Wiktionary:Requests for deletion

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

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for deletion

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

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

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

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

Requests for deletion
add new | history | archives

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

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

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

Scope of this request page:

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



See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oldest tagged RFDs


March 2014[edit]

biological clock[edit]

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

This is more of an RFV matter then, isn't it? --WikiTiki89 04:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
That there is some sense or subsense relating specifically to childbearing cannot be doubted. It is the definition that is inadequate. Try substituting it in the citation sentences: Take Linda, a thirty-nine-year-old newscaster who relished her career but began to hear the alarm ringing on her biological clock. It is not so long ago that this was a live metaphor. A possible definition might be "A figurative clock that indicates the decline in a female's ability to bear children." Some such definition should be readily citable, perhaps even under "widespread use". DCDuring TALK 17:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
My original thought was that this would be covered with sense #1, but as there is only one cycle involved in the childbearing as opposed to e.g. sleep or metabolism, this could probably be a sense of its own. On the other hand, the female-fertility point of view may be too narrow, as I've seen texts of men's biological clocks. Perhaps something along these lines: "The internal mechanisms regulating the development and ageing of the body of a living thing during its lifetime, used especially to refer to the limited duration of a woman's fertile age." --Hekaheka (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I think references to men's biological clocks are also references to fertility, specifically to things like the quality of one's sperm degrading to the point that it is more likely that a child conceived of that sperm will have genetic problems. Perhaps it's "One's life cycle and tendency to age, seen as a clock that ticks particularly towards a time when one cannot bear healthy children."? (Nah, that's not a good wording.) - -sche (discuss) 19:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I've hardly ever heard biological clock refer to men. Purplebackpack89 22:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
One of Funny About Love's taglines was "Everyone has a biological clock. Duffy Bergman's is about to go off." Nothing about the DVD cover implies that it was supposed to be shocking or unusual because of his gender.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, maybe reword: The wording might be a little off, but the concept is correct, different from other senses, and passes CFI. Purplebackpack89 22:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I dislike the wording (women can bear children during a progression? Why the word progression?) but it's an RFV issue surely. I think we do need a second sense of this to cover non-scientific usage (for me it would be the first sense because more common) but this isn't it! Renard Migrant (talk) 10:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
google books:"man's|male biological clock" gets 135 hits. Purplebackpack89 when you say this passes CFI, are you confident it exists? I'm not. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not the guy who said male biological clock exists. Actually, quite the opposite, if you read my first comment on this RfD. My second comment, the one about CFI, is in regards to the sense up for deletion, which doesn't have anything to do with men. Purplebackpack89 13:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Kept. No consensus.--Jusjih (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


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

Is this not a matter for RFV? Keφr 07:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I don’t think so. But move it there if you want to, I don’t care. — Ungoliant (falai) 08:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Any supporting evidence? --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Some data: Google Books Pt aniôn: 15 hits; Google Books Pt ânion: 2,470 hits; Google books hit ratio: 164. Since the absolute numbers leading to the ratio are rather low, it is hard to judge. Furthermore, some of these allegged 15 hits are clear scannos. This spelling may even be hard to attest. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. May be restored with attestation later.--Jusjih (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]


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

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

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


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

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

May 2014[edit]


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

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

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


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

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


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

I agree that this does not seem to be an instance of metonymy that merits a sense. Further I don't think a general metonymic sense should be included for every number, letter, color, etc in every language. OTOH. I wish I had something other than my intuition to rely on to discriminate inclusion-worthy metonymy from exclusion-worthy metonymy. DCDuring TALK 16:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I would rephrase and fix the definition to have a broader noun sense (derived from the numeral - "by extension") but keep. No other sense seems to cover this. I didn't give it a lot of thought, though. Thinking fivesome - piątka, pięcioro? In Russian too, when someone says - сади́сь на едини́цу (sadísʹ na jedinícu), not sure if it's obvious to a learner that they mean "take number one (tram, bus, etc.)". --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 07:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
How about a usage note? Keφr 07:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the best way is to keep the sense "number one" (expanded). It may cover some other cases, not transportation. I have also added this sense to едини́ца (jediníca), pls take a look. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep the sense 'a tram or bus no. "1"' of a Polish entry, but probably make it broader; no other sense currently in the entry does the job. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Tweenk broadened the sense to "something assigned the number one". I am still not convinced it deserves a sense, though. Keφr 12:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Czech jednička is directly analogous to this, for which Czech dictionaries have the sense "věc označená číslem 1" (thing labeled by number 1). A similar sense is in Polish dictionaries at PWN: "to, co jest oznaczone cyfrą 1". I agree with these lexicographers, since a thing labeled by number 1 is not a digit or number, and thus cannot be subsumed by the leading sense; it cannot be subsumed by the other senses either. The current def "something assigned the number one, e.g. bus line, tram line, candidate on a ballot" looks okay to me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I think this sense should be included in some form. First, the metonymical sense is restricted to the numeral noun form (rzeczownik odliczebnikowy in Polish): jedynka, dwójka, trójka, etc., and does not extend to other forms of numerals - this information is important. Second, numeral noun metonymy is very widespread in everyday Polish. For example this news article is titled "Ofiara na krajowej dwójce", which literally means "Victim on national two". This is rather meaningless unless the reader realizes that this actually means "Victim on national road number two". --Tweenk (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Any updates? Decisions? I've got a bunch of Russian cognates to decide on. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


