These are names of individuals, some real, some ficitional, that exist in a work of literature. The name of an individual, with no meanings other than being, well, a name, is explicitly excluded from being included in this dictionary per vote. That being said, another reason I brought this discussion to your attention, is that, in the event that the decision of deleting these names does go through, this serves as a reminder to you not to create any further entries that fit this criterion (thanks MG). Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 22:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Your summary of what the vote does and does not allow is incorrect. The vote only concerned itself with names of real individuals in the form of a given name (or diminutive) in combination with a family name or surname. Names of fictional characters are covered under a different rule. Names not in the described form were not considered in the vote. Names that are simply names are actually allowed and encouraged as entries; there is no vote that disallows them. --EncycloPetey 00:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait, now I'm even more confused. EncyloPetey's description made it sound as though the ones I've included from the novel are allowed after all. His description makes it sound like a continuation of the policy decision that I remember from several years ago. That's why I've felt free to add hundreds of names from the novel ever since I began working on the translation back in 2007. Check out Romance of the Three Kingdoms/Chapter 1 to see how I've been doing it so far. -- A-cai 02:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

EP, read the whole CFI. It says terms about fictional people are subject to the fictional universes rule, and what does that say? "Terms originating in fictional universes which have three citations in separate works, but which do not have three citations which are independent of reference to that universe may be included only in appendices of words from that universe, and not in the main dictionary space." -- Liliana • 02:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Many if not most of the generals in this novel were actually real generals during the late Han dynasty. It makes no sense to keep some and delete others. I support the idea of a bilingual appendix dedicated to the names of the generals with links to their respective Wikipedia articles in both languages, as suggested by BD below. In all honesty, I am a fan of this novel and I also like to see the novel being represented more in Wikimedia as a whole. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 01:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Move the lot to Appendix space - let's not lose the work done here. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] appear online

How is that anything other than sum of parts? -- Liliana • 00:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. "Just as she appeared online, my cousin appeared outside, so I had to go and talk to him." Compare (and Google) "come online", "go offline", "get online", "pop up online"... Furthermore, the definition is wrong. To "appear online" is not to configure one's status, but to appear — one could appear online due to a bug, despite having configured one's client as invisible/hidden. Equinox ◑ 00:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 00:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. DCDuring TALK 04:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete, and appear offline. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete appears to be an issue of sum of parts here, and not particularly unique in nature. -- Cirt (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I've now tagged [[appear offline]] with {{rfd}} linking to this section.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete both.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] blinkenlights

Rfd-redundant: (computing, slang) The front-panel lights on old computers; status lights on a modem, router, network hub, and so forth.

Merge into (computing, slang) The flashing lights on an electronic device that typically serve no useful purpose. , and perhaps fix up the definition a bit. -- Liliana • 00:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I would consider dropping "that typically serve no useful purpose". Even though this is a humorous term, it is quite rare for any device to have lights that do not serve a useful purpose, even if it is not obvious to non-experts. Then merge. Equinox ◑ 00:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is no implication of "no useful purpose" in the term. That's just an interpretation by people who don't know the purpose. Support curtail & merge as per Equinox. Dbfirs 11:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes just get on with it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] gummi bears

Vandalism. Metaknowledge 05:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Deleted ~ Robin 05:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

For the record, has been recreated with correct content. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the current content looks just fine. -- Cirt (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Accessdescription Compressed and Extensible

Zero Google hits for the phrase (in quotes). SemperBlotto 08:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It's another User:Sae1962 anomaly, I don't think we should be too cautious about deleting these; I think we should be cautious about keeping them. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] American Dialect Society

Name of an organization, not a word or an idiom in a language. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete all through #Royal Navy. DCDuring TALK 12:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete all through #Royal Navy as per DCDuring. I am against having entries for specific organisations that are not generic terms for anything (like Amtrak, which is under discussion, and Greenpeace, which oddly passed). Equinox ◑ 12:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

We could convert the ones listed below to level 3 headers. I elected not to nominate any of the single word ones, as they would be less likely to get deleted per WT:CFI line 1. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete all though #Royal Navy. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 15:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep, see for example Dictionary.com, but I'll of course take this as a good learning opportunity and defer to community consensus here. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that CIA is included in dictionaries because it is an abbreviation. Central Intelligence Agency is rather unlikely to be a dictionary headword, or to be defined beyond the expansion of the abbreviation. Equinox ◑ 15:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the education about all this! I've added the entry above, to ADS. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete Listing every word in every language is a lofty enough task, without also trying to list every corporation and organization on earth too (or even just ones with abbreviations). I'm not sure where we should draw the line, but I'm pretty sure American Dialect Society isn't on the right side of it. Sorry you put so much work into a doomed entry, Cirt. ~ Robin 21:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, no worries, it's been a good educational experience for me! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

