Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for deletion

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup add new \| history \| Archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification add new \| history \| archives \| Index Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for deletion add new \| history \| archives Requests for deletion 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 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

Templates:

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

Shortcuts:

July 2012 [edit]

worse 2 [edit]

Adjective: 4 senses: "More ill", "Of lower quality, less desirable.", "More severe or serious.", "More evil."

The sole remaining sense would be as comparative of bad, which covers it, IMO. And why does this have a translation table (fortunately only one, though without gloss)? DCDuring TALK 12:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Presumably because the word 'worse' is often suppletive compared to 'bad'. Languages may even have several terms meaning 'worse', and they may not all be a comparative of the same base word or even of any word. In particular, Proto-Germanic and its earlier attested descendants had several comparatives and superlatives meaning things such as worse, better, greater, smaller with no corresponding base form. So it comes down to this: if X is a translation for bad, it does not imply that the comparative for X is the only possible translation for worse. Such terms would be literally 'lost in translation' without a translation table for worse. —CodeCa t 13:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't those differences show up in the translations of the different senses of bad, through the comparative formation process for each translation? DCDuring TALK 13:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily, that is the point I was trying to make. A word such as 'bad' may have more than one comparative and superlative like in several Indo-European languages. But, even in Dutch, the comparative minder can translate as worse even though its base form weinig never means bad. So, someone looking in the translations for bad will not see weinig listed there. However, minder would certainly belong in a translation table for worse! Another example which pertains to suppletive comparatives in general occurs in Gothic. The Gothic comparative adverb mins means "smaller, less". But it has no corresponding base form, so it is a comparative but it is not a comparative of anything. I believe Latin has similar cases as well, though someone who knows Latin would need to confirm this. In any case, for sitations like this it's hard to assume that base forms and comparatives map one-to-one because it's more complicated than that. Some comparatives among world languages are the comparative of more than one base form (like more is to both many and much), some may have no base form, and some may have senses that their base form does not have. So, certain comparatives may have to be treated as independent lemmas because there is no other way. And as such, there would have to be translations linking to them as well, or risk having a translation 'blind spot'. —CodeCa t 13:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Might that not apply to other polysemous adjectives, too? What makes this one different? Is it just that even the ancestral PIE comparative was also quite distinct from the PIE for "bad", so this is a highly unusual case? I suppose the same might be true for better.

In any event, it seems to me to make the entry for worse worse for a user simply trying to understand English, because it introduces the possibility that the meanings for worse shown explicitly differ from those implicit in the "comparative of bad" line. Do we care about such users? DCDuring TALK 14:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

@CodeCat: I'm not sure there's much benefit in merely saying that a given term appears in some translation table somewhere; it has to be actually findable. I think that within-language usage notes are more likely to be helpful than unexpectedly-placed translations-tables. —Ruakh_TALK 15:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

In the case of Gothic mins I can't think of anywhere to place such a usage note. Can you? —CodeCa t 17:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

That one would go in the translation table at less#English, so there's no problem. (Less is a lemma.) I was talking about cases like minder, where the English translation is not a lemma. —Ruakh_TALK 00:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

At least the sense "More ill" doesn't seem to be covered by any of the senses listed at bad, so we would need to keep that at least. -- Liliana • 15:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

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

selector [edit]

Rfd-redundant: "An administrator responsible for selecting which players will play for a side." It's really someone who selects. If you watch the England side play, they often talk about the side selection, but we don't have a cricket sense for selection, because it's the "Something selected." definition applied to cricket (NB yes the definition is lame). Mglovesfun (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep, at least while there's no sense of "To choose players for a sports team" at select. The first few random hits for 'selector + cricket' on Google Books (ignoring sport dictionaries) were:

Allan Border: ESPN Legend No 25; scored a Test record 11,174 runs in 156 Tests for Australia between 1978 and 1994; captained Australia in 93 Tests between 1984 and 1994; now a TV commentator and analyst, and an Australian selector; Legends of Cricket selector.

As other selectors have recognised over the years, it is very difficult to have more than eleven players in a cricket team.

In 1999 Mike Gatting was president of the Professional Cricketers' Association. Gatting and Gooch were England selectors in the late 1990s.

Obsessive focus on the captain, the coach, the chief executive or the chairman of selectors is a distraction.

The second one is arguably understandable by context, and the fourth one uses the word in a lot of other contexts where its meaning is clearer, but certainly for the first and third ones, I don't see why it should be obvious that what these people select are players. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we are missing the sense at select#Verb, though of course it does only refer to sportspersons, I can select a jumper from my drawer. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

No wait it is there, "To choose one or more elements of a set, especially a set of options." The sportperson sense is just this sense, but applied to sportspersons. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

My point was more that "selector" is used in sport without ever making explicit what is being selected. It's a bit like how we have separate senses under painter for "Person who makes pictures with paint" and "Person who paints surfaces". Strictly speaking, the first is just a subset of the second, but generally we say that someone is a "painter" without specifying what they paint. Keeping them separate means that should someone ever come across "Michaelangelo was one of the leading painters of the Renaissance", without it being specified that he painted pictures, they'll still hopefully be able to twig that he was an artist, not just a guy who whitewashed walls. Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Mg and favour deletion, although Wikipedia has w:Selector (sport), suggesting it might be appropriate to broaden and keep a sporting sense. - -sche (discuss) 10:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

am Ende [edit]

There is one idiomatic sense in here, IIRC. This one isn't it however, it just means am + Ende. -- Liliana • 19:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I can kind of see how "in the end" and "down the road" could be sort of synonymous, and it might carry over into the German equivalent of "in the end" as a minor sense, but as the only definition for am Ende, this is so useless that it may very well justify speedy deletion. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't "Ich bin am Ende" mean "I'm exhausted, I'm worn out, I'm all in"? Certainly that sense is idiomatic, I think. "Down the road" really doesn't seem like an adequate translation of "am Ende" at all. —An gr 21:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was the "idiomatic sense" I thought of. -- Liliana • 21:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

We currently have the English in the end as an entry, which seems equally SOP as am Ende. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

abranchiata [edit]

I believe this should have been created with a capital. It is an order. I am going to create the capital version now.Speednat (talk) 07:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I see now that there was one at one point, and it got changed to the lower case. I will wait and see what you guys think.

So in a nutshell: It is a taxonomic order. Speednat (talk) 07:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably better at WT:RFM. It looks like the move to lower-case was done by a bot as part of the mass-conversion of the entire dictionary from capitalized to lower-case entry names 7 years ago, and this was collateral damage. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have added a Latin section for the species epithet, which is lowercase. It is marked there as New Latin. If this term was used uncapitalized, not in italics, in English text in the senses in which it is defined, then we should Keep it. That is not a voting matter, except possibly for the suitability of the attestation items. DCDuring TALK 17:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I only found a single use of Abranchiata/abranchiata at Google Books. But it was the capitalized form in what I think is a well-known work by Agassiz. I don't see how a single citation can support two definitions. I found abranchiata abundantly at Google Scholar as a species epithet, but some of the raw hits there may be for a capitalized form as some taxon. DCDuring TALK 17:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

preferences [edit]

Sense: (computing) The user-specified settings of parameters in interactive computer software.

This looks like the plural of preference. DCDuring TALK 18:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This should not be listed separately under the plural, though we might need a new sense at singular preference to indicate a computer program setting. Equinox ◑ 20:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Any particular reason? Can it be show that this usage is plural only as much as sneakers is? Facts are permitted in discussions despite the recent practice of closing discussions that have had no facts and little discussion. DCDuring TALK 20:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete and explain it at the singular. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Computing meaning is not generally singular. DAVilla 14:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course the computing meaning occurs in singular. A simple Google Books search would have unveiled that fact in ten seconds:

Although you can access most system- and application-specific settings via System Preferences or application preference dialogs, respectively, there are often other settings or options available in the OS or in a particular application for which there's no interface provided. [1]

On that basis, delete. -- Liliana • 22:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Scouts [edit]

Rfd-sense: The Rhodesian Army unit. Seems oddly specific; I can say with reasonable confidence that there are numerous army units named "SOMETHING Scouts" whose title is corrupted to just "Scouts" for convenience Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 13:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep. It's specific for that very reason - it refers to a specific historical group, and is well cited as such. The fact that there may potentially be other groups is not a reason to delete, it is a reason to include others if they are listed.
If, (and I think it's unlikely), there are several different groups, we can then combine the defs in to one. But for now, it's a well cited entry which means exactly what it says.
Compare Guards, Marines, Tans.--Dmol (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep but expand. When I hear Scouts in any context other than BSA, I associate it with military units that scout ahead of the main body of troops in order to provide better tactical information to battlefield commanders.; however, when used in such a context it is usually not capitalized. It is capitalized when referring to the same unit in an official sense. As for limiting it to the Rhodesian Army, I would find that more applicable to a 'Pedia article. --Jacecar (talk) 08:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Create general sense, delete overly-specific one. (Per Jacecar.) —Ruakh_TALK 03:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete/expand, per Jacecar and Ruakh. - -sche (discuss) 23:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

television show (undeletion request) [edit]

I ask that the deletion of television show be reconsidered for the following five reasons:

There weren't a significantly greater number of "delete" votes as "keep" ones, as such, the RfD should have been either closed as "no consensus" or kept open longer
It's been a number of months since the RfD, consensus can change
SOP doesn't apply in this case because the meaning of "show" is ambiguous
Potential translation target; likely that some languages have a single word for the concept
It's a commonly used term; there's generally been a consensus to keep stuff like that.

Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 14:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a decent shout for an undelete. The typical argument for deleting this is that since show has more than one meaning, any use of the word 'show' can be ambiguous, which is precisely why we define them at show and not in various other entries such as TV show, radio show and so on. Similarly television doesn't only go with show put also television program/television programme. Anyway, over to you guys to keep debating. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The first reason looks valid. The fourth and fifth are not reasons to have entries. The third isn't either (meaning, SOP may well apply even though a part is ambiguous). And the second is insufficient IMO to re-raise an RFD, else we'd be rediscussing everything all the time. But per the first reason, I'm happy to continue the RFD discussion here, bearing in mind that it's a continuation (i.e., should be read with the old one).—msh210℠ (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: point #1: by my reading, those supporting deletion were msh210 (talk • contribs), Mglovesfun (talk • contribs), Jamesjiao (talk • contribs), Prosfilaes (talk • contribs), and Ric Laurent (talk • contribs); those opposing deletion were Purplebackpack89 (talk • contribs) and Lucifer (talk • contribs). The non-voting commenters were 86.160.220.165 (talk • contribs)/86.177.106.236 (talk • contribs) (who rejected some of the deletion arguments, but explicitly wrote "Comment" rather than "Keep"), EncycloPetey (talk • contribs) (who seemed to prefer keeping, but again, explicitly wrote "Comment" rather than "Keep"), and DCDuring (talk • contribs) (who seemed to prefer deletion). The entry was deleted, and discussion closed, by Liliana (talk • contribs), who had not participated in the discussion before that point. All told, this looks like a correctly resolved RFD. (Note: I'm not commenting on whether this collocation should have an entry, only on whether the previous RFD discussion was closed correctly.) —Ruakh_TALK 17:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hm, I guess you're right. I rescind my note just above.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

As a set term and also I believe it is included in the OED perhaps we should reconsider. PBP why don't you create citations for it first, perhaps some that show the ambiguity between show and (tv) show?Lucifer (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

5 votes for deletion and 2 for keeping? Strikes me as significantly greater;
Yes it can, so let’s see where this RFD goes. I abstain for now but unless some good evidence and arguments come I’ll vote don’t undelete;
Context makes it clear, thus is still non-idiomatic per bank parking lot example;
Could be, but that’s hypothetical;
So are white sheet, green leaf, television screen and millions of other SOPs.

— Ungoliant ^(Falai) 03:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Also "It's a commonly used term; there's generally been a consensus to keep stuff like that" I don't think so, we have a lot of common terms here on RFD that are common but don't meet CFI. If you can providence to support your opinion, please do. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep I believe it's not SOP, as, after Wikipedia, it's synonymous to television program, while the German translation by parts, Fernsehshow, means a different format (i.e. something like sense 1. of show), but definitely not any program (sense 4. of show). Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Free formed collocations and phrases like "nice weather in London" don't count.

Does this dictionary count as a good source? television show@dictionary.com as per DCDuring's suggestion to check in monolingual dictionaries (see Christmas card, birthday card discussions)? Definition: a program broadcast by television, synonym: television program (also has a definition). Undelete --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 13:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Dictionary.com reports w:WordNet's entry for the term. All of the inclusions of television show at OneLook Dictionary Search seem to be based on WordNet. WordNet is not a dictionary. It has been funded to provide a database for machine processing of natural language. It is distributed by various online dictionary-type portals because it is "freely and publicly available for download". I am not sure about its current criteria for inclusion. DCDuring TALK 13:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

What's the verdict, DCDuring? The word does exist in monolingual dictionaries. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 00:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe it to be a set phrase, as it fails coordination tests (eg, "television or radio show"). The meaning seems compositional to me. The translation-target argument ought to be irrelevant. Tho sole "real" lemming is WordNet which is conceptual, rather than linguistic in its focus. OTOH, some online dictionary sources find WordNet worth following. It would be a limited accommodation to the desired to translate some common SoP collocations to include terms from WordNet automatically. It would not overwhelm us with SoP drivel to respect WordNet as a lemming. This seems to me to possibly worth a BP-level discussion. DCDuring TALK 04:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with coordination tests. E.g. "status and progress bar" splits status bar and progress bar, also "double and triple star", "giant and red panda", "polar and brown bear", "CD and DVD player" and there could be many other examples. Like CD player, "television show" or "TV show" doesn't seem to me a SoP. The translation-target argument should be relevant but not with all languages. It also demonstrates that somewhere this argument has been already solved, e.g. Russian "телешоу" (telešóu). At least, we should have it as a translation target where a target language is a solid word ({{translation only}} producing: This entry is here for translation purposes only.). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 04:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Not every idiom is a set phrase. I only mean to disagree with the notion that the incantation "set phrase", which I have never seen here with any empirical support, applies as a unquestioned rationale for inclusion of this term.

The vernacular species names are associated with different species. Have the other terms gone through RfD?

If other Wiktionaries would like to include SoP translation targets that option is available to them. I don't participate in discussions on this Wiktionary involving languages I don't know, so I can't speak to that example. I confine my advocacy to practice about the English language. I really don't understand why considerations of other languages should govern practice for English. Conversely, I've often wondered why there is almost no effort to translate English idiomatic terms, such as those in Category:English phrasal verbs. DCDuring TALK 08:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The idea is, that if a translation is not possible based on the translations of the parts, then it makes sense to include those translations. On the other hand if a SOP term has mainly one-word idiomatic translations, then this could be taken as an indicator of a certain setness similar to WT:COALMINE. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Well, I thought this was a dictionary of English, not mentalese; that it covered language, principally the English language, not concepts. DCDuring TALK 15:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Contrast with car show. It's a show on televisions, not someone showing televisions, like a car show is showing cars. 4.238.7.29 14:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Then we should add car show auto show, automobile show, hot rod show, gun show, flower show, horse show, antique show, computer show, consumer electronics show etc because folks won't know which kind of show is involved. And in some cases we would need multiple definitions because both kinds of show exist and maybe even more, not to mention the possibility that the other term might be ambiguous, too. DCDuring TALK 16:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Don’t undelete. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 16:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not certain that this deserves its own entry, but the distinction between show and showing is notable, as a television show is a musical, comedic, or other presentation that uses television as its medium, and a television showing would be a collection of televisions presented for display or comparison.--Jacecar (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The essence of that distinction should be found at show#Noun and showing#Noun. DCDuring TALK 12:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

August 2012 [edit]

-side [edit]

There is nothing about this that would say that this is a suffix rather than side in combination. DCDuring TALK 11:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

For cogent arguments on the other side of this point, see Category_talk:English_words_suffixed_with_-side. DCDuring TALK 12:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Fix and keep: Words like stateside, poolside... Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 13:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

What definition of side would this be? Do we have it? Should we have it? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that it is just one sense, but MWOnline has "an area next to something — usually used in combination <a poolside interview>". Stateside seems to involve a sense closer to MW's senses of either "a position that is opposite to or contrasted with another" or and extension of "a place, space, or direction with respect to a center or to a line of division (as of an aisle, river, or street)" to 'area of division' to allow an ocean to fit more comfortably to explain its origins. Of course, there is no reason why a current definition of need have an exact fit with each current meaning, just as -le does not have an adequate sense to explain the current meaning of hustle.