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

We don't do Sanskrit romanised forms. If you want to find a term using this transliteration - 1. paste/type it in the search window and linger to see suggestions, 2. select containing mahā from the bottom and click enter/double-click. A Search results page will appear 3. "Search in namespaces:" check "None" first, then check (Main). This will shorten your search to the main namespace and click "Search". again. महत् appears the 4th in the results. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that sort of advice is going to reach the average reader, who is more likely to either type maha into the window, or to type/paste in mahā and hit enter, which will take them to maha. I'm not sure why we wouldn't "do" this unusually well attested romanization. If someone sees this word in English text, they should be able to find it defined here. bd2412 T 02:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
(E/C)I was just giving you a technical advice how to reach the entry currently, since searching in Wiktionary and search results keep changing. There's no policy on romanised Sanskrit, AFAIK, even if romanisations are attested, they are not in the native script. E.g. ghar is an attestable transliteration of Hindi घर but we only have घर (there's Irish but no Hindi), yeoksa is an attestable transliteration of Korean 역사 but we only have 역사. I'm just stating the fact, so if mahā is created, any admin may delete it on sight. The policies can be created and changed, though. There are romanisations for some languages with complex scripts. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
We could add matching transliterations to the {{also}} templates. As for whether this entry should be restored, WT:About Sanskrit#Transliterated entries bans transliteration entries, so I oppose unless the Sanskrit editing community decides to change that. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
The use of {{also}}, as now at maha, seems like a decent idea that respects our prejudices and yet offers the more persistent users at least a way of finding native script entries that provide a useful definition for the transliteration they may have come across, the Wiktionary definition for which they may not find by direct search. DCDuring TALK 03:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I personally have no objections to redirects. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
A redirect from mahā to महा would be fine with me, so long as there are no other meanings of mahā. bd2412 T 12:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I think we should reconsider permitting Latin-alphabet entries for Sanskrit, even if all they say is "Romanization of महा". We already allow Latin-alphabet entries for Pali, Gothic, and some other ancient languages that are usually encountered in Romanization in modern editions. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Is it used as a word in any language? Renard Migrant (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
According to Google Books, it appears in about 150,000 books. bd2412 T 22:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
If it's used as an English word or any other language, it may get an English or other entry. For romanised Sanskrit, I'm afraid it's a policy question, you'll have to start a separate discussion or a vote. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Alternative form of maha (four) in Tahitian. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I would like to see a discussion or policy that says that romanizations of Sanskrit are disallowed. Until then, I consider the above statement "We don't do Sanskrit romanised forms" unsubstantiated. In fact, Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-08/Romanization of languages in ancient scripts resulted in 7:4 for the proposal that "If an ancient, no longer living language was written in a script that is now no longer used or widely understood, and it was not represented in another script that still is used or widely understood, then romanizations of its words will be allowed entries." (I wrote 7:4 rather than 8:4, since Ruakh only supported for Gothic.). A subsequent vote Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-09/Romanization of languages in ancient scripts 2 unanimously expressly allowed romanizations for Etruscan, Gothic, Lydian, Oscan, and Phoenician.
I found Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2013/August#Sanskrit_in_Latin_script?. There, couple of people support allowing Sanskrit romanizations, including Ivan Štambuk (apparently), Angr, Dan Polansky (me), and Eiríkr Útlendi, where Ivan reported User:Dbachmann to support including Sanskrit romanizations as well; opposition seems to include Liliana; Chuck Entz is unclear. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't know much about Sanskrit, but I do know that there are tens of thousands of books that use the mahā (in that script) to signify a specific word with a specific meaning. I'm not about to suggest that we incorporate the whole transliterated Sanskrit corpus, but it seems absurd to refuse to have a definition for a word used as widely as this one. bd2412 T 15:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I think we should continue to have a consistent (uniform) policy towards romanized Sanskrit. At the moment, that policy is to exclude it. I wouldn't mind reversing that policy and allowing romanized Sanskrit to be entered similarly to romanized Gothic or pinyin Chinese, and the preceding comments suggest that enough other people feel the same way that we should probably have a vote.
Allowing some romanized of Sanskrit words and not others according to some arbitrary threshold such as "n Wiktionary users think this word is important" or "[we think] this word is used in x books (where x is some very high number, like 10 000)" does not strike me as a workable state of affairs. Google Books' raw book counts are unreliable, as are its attempts to restrict searching to particular languages, so although we might decide to include only romanizations used in e.g. more than 10 000 books, we have no easy way of ascertaining whether or not a romanization actually meets that threshold.
Even if we continue to exclude romanized Sanskrit, it might be possible to cite mahā as a loanword in some language, if it is really as common as has been suggested. - -sche (discuss) 17:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
What evidence supports the hypothesis that the current policy is to exclude romanized Sanskrit? Or, put differently, what makes you think and say that the policy is to exclude it? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
See WT:ASA. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Wiktionary:About Sanskrit is not a policy; it is a policy draft. Furthermore, this is not evidence; a discussion or a vote is evidence of policy. The draft says "Entries written in IAST transliterations shall not appear in the main namespace." which was added in diff. The first edit I can find to that effect is diff, before which the page said "If entries are made under the IAST orthographic transliteration, they should use the standard template {{temp|romanization of}} to reference the Devanagari entry." Since none of the diffs refer to a discussion or a vote, they are illegitimate as means of policy making. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Draft or not, excluding transliterated Sanskrit is the common practice. Start a discussion if you want to change that, or continue refusing to believe it, I don’t care. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I asked "What evidence ...". If you had no answer to that question, you did not need to answer; the question was directed to -sche anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
If you really want evidence, look for RFD archives of romanised Sanskrit entries. I’m familiar with your strategy of asking people to waste their time looking for this or that and then finding some excuse for why what they found is not valid or outright ignoring it. I’m going to act like CodeCat and not waste my time; as I said, you can continue refusing to believe it. — Ungoliant (falai) 10:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Putting aside the outcomes of previous discussions, what is the reason for not having entries for such things? We are talking about a well-attested word that readers may well look to us to define. bd2412 T 16:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the logic is that, insofar as we hold that Sanskrit is not written in the Latin script, mahā is not a Sanskrit word. Compare: insofar as Russian is not written in the Latin script, soyuz is not a Russian word. And mahā (great) and soyuz (union) have not been shown to be English words, or German/Chinese/etc words. If mahā is not a word in any language, it is both outside our stated scope ("all words in all languages") and not technically includable anyway : what L2 would it use?
In contrast, महा (mahā) is a Sanskrit word, and is included, and союз#Russian is included.
That said, we have made exceptions for some languages, e.g. Japanese and Gothic, and we have said in effect "even though this language is not natively written in the Latin script, we will allow soft-redirects from the Latin script to the native script for all the words in this language which we include." (Note this is very different from your statement of "I'm not about to suggest that we incorporate the whole transliterated Sanskrit corpus, but [... only] a word used as widely as this one.") I think one could make a strong case that we should make a Gothic-style exception for Sanskrit, since Sanskrit, like Gothic (and unlike Russian), is very often discussed/mentioned (whether or not it is used) in the Latin script. - -sche (discuss) 20:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Even if we admit that "mahā is not a Sanskrit word" (and that is rather questionable since it seems to confuse words with their writen forms), it still does not follow that we have a policy that forbids having Sanskrit romanization soft-redirect entries in the mainspace, on the model of Japanese, Chinese and other romanizations (Category:Japanese romaji, Category:Mandarin pinyin). We have had Japanese romanizations for a long time (dentaku was created on 17 August 2005‎), full will definitions or translations, since no rogue oligarch bothered or dared to eradicate them (we still have them, albeit in reduced form). Whether we have a policy could be quite important in a possible upcoming vote about Sanskrit romanization, since it is not really clear what the status quo is. Therefore, it is rather important to avoid misrepresentations (unintentional or otherwise) about there being or not being a policy. As for the amount of Sanskrit romanization in the mainspace, there may well be none, which would be a fairly good sign for there being a common practice of avoiding Sanskrit romanizations, but one has to consider that this could be a result of rogue olicharch actions. Generally speaking, I find it hard to find a reason for having Japanese and Chinese romanizations while avoiding Sanskrit romanizations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV: Re: "I’m familiar with your strategy of asking people to waste their time looking for this or that ...": Not really. You would be familiar with my strategy of asking people to source their claims, supply evidence, clarify the manner in which they use ambiguous terms or explain themselves. Since you already know this strategy (as you say), since you don't like it, and since the question was not directed at you, you should have spared yourself the trouble and avoid answering the question (about evidence for there being policy as opposed to common practice or a draft page that anyone can edit regardless of consensus) that you did not intend to really answer anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I did intend to answer. Not for your benefit, but for that of others who may otherwise be fooled by you into thinking that adding romanised Sanskrit is totally OK. — Ungoliant (falai) 13:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I still see no rationale for excluding a widely used romanization that readers are likely to come across and want defined. Some justification beyond the naked assertion of policy or the momentum of past exclusions. bd2412 T 14:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
AFAICS, adding romanised Sanskrit is totally OK; there is no discussion or vote the outcome of which is that Sanskrit romanizations shall be excluded from the mainspace. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
@BD, re "I still see no rationale": I just explained one rationale (mahā is not a word in any language).
The previous BP discussion linked-to above, and comments in this discussion by people who didn't participate in the previous discussion, suggest that a proposal to allow romanizations of all Sanskrit words would pass. I myself could support such a proposal. I suggest, for the third time, that someone make that proposal.
I do not see any indication that the proposal to allow "widely used romanization[s]" only has gained traction with anyone beyond you and possibly Dan. As you note, quite a lot of momentum is against you: AFAIK, there has never been a language for which we allowed romanizations for only some words according to some threshold of exceptional commonness. AFAIK, there has never even been an alphabetic or abugidic language for which we allowed romanizations for only some words according to the threshold of any citations at all. (If you discovered that one of our Gothic romanizations had 0 attestations at Google Books, Groups, etc, we'd still keep it as long as it was derived from an attested native-script form according to the rules of Wiktionary:Gothic transliteration.)
You could keep trying to overturn this momentum, but — especially given that the only people who still seem to be participating in this discussion are you, me, Ungoliant, and Dan, and we don't seem to be changing each others' minds — I think it would be more productive to grasp the support for allowing all romanized Sanskrit, and run with it. - -sche (discuss) 17:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
We generally decide whether any unbroken string of letters is "a word" by looking to see if it is used in print to convey a consistent meaning. We do this because the existence of the word in print is what makes it likely that a reader will come across it and want to know how it is defined, or possibly how it is pronounced, derived, or translated into other languages. There are now a half dozen citations of mahā at Citations:mahā, including several where the word is used in English running text without italicization. In some previous discussions we have used the compromise position of declaring the word to be English, but derived from the language of its original script. I think this is absurd. Is tovarich English, really? bd2412 T 18:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I have posted this at the Beer Parlour. bd2412 T 19:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes tovarich is indeed English if it's used in running English text as an English word (for which a citation is provided). Same with mahā - the word originates from Sanskrit but it's not a Sanskrit word in the context of provided citations - it's an English word now because it's used in English. --09:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep mahā as an IAST transliteration of the Sanskrit महा. (To make my stance clear to a prospective closing admin; my reasoning is above.] --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