@Cirt and Equinox, that's why I haven't nominated FBI and CIA. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, quite right, thanks for pointing that out! :) -- Cirt (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

@Robin: We do not need to forbid groups of terms only because there are many of them, and because we want to redirect human resources to other groups of words. Geographic names are numerous, yet most of attestable ones are likely to be included, judging from Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Placenames with linguistic information 2 and Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-02/Remove_"Place_names"_section_of_WT:CFI. --Dan Polansky 08:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep all. We have no criteria for keeping or deleting names of organizations, and I would expect at least some of these to appear in a dictionary. --EncycloPetey 22:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. I vote for keep all, not because I am certain all need to be kept, but rather because no-one has presented anything like plausible justification of deletion. The justification "Name of an organization, not a word or an idiom in a language" is plain wrong to me, as single-word names of organizations are words ("Greenpeace"), just like single-word geographic names ("London"). Furthermore, most of the names are present in at least two dictionaries in OneLook. As regards CFI, it is silent on whether these names should be included. Moreover, the way in which "Ku Klux Klan" was made part of this summary RFD suggests to me that neither the nominator nor many of the supporters of deletion have considered these terms on their lexicographical merit. --Dan Polansky 08:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

For ease of reference: American Dialect Society at OneLook Dictionary Search, Central Intelligence Agency at OneLook Dictionary Search, Federal Bureau of Investigation at OneLook Dictionary Search, Ku Klux Klan at OneLook Dictionary Search, Marine Corps at OneLook Dictionary Search, National Police Agency at OneLook Dictionary Search, Red Crescent at OneLook Dictionary Search, Red Cross at OneLook Dictionary Search, Royal Navy at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky 08:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete all except Ku Klux Klan, about which I'm not sure (leaning toward "keep") because of what bd2412 says, below. We're not a directory of organizations.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Central Intelligence Agency

Name of an organization, not a word or an idiom in a language. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. bd2412 T 21:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Federal Bureau of Investigation

Name of an organization, not a word or an idiom in a language. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. bd2412 T 21:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Ku Klux Klan

Name of an organization, not a word or an idiom in a language. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep this one, as the term is coined as a whole. It is clearly not SOP, two of the parts having no individual meaning (and the third being at best a bastardization of a regular word). bd2412 T 21:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep as a set phrase, not idiomatic.--Dmol 03:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep: this term has non-compositional (non-sum-of-parts) pronunciation: the user of the dictionary cannot derive the pronunciation of the term from the pronunciation provided at the entries for the component word-like parts "Ku", "Klux" and "Klan", unless we create entries for "Ku" and "Klux". So basically per BD2412. For lemmings AKA other dictionaries, see Ku Klux Klan at OneLook Dictionary Search, in which AHD, Collins, Macmillan, Online Etymology Dictionary, and MWO have an entry. --Dan Polansky 08:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Marine Corps

Name of an organization, not a word or an idiom in a language. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep, idiomatic because the "corps" in this case is the entire branch of a nation's military, rather than a sub-unit as with an Army corps. bd2412 T 21:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] National Police Agency

Name of an organization, not a word or an idiom in a language. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. bd2412 T 21:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Red Crescent

Name of an organization, not a word or an idiom in a language. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep, unintuitive non-SOP. bd2412 T 21:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep per bd2412. --Dmol 03:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Red Cross

Name of an organization, not a word or an idiom in a language. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep, unintuitive non-SOP. bd2412 T 21:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep per bd2412. --Dmol 03:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Navy

Name of an organization, not a word or an idiom in a language. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep, it specifically means the UK navy when used in English. It's not obvious which Royal is being referred to. (Not withstanding the fact that our entry for Royal doesn't have a suitable entry for the British royal family. I'll add it.)--Dmol 03:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] passer la main sur

Sum of parts? (run + the hand + over) SemperBlotto 14:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

p.s. I believe that passer par les mains has a figurative use.