I think our closest sense is "A region in a specified position with respect to something." but the reader would have to realize that the something can be defined by context, as in stateside. We are not too consistent as to whether we rely on context to make up for deficiency in our definitions or forbid using context because doing so would deny lexicographic legitimacy to some content. DCDuring TALK 18:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

ding up [edit]

= ding + up#Adverb (“thoroughly, completely”). ~~This is not a phrasal verb.~~ It is a verb intensified by adverbial use of up. DCDuring TALK 15:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

But by definition << A phrase, consisting of a verb and either or both of a preposition or adverb, that has idiomatic meaning.>> isn't this what a phrasal verb is? To ding = "strike, beat, thrash" but ding up is more than just to "beat up", it's to "fill full of dings, injure, damage". I could be wrong, but sense 3 appears to be a back-formation from ding up, as I do not see it in older dictionaries with this particular meaning of "injure". Leasnam (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think common, easily found examples, such as a tornado dinged them up pretty good. (c.f. a tornado dinged them pretty good.) seals the pro phrasal verb argument IFAIC. -- ALGRIF talk 16:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

@Leasnam: The sense of ding is the one of "To inflict minor damage upon, especially by hitting or striking." A common usage concerns small dents on cars. "Up" adds the idea that there are many, well within the scope of intensification. DCDuring TALK 17:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

@DCDuring: Correct. And it is this sense ("To inflict minor damage upon, especially by hitting or striking.") which may be the back-formation of ding up, rather than its parent + up. Leasnam (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

@Leasnam: And how would you tell whether that was so? Has the verb been in continuous use? I had always thought of ding#Verb as denominal, as it was in my idiolectic experience. Frankly, this seems extremely implausible. DCDuring TALK 18:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

@Algrif: Does "look it up" seal it for look up? Phrasal verbs can be separable. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

@Algrif: I had originally thought that it was part of the long-awaited definition of a phrasal verb that it be idiomatic. Apparently, this is not true. I have amended my indictment accordingly. I wonder how many other non-idiomatic phrasal verbs we have. DCDuring TALK 17:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi DC. Have you forgotten the example of cut up amongst others that we talked about in the past? There is a world of difference between He chopped the log. and He chopped up the log. or again He cut the paper. and He cut up the paper.. A phrasal verb does not have to be idiomatic. It simply has to have a specific definition that differentiates it from the plain verb. Granted that most are noticeably idiomatic in some way, but not all. Hence, I give the (real) example of the tornado that dinged it pretty good, or dinged it up pretty good. You would be obliged to use the phrasal verb ding up if the statement is to make any sense at all. -- ALGRIF talk 12:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

stimulus package [edit]

It's a [[stimulus]] [[package]]. Actually, I'd call this an error rather than a SoP. When Obama talks about a stimulus package, it's not a single term but two consecutive one word terms. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep. It's a set term for a specific government program. Not guessable from its parts.--Dmol (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep at least for now. I don't think we have the right definition of stimulus at the moment - "Anything that may have an impact or influence on a system" is far too vague to give anyone a clue what a stimulus package would be. Smurrayinchester (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Somewhat unsurprisingly, it's not a specific government program. It's attestable before 2008. For example it's attested in 1988. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly a shortening of something like (government Keynesian economic) stimulus (action) package. But the same vague combination of things might refer just to legislation, proposed by anyone or passed by either house; any subset of the total package, as for a given cabinet department; items undertaken by executive action or by the Federal Reserve; and that's just in the US. The common element is (economic) stimulus + package. Delete. DCDuring TALK 19:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Hekaheka (talk) 12:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete, by the way I heard relief package on the BBC news a few days ago. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Add a "marketing" sense to package, an "X package" means "X done repeatly, hoping for different results", while getting paid for each X. --129.125.102.126 23:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

abscond [edit]

Rfd-redundant: Isn't "To flee; to withdraw from" the same as "To depart secretly; to hide from; to steal away"? Also, some of the usage examples are not intransitive. —Internoob 01:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It’s not necessarily redundant, but the examples for the first sense seems more appropriate for the second sense. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 02:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe the senses are different enought to create the need for the separate senses.Speednat (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I will RfV this once the RfD is closed unless someone produces some cites before then. I agree with MWOnline and others that only a "to depart secretly and hide oneself" sense is current.

Webster 1913 has intransitive "hide" as sense 1. I don't think that is current either.

There's been a fair amount of wasted effort on translations. DCDuring TALK 23:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

hidden [edit]

Tagged but not listed: adjective "that has been hidden". Presumably this is just the past participle. I always feel a bit uneasy about these, as they're sort of redundant to the verb form but as adjectives. Citations like "very hidden" wouldn't clear the matter up anyway, as adverbs can qualify both adjectives and adverbs. So guys, have fun. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It's often hard to distinguish a past participle of a verb from the adjective that describes the state or quality that results from that verb's action. Indeed, this distinction didn't even exist in Proto-Indo-European: a participle was an adjective that described this state of being; the idea of using it to refer to a former action came only later. I would personally like it if English participles could be treated this way too, i.e. as a special part of speech "Participle" that may be both verbal and adjectival. That way we won't have unnecessary definitions, and just the definition 'past participle of X' would automatically include any implicit adjectival senses. —CodeCa t 17:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

There are two other adjective senses not being challenged. The uncited definition given is exactly the definition wording appropriate for a past participle. The "definition" of the English -ing-form in our presentation is present participle of. Why would we need more? DCDuring TALK 19:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we need this, but it might be valid, and if it's valid we keep it whether needed or not. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the examples given are covered by the previous definitions. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Although a bit off topic, I support CodeCat's proposal of a POS Participle. This would make even more sense for languages which inflect participles just like adjectives. As long as we don't have that, I don't see a reason to keep the definition in question. Longtrend (talk) 11:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep. But the definition should be changed: something may be hidden without having been hidden (cf. the example provided: hidden talents). And French inflects past participles like adjectives, but the sense is dfferent: participles refer to the verb action (therefore, they are verb forms), while adjectives refer to a state, a property, not to the verb at all, despite the fact they share the same spelling. This word clearly shows that it's the same for English. Lmaltier (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you notice the other two senses? I think they include all the most common adjectival meanings of hidden. DCDuring TALK 03:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

articled [edit]

adjective: Bound by the articles of an apprenticeship.

The definition of the transitive sense of article#Verb is "to bind by articles of apprenticeship." The derived term at the adjective articled clerk is shown as a DT at article#Verb. This is shown as noncomparable. Nothing comparable or gradable appears at Google Books. DCDuring TALK 02:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. (This could have been listed on WT:RFV instead of here.) - -sche (discuss) 08:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

On what basis can I tell which venue is appropriate? DCDuring TALK 10:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

bulgarian kieli [edit]

Yes, I don't know Finnish. But this looks a lot like bulgarian (“Bulgarian”) + kieli (“language”). --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It probably is, and it's got plenty of companions: ruotsin kieli, norjan kieli, venäjän kieli, italian kieli, espanjan kieli, islannin kieli... In Finnish the name of a country and its language are often only separated by capitalization: Ruotsi/ruotsi, Norja/norja, Venäjä/venäjä, Italia/italia, Espanja/espanja, Islanti/islanti. Therefore, in order to avoid confusion, the forms x:n kieli are quite common. Whether they deserve entries of their own, I leave to others to decide. I have no strong opinion to either direction. --Hekaheka (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Weak keep, Finnish can often grammatically distinguish related meanings. For a foreigner like me, kieli#Finnish just isn't an affix, but the need to distinguish several senses (like country, ethnicity, language) is obvious. --129.125.102.126 23:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

-ware [edit]

Tagged but not listed. ~~Keep~~, though we have an entry for ware with this sense, the usage example actually back up this and not that. Unless it's trivial to cite that sense of ware, I say rfv it and keep this in the meantime. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The sense of ware has now been cited. Debate on, guys! Mglovesfun (talk) 10:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep #1, unsure about #2. But tweak it to note that sometimes -ware is tacked onto proper nouns, like "Revere" Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 01:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Cautious keep, feels like a true suffix, as the suffix is current while the noun is archaic. Mglovesfun (talk)

Keep the noun, while we're at it. Being archaic ≠ being deleted. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 13:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Ware seems to be completely current in use semantically. No native speaker would have trouble understanding it. It is only its relative scarcity in singular use other than in open compounds like silver ware that gives a dated feel to it.

It would not be bad to add the specific ways in which ware combines, using the wording from -ware#Etymology 1, though I wonder if there are really only two. DCDuring TALK 16:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

automatic ticket stamping machine [edit]

ticket stamping machine [edit]

Sum of parts, it's basically defined as 'automatic machine which stamps tickets'. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

delete both. Definition is obvious. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Delete both. It hardly gets more SoP than this. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 11:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Keep as translation target (Non-SOP translations in German and possibly other languages). Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- English translations of such single-word terms terms should be ticket stamping machine (for example). SemperBlotto (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Delete per SemperBlotto. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

@Matthias Buchmeier surely we can't keep every possible English multi-word term that in German can be translated as a single word. Certainly your argument is outside of CFI, even WT:CFI#Phrasebook wouldn't allow this sort of entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete "automatic ticket stamping machine"; it has very few hits anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

ticket stamping machine?

As regards "ticket stamping machine", I am inclined to keep regardless of CFI. If "ticket stamping machine" is what you would most often call the thing that, when calqued from German, would be called "ticket devaluator" and that looks like the thing in the picture to the right, it seems worth having in a dictionary. Admittedly, ticket stamping machine at OneLook Dictionary Search finds nothing, yet washing machine at OneLook Dictionary Search finds a lot of dictionaries, even though it is defined in Wiktionary as "a machine, usually automatic, which washes clothes etc". OTOH, the argument for keeping "washing machine" could be that a machine for washing dishes is not a "washing machine". Using a similar argument, ticket machine would not be a sum of parts, as it is a ticket vending machine. Furthermore, "ticket stamping machine" could be a nice translation target if other languages than the compoundforminglanguage German have a single-word term: French composteur seems to be the case in point. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me highlight the advantage of translation targets. Given the question 'how do I say "Entwerter" in French?', a translation target helps you get from the German term to the French one ("composteur"). Given the question 'how do I say "ticket stamping machine" in French?' (assuming it is the most common term referring to the thing in English), a translation target chosen as a common term gets you to the French term. Translation targets are unusual in monolingual dictionaries, but useful in a multilingual dictionary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it could be useful, but so could including translation tables for every entry in every language, or full definitions for every inflected form. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Including translation tables for every entry in every language is an option; English Wiktionary has chosen to avoid it. Actually, translation targets is an alternative to that option: if you have translation tables in non-English entries, you do not really need translation targets. Full definitions of every inflected form create a maintenance nightmare, as far as I can see, with very little benefits. Keeping translation targets does not create any maintenance nightmare. I have not seen any convincing argument against translation targets yet, if any argument at all. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I've tried lots of variations on regular Google; "ticket validating machine" and "ticket validation machine" seem to be the most common terms. w:Ticket machine refers to a machine that sells tickets rather than one that (only) validates them. —An gr 21:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

My search finds this: google:"ticket stamping machine": 109,000 hits; google:"ticket validating machine": 81,100 hits; google:"ticket validation machine": 80,200 hits. In the searches, I have clicked "Next" several times to verify the numbers are stable. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Delete both.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Presumably, the stamp serves a specific purpose. A parking validator also stamps a ticket, but the purpose is to avoid charge, so it would not be a ticket stamping machine. DAVilla 00:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Weak keep, the translations somewhat contradict SoP, the German translation invalidates the ticket, Russian and Ukrainian use a loanword (from French). —This comment was unsigned.

Translations nothing to do with SoP, SoP is within a language, not to do with how one language compares to another. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Deleted automatic ticket stamping machine. Ticket stamping machine is a bit closer and looks like it might pass for no consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

have an axe to grind [edit]

have an ax to grind [edit]

This is have (“possess”) + an + axe/ax to grind (“POV to push”).

It is not a set phrase as ax/axe can accept modifiers, such as no, personal, institutional, etc. and coordinates. ax/axe to grind often appears as object of the preposition with.

The strong relationships with have and with are the stuff of redirects and usage examples and notes. DCDuring TALK 23:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete ax to grind unless it can be demonstrated that "ax to grind" is used with verbs other than have/has/had Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 00:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It's used with get, e.g. "got an axe to grind": see Google Books. Equinox ◑ 00:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to put that one up for RfD or RfV or whatever. This does not concern that entry. DCDuring TALK 01:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"ax(e) to grind" is fairly easy to cite without have (and also with pronouns like "his" and "her" in place of the article). Like DCDuring says, "with an axe to grind" is a common phrase. Mark Twain for instance said "To every man cometh, at intervals, a man with an axe to grind". I can also cite "What was his axe to grind?", "Choosing an ax to grind in today's world isn't easy" and "None of them carried an ax to grind." have is overwhelmingly the most common verb to take ax to grind as an object, but it's not the only one. Redirect to ax to grind/axe to grind Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The definitions at have an axe to grind and ax to grind are a bit different. I don't know if that means that they mean different things or if ax to grind just needs to be updated, in which case I vote delete have an axe to grind and have an ax to grind. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Or does have an ax/axe to grind need to be corrected? DCDuring TALK 12:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Fix and redirect per SMinC. DAVilla 00:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

let me get this straight: we're advocating the deletion of the verb, not the idiom itself? How have we handled similar idioms that also have verb and noun defintions? It seems to me that both are valid, but I can see the benefit of having a single definition and pointing alternates to it. --Jacecar (talk) 09:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

A few past examples: compare apples and oranges, Elliott wave theory, unable to find one's way out of a paper bag. The full phrases were condensed to their idiomatic part. DAVilla 03:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

work breakdown structure [edit]

Not only does the definition not make sense to me, but I also think this looks like either a breakdown of the structure of work, or a structure for the breakdown of work, both of which are SOP. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. The vocabulary of linguists and computerists (eg. free morpheme, preferences) has curious subtleties that the jargon of management does not. DCDuring TALK 01:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to have been written by a native English-speaker. Borderline improvable, but I would not mind it being deleted. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Ha, it was written by DCDuring who's known to quite like to use difficult words when simple words will do, but usually only in the Wiktionary: namespace! Mglovesfun (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

go on [edit]

rfd-sense: To use and adopt (information) in order to understand an issue, make a decision, etc.

We can't go on what this map says; it's twenty years out of date.

I didn't make a decision because I didn't have anything to go on.

This is go (“proceed”) (or other senses) with a prepositional phrase. That is exactly what a phrasal verb is not. In many cases the prepositional phrase could be headed by with or by with similar meaning.

In addition, there is nothing special about information. We can't go on one tankful of gas. We can't go on a cup of coffee and a piece of toast. DCDuring TALK 15:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep, MacMillan defines it as "to base an opinion or decision on something" [2] and IMO you can't get to "base an opinion or decision" from "go". The police had nothing to go on after a master criminal stole their toilets. Siuenti (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this definition of go on is unduly specific. I don't think that go on is limited to "information". To me it seems that any kind of material supply, information, or even emotional support could follow the preposition/particle on.

Consider non-information as complement of on:

He's going on just a half charge of his cell phone. He'll never make it.

Why do you think you could go on a piece of toast and a cup of coffee?

I don't think we should go on his word.

In addition we can substitute by and with into the usage examples for the sense. Does that mean we need to add one (or more) senses to each of go with and go by? DCDuring TALK 17:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with DCDuring and would add that "go from" can also be used this way. With that in mind, this seems like it is indeed merely another sense of the word "go". bd2412 T 04:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Siuenti has a point, go on its own doesn't seem to mean act on information. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

How would you reconcile the non-information usage examples above with our entry for go? DCDuring TALK 10:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Those examples seem strange to me, without context I would interpret them as referring to actual movement. On the other hand, if a duration was added ("go the whole morning on a piece of toast") I would interpret them as meaning "endure", but that's a very different sense from "make deductions". Siuenti (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

What does He's going on just a half charge of his cell phone. He'll never make it. mean? Is this charge meant as charge of the battery? If so, I don't think this necessarily refers to some movement. --BiblbroX дискашн 21:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

@Siuenti: Go is a wonderfully flexible word that can be used to mean almost anything that can be viewed literally or metaphorically as a journey. But it is a light verb, so it seems to need some kind of supplementation to heavy it up, like the temporal "all morning" or a locative or a particle.

The usage examples don't seem strange to me, though all morning is a good addition.

He's going on just a half charge of his cell phone. He'll never make it. going = "proceed through his 'day'/'morning'/'journey between recharging points'".

I don't think we should go on his word. go = "proceed"

I think that the solution of adding meanings to go doesn't work because the putative prepositional phrases can't survive some transformations with meaning intact.

He went on a hunch - *On a hunch he went. - *It is on a hunch that he is going.

Similarly:

We can go on his word. - *On his word we can go. - *It is on his word that we can go.

If this is true, I wonder how many senses we might need to add to [[go on]].

The first usage example in the challenged definition does not well illustrate a phrasal verb go on as it is ambiguous. It can easily be read as go (journey, proceed, travel, depart) + PP. The negative-valenced usage examples, though natural enough, add semantic complications to transformational tests, it seems to me. DCDuring TALK 21:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

troaking [edit]

The extralegal trade between Greenlandic natives and Scottish whalers during the period 1814-1940.

This is a particular instance of the ing-form of troak (“barter”). Whether it is attestably distinguishable from the generic term seems implausible. I didn't find evidence at Google Books. DCDuring TALK 15:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

September 2012 [edit]

parvenu [edit]

rfd-sense: Adjective: Being a parvenu; also, like or having the characteristics of a parvenu.

This seems to be the noun being used attributively. The two quotations provided in the entry do not suggest otherwise. I am not sure whether this belongs to RFD or RFV; in any case, quotations could probably show this being an adjective. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Keep but adjust definition "very parvenu" and "less parvenu" are easy to cite. Less definitively, it's also possible to cite things like "parvenu house" and "parvenu fashion", which don't seem to be attributive since they aren't describing people. That said, I'd adjust it to include something like "associated with parvenus". Smurrayinchester (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Some hits found by your searches are false positives, such as "... only to find that this very parvenu who urged that ...". Furthermore, the searches find even fewer hits in durably archived Google books: google books:"very parvenu", google books:"more parvenu", google books:"less parvenu". But there are some durably archived uses of the sort that you point out: "The Bolsheviks are very human and very parvenu and very eager to stand well in the eyes of their neighbors ...", "I know it's very parvenu", "At which point I reminded him how very parvenu such behaviour sounded". So you've got a point in there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, whoops, I meant for those to be Google books links. Accidentally broke the URL trying to get rid of the extraneous junk. Have fixed. Smurrayinchester (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

dice [edit]

Sense: (proscribed} An alternative singular of die, for such meanings of die as have the plural dice.