nadgorliwość jest gorsza od faszyzmu[edit]

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

Plus they they took a concise, direct phrase and gave it a rambling, vague heap of verbiage instead of a definition. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep. There is no exceptional criterion for proverbs, and the variant nadgorliwość gorsza od faszyzmu is listed in at least one published glossary of proverbs. — Ungoliant (falai) 04:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
If it cannot be demonstrated to be a proverb, then this is simply a sum of parts sentence. The published glossary is this, right? The typesetting looks extremely cheep, so it is as "published" as any random web page, and its being "published" in this way does not matter at all. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep - this expression is quite common. It's not exactly a proverb, more like a catchphrase, so I'm not surprised it's not present in published collections of proverbs. --Tweenk (talk) 08:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

lado bom[edit]

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

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

Delete, or maybe redirect to lado. Seems straightforward. --Æ&Œ (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

tvær vikur[edit]

Nominating jointly with...

fjórtán dagar[edit]

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

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

wyjść po angielsku[edit]

wyjście po angielsku[edit]

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

Delete both. Since there hasn't been any objections, can the entries can be deleted? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I have no problems with redirects. "Wyjść po angielsku" <> "French leave" but = "to take a French leave", where the idiomatic part is "po angielsku" with various verb combinations, with "wyjść" being the most common one. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep This phrase has the idiomatic meaning only when combined with a verb / noun that has a sense similar to "leave, exit, go away". I think the proper solution here is redirects or Template:alternative form of, like for the many variants of the proverb "one swallow does not a summer make". --Tweenk (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

canine distemper virus[edit]

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

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

gakko and gakkou[edit]

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

metaphorical extension[edit]

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

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

fat as a cow[edit]

fat as a pig[edit]

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

You could replace them with just about any other animal but these two are by far infinitely more common, almost set phrases. No one ever says you're as fat as a rhinoceros...a whale ( when water or the beach is in context) yes, and cow and pig. Leasnam (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Undecided for the moment but there are other, very similar expressions with comparisons, which probably passed RFD or RFV. Is it an RFV case, rather than RFD? I think there is a limited number of animals/things you compare a fat person with. Slavs (at least some Slavic languages) use pigs (male or female varieties) but commonly barrels, e.g. Russian: "толстый как бочка", Polish: "gruby jak beczka". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Here are a few from a 1917 dictionary of similes:
  • Fat as a bacon-pig at Martlemas. — Anon.
  • Fat as brawn. — Ibid.
  • Fat as a sheep's tail. — Ibid.
  • A red bag, fat with your unpaid bills, like a landing net. — Dion Boucicault.
  • Fat as Mother Nab. — Samuel Butler.
  • Fat as a whale. — Chaucer.
  • Fat as a barn-door fowl. — Congreve.
  • Fat as seals. — Charles Hallock.
  • Fatte as a foole. — Lyly.
  • As fat as a distillery pig. — Scottish Proverb.
  • As fat as a Miller's horse. — Ibid.
  • Fat as butter. — Shakespeare.
  • Fat as tame things. — Ibid.
  • Fat and fulsome to mine ear
As howling after music. — Ibid.
  • Fat as grease. — Old Testament.
Some would quite likely be from well-known works and therefore would thereby pass RfV without regard to whether they were otherwise common. DCDuring TALK 03:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
So, what's your vote on this? Having a variety of similes is not a reason to discard them. Some of the above would be includable, IMO. They are quite useful for language learners, especially the common ones but I'll wait for other opinions. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Your criterion favoring "common" but not merely attestable similes has nothing to do with WT:CFI. It seems like a BP matter, possibly even a vote. There are lots of amusing similes (happy as Larry, happy as a clam at high tide, happy as a pig in shit) that are common among some groups during some periods. Some of them seem arbitrary (eg "Larry") and thereby possibly idiomatic, others seem to make a great deal of sense, ie, be transparent. But as our coverage is supposed to span a time periods for which we cannot rely on unaided intuition, I think we would need to be able to apply our standard rules of attestation and non-transparency to similes.
Thus I would be happier with happy as Larry than with fat as a pig as an entry. Cassell's Dictionary of Slang (2005) agrees with my inclusion instincts and criteria. DCDuring TALK 04:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I favour common over temporary expressions. "Happy as Larry" is not very useful for language learners, almost like an in-joke. My mother-in-law liked to say a rhyme здоро́в как Труно́в (zdoróv kak Trunóv) "healthy as Trunov" (referring to a long-time mayor of a city named Trunov who I never knew, implying he's healthy because he is a mayor, probably very corrupt, so he has money to look after himself). It was fun to say this in the family but if I said this to another Russian, they wouldn't have a clue what I'm talking about. Is [[sly as a fox]] idiomatic enough? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
fat as a pig at OneLook Dictionary Search, as fat as a pig at OneLook Dictionary Search, fat as a cow at OneLook Dictionary Search, as fat as a cow at OneLook Dictionary Search
It's just us and McGraw-Hill's Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs. I'd think we'd be doing language learners a better service if we bothered to translate the entries in Category:English phrasal verbs, but naybe they are too hard. DCDuring TALK 10:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete both, unless it is shown that they are needed solely as a translation target for an idiom that is uniquely meaningful in some other language (which I doubt). Metaphors are cheaply transparent, unless the asserted comparison does not automatically assume the characteristics of the operative adjective (e.g. fit as a fiddle). bd2412 T 12:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep similes, or at least high-frequency similes, even if transparent, since they are useful for the encoding direction ("How do I say 'very fat' using a simile?"), and for simile-to-simile translation ("How do I render 'fat as a pig' using a Spanish simile?"). As for the examples listed by DCDuring, I wonder whether they are attested in use to convey meaning; for instance, google books:"Fat as a bacon-pig at Martlemas" does not suggest as much. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as obvious SOP. I suggest common similes of this sort be listed in a usage note sub the adjective (or adverb as the case may be, in this case fat, e.g. "Common exemplars for flat, used in similes, are a board (emphasizing lack of protrusions) and a pancake (emphasizing thinness)") and/or in an appendix devoted to such similes.​—msh210 (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    What is the advantage of listing these in usage notes rather than in separate entries, which can be linked to separate translations, which will not necessarily be word-for-word translations? Per fat as a cow, Italian and Polish would be like fat as a barrel. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    I've never heard "happy as Larry" and I would vouch for "happy as a pig in mud" (but not "shit", never heard that before either). Keep. Its a set phrase comparison that has some members (like pig, though not all pigs are fat necessarkly) more transparent than others ( like whale). Comparable to "as hungry as a horse" & "as big as a house" (oh yeah? my house is tiny.) Leasnam (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
    Why are we supposed to care whether any individual has not heard of a given expression? DCDuring TALK 05:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
You don't. And did I don't see where anyone has asked anyone to. Its an indicator of how common a word or phrase is Leasnam (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete per all (Dan Polansky). Renard Migrant (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 15:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll express my frustration at these successful attempts to remove valid lexicographical content. Before the deletion of fat as a pig, we told our readers how to say this in multiple languages using a simile; now this is gone. A real substantive rationale for this deletion is absent; the only rationale that I see is reduction to rules. People keep on repeating "sum of parts" as if this were a monolingual dictionary. I find the above DCDuring's list of mostly unattested similes particularly disingenuous and objectionable; not only are most of these items unattested but the argument they are used for contradicts WT:CFI#Attestation vs. the slippery slope; as for "Some would quite likely be from well-known works", we now have WT:CFI without the well-known work criterion, via Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-03/CFI: Removing usage in a well-known work 3. Also, the nomination is blatantly wrong ("... just by taking any exceptionally large object"); try google:"fat as a mammoth" or google:"fat as a Jupiter". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Restore and keep fat as a pig. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg
Input needed: This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
  • I have restored fat as a pig as requested, for further discussion; additional participation would be helpful at this point. bd2412 T 13:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete fat as a pig. We already define pig as a corpulent person, so this is redundant. Might be an O.K. redirection, though. --Æ&Œ (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
The existence of "pig" as a fat person does not suffice for the conclusion that people actually say "fat as a pig"; lardo means a fat person, but people do not say "fat as a lardo", as per google:"fat as a lardo". Furthermore, you have conventiently disregarded the added-value argument: the entry hosts multiple translations to other languages that cannot be obtained by word-for-word translations, e.g. Polish "gruby jak beczka". --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
‘Lardo’ seems uncommon to begin with. Google Books reveals many false positives. Many words like 当兵 have definitions that are clearly sum‐of‐parts, but we don’t need to create entries for those particular definitions. Though I will admit that you made me somewhat less certain for the time being. —Æ&Œ (talk) 08:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