Delete per nom. You can also "passer la main par", "passer les bras sur", "faire passer sa chemise par-dessus", etc., etc., etc. —Ruakh_TALK 03:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Deleted SemperBlotto 08:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I would've said delete as well. No such entry in the French wikt. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 01:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] big cat

Simply a large feline. --EncycloPetey 16:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

But almost exclusively refers to lions, tigers, etc. rather than domestic cats. Compare big dog, which would (nearly?) always refer to a large domestic dog and not, say, a wolf or something related. Equinox ◑ 16:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've changed "animal" to "wild animal" in the definition. Keep SemperBlotto 16:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it your contention that a tame lion is not a "big cat"? --EncycloPetey 06:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep, a big cat is not just any cat that is big, it refers to a particular grouping of feline species. —CodeCa t 16:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not in the definition I've nominated. The nominated definition is: "Any large feline wild animal". If there is a sense worth keeping, then add it, but please do not vote to "keep" a definition based on something that isn't present in the entry. --EncycloPetey 22:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep, but I think it needs a better definition. Is anyone here familiar with the subject? Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 16:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep, dunno what else to say. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete big (“of great size; large (sense 1)”) + cat (“Any similar [to the domestic cat] animal of the family Felidae, which includes lions, tigers, etc. (sense 2)”). That is, the lynx and similar cats larger than domestic cats are not included because they are not "big" members of the class of cats. DCDuring TALK 19:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Lynxes are sometimes considered big cats. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 19:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

All the more indication that big is operating in its normal role and that the combined phrase is SoP. DCDuring TALK 19:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep The comic character Garfield's a big cat, but not a big cat. ~ Robin 01:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

So, your argument is that the definition is wrong somehow and should thus be kept? I don't follow your reasoning. Why should we keep an incorrect definition? --EncycloPetey 05:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep, unless you have an SOP explanation for its use in such phrases as "the larger of the big cats". —Ruakh_TALK 01:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The definition is: "Any large feline wild animal", and that's SoP to me. If you can explain why "any large feline" is not SoP, please do so. OR do you think that the phrase "largest of the big companies" means we need an entry for big company? --EncycloPetey 04:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: first two sentences: I'm not commenting on the definition itself, but on the sense that the definition is attempting to capture. Re: last sentence: I certainly don't have a better explanation for "the third largest of the big companies". I find that cite bizarre. Perhaps it makes more sense in context, but Snippet View unfortunately doesn't afford us that context. —Ruakh_TALK 21:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. I tried to improve the definition. I think that an imperfect definition is not a valid reason for deleting a page (or we would have to delete most pages). Lmaltier 21:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry? You voted to "keep" the nominated definition, but then changed that definition to say something entirely different. Which is it? Did you want to keep the "large feline" definition or not? If you do want to put in another definition, you'll probably need to leave in the original, as most people have been voting to "keep" it. --EncycloPetey 21:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

We certainly can't improve the definition if we delete it. Keep with the best definition possible. It's quite common for definitions to be modified, you know. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice if we were voting on just a definition, but the question before us is whether to delete the whole entry. The only reason to delete the whole entry would be if it were impossible to make it fit the CFI. Demonstrating that it's redeemable is IMO a legitimate way to respond to an RfD Chuck Entz 22:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, present definition is worse than the previous one "member of a species belonging to a group of ... species" Ugh! SemperBlotto 22:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep Why delete it if we can fix it? Chuck Entz 22:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

We need to look at great ape to see what would be a CFI version of big cat Chuck Entz 22:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment I have reverted the changes to the definition. The RFDed definition:

Any large feline animal, such as the lion, tiger etc.

Reverted definitions:

Any large feline wild animal, such as the lion, tiger etc. (SemperBlotto)
Member of a species belonging to a group of large wild feline species, such as the lions, tigers, etc. (LMaltier)

I think the strange thing about "big cat" is that "big" selects on the species level, which Lmaltier was trying to capture in his def. Thus, in "big cat", "big" does not ask about the individual animal whether it is big but rather about its species whether it is big among the species of cats. --Dan Polansky 22:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

What also comes to mind is that "big cat" may often or always be used to refer to species rather than individuals, as in "The jaguar is a big cat", where the referent of "the jaguar" is a species. By the way, there is W:Big cat. --Dan Polansky 22:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep, agree with analysis provided by admin Robin Lionheart (talk • contribs), above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Kept. DAVilla 21:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] seder#Portuguese

Misspelling of homophone ceder (synonym and cognate of English cede). Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 22:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] alvine evacuations

SOP? alvine + evacuations? Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 23:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes seems like it; alvine gives the example "alvine discharges" suggesting that there's nothing special about "alvine evacuations" as a combination. Of course evacuation(s) should cover this. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur with your observation. On top of that, there is no reason why the lemma entry should be in plural. I don't see anything wrong with saying every alvine evacuation. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 01:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

And it's handily attested in the singular/mass, too.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] a dime's worth