I think all the senses are defined elsewhere at the PoS section. The usage notes attempt to explain the state of usage opinion, but could use some work. There are ample citations in the entry and on the citation page for "a dice" and the plural "dices". DCDuring TALK 03:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

~~Strong keep~~~~. There is widespread long-term use of the word to mean a single die. The word die is rarely used, and it is for us to reflect usage, not to correct it according to outdated rules~~.--Dmol (talk) 06:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

@Dmol, the sense above this one is "a die". Mglovesfun (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Struck out my comments, wasn't paying attention in class. Still think the word should be defined at dice and not die.--Dmol (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the entry should be remain at [[die]], with dice being an alternative singular. I also think that dices is a rare alternative plural of dice, with dice remaining as the usual plural. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't have listed this at rfd. It would seem uncontroversial enough to merge the two senses that listing it isn't necessary, or instead list it at WT:RFC if the user in question feels he or she is unable to effectuate the merge. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I had made several changes to the entry and wanted others to opine. Apparently I need more chutzpah than I have. DCDuring TALK 11:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

fittin undeletion [edit]

I proposed we undelete fittin, it is a word that means to scheme, prepare, plan, or anticipate something and is common AAVE, these citations show widespread literary usage over at least the past ten years, interestingly enough it is not (yet?) conjugated/decclenationed and the gerund form is used exclusively. It was summarily deleted while I was still working on it.Lucifer (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Haven't looked at this one, but I am reminded of ballin', which in AAVE has a different meaning from balling. Equinox ◑ 19:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The one citation on my talk page is for fittin', also it's in the present participle form I'm fittin' to. Also it seems to read like "I'm itching to", rather than "I'm scheming to". Anyway... you unwittingly linked to a load of citations that support it being the present participle of fit. I assume that was not your intention. Wouldn't be the first time you've torpedoed one of your own arguments, mind you. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

See Citations:fittin, fittin', fittin, and fitting#Verb (especially the citation). I spent most of the afternoon working on [[fit]]. Though there is a transitive sense of "make ready", it is not used reflexively or intransitively according to all the lemmings I've consulted. But I don't have access to the big lemming (OED). All of these seem very much like fixing#Verb (explicit sense) and not much else at [[fit#Verb]]. DCDuring TALK 23:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Is this a common misspelling of fittin'? By way of analogy, do we want jumpin, cookin, failin etc.? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I do interpret "fittin'" as dialect or eye dialect of "fixin'". - -sche (discuss) 23:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

But, see the quote at fitting#Verb. I wonder if DARE or OED have something about this. It could be read as a "reflexive" intransitive use of fit in the sense of "to ready". "I was readying myself to go", "I was fitting myself to go", "I was fitting to go." DCDuring TALK 00:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Which, BTW, is perfectly compatible with a similar reading of "fixing": "I was fixing (myself) to go". DCDuring TALK 00:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

And "I was setting (myself) to go". DCDuring TALK 00:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

at arm's length [edit]

This is at + arm's length. [[arm's length]] has figurative senses. DCDuring TALK 20:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Keep "arm's length" here is defined as an adjective. "at" + an adjective doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me - one can't be "at distant" or "at independent". arm's length, to me, seems like a more recent innovation (as in "an arm's-length transaction") derived from the older at arm's length. A Google ngram appears to back this up - "an arm's-length" doesn't become popular until the 1960s, while "at arm's length" appears to peak around 1900. Smurrayinchester (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, arm's length says it's an adjective, but the idiomatic usexes are both for the prepositional phrase "at arm's length", showing that in fact, arm's length is a noun. The question is, does the idiomatic meaning of arm's length ever occur anywhere other than as the object of the preposition at? —An gr 21:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

"Arm's length transaction" is common and other nouns can accept "arm's length" as an attributive modifier. "At arm's length" accepts many terms between "at" and "arm's length" in its figurative senses. The "informal measure of distance" sense is used as many nouns in adverbials like "an arm's length apart". It can be used with prepositions like within, to, from, etc.

Arm's length is grammatically an NP, which doesn't exclude it functioning attributively and adverbially. It is also be attestably a true adjective. DCDuring TALK 00:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

face-to-face [edit]

"While physically present" (note the ADVERB is being challenged, not the adjective). Hyphens here are ungrammatical. We need some quality citations at least, but I suspect it was an editor's error. Equinox ◑ 21:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

A question from ignorance: Why are hyphens ungrammatical in the adverb but not the adjective? Furius (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

@Furius: An adjective use of a multi-word term can make it difficult to determine how to group the words, eg, "baked-apple dessert" vs "baked apple dessert". The former is less ambiguous than the latter, which could be any "apple dessert" that was "baked". This is less likely with adverbs and predicate use of the adjective.

@Eq: Based on a review of some Googles Books usage:

face to face looks 5-10 times more common as an adverb than face-to-face, which is attested at Citations:face-to-face.
face-to-face looks 10-20 times more common as an attributive adjective.
The two forms seem almost equal in frequency as predicate (after forms of be).

So the relative commonness of usage in this set of edited works supports the grammar/clarity argument, but the predicate use makes the hyphenated form less than universal for adjectives. DCDuring TALK 03:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)`

Move to RfV: This seems like an RfV issue to me Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 00:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Really? This is just a question of whether or not it is an alternative form of the adverb. The relative frequency numbers would seem to settle it, unless we are going to get all prescriptive, which is far from our style. DCDuring TALK 01:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

one's marbles [edit]

Defn is "one's sanity". This is just one's + marbles, ain't it? --AM a FEW (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, got it at marbles. Delete. Equinox ◑ 21:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

We have this as a redirect target for all the expressions like lose one's marbles, have one's marbles, have all one's marbles. Take a look as what links to it. I'd favor keeping it rather than including every embodiment of the mental-faculties-are-marbles metaphor. DCDuring TALK 22:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Why not just link to marbles? Would people really get mixed up over glass toy spheres? Equinox ◑ 22:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Why have "sanity" as a def of "marbles"? Is it ever used outside the phrase "one's marbles" (his marbles, etc and perhaps even Johhny's marbles, etc)? Could I say "marbles are an easy thing to lose in an asylum"? - -sche (discuss) 22:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anything other than a pronoun referring to the subject of one of the limited number of verbs can work with this. It is a dying, if not quite dead, metaphor. I don't think you can use any verbs other than [have], [lose]], and got, though quantification of marbles is possible with all, some, one-by-one, last, few. DCDuring TALK 22:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

@-sche, fair point but for clarity it might be better not to split the entries, but use a context tag such as {{context|someone's marbles}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

of that ilk [edit]

Was WOTD, but is SOP. Redirect to ilk.—msh210℠ (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Definitely delete. Who woud keep this, unless they were a lazy reader of Walter Scott? Equinox ◑ 22:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The Scottish sense is keepable, if we can cite it, surely? Smurrayinchester (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily; it's already a usage note at [[ilk]]. —An gr 18:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I would keep the Scottish sense and convert the other sense to {{&lit}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The usage note at ilk does seem to be admitting that "of its ilk" is not sum of parts, though. If it wasn't, we could just have a definition of "ilk" that took the Scottish sense into account. Smurrayinchester (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Are we going to have redirects from versions with all the other possible determiners and adjectives (my, your, our, his, her, their, this, such, like)? What about plural ilks (various, various, many, differing, different, many, all, those, these). Of that ilk just looks like the commonest collocation, well worth explicit inclusion in a usage example, but not an entry. If we keep it, make it a redirect to [[ilk]]. Before we do any deleting, we should make sure that [[ilk]] can really carries the load we would give it. DCDuring TALK 16:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Language-related entries [edit]

Im sure theyre SoPs.

Russian:

старославянский язык, русский язык, праиндоевропейский язык, праславянский язык, китайский язык, корейский язык, литовский язык, монгольский язык, малайский язык, немецкий язык, церковнославянский язык, испанский язык, венгерский язык, баскский язык

Georgian:

--Dixtosa. 14:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

In Russian, ethnicity adjective + the word язык (jazýk) are the standard and a more common way to refer to a language (except for language that don't use adjectives, e.g. санскрит, иврит, эсперанто (Sanscrit, Hebrew, Esperanto) etc. Phrases like "speak a language" don't count, an adverb is used in this case - говорить по-английски/по-русски - to speak English/Russian. русский (rússkij) is an abbreviation (somewhat colloquial) of русский язык (rússkij jazýk), just like nominative (noun) is an abbreviation of nominative case. A Russian textbook would be titled "учебник русского языка", not just "учебник русского". This is a grammatical explanation of how it works in Russian. Even though the pattern is common and predictable, I don't see the need to delete these entries. русский (rússkij) (noun, language name) is flagged as colloquial. That's what it is, really. A correct, formal translation of English (noun, language name) is английский язык (anglíjskij jazýk), not simply английский (anglíjskij). Many languages work similarly. See also Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#tadžikų kalba about Lithuanian. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

In that case there's some clean-up to do. I checked the translations we have for northwestern neighbours of Russian (Norwegian, Finnish, Swedish, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian). Only in the case of Lithuanian there's the word язык in the current Russian translation of the name of the language. --Hekaheka (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Polish translations (far from always consistent either) have been a little bit more consistent and they more often add język (e.g. język polski) in front of the language name (if it's based on the adjective). As I said, this pattern is quite predictable - adjective + язык, so there was no immediate need to create entries for each language name, so just a blue linked adjective was often used as a translation - a quick solution. It's a bit awkward too. A translation of Finnish (language) - финский (ru) (fínskij) m links to an existing adjective, so one can see the declension. "финский язык (ru) (fínskij jazýk) m " doesn't exist. If it were, one perhaps would need to add declension manually. "финский (ru) (fínskij) язык (ru) (jazýk) m " looks ugly, "финский язык (fínskij jazýk) m" looks better but doesn't link to ru:wiki. There's no perfect solution here. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ukrainian and Belarusian translations are another prove that these are abbreviations. Unlike other Slavic languages, Ukrainian and Belarusian word for language is feminine - мова (móva), so all language names are feminine in Ukrainian and Belarusian as well - "українська мова" (uk), "беларуская мова" (be). The abbreviated translations e.g. "українська" (uk), "беларуская" (be) are not lemma forms, lemma forms (adjectives) are "український" (uk), "беларускі" (be). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Firstofall, we arent talking about declension and other Slavic languages. secondofall, our main goal is not to blue all the reds (red not Red xD). thirdofall, I(we) don't doubt aforementioned words being abbreviations (the same thing happens in Georgian). But, to the best of my knowledge, predictable (note that this prediction is different from the prediction that goodly would exist because of good and -ly in that, the former is a (unwritten) grammatical rule, that has no exceptions) words are bound to be deleted. Foourth of all, we wouldn't make an entry just because it a more proper translation--Dixtosa. 15:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

There's no rule to delete predictable forms. The word past tense is also quite predictable from its component words, it's still a word, very concrete and a more correct form than just "past", which can mean other things apart from the "grammatical past tense". русский язык can be understood from its components as well but it's still a more proper word for "Russian" (language) and a more correct and formal translation. I believe the same applies to ქართული ენა (k'art'uli ena), even though the shortened ქართული (k'art'uli) is also acceptable (you are better to judge what's more frequent and formal in the sense of Georgian (language)) but I won't insist on keeping this if you're so eagre to delete it. The Russian Wiktionary may not have entries for full language names, since Russians don't need to be taught how to form a language name but it's educational here and the right thing to do. I have personally added many Russian translations of language names using just adjectives, I explained my reasons above. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's what I think: the translations sections should list a two-word translation like "русский язык" and the adjective русский would need to have a definition like "relating to the Russian people, language, or culture". Because in Russian, languages don't have "names" (except for a few like санскрит, иврит, эсперанто) but they are just phrases indicating the language of some people or culture. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's one of the options, as I said, there's no perfect solution. Another option would be русский (rússkij) (язы́к). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I still think that русский язык is SOP as it is simply referring to the "language of the Russians". --WikiTiki89 (talk) 06:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I have already answered this. It seems a matter of preferences among Wiktionarians on what to consider SoP and what not. Is "mammary gland" a sum of parts? ru:wiki has also an entry "молочная железа". What about all grammar case names? nominative case, etc.? Shall we start breaking up Chinese or Japanese language names - 俄文 (Éwén) or ロシア語 (Roshiago) because in English "Russian language" wold be considered a sum of parts? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I would actually agree that mammary gland, молочная железа, and nominative case are all SOP. But right now we are only talking about Russian and only about language names. The word русский is an independent adjective and the word язык is an independent noun. Putting them together gives you nothing more than you would expect of any other adjective and any other noun. Russian happens to not have "names" for language but just phrases that are used to refer to them. The phrase русский язык is no different from ирландские танцы and говорить по-русски is no different from танцевать по-ирландски. There is nothing special about language-name phrases that we should include them as entries. The difference between "Russian has many French words." and "В русском языке есть много французских слов." is that in English, Russian is a language name, so the word language is unnecessary, while in Russian русский is just an adjective and so the word язык is required (unless it is known that you are talking about languages). --WikiTiki89 (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

camelback [edit]

Adjective. It doesn't seem to behave like an adjective apart from attributive use. The attributive use could be accomplished by the noun. DCDuring TALK 00:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"Anything shaped like the back of a camel" is clearly not an adjective. It could be rewritten, but usually this kind of bad sense is an error. Equinox ◑ 01:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

If the adjective is removed, then noun definition 5 has to be cleaned up. However, I'm not sure but what noun definition 5 is short for camelback sofa, which may be specific enough not to be SOP. —An gr 03:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems the entry has forgotten about the adverb sense "riding camelback". --WikiTiki89 (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

stick with [edit]

rfd-sense "To continue or persist; to stick to." with example Stick with the curriculum, and I think you'll succeed.

The first part of the sense doesn't fit the example as well as the other senses do and the second part is redundant.

--WikiTiki89 (talk) 08:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The whole entry looks questionable to me, can stick not mean stay and persist? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Macmillan has three senses, which all have some merit. I have added a sense "To loyally follow", which is like one of theirs. The alternative to keeping this entry is to add a number of senses to stick#Verb about its construal with various prepositions. That adds to the difficulty of using (and maintaining) an entry like [[stick]].

With phrasal verbs, there is an obvious association of the meanings with the component terms, but the specific meaning is not transparent. I think the Macmillan senses, if not some of ours, meet the test.

For the sense at hand, "To persist in using or employing" would better capture what is distinct about the notion of persistence in this expression. DCDuring TALK 10:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a sense of with that combines with stick to mean "to loyally follow" among the 29 senses of with at MWOnline, let alone our more economical 8. DCDuring TALK 10:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the difference between "To follow loyally." and "To follow or adhere to." --WikiTiki89 (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I still think all seven definitions look a lot like [[stick]] [[with]]. I'm leaning towards delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Try substituting follow or adhere to in some actual uses. Oh, wait, we don't have any actual uses in the entry, so we can't conveniently have a usage-based discussion with a common fact base. I wonder if that might be part of the problem with the entry. DCDuring TALK 12:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

gadzookery [edit]

Adjective. The two citations offered are at least as easily interpreted as of the noun. DCDuring TALK 14:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe speedy then, the citations are clearly the for noun. By way of analogy, if I describe my favorite food as pizza, pizza isn't an adjective in that case! Mglovesfun (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The contribution is fresh. The contributor is active. So, there may be benefit in letting it run for a while. DCDuring TALK 19:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

pansexual [edit]

Adjective: Sense 2 seems redundant to Sense 1. Sense 3 looks like attributive use of the noun. Each purported adjective sense is supported by only one cite. DCDuring TALK 14:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Keep both and improve. The definition for sense #2 is worded in a way that seems redundant to sense #1, but if you look at the quotation, it's actually something quite different. (So, the definition needs to be completely rewritten, but the sense should not be removed.) Sense #3 does not seem to me to be attributive use of the noun; if it were, then the quotation's "pansexual group sex parties" would mean something like "group sex parties for pansexuals", which it clearly does not. (I could imagine the three senses potentially being merged somehow, using some "or"-s and "especially"-s, but I don't think we can just delete senses #2 and #3 and leave #1 to stand alone.) —Ruakh_TALK 14:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The usage notes need to be referenced. - -sche (discuss) 20:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

October 2012 [edit]

stick of furniture [edit]

I stubbornly persist in holding that one can have a stick of [X] where X anything possibly made of wood with a negative, meaning something like "the slightest bit". If this is so, this is SoP. See WT:RFV#furniture for attestable examples of X. DCDuring TALK 22:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As a set phrase, I think this should have an entry. Spinning Spark 01:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

See stick#Usage notes. (I didn't add that. If I had, I would have generalized it to make clear that the term applied to more than furniture.)

It is a set phrase only if set phrase does not mean a "phrase" that is "set". If it were a set phrase, then I couldn't substitute terms. Of course there is a need to respect the semantics, so the substitutions are restricted in range. Consider: for stick: single piece or bit; For furniture: wood/furniture/firewood/fuel/lumber/timber/spruce/pine etc. DCDuring TALK 02:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Was going to disagree (the examples you give are all specifically types of wood, while "furniture" is more generalised, and wouldn't usually be thought of as a type of wood - and the fact the phrase continues in the modern era suggests that not all the furniture involved is made of wood anyway), but there are a handful of Google Books hits for google books:"stick of a house" and one relevant hit for "stick of a chair". google books:"stick of a table" and google books:"stick of a cupboard" found nothing. For mass nouns, google books:"stick of furnishing" finds 16 hits. Still not convinced how valid this extended sense is: google books:"stick of furniture" finds ~39,000 hits - compared to the sparse-to-non-existent hits for the other terms, there's clearly some sort of setness about this. Still, we could do what Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary does, and move this to a sense at stick (I think it's unlikely anyone would look up stick of furniture first anyway). Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

(I think you mean {{b.g.c.}}). Mglovesfun (talk) 09:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, thanks. Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

stick of furniture at OneLook Dictionary Search finds no lemmings. stick at OneLook Dictionary Search finds some dictionaries with stick of furniture as a usage example for a specific (usually overspecific IMO) definition. Obviously, as a common collocation, "stick of furniture" would be a lovely addition to a comprehensive, high-quality phrasebook, if only there were one. DCDuring TALK 12:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I've seen both stick of and lick of used to indicate (usually in the negative) a complete lack of something, as in not a stick of furniture in the place or she didn't have a lick of sense. But it can be used without furniture, as in not a stick of kindling or firewood, so I would have to vote for deletion.--Jacecar (talk) 10:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Indo-European studies [edit]

As Liliana says about #Talysh studies, "{{translation only}} is for a few very common terms that merit existence for translation purposes even though they're SoP." I think this is too specific and too obviously SOP; even the translations are transparent, with perhaps the most interesting feature of them being that some, from languages which regularly use -ik or cognates of it in this way, use -ik or cognates of it. - -sche (discuss) 18:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Indo-Europeanistics is citable. If it means the same thing, translations can be hosted there and this entry is unnecessary. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 00:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep as a translations target. google:"Indo-Europeanistics" mentioned by Ungoliant above finds mere 125 hits, unlike google:"Indo-European studies", so it is the latter term that is usually used in English. The entry currently hosts German "Indogermanistik", Italian "indoeuropeistica", and Russian "индоевропеистика". Notice the curious German translation. For more languages, see interwiki of W:Indo-European studies. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

What do you find curious about the German translation? "Indogermanisch" is the German term for what English terms "Indo-European". - -sche (discuss) 19:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete. —Ruakh_TALK 18:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

-a [edit]

Marks singular nouns, with a foundation in Greek or Latin, often implying femininity, especially when contrasted with words terminating in -us.
Marks nouns, with a foundation in Italian, Spanish, or Portuguese, implying femininity.