arfer dda[edit]

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

August 2014[edit]


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

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

Delete. --WikiTiki89 22:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Even if we allowed use of the contested character, it's an abbreviation, not an alternative spelling, and the cited use has no space in it. Considering the prevalence of conventions such as having part of a word in smaller characters above the line and underlined, though, I think it would be a bad idea to even try representing scribal shorthand. This particular variation has a Unicode look-alike, but most won't. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Pace the nominator, Liliana, the exclusionary principle that applies to ſ, , etc. is inapplicable to ; ſ and can in every case be correctly converted to s and fi, respectively, without error. cannot be converted in the same way because sometimes it acts as a sigil for per, otherwise it may represent par, and at other times it stands for por. Therefore, the autoredirection that can be implemented for ſ, , and the like cannot be implemented for .
@Chuck Entz: This isn't just "a Unicode look-alike", it's one of Unicode's "Medievalist additions"; i.e., this is exactly the sort of thing for which was intended. The Medieval Unicode Font Initiative works to sort out which characters mean what, and where their proposals are accepted by the Unicode Consortium, I believe we should use these characters where appropriate. I'm not suggesting that we try to copy every nuance of scribal shorthand, but where certain conventions are sufficiently clear and widespread that they have been granted codepoints, I think it's safe for us to represent that aspect of scribal abbreviation.
Keep as creator. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Keep ꝑ I.S.M.E.T.A. (How clever of me.) --Æ&Œ (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg
Input needed: This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!


I created this entry then realized it is probably SOP so thus added RFD to the entry and banner years. Yes, I should have checked out banner#Adjective first. If we do delete, I think it might be worth having a redirect for banner year to banner#Adjective. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


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

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

epula, epulam, epulorum[edit]

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

If they're back-formations, then they exist! Is that actually an RFV issue? Read the introduction of WT:RFV. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The Snow Queen[edit]

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

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

go to work[edit]

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

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


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

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

mackinaw jacket[edit]

Also mackinaw coat. A jacket (coat) made from mackinaw. Entry content is encyclopaedic. Compare "denim jacket", "woollen jumper", etc. Equinox 19:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete, about as straightforward as it gets. Renard Migrant (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete both per nom. bd2412 T 02:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 17:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

  • An example of geographic/institutional bias, IMO. I just don't care enough to fight the trend. DCDuring TALK 18:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    • You could have commented in the discussion earlier. It has been open for three weeks, and no one said anything after the first week had passed. We had three editors favoring deletion and none offering any defense. It seemed apparent that no one cared to keep this. bd2412 T 18:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I chose not to. One vote would not have mattered. This way the bias is more clearly displayed. DCDuring TALK 19:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

rediculous (usage note)[edit]

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

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

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

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


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

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

September 2014[edit]


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

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

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

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

후사를 부탁하다, 달라고 부탁하다‎ and others[edit]