As we have implemented no useful way of presenting constructions such as this and have not implemented any standards for a phrasebook, this SoP term should be deleted. Consider "second's worth of consideration" a "teaspoon's worth of trust". DCDuring TALK 17:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. This is idiomatic; it is not the worth of a dime, literally speaking. For frequencies, see google:"a dime's worth", google:"second's worth of consideration", google:"teaspoon's worth of trust". I suspect google books:"teaspoon's worth of trust" is not even attestable. --Dan Polansky 17:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This should, however, be moved to dime's worth I suppose. -- Liliana • 17:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Moved, keep. DAVilla 21:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

@DanP. By your apparent line of reasoning, the combination of a base sense of a term with a figurative sense of another term, no matter how broad the use of the figurative sense, yields an idiom. To me this term seems the essence of a mere collocation. DCDuring TALK 22:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep, I'm going to have to agree with Dan Polansky (talk • contribs) here, the frequency is quite obvious in this case. -- Cirt (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] student cohort

Another one. Got rejected on Wikipedia. Now the same user has decided to dump it on Wiktionary. It's SoP to me. The statistical definition of a cohort varies from place to place. A student cohort doesn't have to be based on students in the same year, but can also be based on other factors like the professional path they take. Big delete from me. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 02:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. DCDuring TALK 03:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. The reference given doesn't even use the term. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 03:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Deleted on sight - sum of parts, bad definition. SemperBlotto 08:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] experimental group

Sum of parts? SemperBlotto 10:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Definition looks like it was taken from a textbook, but without the context required to explain "the independent variable". More typical wording would include the word treatment.

Some OneLook references have this term, some medical dictionaries and RH. Many more have the contrasting term control group. Does the pairing of this with the more nearly idiomatic term make any difference to the voting public here? DCDuring TALK 13:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] destruction permit

One sense: (Australian) A government license to kill or remove fauna that would otherwise be protected.
Sum of parts? In usage it seems either qualified (e.g. pest destruction permit) or used in a general sense - though I don't actually see many usages. — Pingku^dimmi 14:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The first time I saw this term I thought it referred to building destruction. Keep, although perhaps it might be a case for RFV. -- Liliana • 14:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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 \| 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 for policy problems; request listings, questions and discussions.	Requests for deletion/Others add new \| history Requests for deletion for pages not in the main namespace, such as categories, appendices and templates.	Requests for moves, mergers and splits add new \| history Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.
{{rfc-case}} - {{rfc-cjkv}} - {{rfc-trans}} - {{rfdate}} - {{rfd-redundant}} - {{rfdef}} - {{rfe}} - {{rfex}} - {{rfap}} - {{rfp}} - {{rfphoto}} - {{context needed}}

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion

Contents

[edit] December 2010

[edit] Peabody

[edit] January 2011

[edit] M and M boys

[edit] drill in

[edit] beat

[edit] February 2011

[edit] sotto voce

[edit] social ecology theory

[edit] rainbow

[edit] -ium

[edit] countable noun

[edit] uncountable noun

[edit] March 2011

[edit] abarbeiten

[edit] sideways

[edit] April 2011

[edit] queen of hearts

[edit] Queen of Hearts

[edit] quadriga

[edit] May 2011

[edit] fuck me

[edit] neuro-associative physiology

[edit] pseudounipolar neuron

[edit] squaring the circle

[edit] organic matter

[edit] June 2011

[edit] fairy-tale hair

[edit] ranching

[edit] 善意第三人

[edit] limiting adjective

[edit] big fat

[edit] -fier

[edit] have a funny feeling

[edit] happener

[edit] anejo

[edit] anti

[edit] midwinter

[edit] drunk as a cunt

[edit] last sixteen

[edit] clucking

[edit] July 2011

[edit] Gramophone

[edit] MiniDisc

[edit] plywood saw

[edit] Finnish-Canadian, Swedish-Canadian, Danish-Canadian, among others

[edit] superstar

[edit] make it

[edit] ℩

[edit] de

[edit] first innings

[edit] second innings

[edit] third innings

[edit] fourth innings

[edit] up the middle

[edit] 1.0

[edit] 2.0

[edit] 3.0

[edit] fire storm

[edit] pass stool

[edit] Fantasyland

[edit] loaded

[edit] gegründet

[edit] nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine

[edit] experiential advertising

[edit] how one rolls

[edit] leave everything on the road

[edit] gristle

[edit] Udupi district

[edit] drab

[edit] public library

[edit] August 2011

[edit] shot on goal

[edit] county

[edit] bang on

[edit] bang on#Preposition

[edit] bang on#Adjective

[edit] 梗塞する