Compare -eau, where the English was deleted because it's not an English suffix, just some loanwords from French end in -eau. I find these two a little unclear anyway. For example, the example for the second one is stanza, that's a direct loan from Italian rather than stanz +‎ -a, also I don't see how it implies femininity. If it means the original Italian noun is feminine, then yes, but that's not relevant to the English definition. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

In names it can imply femininity and is often used to create a feminine name from a masculine one. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 07:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we have this (or similar endings) as suffices in the Latin namespace? Furius (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

information velocity [edit]

The form "velocity of information" seems to be more common. I think both are SOP (though [[velocity]] probably needs some improvement before we delete this). —Ruakh_TALK 01:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

belldom [edit]

Sounds like invention, but a google search shows it is used by a very narrow group of fanboys and sounds way too specific. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 03:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

First of all, this is a proper noun and most of the cites capitalise it, so if it should be anywhere here, it is at Belldom. However, durably archived citations are going to be next to non-existent so I would probably support deletion. Secondly, the usage seems much wider than the defs given, more along the lines of Beatledom and Elvisdom. I have no idea what Wiktionary policy has kept those two most notable examples of domains redlinked, but whatever it is, it surely applies in this case also.

I believe there is another sense of belldom; the domain of bellringing which is citable. I intend to add this, so could the rfd template be adjusted to apply only to the challenged senses? Spinning Spark 14:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not from -dom as in kingdom. It's from the Dom in Dominic. Fanfic writers often give their shipper "pairings" hybrid names like this. Equinox ◑ 14:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, of course. But it's still capitalised. Spinning Spark 15:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

@SpinningSpark - The absence of Beatledom and Elvisdom is probably simply an oversight, since both clearly meet the inclusion criteria, and we already have things like Beatlemania and Elvisy.

Regarding shipper pairing names, as long as they are attestable by Wiktionary standards, I don't see why they shouldn't be included. But while K/S (Kirk/Spock) would definitely be attestable, because it's been around for decades and had books and articles written about it, "Belldom," as a shipper pairing name, doesn't get any hits on Google Books, Google News Archive, or Usenet. Although there is an isolated usage from 2003 in the sense "the franchise of the TV show Saved by the Bell." Astral (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

E. faecalis [edit]

See Enterococcus faecalis#Alternative forms for the treatment of these I propose as a general replacement for now. This would cause a searchbox search to include all of the entries with such an alternative name to appear on the list generated, at of near the top. It doesn't help if the user can't use the search results, of course. The alternative is to generate Translingual disambiguation-type pages for all of the possibilities. DCDuring TALK 15:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

information technology [edit]

Moved from RFV:

Rfv-sense: the computing department of an organization --Maria.Sion (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It can certainly be cited — one cite · another cite · eight more cites · an unusually helpful mention — but I'm not sure whether it warrants inclusion, since the use of "____" to mean "the department in charge of ____" is a pretty common formula, and not really a specific property of "____". I note that we don't list such senses for accounting, marketing, or sales. (Though we do list such a sense for human resources, so information technology isn't completely alone.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The same issue underlies Wiktionary:Tea room#Capital_cities_as_symbols_of_national_government. Phol (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Similar. That's use of a place name to mean what organization lives there; this is use of a subject-matter name to mean what organization handles it. Anyway, this should be RFDed.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

information technology is often referred to by its acronym, IT, but the definition is somewhat redundant because common usage would be: "I work for the IT department" --Jacecar (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Is sense 2 redundant to sense 1? - -sche (discuss) 04:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep the second sense as well, add {{by extension}}. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, I just want to stress that this is far from the only entry which could have such a sense. As Ruakh wrote, using "____" to mean "the department in charge of ____" is a common formula. You can also say "I work in marketing", "I work in sales"; at a college, you can even say "I work in history", "chemistry", etc. - -sche (discuss) 02:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

a [edit]

Rfd-sense: (algebra) The first know quantity, or an unknown quantity in an equation.

If kept, this should be moved to Translingual. However, I would prefer that it be deleted. In algebra, any letter can be used as a variable, and they don't have any special meanings beyond being a variable. The only ones that we need are x and y, I don't see how the others are any helpful. -- Liliana • 12:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 16:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete. (Why did my RFD on n-dimensional fail, I wonder?) Equinox ◑ 16:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Because you posted it at WT:RFV instead of at WT:RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 17:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

...and because it is frequently found in running text. Spinning Spark 17:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

So is "green hat". That doesn't make it non-SoP. Equinox ◑ 14:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

@Equinox: feel free to RFD it now... I agree with you that it's SOP. - -sche (discuss) 19:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Why are x and y ‘the only ones that we need’? This does have considerable representation in other dictionaries. Ƿidsiþ 04:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- x and y are the only letters with special meaning in algebra (being the first and second variables, respectively). The others are just letters that happen to be used as variables. Unicode has a thousand of them at Appendix:Unicode/Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols - are you suggesting we should have an entry for all of them? -- Liliana • 07:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  
  Really? What are the "special" meanings of x and y that don't apply to other variables? --Wiki Tiki 89 09:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  
  x and y are always the first and second variables. You will not find an algebraic formula where x is the fifth variable, or y the third variable, or similar. -- Liliana • 09:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  
  Not true. This is a modern convention, and does not obtain in older mathematical books. Ƿidsiþ 10:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  
  Challenge accepted! --Wiki Tiki 89 10:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  
  This search result contains some counterexamples. Don't know if that will satisfy you though. --Wiki Tiki 89 11:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  - FWIW, W:Variable (mathematics)#Naming conventions names also the third, w, as a usual unknown, and at W:Y I found no mention of y's special usage in mathematics. Anyway, unknown#Noun meaning in algebra mentions z as that of the third one. --biblbroks_{дискашн} 09:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
    - x and y don't have "special meanings", it's just counter intuitive that they should be used as first and second despite their position in the alphabet. But from prime it's usually p and q, (then r, and so on) so x and y are not unique in this way. The fact that algebra doesn't use alphabetical order doesn't justify special definitions of x and y. That would be misrepresentative (possibly untruthful). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
      - Then go ahead and open up a new RFD if you so wish. -- Liliana • 11:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Mathematicians can and do use any letter to mean anything, from various alphabets. I've even seen Σ used as a variable. Talk about confusing! Still, that's not how everyone else uses variables, even those who know math well.

A clear mathematical description would always define or instantiate a variable, and at least name any extraordinary functions like ζ that are introduced. But a lot of times variables are not explained, even in hard sciences like physics and chemistry. If you see ρ you immediately think density, but not if you see d, which means distance. Generally v means velocity, ν means wavelength, and you would be laughed at, even scolded, for switching them.

Even mathematicians will have a preference toward using θ as an angle instead of a, for instance, although capital A as an angle is not uncommon. A lot of the time it also depends on the area of study. In statistics, μ is the mean, σ is the deviation, but both are defined as specific functions in number theory having nothing to do with collections of data.

Of course, if there are two distances, or two means, or two zeroes (!) then other symbols can be used, assuming subscripts are not employed, and explanation for these variables is provided. However, this is an exception.

In this light, lowercase a, b, and c are commonly used in mathematics to define relations between several quantities, not necessarily saying which is unknown. Identities are mainly the examples that come to mind, like the distributive law, square of a sum, and many others. The letters are commonly used for side lengths as in the Pythagorean theorem, which also defines a relation without a specific unknown.

It would be just as correct to say that o²+γ²=Я², but who's going to label a triangle that way? Even "x squared plus y squared equals z squared" is 20 times less prevalent on Google, and the first few hits indicate a different use, such as the mathematical puzzle of Fermat's last theorem in contrast to a geometric problem, or a trick question for students who think the sides should always be labeled a, b, and c!

In the quadratic equation all three are known, and x instead is the unknown, having a stronger tendency for meaning an unknown. They are likewise constants in other factorizations and in conic sections, defining for instance the x and y intercepts. Of course c is also a constant in physics, and b could represent a quark, though I would guess the latter is fairly uncommon. This gets into the question of verifiability, which is a whole other can of worms. DAVilla 11:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I fail to grasp is how that's an argument for keeping it. --Wiki Tiki 89 11:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Wikitiki89, "Mathematicians can and do use any letter to mean anything, from various alphabets" which you DAVilla write above does seem to be rather a good reason to delete this! The fact that any of a wide range of symbols can be used for any conceivable purposes shows that these aren't definitions. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we can have an appendix page documenting various standard uses of variables in physics? --Wiki Tiki 89 11:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think this fails WT:CFI line one as it's not a word in a language. Though it is attested, I doubt it's idiomatic, as it's not lexical at all. Why would this be more includable than say, a picture of a kitten? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Mathematical statements are often interwoven into text because they can be read as text. How the symbols are read depends on the context, e.g. = can be "equal", "equal to", or "equals"/"is equal to". Examples are easy to find: [3], [4], [5]. Here's a (not particularly good) guide for Chinese using English.

My argument above says that the variables can have meaning on their own, without introduction, especially in informal contexts. Consider this example where problem 1.35 starts "The barometer shown in Fig. P1.35 contains mercury (ρ=13.59 g/cm³)." The word "density" does not appear in the problem or anywhere on the page. A mathematician would balk at this use in such a formal context. Although ρ is introduced when the concepts are explained earlier in the chapter, it is essentially defined there as synonymous with density. DAVilla 04:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah but that's clearly under the context of physics and in physics itself variables can have many definitions. Like I said before, it might be a good idea to have an appendix page (such as Appendix:Variables in physics) listing standard uses of variables in physics, but I don't think they belong in the main namespace. --Wiki Tiki 89 09:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete "a" has several meanings in science/maths which it might be worth including in a Translingual section (acceleration and activity are the best known). However, the meaning presented here is useless. Anything can be a variable. "a" on its own in a mathematical equation has no meaning at all. It's just a token which allows the mathematician to keep track of the relationships between variables while manipulating equations. You can use any letter, any symbol, whole words, drawings or even totally invented squiggles for this purpose. Here's one example. x is a little different, in that people actually use it outside equations to mean a missing quantity (see sure as eggs is eggs). I've never heard of anyone using "a" in that metaphorical sense. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

in such a way that [edit]

"so that" —Ruakh_TALK 17:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete. If you can't parse it from its components, you just need to know more English, as with e.g. "I have a green hat". Equinox ◑ 22:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep. It is much more complex than "I have a green hat" and harder to define. "I have a green hat" is five words that are five different parts of speech, but in such a way that is a single part of speech (conjunction). Although it is a synonym of so that, we don’t have rules against synonyms. —Stephen ^(Talk) 23:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Completely SOP: [ in + [ such + [ a + way ] ] ] + that. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 11:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

All words with spaces in between can be broken up into components. Keep. It's a synonym of so that but not a complete one. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 07:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this has some use - I look up French phrases which, like this one, are kind of SoPish with some regularity (e.g. "dans le même temps," "nulle part ailleurs," "plus ou moins," "sans doute"). It is useful to be able to check whether these sorts of conjuncting words mean they seem to, especially as the sort of common words that compose them tend to have an enormous variety of meanings. In this case, if way had senses 1 or 2 it could be taken to refer to routes "He drove to the party in such a way that he was late" implies that there was something about his driving that caused him to be late, rather than specifically the route which he took. keep Furius (talk) 10:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

He must die in such a way that others might live? No, it really is SOP. Delete. DAVilla 09:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

google books:"in such a way that" gets an estimated 47 million hits, google books:"in such a manner that" gets 18 million, while google books:"in such a fashion that" gets about half a million. So this phrase certainly isn't unique. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

a 2 [edit]

Rfd-sense, there are two issues here:

A spoken sound represented by the letter a or A, as in map, mall, or male.

I can honestly find no usage example for this sense. It would have to be a sentence that actually uses a to refer to a sound and not just to the letter a (as in "You spell it like the a in father"). So I believe this is a misguided sense and adequately covered by the letter sense.

Then we have these three:

A written representation of the letter A or a.
A printer's type or stamp used to reproduce the letter a.
An item having the shape of the letter a or A.

They are really no different from each other, and should be merged into one sense, or just canned altogether and have them be represented by the letter sense. Think of what senses this would allow for fish: An artistic representation of a fish, A printer's type or stamp used to reproduce a fish (think Christianity), An item having the shape of a fish, etc. -- Liliana • 14:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't we find instances of "the sound as an a"? That should eliminate many spurious hits. (Yes we can: bgc. DCDuring TALK 17:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC))

But does a in this instance really refer to "a spoken sound"? If we apply the insertion test (i. e. insert the definition in place of the word) we get something like "the sound of a spoken sound represented by the letter a". Does that make sense to you? -- Liliana • 17:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

That's easy to read as "the sound (heard) of a spoken sound (produced) etc". Many distinct definitions seem to be be just the results of teasing apart aspects of a phenomenon. DCDuring TALK 20:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Of the group of three, it would take a little bit of effort to get all three into a single sense as "representation" implies intent, the second is for a device for producing the letter, and the third is for something that might have the shape by accident. "An item, mark, shape, or image representing or resembling a form of the letter A" includes both 1 and 3 certainly and the letter on Hester Prynne's forehead. Perhaps we would want to include within the third sense a key marked "A" on a keyboard or touchscreen or the part of a typewriter ball or arm used to produce the letter.

As "a"-ness is abstract, it might be useful to have at least one definition that explicitly defines a as concrete embodiments of the abstract notion.

It would be a service to provide the senses of the letter that are supposed to cover this. I couldn't get [[a]] to download just now. DCDuring TALK 16:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

If your computer system is even slightly slow, [[a]] takes forever to download or will crash your browser. Definitely do NOT try to download the history page. I purchased a brand new $2000 system just to download that page :(

Finnish-Canadian [edit]

Fairly sure we've decided to delete stuff like this. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 15:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Finnophone adds a twist. I still say delete. DAVilla 09:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep if cited, single word. Ƿidsiþ 15:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep citable hyphenated terms. --Æ&Œ (talk) 05:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

go out the window [edit]

= go + out the window.

One of many questionable items in Category:English phrasal verbs. DCDuring TALK 18:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete, but add a better definition to out the window with a meaning along the lines of "gone, no longer present, disappeared". --Wiki Tiki 89 19:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I feel like I agree but can't really wrap my head around any distinctions in meaning enough to rewrite. DAVilla 05:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep. I disagree. It's less of a phrasal verb and more of an idiom. It's one that, as an English teacher, I would teach and use often and therefore should be kept. —This comment was unsigned.

Would you teach that "go out the window" is correct, but not "be out the window" and "throw/toss out the window" (which last has both idiomatic and non-idiomatic interpretations)? DCDuring TALK 12:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

sail close to the wind [edit]

We lack close to the wind, but nevertheless this is sail + close to the wind. Certainly not a set phrase as close to the wind can be modified by very, too, etc. Might be appropriate as a redirect to [[close to the wind]] and certainly as a usage example there. DCDuring TALK 18:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

But the idiomatic sense is only for "sail close to the wind." If you "walk close to the wind," "fly close to the wind," or "be close to the wind," or even "tack close to the wind," then the idiomatic sense does not hold. keep Furius (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps in your idiolect, but not in some of these hits at Google Books. DCDuring TALK 05:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Those examples all still seem to be using "sail" as the verb, though. Multi-word idioms can often infix intensifiers and the like, e.g. we have able to get a word in edgewise, but "get a single word in edgewise" is attested [6], likewise, we have against all odds, but "against almost all the odds" is possible [7] Furius (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

See close to the wind. Both the nautical and the figurative senses often use other verbs. Also note that sail close the wind is not a set phrase, accepting many intervening expressions between sail and close to the wind. Also, close to the wind can be comparative and superlative. With this variation, it should be clear that the essential core of the idiom is close to the wind. DCDuring TALK 10:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if what you said is true of a set phrase, assuming that is more narrowly defined, but more generally, idiomatic phrases are not required to be immutably so. DAVilla 03:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep both. Close to the wind evidently in use without sailing, but sail close to the wind is first of all very common and furthermore clearly idiomatic in that it does not require a sail. DAVilla 03:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep per Furius and DAVilla. There's also no sense of sail which corresponds to the one used in sense 2. "To move briskly" is perhaps the closest, but that doesn't really translate to "to behave in a manner." Hence, the expression is idiomatic. Astral (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I hope that those expressing themselves on this will be adding and attesting all attestable extended meanings of basic verbs like sail and all the forms of this expression that use different verbs. Let not any metaphorical use of any expression go undefined. All metaphorical senses of all expressions in all languages! DCDuring TALK 01:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments like this are the reason I now rarely vote in RfD discussions and generally give this page a wide berth. Astral (talk) 02:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

"Keep" per apsc. The expression is "sail close to the wind".