Sum of parts. Wyang (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

They seem idiomatic and Lemming principle may be applicable. E.g. 후사를 부탁하다. Weak keep for now. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
But you can say 후사를 맡기다, etc. We should explain them in 후사. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm struggling a bit to understand the change in the meaning in both phrases. Besides, I think Lemming is a good principle. Even if 후사를 맡기다 were easy to understand from its parts, it's included in a reputable dictionary. The other phrase 달라고 부탁하다‎ is only included as a translation from English, though: 부탁하다%E2%80%8E 달라고 부탁하다‎ @Naver. I have added a usage note in 후사, just listing all translations from 후사를 부탁하다, in case it gets deleted. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Also: 간곡히 부탁하다, 노래부르다, 아침을먹다, 사람이군다. Wyang (talk) 01:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd say keep for 노래부르다, 아침을먹다, 사람이군다. They are solid words (no space), even if with predictable meanings.
Admittedly, verbs can be attached to nouns without a space and can also be written separately, can be broken up, e.g. 인터넷하다 (inteonethada) (I was going to create it) can be spelled as 인터넷하다 (inteoneseul hada) or 인터넷 하다 (inteonet hada). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
hada verbs/adjectives are different from these. The individual parts in these titles can be replaced with lots of others, eg. 밥을먹다 (incorrect spacing too), 녀석이군다, 남편이군다, 이름부르다, 값부르다. Wyang (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
To make it easier to process RFD's, maybe Wiktionary:Idioms_that_survived_RFD#Lemming_test should be applied for the correctly spelled verbs, even if there are variants with other basic verbs or spacing (only for those that have the same spelling and spacing in dictionaries, such as Naver od Daum)? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I moved 사람이군다 to 군요. For the rest, it should be noted that spaces are really commonly omitted in Korean. Especially 아침을먹다 should be speedy deleted because it contains the particle and therefore it cannot be a single word. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm changing my vote to only keep entries, for which there is an entry in Naver dictionary. So, still keep for 후사를 부탁하다 (did "aftermath" change its meaning?), 간곡히 부탁하다 and 노래부르다. The verb 노래부르다 ("to sing a song") seems similar to 춤추다 ("to dance a dance"). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
husareul butakhada is a literal translation of Chinese 託付後事, which is sum of parts (same as Japanese equivalent: 後事を託する). Furthermore, there are three arguments in favour of their deletion: 1) Korean-Korean dictionaries should be consulted when deciding whether something potentially sum of parts should be included or not. I have yet to find such a K-K dictionary that includes these items. 2) Spaces are commonly omitted in Korean, non-orthographically. Both north and south orthographic rules dictate that verbs formed from (its substantative noun + the cognate verb root) are considered lemmas and are written without spaces in between. Hence 춤추다, 꿈꾸다, 숨쉬다, 잠자다, 짐지다, 셈세다, 뜸뜨다, but 노래 부르다, 이름 부르다. 3) The individual components in these words can be replaced by many other words. Apart from 간곡히 부탁하다, one can also say 간곡히 타이르다, 간곡히 말리다, 간곡히 말하다, 간곡히 빌다; apart from 후사를 부탁하다, one can also say 후사를 맡기다, 일을 부탁하다. Wyang (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
OK. You both presented good arguments and you both have good knowledge of Korean. I concede my failure and agree to the deletion. :) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, then, please strike (cross out) your "Keep" vote(s). Cheers! bd2412 T 13:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
OK. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, since from looking at 후사를 부탁하다, the sum of parts claim is incomprehensible to me: comparing the etymology "From 후사 (hosa), aftermath + (reul), object suffix + 부탁하다 (butak-hada), request" with the definitions given does not yield sum of partness. Part of the problem is that 후사를 (the 1st component of the allegged sum of parts) is now a redlink. This nomination should take care to explain the sum of parts claim, on a per entry basis. I might think that I should better not vote, since I speak no Korean, but I think the nomination should provide an explanation detailed enough to make the sum of parts claim at least plausible to those who speak no Korean, especially since there are not Koreans around to weigh in instead of non-Korean speakers. Furthermore, "and others" appearing in the heading of the nomination is not an acceptable RFD nomination, IMHO. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    Since is a particle, we don’t have an entry for 후사를. That is a basic knowledge of Korean. If you know Japanese, you can consider it to be exactly like . — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
    If 후사를 부탁하다 were kept, then the header would need to change to 후사 부탁하다. @TAKASUGI Shinji: Could you explain Polansky's other concern about the meaning of 후사를 부탁하다, how it means what it means from its parts? I don't understand it too. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Deleted per consensus among Korean editors. Wyang (talk) 09:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

There are no native Korean speakers in this discussion. And consensus is not being sought among select group of editors. You have failed to address my concerns: 후사를 부탁하다 does not look like sum of parts from its etymology, and no one has explained why it should be so considered. The discussion in this thread fails standards of transparency, clarity and rationality. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Dan, Shinji has added definitions to 후사 - "matter from now on, matter after that" and provided a usage example to 부탁하다 - 후사부탁해요 - "I’ll leave the matter to you.". I agree that some terms not on the current RFD should be considered separately, e.g. 노래부르다 "to sing/chant a song". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

of biblical proportions[edit]

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

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

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

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


Either bizarre spam, or a very poor attempt at a definition that leaves one none the wiser for having read it. Vorziblix (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedied as no usable content given. It looks like it must be an item of lab equipment. Apparently they're so used to working with them that they skipped the definition and went straight to explaining what microfractionators are used for and the considerations affecting how you use them- which belong in some kind of a manual, not in a dictionary. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Added an actual definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

sic semper tyrannis[edit]

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

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

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

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

Pokémon & related[edit]

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

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

- 14:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

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

mackinaw coat[edit]

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

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

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

Delete. I think anything to be said about this is for Wikipedia; the denim jacket, straw hat, etc. also have cultural connotations, but in terms of definition they are just a Y made of X. Equinox 23:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
That's the etymology. The coat seems to be something more specific in length, belt, cut, pockets, etc, not necessarily though usually of the metonymous cloth, which are some of the reasons why professional lexicographers have an entry for it. This reminds of the discussion of oak and oak tree, the inclusion of the latter being a good precedent for this. I being small-minded, find consistency compelling. Of course, institutional bias favors things familiar to a large portion of contributors. which this North American artifact is not. DCDuring TALK 01:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
It still seems cultural rather than lexical. The straw hat is always flat-topped and not round like a bowler (I think?!), but if somebody did produce a round hat of straw it would presumably still be a straw hat. The fact that straw hats tend to be flat-topped, and/or worn by picnickers and old-fashioned schoolboys, is not lexical. Equinox 01:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. All of the OneLook dictionaries that have an entry for "mackinaw coat" define it as synonymous with "mackinaw", so all we really need is a sense "a coat made of this material" at mackinaw and we're good. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    We could provide users with that help, too. Or we could treat [[mackinaw]] as a disambiguation page. Or we could make the various collocations redirects to a better entry at [[mackinaw]] with fuller definitions, and possibly pictures for the coat/jacket. DCDuring TALK 11:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    We don't have disambig pages here, do we? I think if I were to encounter "mackinaw coat" in my reading and wondered what it meant, the first thing I would look up in my dictionary is mackinaw, not mackinaw coat. I know what a coat is. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    Au contraire mon ami, we have many. They are quite similar to WP dab pages, except they lack the formal designation. The ones I am most familiar with are for vernacular names of living things, eg, [[rockfish]], but there are many others. DCDuring TALK 15:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Keep both, especially since they predate the use of ‘Mackinaw’ alone (not true, see below). Ƿidsiþ 10:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
In fact what should really be up for RFD is the sense of ‘Mackinaw’ as ‘heavy woollen cloth’, since as far as I know it's only ever used in compounds like this. The meaning is not ‘a coat made of Mackinaw’, but rather ‘a coat associated with the Mackinaw lake’, hence also terms like Mackinaw boat (which naturally is not made of cloth). Ƿidsiþ 10:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
You are almost certainly right for current English. The "heavy woolen cloth" definition is at least dated, but it has historical/literary interest. If "coat/jacket of mackinaw" appeared in a text, I suspect most users would not type in "mackinaw coat/jacket". DCDuring TALK 11:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
If it's true that "mackinaw coat" is older than "mackinaw" in the relevant sense, then it's keepable by WT:JIFFY. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
For the record, the definition of mackinaw jacket prior to deletion was:
# A short coat made of mackinaw cloth, a dense water-repellent wool. These jackets were popular with lumberjacks and outdoor enthusiasts throughout the colder regions of North America for much of the 18th and 19th centuries. They had at minimum two breast pockets, though four front pockets are common. Mackinaw jackets can be of any color, but the black and red plaid "lumberjack" pattern was most common. [They are warm and comfy, perfect to wear while enjoying a fresh cup of coffee on a November morning, while standing on the hand-built wooden deck outside your kitchen, overlooking the tree-lined slopes. I once knew a girl who wore a mackinaw jacket, her innocent eyes curling up into the sky like whisps of smoke.]
I may have added a few lines, but you get the picture. bd2412 T 14:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Seems like it could have used help from a contributor instead of the back of the hand. But it is not easy to write a good definition for any real object that varies around a typical configuration. The prototype for the problem is game. DCDuring TALK 15:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, correction – I made a mistake there. Per the OED, mackinaw in the sense of ‘cloth’ does, indeed, predate the sense of ‘coat’. Apologies. Nevertheless I still vote to keep the compounds. Ƿidsiþ 14:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, erring on the side of. Per DCDuring and Widsith. Collins has "mackinaw" defined as "Mackinaw coat"[9]. A key question is whether "mackinaw" is ever used alone to refer to the cloth (or to the coat?), or whether it almost always occurs in compounds; I don't know. Again, nothing very strightforward. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

cordifolia [edit]

Latin. This seems to be the wrong lemma as one can find cordifolius, cordifolium, and other non-feminine forms. DCDuring TALK 00:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, it says m, f, n so it claims to be a lemma. Of course the Translingual isn't redundant to the Latin because they're different languages (well, of course it's a bit more complicated than that). Renard Migrant (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
We have the correct lemma at [[cordifolius]]. DCDuring TALK 14:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I feel like that's either an RFV or a speedy delete issue, then! Try speedy deleting it and seeing what happens. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I would delete the Latin lemma entry and replace it with a Latin inflected form entry; I would delete unattested putative inflected forms of it such as cordifoliis. I speak no Latin, so no boldface "delete" from me. I don't see how feminine form can be the lemma of a Latin adjective. Is User:SemperBlotto of a different view? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Dan. Don't literally delete anything, just convert it to a form-of entry. (And don't forget the ablative feminine singular and the nominative/accusative neuter plural!) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: I can't speak definitively for SB, but, as I understand it, he generally favors having entries of some kind, rather than having a strong view about something being Latin or Translingual. He has sought my opinion, but at a time when I had even less definite views than now. I have come to favor having Latin entries for anything that inflects for gender like an adjective, even though my knowledge is limited to use in specific epithets, ie, almost always in the nominative.
I am trying to make sense out of specific epithets generally. If my decisions about Latin vs Translingual or about which PoS a genitive-only noun form should have, there should be ways of correcting them en masse. We haven't been able to come to agreement on these things at any stage AFAICT, certainly not while I've been here. DCDuring TALK 21:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
@Angr, Dan Polansky: As I have no evidence that some of these adjectives, putatively Latin, have been used in other than the nominative case, I do not want to add other forms at this time. I would like to add the feminine and neuter nominative only for now, preferably using the automatic Java-based gadget, which, however, doesn't seem to work from the inflection-line templates. DCDuring TALK 21:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I would convert it to a Latin inflected form entry, too. Lmaltier (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done per consensus: converted to form-of entry. DCDuring TALK 21:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

play pocket pool[edit]

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

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

sexual union[edit]

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

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

intimate parts[edit]

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

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

have an affair[edit]

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

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

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


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

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


I have found no evidence of this term's existence. It appears to be a user-created neologism. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 18:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You might be right, but that would be a question for WT:RFV.
Also SMSA means or meant Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, since 1960 officially called MSA, Metropolitan Statistical Area. DCDuring TALK 19:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
See WT:RFV#SMSA. DCDuring TALK 19:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Struck as already at WT:RFV, User:JohnC5 not familiar with Wiktionary practices and therefore does not know that SMSA will be deleted if it fails RFV. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


Delete this, entered on the basis that English previously capitalized nouns. This could even be speedied per previous practice, I think. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete as creator. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • RFD deleted; the creator agreed to deletion, and the entry was deleted by Angr on 28 September 2014. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

acute angle[edit]

This and reflex angle and obtuse angle were all deleted 4 years ago. The discussion that was had was, IMHO, somewhat weak, and perhaps a fresh discussion is needed to restore these terms. --Type56op9 (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is it not covered by sense 4 of acute? I suppose we have acute triangle, so we should be consistent. Dbfirs 18:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Restore both as set phrases: the definitions of "acute" and "obtuse" that apply to angles are not the most common definitions of acute and obtuse. Purplebackpack89 21:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Everyone apparently wanted to keep prime number (a number that is prime), and this seems entirely analogous. But my view is delete as SoP, or redirect to "acute" etc. Equinox 00:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep (restore) "acute angle" and "obtuse angle", now as before per talk:free variable: "acute" in that sense predominantly applies to angles; for the previous RFD discussion, see Talk:obtuse angle#RFD. Let me note that "acute angle" is at AHD[10], Collins[11], and Macmillan[12]. Furthermore, whether Talk:obtuse_angle#RFD was closed regularly is questionable, IMHO. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
    Keep reflex angle as well; reflex angle at OneLook Dictionary Search shows it in AHD and Macmillan. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Restore and keep. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Restore and keep per inclusion of these terms in other dictionaries. bd2412 T 00:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep (already restored?. Norwegian just entered. Donnanz (talk) 10:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I restored it because it was deleted out of process, before the discussion is over. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • 'Keep. Obviously, this term belongs to the mathematical vocabulary, it's a term of the language. Lmaltier (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 20:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

original character[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The hyphen eliminates any possible ambiguity. --Romanophile (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Then why put this entry up for deletion? This is standard practice in British English. Keep without question. There are numerous re-e words like this, too numerous to list here, but re-enter is one of them. I think the hyphen is included because each "e" has a different vowel sound. Donnanz (talk) 09:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
    I think Romanophile is suggesting that this is SoP for the reason stated. As it is the preferred spelling (over both reenter and reënter) we should keep it. I think WT:COALMINE provides another rationale for keeping it. DCDuring TALK 12:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
    We never consider single words SOP on the basis of their morphemes, even if they're always spelled with a hyphen. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I’ll just close this request then (unless Equinox chimes in). --Romanophile (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a single word and de facto we don't ask that single words be idiomatic, though WT:CFI makes no exemption for single words! Strictly speaking reenter doesn't meet CFI because the meaning is easily derived from the sum of its parts. Renard Migrant (talk) 01:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
No I'm wrong as reenter isn't an expression. CFI doesn't mention the matter at all. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


As far as I can see, all the supposed words using this prefix are just suffixed forms of regular old Muslim. Ƿidsiþ 15:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Speedied. More blatantly erroneous "Muslimcruft". Equinox 19:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

banana bandit[edit]

I'm not really sure what to say about this except that it should probably be deleted. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 21:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Speedied. Regardless of whether this term really exists, the entry had no useful content. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Pritam Muni[edit]

I cannot account for the accuracy of this page, but it should probably be moved to Wikipedia if it is accurate. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 05:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

On closer inspection (first reading), it does not appear to be fact-based and should just be removed. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 05:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Speedied. A hagiography for the purpose of promoting a specific religion. Almost as bad as spam. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


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

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

Thanks a lot!