Striking as kept. bd2412 T 03:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

computer system [edit]

I think this is as straightforward as it can possibly get. -- Liliana • 19:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Sae1962 has a 'wonderful' habit of adding straightforward terms with definitions too badly worded or too technical for me to understand. At what point do we just delete these on sight for "no usable content given". I'm an educated native speaker, and for the most part I have no clue what he's on about. I would happily delete this right now for not being written in comprehensible English. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete --Wiki Tiki 89 20:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

At some point I'm just going to add "Sae1962" to MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown. -- Liliana • 20:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Delete SemperBlotto (talk) 07:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in keeping this. Anyway, there are many systems on a computer, so even distilled to the technical senses it could be unclear. DAVilla 03:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Can't all systems on a computer be called computer systems? If not, why not. My view, come up with some supporting evidence, or delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You want me to find evidence that computer system doesn't mean what you say it does!? DAVilla 11:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It is reasonable that some burden of proof be on someone who says that something is a free combination, though there could be a very large set of meanings indeed. Three counter-examples (of different senses) should be sufficient for a prima facie case. Then advocates of including the term could try to come up with definitions that included each of the counterexamples, with suitable attestation. This process could continue until possible definitions, contributors or attestations are exhausted. DCDuring TALK 12:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep. If "computer system" refers in one of its senses to a single computer with installed software and peripherals, I find this non-trivial enough to warrant an entry. This sense is found in the current definition in Wiktionary and e.g. at http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/C/computer_system.html. For lemmings, see computer system at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

machine independent [edit]

Is there any special meaning of this other than "machine independent"? -- Liliana • 19:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete --Wiki Tiki 89 20:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Kill with fire. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you not heard of global warming? DAVilla 03:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Ought to be hyphenated anyway. Equinox ◑ 23:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Delete SemperBlotto (talk) 07:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 08:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It does have a specific meaning of machine, and the understanding that they are different types of machines, but those seem pragmatic to me. Weak delete. DAVilla 03:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 03:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

bit [edit]

Adjective: "bitten". AFAICT it's just a past participle. DCDuring TALK 23:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

True, but I don't think we have a sense for this non-standard past-participle form. They were filling a valid gap in our coverage- they just put it in the wrong place. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I've marked it as informal as past participle. But is it non-standard? in the US? in the UK? The Supremes partially legitimized it ("The love bug's done bit me"). DCDuring TALK 00:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't hear this in my part of the UK. I consider it to be US. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I've heard it and maybe even used it in the US. Though bitten is still more common. --Wiki Tiki 89 10:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete, or provide evidence to show adjectival use. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

On evidence. Bit is used in combination, productively IMO. The combinations are adjectives IMO. So we need perhaps three different instances of formation of an adjective using bit. Because bit would be the 'head' of such words, evidence of the 'adjectivity' of the words so constructed would be evidence of the 'adjectivity' of -bit. The words themselves would not have to be attestable, though snake-bit could easily be attested as an adjective. DCDuring TALK 13:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The citations you added still look like participles to me even though they are in combination. --Wiki Tiki 89 15:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You're probably right. Sometimes I lose perspective and good judgment when trying to cite something. DCDuring TALK 16:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I should comment that I added this because I've been watching zombie movies/episodes what seems like every other day for the past two weeks, and literally 100% of the time, the term used is "He's bit!", "Am I bit?", etc. I literally did not hear even a single use of the term "bitten" in any of them. Come to think of it, I don't think they were saying "I've been bit" much or at all either; it's usually with "to be" in some form. Now as to whether it's an adjective, past participle, etc., I will admit I didn't really think about that, nor do I know how you usually handle those things. I sort of hoped that by adding it, someone would figure it out. :) Wnt (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Searching online pulls examples: "If he's bit you must acquit" "He's bit!". Unfortunately, transcripts of zombie movies seem hard to find amid a sea of forum postings with the same phrase, so I'll leave it at those two rather obscure examples. Wnt (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty much how it's working out. Good call. We definitely didn't have good enough coverage of it. It will take a bit longer to get it right. DCDuring TALK 00:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio [edit]

RfD'ing al desko, bluejack, freegan, healthspan (again), laggard, pluot, trifecta, ubersexual, Winterval, and xenotransplantation on copyright grounds, having been taken from MacMillan. (I was younger and copyright-dumb in those days.) Brownie Charles (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You're a bit naive about deletion too then! Nowadays we can just hide all the copyvio revisions instead of deleting the page and restoring only the non-copyvio edits. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

If you haven't already done so, just rewrite the definitions in your own words. No big deal. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Split into different RfDs These articles have different merits and should not be bundled together into one RfD Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 17:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's actually advocating deletion, are they? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The nominator wants them deleted because he/she added them in violation of copyright. IMO we could do worse than zapping the entries and recreating them using our own writing and research. Equinox ◑ 22:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

If you look at xenotransplantation, there have been dozens of edits since its creation in 2004. I'd be genuinely surprised if we had to delete all of them. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

[8]? Equinox ◑ 22:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

A derivative work would be where copyrighted material is still present in the finished product, albeit somewhat transformed. If it's transformed beyond recognition, to the point that it's basically something entirely new, I don't think it's a derivative work from a legal standpoint. Determining whether that's the case is a legal judgment, which I'm certainly not qualified to do- but it's not guaranteed that the mere fact that it started as a copyvio means it still is one. After all, it's not the information that's copyrighted, but the expression of it (or the collection of it considered as a whole).

Our responsibility to the copyright owners it to remove all copyrighted material from public view (including publicly-viewable revisions in the history). If we replace it with something equivalent, but not containing the copyrighted material, that should be adequate. We should identify our sources, but that's a matter of honesty and verifiability, not copyright violation. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

This proposal strikes me as unnecessary and somewhat excessive. We've already worked to reword all the definitions so they no longer infringe MacMillan, and the copyvio diffs have been/can be hidden from public view. As Chuck Entz pointed out, the information itself (the words and their meanings) isn't subject to copyright, only its presentation (the wording used to define said words). Astral (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

One could take the Mona Lisa and make a small change to it, after which another person could come along and make another small change, and after a thousand small changes, the result might be Rembrandt's self portrait. This doesn't mean that the Rembrandt painting is a derivation of the Mona Lisa; when significant enough changes have been made, a work becomes original again, even if it was initially copied from or inspired by another work. Of course, we should also bear in mind that the copyright on dictionary definitions is very, very thin to start with. bd2412 T 17:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

(LHOOQ. Ƿidsiþ 17:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC))

caching proxy [edit]

Sae1962 -- Liliana • 06:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Weak keep I'll admit I'm not convinced this is more than a proxy (server) that caches, but I'm not sure that gets across everything that a caching proxy does. It doesn't just squirrel away the cached data, it uses it to produce a local version of frequently used websites, which clients then interact with instead of using the actual website. A standard proxy server that makes detailed logs of sites accessed through it would not be a caching proxy, even though it would technically be a proxy that caches. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Then maybe our definition of cache needs improving. A cache is exactly that, it stores websites locally so they don't need to be reloaded from the Internet. -- Liliana • 14:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This isn't something we can add to cache. But even though it has specific details like that, I would still say it is SOP. For example bicycle wheel is completely SOP despite the fact that the wheels on a bicycle are designed in a completely different way then the wheels on a rolly chair. --Wiki Tiki 89 15:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a delete. I'm not big on computing, but the definition does seem to say it's a proxy that caches. Perhaps we should just believe the definition and delete the entry accordingly. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems reasonably safe to delete this. DAVilla 01:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

See comments by User:Furius in duplicated section below. DAVilla 14:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Moved from a separate section below:

~~caching proxy~~

"A proxy that provides temporary storage for results of operations that are expensive" i.e. a proxy which is a cache Furius (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Struck as already listed above. DAVilla 12:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep it, as it is a proxy type. --Sae1962 (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

—Ruakh_TALK 17:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

discussion room [edit]

Obvious SoP -- Liliana • 06:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Can discussion room or chat room be attested before the use of room on its own in this sense? --Wiki Tiki 89 08:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Good question. I wouldn't think so, but that's just a guess. DAVilla 01:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Abstain. I wouldn't vote delete until my question is investigated. --Wiki Tiki 89 08:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Discussion room? Oh I WONDER what that’s FOR HMMMMMMMMMMM --Æ&Œ (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep. The definition "A forum or message board" is incomplete, though; it should be "An Internet forum or message board" or the like. If this is a semantic sum of parts ("SOP"), then with respect to what sense of "room"? By looking at google books:"discussion room", I see the term sometimes used to rooms people can physically occupy; how common is that usage? Does the phrase tend to pick the Internet context in preference over a physical face-to-face context? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You are looking for sense 12 of room, (Internet, countable) A forum or chat room. -- Liliana • 05:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012 [edit]

Playmaster [edit]

Tagged, not added here. —CodeCa t 18:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Was tagged by a Wonderfool sockpuppet which was indefinitely blocked before he could list it here. The thing is, it claims to be a common noun and a former trademark, so WT:BRAND wouldn't apply. Ergo, keep for lack of any reason to delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Keep. DAVilla 05:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

fa bolle [edit]

I'm pretty sure this is fa (“make”) + bolle (“boil”). It's SoP. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, currently neither of those have Neapolitan entries. --Wiki Tiki 89 18:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Weak delete. --Æ&Œ (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

fa should be written fa' tha means to do or make as you correctly said. Then also the entry fa should be dismissed. Anyway the entry bolle (to boil) I can write it right now Aufels (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say this is the same as French faire bouillir. Faire can be followed by a lot of infinitives (possibly every infinitive!) by the meaning is always transparent because it's a standard meaning of faire. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

All Goguryeo words in the main namespace [edit]

As per Category:Goguryeo_language, we have about 130 Goguryeo words in the main namespace. It would be wonderful to have the small number of words mentioned at w:Goguryeo_language on Wiktionary, but based on the very small sample of words I looked at, it appears that our Goguryeo words have been added without any attestation or reference (see Wiktionary:CFI#Number_of_citations for the requirements).

I would therefore like to propose that all Goguryeo words be deleted.

And BTW, is there a quick and easy way to mass-delete all of those words?

See also Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#On_Goguryeo and Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#On_Goguryeo_in_an_appendix above. --BB12 (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

delete before it spreads across the internet Furius (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete. And, like Furius said, quickly. --Wiki Tiki 89 05:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Deleted using AWB. In deleting them, I discovered this entry; how reliable is it? - -sche (discuss) 08:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hard to say. The same user also created a couple more entries for Silla and Baekje that may need attention (麻立干, 吉支). If someone wants to RFV or cite these, it would be welcome, but I personally have no idea how to go about finding suspicious cases or requisite cites. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, -sche. Silla and Baekje are also extinct languages, so those words can be deleted with the same reasoning that proper attestation is lacking. Also, the other handful of words in those extinct languages: Category:Silla_Old_Korean, Category:Old_Korean_nouns, Category:Baekje_nouns. (It would be really cool to have those words, but at this point, I think it's safer to delete.) --BB12 (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Old Korean is a whole 'nother thing, I think. -- Liliana • 22:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking through the handful of ~~Old Korean~~ Category:Old_Korean_nouns, I see that:

User:DolphinL created 兩班, 棗仁
基下, 太妃, 居西干, 老王, 聖王 were made by unknown people
干, 忽, 薩 are Silla
麻立干 was made by Joseon814

I have left a note on DolphinL's page. Hopefully they will help us out. --BB12 (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

-buster [edit]

"Denoting a person, thing, or event that breaks or overpowers someone or something, as in ballbuster, blockbuster, broncobuster, gangbuster." Not a suffix. Identical definition is already given at buster, too. Equinox ◑ 17:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete, just buster as the second half of various compounds. Even speedy delete if anyone wants to. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

There may be an idiomatic sense: I think it may have originated with w:Gang Busters. It refers to an elite unit that fights whatever the first part of the compound is. The name of the US show w:Mythbusters is a playful reference to this. In fact, a great many of the uses play on the pop-culture/comic-book quality of it. It's quite productive: it would be quite natural to style ourselves as the "SOP-Busters!!!™".Chuck Entz (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

But the coolest buster is Buster Baxter. --Wiki Tiki 89 18:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Dumb question: If it is productive then why isn't it a suffix? Furius (talk)

Because it's a compound. A suffix has no meaning (or a different meaning) on its own. --Wiki Tiki 89 08:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

A suffix (or indeed prefix) can't stand alone with the same meaning. For example re- as in redo, but re can't have the same meaning on its own. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't pro-, anti-, after-, afore-, back-, by- (kinda), contra-, counter-, fellow-, forth-, grand-, half-, infra-, man-, mega-, mini-, nether-, new-, quarter- mean roughly the same thing when they are standalone words as they do when they are prefixes? Furius (talk) 12:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You've brought up a lot of terms there, if I were to comment on all of them I fear we'd get so far off topic we'd never get back on topic again. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, "Mythbusters" is a reference to a film "Ghostbusters" - "Gangbusters" in the US generally means something is doing exceptionally well, and does not refer to "Gang Busters" as a law enforcement group of any ilk. Collect (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

How are we sure that MythBusters is a reference to Ghostbusters? --Wiki Tiki 89 14:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Would an episode where the Mythbusters don Ghostbusters outfits be a hint? Or this site <g> [9] showing how Americans view the name. Collect (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me rephrase: Do we know that MythBusters derived its name from Ghostbusters, or is the reference secondary? --Wiki Tiki 89 14:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You're no doubt correct about MythBusters and Ghostbusters, but Ghostbusters itself is an example of what I was talking about- so the reference is just one step more indirect. As for Gang busters, the sense you're talking about as in "going gangbusters", etc. is the only surviving direct reference- but that doesn't mean that it might not have started the other figure of speech way back when. I'm only speculating about its origins, but it's been around for a good number of decades- it was well-established long before Ghostbusters. I'm not absolutely certain it qualifies as a suffix, though it certainly feels like one to me. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Also note the usage "it was gangbusters" (indicating success) at [10] [11] and a veritable slew of other examples, M-W specifically uses it as an adjective for "excellent" and dates the term to 1971 (it is, of course, older). The radio programme was from the 1930s (ending in 1955) and is unlikely to be a source for a current usage. Collect (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

For an opinion from a usually reliably source see “gangbusters” in Douglas Harper, Online Etymology Dictionary (2001).. DCDuring TALK 19:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

And note that it is about the specific usage "to come on like Gangbusters" and not for the newer derived usage <g>. The usage of "excellent" is not given in the source proffered, which, at best, gives the "earliest etymology" but not the basis for the current usage. Collect (talk) 13:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

fledgling [edit]

rfd-sense: I feel like the adjective sense is really just attributive use of the noun. --Wiki Tiki 89 08:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks to be attestable used in the comparative and also gradably with "very". DCDuring TALK 16:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

rosary [edit]

rfd-sense #3. Can't we generalize the first two senses to make the third unnecessary? --Wiki Tiki 89 18:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There does seem to be a distinction between the original sense of beads to keep ones place while reciting the rosary, and beads to keep track while performing any series of prayers or mantras in any religion. The tagged definition implies this is only used in Christianity, but in hinduism there's a type of rosary called a japa mala (Sanskrit जप (japa) माला (mālā)), (mala for short) that's used to ensure one repeats a mantra the correct number of times (see w:Hindu prayer beads). The definition needs to be fixed before we can realistically decide whether to delete the sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I assume you're not arguing the legitimacy? To me a rosary is of the Catholic variety, so any other use would be a distinct sense. DAVilla 03:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

To me squirrels are gray, prayers are Jewish, cars are big, and sugar is white. That doesn't mean we need separate definitions like "sugar: 1. white sugar 2. brown sugar". Of course in Catholicism rosary refers to the Catholic variety, but in the context of any other religion that uses them it refers to that other religion's variety and they are all essentially the same thing. Also, if it is the case that without context, rosary refers to the Catholic variety, then this is only because Catholic rosaries are more widely known. --Wiki Tiki 89 10:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I take it you're deliberately being a bit hyperbolic. Would a merged sense then be the Catholic definition "or similar for other religions"? I guess I could live with that. It must have been a mindset whose context was strictly Catholic that I recalled from childhood. In fact, I do feel the proposal makes sense since the initial use of rosary as such probably did intend the Catholic meaning but metaphorically applied it to some other item, and it's just become common enough to where it isn't metaphorical anymore. But while Jews must believe Catholics to be praying and brown sugar to be sweet, I'd think there are still people who would say that these items aren't rosaries, even of a different type, so it's still a good idea to highlight Catholicism as predominant for meaning. DAVilla 00:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I have added the other churches WP says use the rosary. Whether this is how the term is used when people, especially those outside those churches, use the term is a matter for attestation. I suspect that it is almost always the Roman Catholic institution that is meant. As a result I think we should delete the third, challenged sense. DCDuring TALK 01:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If we do, then we'll have to replace it with one that covers beads used for other prayers or mantras, such as the mala in Hinduism (as per my comment above). Chuck Entz (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As it stands, I would be inclined to merge the second and third senses into something like "A string of beads used for counting prayers by members of some religions or denominations, particularly [whichever Christian churches use rosaries]" - because I think that if the meaning is used of other religions it is usually by analogy with the Catholic/Anglican institution (The wikipedia article bout the Hindu prayer beads dosen't use the term rosary at all, though some of its sources do). Also, not entirely related, but I feel that the word "decade" in the first sense is less clear than it could be - It's presumably Catholic jargon for ten identical prayers in a row? Furius (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Do folks use rosary to refer to prayer beads in other religions other than as a simile? DCDuring TALK 01:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Just to leave no doubt as to use of the term in Hinduism: [[12]]. The prayer-cycle sense is definitely Roman Catholic in origin, and the prayer-bead sense was originally Roman Catholic as well. The question is whether the extension from prayer beads used in reciting the rosary to prayer bead used in reciting any sequence of prayers or mantras with a constant number of repetitions makes it a separate sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Understood. Have you actually heard such usage that was not in the nature of a simile? DCDuring TALK 02:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Heard it? No. Coincidentally, I took a garden tour at a Hindu monastery in Hawaii on vacation a week and a half ago, where they proudly pointed out their rudraksha trees, but I don't remember them using anything besides mala to describe it. Other than that, rosaries- whether Catholic or otherwise- aren't a common topic of discussion at the Methodist church I go to. But only a handful of the Google Books hits above seem to be similes, though. The w:rudraksha article uses the word in a clearly non-simile sense, though that doesn't count for CFI. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I had no idea that the term was used to describe other prayer beads. I then don't see how the third sense could be deleted. Perhaps sense 1 and 2 can be combined, though sense 1 is already excessively long for a dictionary entry. The detail about the specific prayers and their number should probably go. DCDuring TALK 03:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

When you say that rosaries are originally Roman Catholic, you need to also consider that Protestant churches were also originally Roman Catholic. --Wiki Tiki 89 09:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

extinct volcano [edit]

Supposedly discussed before, but I cannot find it. -- Liliana • 14:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The previous discussion you're referring to may be the 2006 RFD for active volcano. Anyway, delete; this is clearly extinct (“no longer actively erupting”) + volcano. —Caesura ^(t) 14:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Did we not copy that discussion? Active volcano is back. DAVilla 23:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh never mind, it wasn't deleted. Well, hopefully we can come to the same decision on all three. DAVilla 23:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
The definition introduces "thought to be". Introducing modality when it is of no special salience to the definition does not make the definition any less SoP, IMO. Delete DCDuring TALK 15:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep, as the sense of "extinct" with respect to which "extinct volcano" is a semantic sum of parts is specific to volcanoes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete. What's the difference in the use of extinct between "extinct fire" and "extinct volcano"? Also, because you can say "This volcano is active, but that one is extinct.", this is not a set phrase. --Wiki Tiki 89 11:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