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

The item is attested, as pointed out at WT:RFV#ವುತ್ತು (later Talk:ವುತ್ತು); in that RFV, Stephen says it is a typo of ಮತ್ತು. After the RFV, ವುತ್ತು was redirected to ಮತ್ತು, which is not our common practice for dealing with misspellings. The question is whether we want to indicate this as a misspelling using {{misspelling of}} or whether we want to delete this a rare misspelling. See also WT:CFI#Spellings, which says "Rare misspellings should be excluded while common misspellings should be included". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I've striken out the attestation claim; look at that RFV to see that three quotations attesting the term in use have not been provided yet. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
It's had a full month and it's uncited. Just delete it. Even if it were cited, how could it be a common misspelling with just three citations? Renard Migrant (talk) 11:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I don’t think typo is the right term for this. Probably scanno is more appropriate. It is not anything that a native Kannada speaker would type, accidentally or otherwise. It’s just that the letter ವು (vu) looks superficially almost identical to the letter (ma). A foreigner might make this mistake, or an optical character reader (OCR). —Stephen (Talk) 09:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


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

legal right[edit]

Discussion moved from WT:RFV#legal right.

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

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


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

access specifier[edit]

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

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

model-driven architecture[edit]

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


Tagged but not listed. I'd imagine quite simply we don't need every number of 'ha' syllables on this. With hmm we use redirects like hmmmmm redirects to it. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I could have sworn we just had a vote on how to deal with these types of entries. Per that vote, redirect to hahaha. bd2412 T 13:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
    It says "[t]he above treatment may be overriden by consensus" so I guess we still need to discuss it to check there isn't a consensus to do something else. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
    True, but absent consensus to the contrary, this should be redirected. I would also presume that it could be speedily redirected in accordance with the rule, and an editor disputing that course of action would then need to obtain consensus against it. bd2412 T 15:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
    I suppose you're right. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Do wut the vote says. Also, force WF to cite anything he creates with an edit summary of "hmmm" :) Equinox 18:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

baruhu baruh shemó[edit]

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


Tagged but not listed. I have no idea why. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks like a misspelling (and probably not a common one) of אונטערשטרײַכן (untershtraykhn). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Embryomystic does this reasonably often (that is, misspell things in languages he's not very familiar with). Renard Migrant (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Guys, le orecchie mi cornano. What does 'reasonably often' mean, if you don't mind? embryomystic (talk) 04:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Let's not make this personal. Embryo, can I go ahead and delete this? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
It was a little nudge to say 'please create less wrong entries'. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Speedied. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

come in[edit]

Tagged but not listed. 'To enter'. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd say keep, in this sense it's not merely come followed immediately by in. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
How's that? DCDuring TALK 18:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I have nothing against the inclusion of come in personally, but if we go by the rules here, I'd have to ask:
What makes "come in" any different than "go in", "get in", "sit in (as in, of a chair)" or the like? What makes it worthy of an entry separate from its parts? Tharthan (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Strong keep. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
@Tharthan: WT:CFI#Idiomaticity may cover this: "An expression is idiomatic if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components." However if come in isn't an expression then it still has to be idiomatic, just we have no guidelines for what this actually means. Basically it's just your opinion. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant: That's fair enough. I wasn't asking for deletion anyways, either. Tharthan (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Why are English compound verbs targeted again? They don't have to be idiomatic. "come in" or "go in" are common English verbs, included in most dictionaries, just like German "hereinkommen", Dutch "binnengaan", etc. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

  • For all the whining and whingeing about phrasal verbs, they are notably devoid of translation tables. There is exactly one sense that is in question, the one that is the simple combination of come#Verb and in#Adverb. You can go to town providing translations for all the other senses, although I predict that at least 8 of the next ten RfDs for phrasal verb senses the translation tables, if any, will be empty or close to it, for any sense in the entry. DCDuring TALK 23:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
What is this outburst for? I voted keep because it's an English verb, which doesn't require any proof of idiomaticity, not because of translations, which sit at "enter". Defined at Cambridge, Macmillan, Merriam-Webster and numerous other dictionaries. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Re: edit summary: "start providing translations for phrasal verbs". I do but this kind of RFD's are discouraging. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
@Atitarev: "What is this outburst for?" For: "Why are English compound verbs targeted again?" = whingeing and whining IMO.
@Atitarev: "an English verb, which doesn't require any proof of idiomaticity". The issue, if you had chosen to notice, is whether one specific sense is come#Verb + in#Adverb.
@Atitarev: "Defined at ... Merriam-Webster": MW doesn't have an "enter" sense. We have decided not to follow the lemming rule (which I had proposed) for automatic inclusion based on lemmings alone.
"Enter" cannot be assumed to be a satisfactory translation or definition as it omits the critical deictic function of expressions using go and come. The very same action can be both a "coming in" and a "going in", but the meaning is different as the first puts the audience and/or speaker in the position toward which the action is directed and the second, more weakly, puts them in the position away from which the action is directed. In contrast, for the idiomatic senses of come in the deixis inherited from come is essentially lost. I think that any entry that advances non-idiomatic expressions as idiomatic condemns learner and translator to unwittingly demonstrating their non-native status as speakers. DCDuring TALK 18:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Anatoli T., native English speakers notoriously have only a weak sense of their own language. Unless they are linguists or have a lot of practical experience with dictionaries, they usually do not know that come in is a basic English verb. They think it is just come + in. Because this is such a pervasive trait among this group, any time we get a new editor you should expect this kind of challenge to pop up over and over concerning words that they fail to recognize as words. If you do a lot of work on words such as come in, you’re setting yourself up for a lot of stress and grief. At any moment, some green editor may come along and delete all your hard work. My advice is to avoid doing any work on these more complex terms. —Stephen (Talk) 03:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Stephen. I think it's not a complex but quite a basic verb, used in any foreign language - English dictionary. The danger of RFD is actually for any compound word, so any work can be lost as a result of an RFD. I wonder where this "...We have decided not to follow the lemming rule..." is. Where's the link? P.S. I find DCDuring's post whingeing, not mine, I am just trying to protect an English term, which should be English speakers' responsibility first of all. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I am a bit more optimistic, Stephen. We have managed to keep a lot of entries that multiple editors would prefer deleted. Your boldfaced keeps, as far as available, help us doing that. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Clearly keep. Ƿidsiþ 12:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The "danger" is in failing to differentiate the idiomatic from the non-idiomatic. Just because you've got the votes and can reassure each other doesn't mean you are right.
But, more constructively, do we need entries for other comparable "phrasal verb" senses such as drive in ("enter by car"), amble in ("enter with a casual gait"), climb in ("enter into a place requiring one or more steps up")? If we do not, could someone help this poor benighted monoglot by explaining why? DCDuring TALK 12:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I personally don't have a definite answer to this at the moment but I consider "to come in" in its primary meaning "to enter" a word, additional meanings are all derived from the primary sense. That's why it's better to use the Lemming approach. Some compound verbs with "in" should be kept/created as well, even if no additional meaning is introduced. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
After your opening clause, you are just begging the question and making an unreasoned advocacy. DCDuring TALK 15:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep "come in" seems like a special case, since it behaves a bit differently from the standard verb "come" + "in". "As soon as I came in, I smelled smoke" is idiomatic and means "As soon as I entered, I smelled smoke" even if the speaker is not currently in the place where they smelled the smoke, while "As soon as I came, I smelled smoke" does not (to my ears) mean "As soon as I arrived, I smelled smoke" unless perhaps the speaker is in the place where they can smell smoke right now (or perhaps is talking about a fire in the bedroom...) since "come" normally has various weird restrictions pertaining to the locations of the speaker and the listener. Most other verbs of motion don't have these kinds of restrictions, and so we probably don't need to define them all separately. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    So, this inclusion rationale depends on the peculiarities of the deixis involved with come, but we punt on actually presenting them. We just pass the user on to enter, which has no such restrictions. We are saying in our entries that go in and come in are synonymous in the literal motion senses
BTW, out entry for go ignores the difference in deixis as well. At least the first sense of come somewhat addresses it. DCDuring TALK 12:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
You're right - our article for come is currently in bad shape. I've had a go at fixing it up a bit, although there's only so much detail one can go into about the nuances of English deixis before it gets overwhelming. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
(Although my point was more that come in is more synonymous with enter than "come + in" would be, because it seems to be less affected by deixis - at the very least, it seems to mean "to enter one's home" regardless of where one is in relation to the home. But maybe come has additional deitic nuances when talking about homes - "I hope the vandals don't come while we're abroad"?) Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
All the subtle/complex deixitic properties of go and come are inherited by the basic, spatial, literal senses of all the combinations of those verbs and adverb-particles that our entries present as phrasal verbs. I hope we will be cleaning all of them up so that, when translations are finally provided, they will not neglect deixis and need to be tediously and slowly corrected.
Are there languages that do not have this kind of go/come distinction? DCDuring TALK 14:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, one other reason to keep: in colloquial/dialectal English you can say, for example, google books:"He came in the house" to mean "He entered the house". Literally, sum-of-parts, it's grammatically incorrect - it should be "He came into the house" - but it seems pretty common in a lot of (especially American?) speech. At least two presidents have done it (although I'll agree that Carter and Bush are not perhaps the most famously articulate of presidents). Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
That is a property of in#Preposition. For example, One can say He went in the room, He walked in the room, etc. Such expressions can be ambiguous depending on what other meanings might be plausible in a usage context, eg, He came in the bedroom. DCDuring TALK 15:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep the sense "to enter". Present in Collins[13], Macmillan[14], dictionary.cambridge.org[15]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Kept. There is no reasonable possibility of a consensus to delete arising at this point. bd2412 T 18:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


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


Tagged but not listed. Rationale is "incorrect (but Hippocrene indicates it means photograph, and Yellowhair says it means scenery; in Saad Ahaah Sinil.A Navajo-English Dictionary by Martha Austin and Regina Lynch, it means picture or photograph. It should be corrected if necessary, but not deleted)". Renard Migrant (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Nominator says do not delete the entry. Hmm. Move to de-tag immediately. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I've converted it to an RFC. - -sche (discuss) 01:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Cleaned up. —Stephen (Talk) 09:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Struck (not an rfd mater). Renard Migrant (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


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



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

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


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

horror movie[edit]

horror film[edit]

horror flick[edit]

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

Delete all. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete, redundant to genre sense at horror (unlike e.g. chick flick where we might lack information about what kind of film women are stereotypically supposed to like). Equinox 17:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Plus, a "chick flick" might be understood as a flick about chicks, which could be high-interest stuff for the boys, depending on the amount of clothing used in the setup. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't think it is 100% sum of parts with respect to the horror sense "An intense painful emotion of fear or repugnance". And even then, I somehow feel this is worth keeping. Some dictionaries have this: horror movie: Collins[16], Macmillan[17]; horror film: Collins[18], dictionary.cambridge.org[19]. Furthermore, the genre sense at "horror" originates as a shortening of "horror movie", so deriving the sum-of-parts claim from the genre sense at horror seems inappropriate. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
No it's from a different sense of horror. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Oops, it is not certain that the genre sense of "horror" originates from "horror movie": it pertains to both books and movies. Now, how is this sense of "horror" attested? MWO does not have it, while Collins[20] has it only as a "modifier", as in "horror movie". The attesting quotations in the horror entry are rather unconvincing. Anyway, I think this is keep at least per dictionaries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Dan Polansky, keep just per the lemming test? You can't find any merit in the entry at all? Renard Migrant (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ƿidsiþ 12:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

physical attractiveness[edit]

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

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

absolutely not[edit]

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

Might belong in a phrasebook, if we were capable of having one. DCDuring TALK 12:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
IMO delete, though there are in fact plenty of adverbs that don't fit well here (e.g. "thoroughly not"). However, that doesn't mean we should have entries for all valid combinations! Equinox 18:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I hypothesize that no manner adverb would work, but many modal and degree (esp. intensifier) adverbs would. DCDuring TALK 23:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes sorry, quickly not doesn't work, you're right. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely, definitely, emphatically, categorically not! Chuck Entz (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, erring on the side of. dictionary.cambridge.org: absolutely[21] has this, just like idioms.thefreedictionary.com[22]. We are cabaple of hosting a phrasebook. As for "pretty much any adverb can be followed by not", that is clearly incorrect. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: BTW, why isn't "certain other dictionaries have it" a full-on CFI? Purplebackpack89 20:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Because some words other dictionaries have belong in Appendix:English dictionary-only terms rather than in mainspace. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Why would other dictionaries having something be a good thing? They have different criteria to us. This is not something to be ashamed of. Being different basically means we have some relevance, as opposed to simply a photocopy of other dictionaries. Oxford and Chambers don't have the exact same corpus and you don't see either of them trying to become the other. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Generally, so that a little less time is wasted in RFD, and so that we can broaden our view of what is useful beyond the imagination of whoever wrote the CFI. I for one would be only happy if the number of RFD nominations would drop to a third per month, especially by people who hardly ever help close or archive old RFDs. RFD is not for removal of wrong information, only for removal of information that some consider redundant, so its being a little more inclusive does not make Wiktionary incorrect. See also Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/January#Proposal: Use Lemming principle to speed RfDs. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
          • My point stands, it may not make us less correct but it would make us less unique and therefore less relevant. I don't want our USP to be "we try to be like other dictionaries". Like I say, you don't see Oxford, Collins, Chambers (etc.) apologizing because they're not trying to be like other dictionaries. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

vanilla sex[edit]

SOP - vanilla ("not kinky, not involving BDSM") + sex. Smurrayinchester (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Typical polysemy. We don't (shouldn't) have kinky sex, nor vanilla text (using the computing adjective). Equinox 18:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete I agree that this is SOP. --Tweenk (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely Delete. Tharthan (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


Very nice. Wyang (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Speedied, and the contributor blocked for adding nonsense/gibberish. The "I unleash a dog for purpose of attack" sense is more than enough proof that this is utter BS. If there were any doubt, the correct venue would be rfv, since the issue is whether this is a real Latin word. It looks like there may be the potential for a legitimate Esperanto entry, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I won't jump on any entry that pops up, but I don't find the Esperanto entry citable online; there's a dictionary and a grammar that mention it in Google Books, and an off-Usenet mention on Google Groups. There's a few uses on the web, but barely enough to cite it if we accepted them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

distinction without a difference[edit]

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

This seems to be covered by the prior knowledge test, so keep. Nothing much definition-wise to warrant its keeping, but it appears a lot in philosophy books 1 2 3 as a set phrase. Strictly speaking, as [1] points out, it's not exactly SoP because in order to draw a distinction there has to be some difference, but I don't know whether that bit of pedantry is really enough to claim idiomaticity. Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't see that this is technical. It's just a term that has greater application among philosophers. It simply hinges on the idea, inherent in the definition of distinction, that some differences are manufactured rather than inherent, natural, or consequential. DCDuring TALK 11:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Leaning toward keep as a set phrase. bd2412 T 19:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)