An extinct fire has been put out and is no longer a fire; it cannot restart. It is also a metaphorical concept specific to Buddhism. An extinct volcano could become an active volcano by erupting, and in fact extinct is only used with volcano in vulcanology, as far as I know. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Ƿidsiþ 07:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep as a historically used term. As for active volcanos, they are not necessarily active in a nonacademic sense and worth having an entry. Geologists no longer use the terms extinct volcano and dormant volcano, because they have found the distinction meaningless; they use inactive volcano or non-active volcano now. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Extinct covers this, and it’s not only used with volcano; the following are citable: extinct caldera, extinct hotspot, extinct stratovolcano, extinct shield volcano, extinct cinder cone, extinct lava dome, extinct vent. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 18:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Green Hornet [edit]

"An American fictional vigilante, originally a character on a radio serial." Comic-book character, not a generic English phrase. Delete per Talk:Clifford the Big Red Dog. Equinox ◑ 16:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

What, no RFV? Are we going to strike this one down with a rain of delete votes as we did with the well-cited Lassie? DAVilla 03:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I hope not -- the helicopter is named after the fictional character, after all. The fact it is capialized as a proper noun should be a clue. Collect (talk) 13:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete or RFV I don't oppose an RFV but if it passes it would seem perfectly reasonable to list it here again, as being attestable does not exempt any entry from the rest of WT:CFI. My name is John is attestable but we don't have it. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Assuming it was attested outside of the fictional universe, how would it fail any other part of CFI? What criterion does Lassie fail, or was that just a delete fest? What is it about these entries that get your condemnation while other fictional characters do not? DAVilla 23:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

When did "comic book character" become a reason for deletion? In any case, he's also a character from radio, TV, and cinema, and the term was one of General Patton's nicknames. It's a proper noun, and we don't have good criteria for deciding proper nouns. This should go to RfV. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

bitch [edit]

rfd-sense bitch#Verb #1. I don't see how it is any different from #2. --Wiki Tiki 89 11:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I can see what the entry is trying to do. If I say "[generic female name] is a slut, she sleeps with anyone" that's not complaining per se, it's nastiness/bitterness. If I say "working till 8pm on a Friday is a bitch" that's not nastiness/bitterness, it's complaining. There's a lot of overlap. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Well it depends on the context, but I would either say that those are still both really the same sense and the sense is not exactly equivalent to the word "complaining", or that the first example is not bitching per se but more like "being a bitch". --Wiki Tiki 89 14:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

As it stands, delete per nom. If there is a distinct sense, word it better and give it a more distinctive usex. - -sche (discuss) 06:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

deleted -- Liliana • 22:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

life's a bitch [edit]

... and then you die. DAVilla 00:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

... and then you marry one. --Dmol (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

payback's a bitch [edit]

...and possibly others. These are not "proverbs" but SOP sentences that happen to be frequently said in these situations. --Wiki Tiki 89 11:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, anything can be a bitch, e.g. karma. See bitch. Delete. Equinox ◑ 15:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

deleted -- Liliana • 15:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

see you when I see you [edit]

Absolutely useless for a phrasebook. --Wiki Tiki 89 14:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep (but not necessarily as a phrasebook entry) as I think this is idiomatic, it goes beyond the literal "I will see you whenever it so happens that I will see you". It's more of a statement of intent; "I have no plans to see you but I expect we will meet again". It's not a clear-cut no-doubter but for me still a keeper. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Like! Er... I mean keep per fun-loving MG. DAVilla 22:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep as idiomatic, but remove phrasebook designation. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is even a term. It is just someone saying "See you... " but when he can't think of whether to say "tomorrow", "next week", or "next year", he says "when I see you". --Wiki Tiki 89 07:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Ƿidsiþ 07:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hylobatidea [edit]

I think this is a misspelling of Hylobatidae, but not common enough to merit a "common misspelling entry. It may be the we should have -idea#Translingual as a common misspelling, among other things of -idae#Translingual, because the misspelling seems productive. DCDuring TALK 16:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

trolly dolly [edit]

Seems to be a rare misspelling of trolley dolly. Note we don't even have an entry for trolly (but probably should, as a misspelling or a variant). I think this would pass an RFV, but it's so rare it should nevertheless be deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Eh, if we're going to have trolly, I don't see the harm in having this. Keep (but change to {{misspelling of|trolley dolly}}) Smurrayinchester (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

But it's not a common misspelling, it's a very rare misspelling. Barely citable per WT:CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

If, say, 1 in 20 people will look up "trolly" instead of "trolley", 1 in 20 will also look up "trolly dolly" instead of "trolley dolly". They're equally common misspellings, in that they (presumably) have the same relative occurrence rate, it's just that "trolley dolly" is a rarer word than "trolley". Smurrayinchester (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete. —Ruakh_TALK 17:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

write once, run anywhere [edit]

A commercial slogan. (Not dictionary material) SemperBlotto (talk) 08:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete. And I second Equinox's comment up at #Video Object. --Wiki Tiki 89 09:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete, this would be like having finger licking good because of KFC. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Probably not a good example: see [13] and finger-lickin' good. In the 18th and 19th centuries, one would use allusions to Greek and Roman mythology, since that was something known to all educated people. Nowadays, advertising slogans have at least partly taken their place as common cultural references. I would say that when something is used in both rock-climbing and porn contexts, it's definitely escaped into the wild. I'm not so sure this one is to that point yet. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Probably delete as a slogan, though compare WORM (write once read many times) — I expect they based it on that. Equinox ◑ 11:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

WORA (its acronym/initialism) isn't nominated, mind you. And I suspect we wouldn't keep write once read many times if we had it! Mglovesfun (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The existence of WORA is suggestive that it is idiomatic. It would hardly be unusual that a slogan became part of the lexicon. This was apparently introduced by Sun in since 1995, which gives plenty of time for the lexicalization. Commercial origin does not forever mark something as unincludable. BTW, I wonder whether anyone has noted the WORA feature of, say, the printed word or HTML, or.... DCDuring TALK 12:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Eh? So they Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is idiomatic because of the existence of RSPCA, is it? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Proper nouns have their own considerations (Remember "individual entities").

Write once run anywhere is used as an adjective in contexts other than ads, about things other than Java: "One of the most important reasons to use a virtual machine is that the code is “write once, run anywhere”." (from bgc). Keep DCDuring TALK 13:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

But, unless I'm missing something it means [[write]] [[once]], [[run]] [[anywhere]]. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That definition is not substitutable into its adjective usage, being bare-verb clauses. A proper definition might be something like "(of a computer application or a programming language) Having the characteristic that the same code can be run without change on any device equipped with suitable software." Perhaps you can come up with something that makes the SoPitude more apparent. DCDuring TALK 13:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought this was a "decide once, apply many times" case but it seems it's a "decide many times, and never apply" case. --Wiki Tiki 89 13:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I used to think we could and should have more easy-to-apply criteria. The biggest simplification was WT:COALMINE, which has not been a complete success. We end up just trying to apply principles, sometimes in novel ways, to each individual case and then attempt to find a few cases that are sufficiently similar to apply the precedent too. It is a kind of common-law system, with few statutes. DCDuring TALK 14:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

IMO, problem with this is that it is a slogan - I don't know if we allow slogans. AFAIC understand the entry contains no examples/cites that suggest its usage other than for advertising. No adjective usex. But if there were any such thing and if the def were modified, we might keep it since we have what you see is what you get (computing sense). --biblbroks_{дискашн} 21:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it only a slogan? We are not so anti-commercial that, once words have been used as a commercial slogan, that configuration of words is forever verba non grata here. DCDuring TALK 22:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

DCDuring, the definition isn't backing you up! The definition says it's a slogan and nothing more. If there's a more widespread meaning feel free to add it. As for adjectival or adverbial use, any chance of some evidence? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I assumed that the norm for this discussion was assertion without evidence, based on prevailing practice of all participants. Where is the evidence that this is only used as a slogan?

I view these RfDs and RfVs as often providing the opportunity to convert a bad entry into a good one, rather than exclusively a legalistic exercise. Perhaps I have missed something that mandates exclusively legalistic use of these forums. DCDuring TALK 22:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

My question is do you have evidence to back up what you say? You're asking us not to comment on this entry, but a hypothetical future version of it. What's your objection to providing evidence? You're normally all for it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm in favor of people providing evidence for their assertions, but I see no reason to do so in a discussion where the call for evidence is unmatched by the provision of evidence. Also, there's no rush. I can add an entry at any time with evidence, if I would like. We already have lots of coverage of computing terms, so missing one like this, whether or not it meets CFI, is not that important. And we have [[WORA]], which is used more frequently and would be found by search. It might even be a good precedent to have this deleted even though it might meet CFI. DCDuring TALK 12:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

But it doesn't meet CFI because it is SOP. --Wiki Tiki 89 12:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Revised to remove advertising. Suggest RFV for proof of genericism. DAVilla 06:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

moved to RFV -- Liliana • 22:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

vaginal sex [edit]

Looks pretty obvious, doesn’t it? --Æ&Œ (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I personally think it's a dumb entry. However, note that (according to us) it's only vaginal sex if the penis is inserted, and not (say) a dildo, or the fist; if true, that might make it less than SoP. Compare anal sex, where anything can be inserted into the anus, not just a penis. Equinox ◑ 21:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like an important point to me. DAVilla 06:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I seriously doubt anyone differentiates vaginal sex and anal sex that way. Some people may say a penis has to be inserted in both cases in order for the definition to be met, while others may say that the insertion of other objects (dildo, fist, light bulb, zucchini, gerbil) will also fit the definition, but I cannot believe anyone applies the penis-only rule to the definition of "vaginal sex" but not to the definition of "anal sex". —An gr 19:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Re entry: I think widening the def is the solution. Re Angr: No. Just no. We gerbils have rights too. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I believe you. No need to be so graphic, all of you. DAVilla 16:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

key set identifier [edit]

Bad transwiki. Go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200. -- Liliana • 23:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

observable universe [edit]

The part of the universe which is observable. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. Something can be obscured (e.g. the Great Attractor) but still practically observable in the very specific and broadly inclusive sense spelled out in the definition. Also, it's a technical term. Keep. DAVilla 20:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

And one whose definition has changed and will change and varies according to the technology contemplated by the user of the term. Delete. DCDuring TALK 22:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

No it won't - light cannot travel any faster than light speed, and we can't see things whose light has not reached us. The observable universe is a sphere with a radius of roughly 46 billion light years, with us at the centre, and (On a human timeframe) will remain thus. keep Furius (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep. It means a part of a larger universe from which light has already reached us. The center of Earth is not observable but it is surely in the observable universe. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

known universe [edit]

The part of the universe which is known. Compare known world which we don't have. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I would add that too if I didn't think it would annoy you not to first wait for this to pass.

Does the known universe include the bottom of the Mariana Trench? Keep. DAVilla 20:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, unless you find citations saying otherwise. Delete. Equinox ◑ 01:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Right, of course it does, even though nobody knows what's down there. DAVilla 02:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep as above. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

physical universe [edit]

The [[physical]] [[universe]]. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about User:Sae1962, rather about technically knowledgeable people who do take the time to learn some of the fundamental rules of lexicography, when I say that this is what turns people away. Strong abstain in protest. DAVilla 21:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Compare synonymous material universe. "Technical term" doesn't wash against SoP, either: polymorphic constructor, virtual destructor, sealed subclass, etc. are all tech terms in computing, yet all totally comprehensible from their parts. Equinox ◑ 21:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

My usual example of a technical term is in juggling a blind catch - meaning any catch which is blind. An example of a technical term that can be understood by anyone because it's transparent. Also I don't think physical universe is a technical term anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Also maybe we should add material world, and presumably material girl at the same time. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

belly button ring [edit]

Surely any ring can be known by where it is worn. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep. I would have thought that the phrase referred to a ring around the belly button, perhaps a hygienic condition. bd2412 T 15:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete. I doubt that we can satisfy radical lexicalists with any finite set of entries. I also doubt that such radicals are willing to admit to the full implications of their stated position.

This seems to me to be instance of the syntax of English noun phrases with semantic elements, such as might be illustrated with usage examples. Any ring can be known by various attributive modifiers, usually indicating something atypical (not *ring finger ring) in one dimension or other. In this case it is location. Common, but atypical locations (pinky, nose, labia, lip) are not really any more meritorious of entry than uncommon, atypical entries like thumb ring, toe ring. Other attributives for this sense of ring indicate material (gold), symbolic association (school, wedding), distinguishing decorative or symbolic element (diamond). Body position, when present, seems to want to be closest to ring: a gold belly-button ring rather than *a belly-button gold ring. If we are going to use lexical entries to illustrate so many syntactic-grammatical features and restrictions we would need literally thousands of entries for this sense of ring alone. DCDuring TALK 16:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Are there thousands of terms like this that have a CFI-worthy number of citations? bd2412 T 02:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Would you want to bet on the relative frequency of this particular collocation? We could bet on there being hundreds of collocations using this sense of ring, some of which are idiomatic, at least under COALMINE. The selection of such terms that we now make seems motivated by a combination of frequency and topicality to our contributors, who seem strongly motivated, as in this case, by hormones. DCDuring TALK 03:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Pick a dozen or two dozen and see how many Google Books hits you get. For starters, I tried out "platinum belly button ring" and "belly button platinum ring" and got zero CFI-worthy hits for either. I don't think we would need "a gold belly-button ring" anyway. If the current definition of belly button ring holds, then the pertinent sense of gold, whether preceding or in the middle of the phrase, would be obvious. bd2412 T 04:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete and see #toe ring. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how to think about this, yet. Similar entries seem to be finger ring, nose ring, neck ring, toe ring, tongue ring, and redlinked ankle ring (google books:"ankle ring"), and thumb ring (google books:"thumb ring"). Of course, there is solid-spelled earring, kept per being solid-spelled. Some of these may be protected by WT:COALMINE. What I find at OneLook dictionaries is this: nose ring at OneLook Dictionary Search.
In any case, right now, ring entry does not seem to have a suitable sense with respect to which "belly button ring" is a sum of parts; it could be the most generic sense, but image search shows that a belly button ring does not need to have the shape of a ring. Thus, the sense of "ring" enabling the sum-of-parts claim would probably be one generically referring to jewelry or ornamentation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Toe rings and belly button rings are not as common in the West as earrings but they are words, common jewellery items in many countries where both terms are often expressed in solid words (with no spaces). Keep. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete SOP. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 22:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Kelvin scales [edit]

There is only 1 Kelvin scale. All usages are things like "Celsius and Kelvin scales". DTLHS (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. Delete unless anyone wants to formally RFV. DAVilla 16:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Found this usage: "Also to keep in mind is that the Kelvin scales on cameras will not and do not match the real world measurements". Should we add a sense to "Kelvin scale" and mark it as uncountable and countable? --Hekaheka (talk) 07:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The source of the quote appears to be here: http://www.whibalhost.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8926 . It strikes me as a very unusual usage - I don't know if that matters? Furius (talk) 07:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It is countable, but the plural form is not attested. DAVilla 05:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Another interesting quote: "The Celsius scales have their zeros at 0-01 ° below the triple point of water, and the Kelvin scales have their zeros at the absolute zero" [14]. I understand this so that there are several alternative principles for measuring temperature and these methods lead to slightly different scales, i.e. one Kelvin scale is a theoretical ideal, which may be emulated by various measurement methods. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

For further consideration: why do we have Kelvin scale in the first place? It is nothing but a scale using Kelvin as unit. We don't have Fahrenheit scale, millimeter scale or whatever. --Hekaheka (talk) 03:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Middle/Old Korean, Silla, Goguryeo and Baekje [edit]

As per Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#All_Goguryeo_words_in_the_main_namespace, I would like to repeat my call to delete all extinct/reconstructed words from the Korean Peninsula, including Silla, Goguryeo and Baekje. No evidence has been presented for the existence of those words and User:DolphinL has not responded to my inquiry. The deletion would be all words under the following categories:

Category:Middle_Korean_language
Category:Old_Korean_language
Category:Silla_Old_Korean (this is actually a subcategory of Old Korean)
Category:Baekje_language
Category:Goguryeo_language

As cool as these entries are, reconstructed terms qualify only for inclusion in appendices (Wiktionary:CFI#Reconstructed_languages) and for extinct terms, "one use in a contemporaneous source is the minimum, or one mention is adequate subject to" certain requirements (Wiktionary:CFI#Number_of_citations). All of these terms fail to qualify for inclusion. --BB12 (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

A closer look will show that Category:Middle_Korean_language was created- in its entirety- by Visviva (talk • contribs) (who should know a thing or two about CFI), and not by DolphinL (talk • contribs). There are also IPs who created many Old Korean entries 61.99.164.37 (talk • contribs), 61.99.165.2 (talk • contribs) and 61.99.166.138 (talk • contribs) are the first ones I ran into, though there may be others- though I suppose they might just have been DolphinL (talk • contribs) before he/she had a Wiktionary account. There's even at least one Goguryeo entry in there created by Joseon814 (talk • contribs). This may require a more complicated approach than the previous rfd Chuck Entz (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. We already know that Joseon814 is not reliable. I have left a note on Visviva's page. These are extinct words without any citation and are therefore subject to deletion if Visviva or someone else does not provide a citation for each. --BB12 (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. Here's my three cents:

Middle Korean: Middle Korean is reasonably well-attested, though like most "Middle" languages it suffers from massive ambiguity in terms of how it is defined, and the entries are a pain in the butt to write & cite due to inconsistent orthography &c. The extant 15th-century hangul texts are definitely Middle Korean, and most authorities would extend that definition either backwards to include the idu and gugyeol texts of the Goryeo period, or forward to some later point in the Joseon dynasty, or both (Korean Wikipedia considers OKM to cover the 10th through 16th centuries, which jibes with my general impression of the consensus).

By way of example, for 귀믿터리, two citations (from the same c. 1481 text) are presented here; however, in order to transfer them to Wiktionary, I would need to a) install that accursed PUA font that Naver et al. use for precomposed Middle Korean glyphs, and b) painfully reconstruct those syllabic blocks in the Wiktionary-approved Unicode-compliant fashion. It looks as if I went through this process once or twice (see ᄆᆞ니다), but then decided the hell with it. I don't expect I'll be revisiting that decision.

I would not fault Wiktionary for deciding it didn't want to be bothered with having OKM entries, or Middle English or Middle French entries for that matter -- but I think they do (or at least can) meet CFI.

Old Korean / Sillan: There are some extant texts in Sillan, including inscriptions and some quoted passages in the old chronicles. Many of the hyangga poems are also believed to date from the Silla period (although the texts in which they occur are of slightly more recent vintage), and are therefore used as source material for the study of Old Korean. The European analogy that comes to mind is Gaulish: extremely spotty but attestable.

IMO these OKO entries can meet CFI as well. On the other hand, AFAIK no Sillan entries have actually been properly cited, and I'm not likely to take up that challenge myself, so it probably wouldn't harm the project terribly if they were all deleted.

Baekje / Goguryeo: There are no extant texts in these languages, although individual words are occasionally glossed in Chinese chronicles or readily deducible from proper names. The European analogy that comes to mind is Pictish, and I think that these categories (if retained at all) should probably be as empty as that one. The only reason Wiktionary has these entries now is that moving them to their actual quasi-recorded form seemed, at the time, like a reasonable compromise with the user who had been dumping putative hangul (!!) entries in these languages (and Sillan) into Wiktionary; see this very brief discussion from 2008. But IMO the project would be better off without any Baekje or Goguryeo entries at all. -- Visviva (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Added: Balhae_Old_Korean should also die a swift and painless death. -- Visviva (talk) 05:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

If you have a dictionary which contains some of these, name it in the references section of the entries, and they're sufficiently verified without you having to write out any complex characters — since extinct languages are allowed in with only one use or mention / reference work. :)

And if you can link to citations of Middle Korean words, I would consider it rather unconstructive if someone RFVed the entries to demand that you actually compose the gylphs. When people link to Google Books citations of words on RFV, I often pass the terms without making them type up the citations. - -sche (discuss) 06:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

"although individual words are occasionally glossed in Chinese chronicles". I thought we now allowed mentions in extinct languages? So such mentions would be enough. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

As long as the entries provide the source, that is not a problem. There is, of course, the additional issue that since (I assume) only Chinese characters are used the actual pronunciations cannot be very precisely determined. --BB12 (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

caught in the act [edit]

caught + in the act, common collocation but verb might be e.g. "see", "nab", "spot", "observe" plus the verb "catch" may appear in all tenses. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems deletable. DAVilla 13:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

closing time [edit]

Categorized in Category:en:Drinking. It looks like time of closing - of any premises - to me. DCDuring TALK 12:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
keep q:GoldenEye features a figurative use of this term. -- Liliana • 16:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the entry. Please revise. I'd also added a sense at [[time]], as in "Hurry up, please. It's time." or "Hurry-up-please-it's-time". DCDuring TALK 18:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the second sense basically says that the words "closing time" are used to indicate that the closing time is approaching. I don't see how it would improve the entry in any material way. Does the third sense indicate that "closing time" means "an unspecified period of time immediately before a deadline" in UK? In any case, a usex would be nice. Might one say e.g. "Hurry up, it's closing time!" to motivate one's team to a final effort? --Hekaheka (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete. All senses currently there are SOP. The "figurative" senses really belong at closing. --Wiki Tiki 89 19:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

@Hekaheka: The second sense is non-idiomatic insofar as it restricts the sense to "UK, of a pub", so that in the UK "closing time" often means "closing time of a pub" when the restriction would not be obvious from the situation. It is also used to get the patrons to get their last drink order in, just like last call. The third sense is meant to cover the figurative use cited by Liliana above. Obviously, this is all rather labored since most English speakers, even 7000 miles from London would have little difficulty in determining the meaning from context in almost every case. DCDuring TALK 19:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I want to see cites for the third one ("a deadline for action is imminent"). Otherwise I'd say clear delete. Equinox ◑ 20:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that senses 2 and 3 need to be merged. I believe that the term means (in British pubs) the period between "last orders" or "time, gentlemen, please" being called and patrons being shoved out the door ("chucking-out time"). SemperBlotto (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep. While it could be more general, outside of any context it would be presumed to apply to a bar. DAVilla 05:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete as clear-cut SoP. Entry is not claiming to be idiomatic, and as far as I can see, it isn't. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yup, delete. --Hekaheka (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I've added the citation to sense three if someone was wondering. Maybe this will change the course of discussion? -- Liliana • 15:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

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

sick [edit]

Noun: sick people in general as a group. Not a noun but an adjective. Hence should not be listed as a noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

This comes from a grammatical rule that allows adjectives to mean "the group of X people," as in "the rich" and "the poor." I see that we have this noun sense for "poor" but not "rich." Allowing this usage, opens the door for others like "the beautiful," "the bold," etc. --BB12 (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

In theory, there are tests of whether an adjective can also be a noun or not, see Talk:minacious. - -sche (discuss) 00:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This grammatical rule applies widely to adjectives. For example, if I make a posting on Facebook and three people make snarky remarks, it would be naturally to say, "I see the snarky are out in full force today." I think this noun use should be stricken for sick and poor. --BB12 (talk) 09:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

If this is not a noun, why does it occur modified by such determiners as many, any, no, some, few as well as the [15]? Is that a general property of adjectives? It is true that, in contrast with affluent, one cannot find this as sicks. One can find it in much more than attestable numbers as a possessive: "general silence reigned, and all the lights below were out, with the exception of a single lamp in the sick's apartment, where lay the remains of Kemble."

I don't think that every adjective displays all of this behavior. Perhaps the existence of a plural form in -s would be the most demanding test, though it would not apply to mass nouns. DCDuring TALK 10:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Very nice search algorithm! Try replacing "sick" with "rich" and with "poor." You'll see plenty of hits. There's even one relevant hit for "affluent." These are adjectives being used as nouns via a grammatical rule. --BB12 (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

December 2012 [edit]

model-driven architecture [edit]

Architecture that is model-driven (and also the plural model-driven architectures. Furius (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

dependency injection [edit]

An injection (sense #6) of dependency (and also the plural dependency injections. Furius (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

event-driven architecture [edit]

Architecture that is event-driven (and also the plural event-driven architectures. Furius (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

compound pattern [edit]

"A design pattern that combines at least two patterns into a solution that solves a recurring or general problem", i.e. compound + pattern (and also the plural compound patterns. Furius (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Not just any pattern, a design pattern. Keep this technical term. DAVilla 12:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Note (and this also applies to many following items) that technical terms are often entirely deducible from the sum of their parts and not always dictionary worthy. Classic example from juggling is a blind catch, any catch which is blind. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

design pattern [edit]

"A formal way of documenting a general reusable solution to a design problem in a particular field of expertise" i.e. a pattern for design purposes (and also the plural design patterns. Furius (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

IMO keep this one. Well-known concept in computer programming (see Wikipedia), with entire books written about it, plus there is potential for confusion with other senses (e.g. web design has nothing to do with design patterns). I don't think we should necessarily have any/all of the specific patterns though (like structural pattern). Equinox ◑ 01:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Technical term, definite keeper. DAVilla 12:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

As it is with its hyponyms a technical term, this entry and any sub entry should be kept. --Sae1962 (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

concurrency pattern [edit]

Not certain about this one from the definition given, but it seems to be a pattern for concurrency (sense 2). Furius (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep. DAVilla 12:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep this technical term. --Sae1962 (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

galaxy group [edit]

A group of galaxies Furius (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Clusters are groups of galaxies but are not galaxy groups. Keep technical term. DAVilla 12:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Note that definition four at group is "A small number (up to about fifty) of galaxies that are near each other." Furius (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

But is that definition of group a shortening of galaxy group? — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 12:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I find definition 4 to be remarkably silly in not simply referencing galaxy group. DAVilla 03:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep. This deletion request seems amateurish. Galaxy groups are not just groups; they are distinguished from galaxy clusters in size. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

More proxies [edit]

protection proxy [edit]

"A proxy that controls access to a resource based on access rights" Furius (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

remote proxy [edit]

"A proxy that controls access to a remote object" Furius (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

complexity-hiding proxy [edit]

"A proxy that hides the complexity of and controls access to a complex set of classes" Furius (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

virtual proxy [edit]

"A proxy that controls access to a resource that is expensive to create", i.e. a resource which instead exists virtually (sense four)Furius (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Capable of being overridden in a subclass? I don't think that's right. Also, there's confusion as to whether the proxy itself is virtual. Keep. DAVilla 13:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete, and if you really want then make the context on virtual more specific because the "capable of being overridden in a subclass" sense only applies when you are talking about members of a class. For what it's worth, if a proxy were a member of a class, you would be able to say "virtual proxy" with the meaning that it can be overridden in a subclass. --Wiki Tiki 89 13:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess I never really understood what it means. But that's all the more reason to explain it. Hard for me to say it's intuitive if I still don't get it. DAVilla 13:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we are missing the specific sense of virtual that the definition at virtual proxy refers to, but it's not only proxies that can be virtual in that sense. It's the same sense as in "virtual memory" and "virtual machine" (see w:Virtualization). --Wiki Tiki 89 13:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

access specifier & access modifier [edit]

access specifier [edit]

access modifier [edit]

Shockingly, an access specifier specifies access. I'm going to stop adding entries now, because I feel as if I'm spamming RFD, but I will finish by noting that sae1962 is a prodigious editor - these are only the SoP entries since October 15, and they are a relatively small portion of a sea of Turkish and German edits which look to be of generally good quality. It would be great if all his efforts were directed towards those entries. Furius (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

A list of users' login passwords also specifies access, but is not an access specifier. Equinox ◑ 01:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

In the correct context (object-oriented language grammar), there is no ambiguity. --Wiki Tiki 89 09:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

place of decimals [edit]

Next up in the parade of sums‐of‐parts. --Æ&Œ (talk) 14:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Do people say this? DCDuring TALK 16:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

If they once did, this might be entry-worthy. DCDuring TALK 16:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep. But RFV. --Wiki Tiki 89 19:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It is much, much more common in the plural (See Google book search). But the definition is just plain wrong. It means the number of decimal places used in a particular expression. i.e. pi is 3.1 to 2 places of decimals, but 3.1415926 to 8 places of decimals. 22:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

In that case, the definition is not wrong (because decimal places are used that way too), but just not specific enough. I still think it should be RFV'd first. --Wiki Tiki 89 06:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes - in my usage: π το the fourth decimal place = 3.1416 , is synonymous with π το four decimal places = 3.1416, which is synonymous with π το four places of decimals = 3.1416 — Saltmarsh^{απάντηση} 06:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

she's unconscious [edit]

he's unconscious [edit]

This and zij is bewusteloos. Not phrasebook-worthy, IMO. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

delete and he's unconscious Furius (talk) 08:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete, straightforward, no need for me to comment further. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep. This is useful in emergency situations, isn't it? —CodeCa t 14:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

How so? If you know unconscious and have at least one finger (there are nine in reserve so don't worry), you don't need this entry. -- Liliana • 01:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps if you were calling for help over the phone? Move to an appendix. - -sche (discuss) 04:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Surely you just need to know the word [[unconscious]]. A telephone operator on an emergency call won't care about the gender of the person who's unconscious. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

name for [edit]

Not a phrasal verb (not a phrase). Meaning the same as name + after. The "particle" is a preposition which can be fronted. Name in no way acquires a new sense in this. DCDuring TALK 23:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

We also have name after. There's an old joke with many variations, but basically it goes like this: "Did you know the Kennedy Center was named after Kennedy?" "Well of course it was, it couldn't have been named before Kennedy!" The reason we have name for is because it is a variation of name after, the primacy of which was the subject of this Tea room discussion over seven years ago. A later Tea room discussion agrees with you that these are not phrasal verbs, but concludes that these should still be kept in Wiktionary. Also, as I recall, both name for and name after were, at the time, contained in lists of entries that were requested to be made. It seems unwise to maintain these lists if entries made from them are liable to be deleted. In short, there are several historical basis to keep these. bd2412 T 01:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete, seems pretty straightforward. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep per bd2412.Dmol (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I would add that this phrase almost exclusively uses an unusual sense of "for". If I buy groceries, or do most anything else, "for" my grandmother, it means that I'm buying them on her behalf, or for her use, and not in her honor. However, if I name my daughter "for" my grandmother, then I am doing it in her honor. There is a middle case, where, for example, I give $20 to charity "for" my grandmother, in which case I might be doing so in her honor, or I might be doing so on her behalf (because she gave me $20 and asked me to give it to this charity). That can only be determined from context. But naming someone or something "for" someone or something else is automatically understood to be done in honor of the original - a sense that would not be obvious to the non-native English speakers who are so breathtakingly undervalued by this dictionary. bd2412 T 01:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Google Books has a single result for "christened for" ("...his uncle"), from 1933. Equinox ◑ 01:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Google Books returns many, many more examples for "christened after" in the sense of "named after". I think that by itself shows that "named for" is a bit of a colloquialism. bd2412 T 03:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Keep.—msh210℠ (talk) 07:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

wireless network [edit]

From what I can tell, the definition saying that wireless networks always have an access point is wrong, as mesh networks that work wirelessly are called a wireless network too. As such, I think this is SoP as wireless + network. -- Liliana • 09:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a computer term that should be kept. Also defined at Your Dictionary]. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It's also used to refer specifically to wifi. And sometimes even more specifically to wifi with internet access. But this might just be metonymy. --Wiki Tiki 89 10:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Just wireless may also refer to both wireless network or wireless connectivity. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll bet the most common usage is as a synonym for wifi/WiFi, as a transitional term between hearing or reading wifi/WiFi and understanding wifi/WiFi. And the next most common will be a more SoP usage in discussions about the technology generally or about the next generation of WiFi. DCDuring TALK 14:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

metropolitan area network [edit]

This should be undeleted IMO. Nine OneLook references (lemmings) have it. It has an acronym MAN. It fits into a naming scheme/family (LAN, WAN, MAN). DCDuring TALK 15:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Why does having an acronym mean that it ought to have an entry? We don't have United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization just because we have UNESCO. The term is SoP and should stay deleted Furius (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

We would have such an entry if the names of individual entities were not looked upon skeptically.(Formerly they were prohibited.) Please apply the force of your arguments to the other rationales as well. DCDuring TALK 00:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The naming scheme extends to campus area network, personal area network, storage area network. DCDuring TALK 13:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Furthermore, the manner of closure of the previous RFD on "metropolitan area network" is wrong; see Talk:metropolitan area network. It says: "Deleted. No supporting votes or comments.". But actually, it is the action of deletion that needs supporting comments showing concensus for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC) Later: On a second thought and reading, there are comments that seem to support deletion, so the closing was probably all right. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Do we need area network? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's any such thing. (I'd hyphenate these terms too, e.g. local-area network.) Equinox ◑ 11:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not as common as local area network and wide area network but it's also defined in OneLook dictionary, abbreviate as MAN. Keep. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Deleted by Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Prince of the Power of the Air [edit]

Prince of this world [edit]

God of this world [edit]

As far as I can tell, these are just descriptive phrases, not idiomatic terms for Satan any more than "the forty-third American President" is an idiomatic term for George W. Bush. They're all lowercase in the Bible I have to hand, too (so the capitalisation is wrong). - -sche (discuss) 00:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I dunno. I don't know whether we should have leader of the free world, but we do.

These obviously have a rather restricted usage context, possibly narrower than Christianity as a whole. DCDuring TALK 14:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete all per nom. bd2412 T 01:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I need a condom [edit]

Too many I need ... phrases and let's keep it decent. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

What's not decent about that? This seems a very valid phrase for a traveller to need to use in a foreign country. I can't lay my hands on a phrasebook at the immediate second, but I suspect most commercial ones have twice the list of "I need ..." phrases we do, and almost certainly "I need a condom".--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll withdraw if you find a commercial phrasebook with "I need a condom". On the decency, until we have clear CFI, we should keep the phrasebook as decent as possible with less duplications, perhaps also without big growth, IMO. So far, it seems there are more people against the phrasebook and then for it - Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-12/Removing phrasebook. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

If being published in a commercial phrasebook is our standard, here's some related phrases we could use:

1993, Ray Daniels, Making Out in Chinese, Tokyo: Yenbooks, ISBN 0804818630, page 66:

Are you using protection? Ní yǒ bì-yùìn mȧ? Please use protection. Chíng nǐ dài báu-shiěn tàu.
1988, Todd & Erika Geers, Making Out in Japanese, Tokyo: Yenbooks, ISBN 0804815410, published 1989, page 57:

Will you use protection? Hinin shite? ♂♀ Are you on the Pill? Piru nonderu? ♂♀

~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

A couple more related phrases:

2000, Clara De Macedo Vitorino, Lonely Planet Portuguese Phrasebook, Lonely Planet, page 102:

I think we should use a condom. ahshoo de dveeuhmoosh oozahr przervuhteevoo Acho que devíamos usar preservativo. Do you have a condom? tayzh oong przervuhteevoo? Tens um preservativo?

~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by decent. A condom is an ordinary item that may well be needed by a travelling tourist.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 02:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep to counteract the bare-bones vote by Tolkien's monster. I would consider supporting deletion if a meaningful rationale is provided. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

For future reference, whenever I don’t give my own rationale it’s because I agree with nominator’s rationale. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 00:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to have sex with you [edit]

Same as above. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Also I'm on the pill --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete both. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 02:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

So, if I can find a commercial phrasebook with that sentence, will you withdraw this one too? Here's two:

1990, Todd & Erika Geers, More Making Out in Japanese, Tokyo: Yenbooks, ISBN 0804815925, page 57:

I want to make love to you. Anata-to beddo-in shitai.* ♀ Anata-to netai. ♀ Kimi-to beddo-in shitai.* ♂ Kimi-to netai. ♂
1993, Ray Daniels, Making Out in Chinese, Tokyo: Yenbooks, ISBN 0804818630, page 66:

I want to make love. Wó shiǎng dzùo aì.

Keep ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

There are two, yes, but only if by "two" you mean "zero". :-P (We wouldn't add "Show me to a hotel, you mofo!" to our phrasebook just because some other phrasebook has "Where can I find a hotel?") —Ruakh_TALK 03:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

@Robin Lionheart. OK, I'll withdraw after you add the quotes. Adding quotes from commercial phrasebooks is the first step to create CFI for our phrasebook. Note, I'm not against the phrasebook, quite the opposite but we need to make it more appealing to other users. The deletion of entries is beyond my control but I'll detag this and above once you add the citations. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Ruakh, "like to have sex with you"/"want to make love to you" is a distinction without a difference, in my opinion. But we could retitle the entry to the more flowery wording. And now that I think about it,

I want to make love to you

I'd like to have sex with you.

would look less silly than

I'd like to have sex with you

Indicates that the speaker would like to engage in sexual activities with the listener.

~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It has been done, adding three more citations from three Lonely Planet phrasebooks. I want to make love to you seems like a more natural sounding phrase book entry too. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete (all) SemperBlotto (talk) 09:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

As a nominator I have detagged the entry, the renaming will require some changes to the translation. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Unstriking as withdrawn since Ungoliant and SB say to delete. Retagging also.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Move "I'd like to have sex with you" to "I want to make love to you"; the latter seems more common in Google Books (after navigating "next" several times), and has been found by Röbin Liönheart in an actual phrasebook--see Citations:I want to make love to you. For the current best estimate of support of phrasebook among English Wiktionary editors, see Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-12/Removing phrasebook. For the case it was not clear, keep "I want to make love to you". --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Delete Also not idiomatic--it's just "I want [x]."
Delete. I doubt its usefulness. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

conceited [edit]

Rfd-redundant: vain and egotistic

Sense covering it: having an excessively favorable opinion of one's abilities, appearance, etc.

The second definition was added in diff by an anon on 9 May 2007.

See also Wiktionary:Tea_room#conceited, where DCDuring opined that "They are redundant. The second definition is better."

If the definition gets removed, its translations need to be tagged with ttbc. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

side wall [edit]

back wall [edit]

front wall [edit]

These were discussed back in 2008 and kept after Ruakh, msh210 and meco(?) advocated keeping them while Mglovesfun and the tagger advocated deletion; see Talk:side wall. In that discussion, msh210 pointed out that "side wall" can mean the side wall of anything. Ruakh argued that "It's like how at set we include the math sense, even though that's just a special case of the more general sense", but I don't think that comparison is apt. More apt, IMO, is that we don't have a racquetball- or football- or baseball-specific sense of [[uniform]], even though a baseball uniform is different from a football uniform, and we don't have a special sense of [[player]] for "squash player", "racquetball player", etc, we just have "one who plays any game or sport". That a racquetball player must hit the front wall in a rally is a rule of the game racquetball, not a contribution to some supposed idiomaticity of "front wall". - -sche (discuss) 08:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

But these might pass via COALMINE regardless of other merits/demerits; someone should check. (Compare [[house wall]].) - -sche (discuss) 19:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

A side wall seems like a different word with a different pronunciation from sidewall, so I don't think COALMINE can apply here. —CodeCa t 23:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I have three cites for sidewall as it applies to racquetball, which I have provisionally placed under a subsense. I noted but didn't cite other sports uses: in billiards/pool, baseball, indoor soccer/football. There may be more. My Books search for "off the sidewall" favored sports, so non-sports senses my also exist. DCDuring TALK 03:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Even if these entries pass via COALMINE, I think the racquetball-specific senses should be deleted and only the generic "the [[side]] [[wall]] of anything" senses should remain. - -sche (discuss) 04:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Right.

One or two of the cites that have sidewall also have front wall, so it may not be so easy to cite frontwall and backwall.

I have the feeling that the applicable definition of sidewall is much more restricted than what we have. I hypothesize that a building or a room does not have a side wall (&lit) but a compartment can have a sidewall. [Hypothesis finds this a tendency, but not absolutely true: Houses and rooms are sometimes said to have sidewalls. Much more frequently tents and awnings have sidewalls. DCDuring TALK 15:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)]

It is hard for me to see what value this is adding for users. DCDuring TALK 15:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

A little sidetrack to the discussion: is there any difference between "back wall" and hind wall? Like "hind wall" referring rather to the inside than outside of the wall? We have this difference in Finnish between takaseinä and peräseinä, that's why I'm asking. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

My idiolect doesn't acknowledge and examination of Books hits doesn't reveal to me the distinction. "Hind" seems archaic to me. Even "hindquarters" seems at least dated. DCDuring TALK 14:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I think hind leg(s) is still current, though. —Ruakh_TALK 15:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep. For the "uniform" example — I think that we actually do need at least one special sense of "uniform"; "a man in uniform", for example, does not mean a man dressed for baseball (nor, usually, one dressed to deliver packages). —Ruakh_TALK 15:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

alles anderes ist Menschenwerk [edit]

This quotation of Leopold Kronecker is alleged to be an English phrase, meaning exactly what it literally means in German, alles (“everything”) andere (“else”) ist (“is”) Menschenwerk (“the work of men”, “a human construct”). But the English authors quoted in the entry (who all italicise the term) erroneously append an "-s" to "andere". Is a grammatically mangled quotation of a phrase in another language an idiom? I'm actually on the fence... 23:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible that this was still used in 19th century German? In Dutch you could also say alles anders so maybe this is really an archaism? —CodeCa t 23:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a (mis)quotation. We're not Wiki(mis)quote. Delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 04:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably keep. Doesn't look like a quotation but more of a loan from German, admittedly an erroneous one. I'd compare this to something like c'est la vie, where c'est, la and vie aren't words in English so it cannot be SoP in English. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep. The grammatically correct version (as per the German grammar) alles andere ist Menschenwerk is also citable in English books. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

More like nom de plume (not real French) or noli illegitimi carborundum (not real Latin). But I would view it as a typo. Equinox ◑ 13:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Note that nom de plume is real French... Lmaltier (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Can we convert alles anderes ist Menschenwerk as incorrect spelling of and create alles andere ist Menschenwerk as an English entry? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Strangely, my cursory searching suggests that "alles andere" is not found in English works except when they enclose Kronecker's line in quotation marks as a quotation of him (which is obviously not a use of the phrase as English!). Maybe we should cite it first? - -sche (discuss) 05:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

My original search produced some result, today I couldn't find anything. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

наводить страх [edit]

SOP: наводить (navodít', “bring on”) +‎ страх (strax, “fear”). --Wiki Tiki 89 13:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep, a set expression. A learner of Russian would have no clue how to form the expression by knowing the parts. Also check with the Russian Wiktionary who has this entry, created by User:AKA MBG, also active here. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't comment on this phrase. But "would have no clue how to form the expression by knowing the parts" is not normally a sufficient reason to keep. The same is true for "make a bed", "set a table", "do the laundry", "have a son", "be the best", "go on vacation", etc., etc., etc.—msh210℠ (talk) 07:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

To me it is idiomatic. When I say "would have no clue how to form the expression by knowing the parts", I mean that наводить has originally a different meaning, not a common combination with emotions, perhaps just with страх (fear) and ужас (terror). The non-idiomatic combination would be "внушать страх" "to inspire fear". The following phrases are considered idiomatic in various dictionaries: наводить мосты (create bridges, break ice, create connections), наводить блеск (make smth look pretty or oneself), наводить порядок (tidy up, bring order) / наводить марафет (same, colloquial), наводить страх (as above), навести навет (libel, denigrate someone) but there are more. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

More importantly, the term is included in commercial dictionaries, e.g. a dictionary of Russian synonyms - Словарь русских синонимов и сходных по смыслу выражений.- под. ред. Н. Абрамова, М.: Русские словари, 1999., it lists the term as a synonym for испугать and пугать - to scare. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

real gone [edit]

This is real#Adverb "very" + gone#Adjective "excellent, wonderful". DCDuring TALK 10:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. From the 60's and very dated already. I would probably keep it for sentimental reasons. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Not heard of it. What DCDuring says makes sense but with no personal experience of it I abstain. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That's just ducky. DAVilla 06:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I would not have guessed that that was the meaning of "real gone" - I would have assumed it meant "very dead," or "very senile" keep Furius (talk) 10:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that, if you didn't get the meaning from context and cared to look it up, you would not have thought to looked up gone and real, but would have looked up real gone? DCDuring TALK 14:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

We better get an entry for gone cat. Fortunately we already have far gone. Long gone uses a secondary sense of long and gonehas a different distribution of possible meanings that it does in other collocations. DCDuring TALK 14:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying that I would have looked up real and gone, and I would probably have picked the wrong meaning of gone. Of course that depends on context - but I'm not going to look up any word or phrase if the context makes its meaning entirely clear. If, however, the sentance is something like "he's real gone" then context isn't going to offer a great deal of help. Furius (talk) 06:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

"He's real gone." is not "context". Attributes of "he" and speaker, for example, are part of the context. It seems to me that it would be better as part of a usage example at the right sense of gone. Many common collocations that are claimed to be idioms seem to me more appropriate as usage examples. DCDuring TALK 14:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

zurück- [edit]

Not a real prefix, per WT:RFC#zurück-. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It is very common among the Indo-European languages for words to be prepositions, adverbs and prefixes at the same time, often with the same or similar meaning. At what point can you consider a word a prefix rather than a compound of an adverb and another word? How do you tell the difference? —CodeCa t 18:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Tentatively delete. The Duden has it as a prefix, but the Duden also has herbei- as a prefix, and see Talk:herbei-. de.Wikt has neither de:herbei- nor de:zurück-. - -sche (discuss) 19:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

@CodeCat: It's not metaphysics. It's a decision we make about whether to have definitions that essentially duplicate each other. If we have something to say about zurück-, useful for users, that would be less confusing if presented at a distinct entry, we should have the distinct entry, I suppose. In this case, the zurück- is defined as "back (adverb)". That doesn't seem especially helpful and might be a bit confusing. As it stands, Delete DCDuring TALK 21:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep, if it's "not a real prefix", what is it? —An gr 21:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

An adverb used in combination, much like back (back-). DCDuring TALK 21:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

But back- is listed as a prefix. If it's one, why isn't zurück- one? —An gr 21:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep. I was the one who raised the question in the first place, but then I remembered its role as a separable prefix. These are linked in a seemingly very loose, flexible way to the verb, but linked nonetheless- and paradoxically more closely than their English counterparts. They're all adverbial/prepositional in origin, but they're also an integral part of the meaning of the verb. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that is really a valid reasoning in the case of Dutch and German. In Dutch, at least, a separable verb is completely indistinguishable from a verb combined with an adverb. As far as I know there is no difference between zurück geben and zurückgeben in German, they are the same collocation spelled differently (much as the kind of thing WT:COALMINE is about). In many cases it's not even sure whether to write such combinations with a space or not, and both variations are found without any discernable difference in meaning. I am not saying that such combinations could not be idiomatic, of course; give up is obviously not give up. But I don't know if it is actually possible to distinguish the meaning of zurück as an adverb and zurück- as a separable prefix, because there is no clear-cut way to distinguish them in actual usage. Is "ich gebe es zurück" formed from zurück (verb) + geben (adverb) or zurückgeben? I think even a native German speaker would not know how to tell. —CodeCa t 22:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, delete unless it can be demonstrated that this is clearly not an adverb that is written together with the verb. —CodeCa t 21:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify: are you saying that ab-, auf-, an-, and zu- should be deleted unless it can be demonstrated that they are clearly not prepositions written together with verbs? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. For the same reason I treat Dutch words formed with the equivalents as compounds rather than prefixed verbs. I have done that in the past for all etymologies. In fact there are even a few Dutch verbs where there is a distinction between prefixed and compounded, like voorkomen or doorzoeken. They are two distinct words, both formed with the same two roots, but one is prefixed while the other is compounded, and they have distinct meanings, conjugations and stress patterns. —CodeCa t 13:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

So do I get you right in that you suggest that all separable verbs are compounds of an adverb/preposition and a verb and that all inseparable verbs are results of prefixation? This approach might work for adverbs such as herbei and zurück (which would mean that herbei- and zurück- should indeed by deleted), but I can't see how it could work for prepositions because that would mean that a preposition occurs without a noun. But prepositions need nouns to complement them. Longtrend (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any examples of separable verbs that use prepositions? —CodeCa t 17:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Possibly umgehen? - -sche (discuss) 17:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't um an adverb? In "ich gehe um" it certainly seems like one. Also, umgehen seems like a perfect example of the difference between a prefixed and compounded verb, like Dutch voorkomen! —CodeCa t 17:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely not an adverb, because the separable variant of umgehen ("to treat", as in Ich gehe mit ihm gut um) is not at all compositionally derived from um and gehen. It's very different to the herbei- and zurück- cases which don't seem to be idiomatic as you explained above. To give other examples for separable verbs that use the "prepositions" mentioned by Dan Polansky above: abarbeiten, auflösen, ansehen, zuschlagen. Longtrend (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you are confusing compounding with SoPness. Collocations of a verb and an adverb such as umgehen can certainly be idiomatic. English has many examples of this too, like give up (aufgeben), come out, fall through, hand over and so on. However, that doesn't make the particle that the verb is compounded with any less of an adverb. I don't think there is really much doubt that in the phrase they handed the money over the word "over" is anything but an adverb, yet "hand over" is clearly an idiomatic collocation. In the same way umgehen is an idiomatic collocation of the verb gehen and the adverb um. Also, I don't see why ab, auf, an and zu are not adverbs. —CodeCa t 19:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I just guessed what your criteria to distinguish between adverbs and prepositions on the one hand and between prefixation and composition on the other hand are, because you haven't said that anywhere, AFAICS. You only claimed that Dutch voorkomen and German umgehen are ambiguous between prefixation/composition. What makes you think so? Also, what makes you think the first parts of umgehen, abarbeiten etc. are adverbs rather than prepositions (and prefixes, in the latter case)? Are there any preposition+verb compounds at all in your opinion? I really fail to see your logic (which doesn't necessarily mean that there is none ;) Longtrend (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there are verbs that are compounds of prepositions and verbs, both historically and currently. Historically, the current "separable verbs" are however compounds of adverbs and verbs. In Middle Dutch (and presumably Middle High German), a space was still often written between the two words: vorecomen could also be encountered as vore comen. Syntactically, the separable part appears in exactly the same place that you'd expect an adverb to be, and that is what is found in even older forms of the languages, which had no separable verbs at all (but they did have prefixed verbs; those are already in Proto-Germanic). Even today in Dutch there is still often confusion on whether to write, say omhoog gaan or omhooggaan. As for voorkomen, it's not ambiguous. Rather, it is two distinct verbs that have different meanings, pronunciations and conjugations, and happen to be written the same in the infinitive. voorkomen (“to prevent”) is composed of the prefix voor- (“pre-”) and the verb komen (“to come”) (compare Latin praevenire), while voorkomen (“to occur”) is composed of the adverb voor (“before”) and the verb komen (“to come”). —CodeCa t 19:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

How do you know that there exists prefix voor- rather than its derivations being compounds of voor + verb? Furthermore, entry voor currently lists voordoen as a derivation of a preposition together with couple of others; do you agree with that treatment? Thus, is voordoen derived from preposition voor or is there an adverb voor currently missing in Wiktionary? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Because of the difference in stress. Verbal prefixes are unstressed and have been since Proto-Germanic times. voordoen is a separable verb so it is a compound of the adverb voor and the verb doen, and the adverb remains stressed as an adverb would. So yes, voor is missing an adverb sense. If it helps for the preposition issue, there are also some cases where there is a difference in form between a preposition and its corresponding adverb. tot and met are prepositions only, while toe and mee are adverbs only. There are no verbs anywhere at all that are compounds of tot or met and a verb, but there are plenty with toe and mee. —CodeCa t 20:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

(Not really wanting to interrupt; please proceed with the convo above.) A seemingly perfect analogue of Dutch voorkomen is German vorkommen, which is currently marked up as a prefixed verb rather than as a compound verb. If we decide to treat German vorkommen as a compound verb, and to delete vor-, then there is going to be a consistent treatment of German prefixes, according to which neither zurück- nor vor- are German prefixes. However, I wonder how common it is in German grammar works to avoid treating vor- as a prefix. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

-sche already pointed at the discussion at Talk:herbei-. This entry was deleted. I'm not sure I agree with this decision (please see the arguments brought forward on the talk page); however, as a logical consequence we probably should delete zurück- too, since there's no real difference between the two. Longtrend (talk) 11:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 10:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
delete as per the herbei- case -- Liliana • 21:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep. My keep is actually tentative, but I am giving a full "keep" anyway, as I find most of the pro-deletion reasoning unconvincing. I still do not see why "auf" in "aufmachen" should be considered a prefix while "zurück" in "zurücksetzen" not. As regards processes and people: I am the one who defended "herbei-" as a prefix in Talk:herbei-. To use Talk:herbei- as a predecedent is tricky, as there was only one boldfaced "delete" there, coming from Lucifer, an editor noted for shoddy lexicography. Talk:herbei- was closed as deleted by the nominator: Prince Kassad AKA Liliana-60. As regards the discussed substance: If it is true that Duden has "zurück-" as a prefix (as pointed out by -sche), that is a thing to consider. Those who want to keep ab-, auf-, an-, zu-, bei-, vor-, ein-, unter-, über-, um- and the like as prefixes while wanting to delete herbei- and the like should explain how ab- etc. differ from herbei- and zurück- for the purpose of prefixhood; the would-be prefixes listed have a corresponding preposition, adverb or particle: ab, auf, an, zu, bei, vor, ein, unter, über, um. Furthermore, it would be worthwhile to collect an extensive list of would-be prefixes to be considered for deletion, including perhaps herbei-, hervor-, herab-, heran-, heraus-, herein-, herum-, herunter-, but also weg-, and possibly others. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Keep per Dan Polansky's well-thought out reasoning. bd2412 T 16:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yet Dan hasn't explained why it is a prefix rather than an adverb compounded to a verb. I have shown above that in Dutch this distinction is semantically and grammatically meaningful, and presumably there are a few German examples of this too. And even if there are not, you still have to consider that German, like Dutch, distinguishes adverbial compounds ("separable verbs") from prefixed verbs, in conjugation and in pronunciation. —CodeCa t 16:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

-oth [edit]

-os [edit]

I'll just repeat my statement from the tea room: "-os, -oth et alia aren't actually suffixes in English. They're suffixes in Hebrew (and arguably Yiddish), but they're never appended (except humorously, but not in a CFI-attestability sort of way) to nouns that didn't already have that pluralization back in Hebrew. Put another way, halachoth is not halachah + -oth but taken wholesale from Hebrew halakhót." —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete. As Μετάknowledge says, these don't seem to be applied to non-Hebraic words; they don't even seem to be applied to that many Hebraic words. It is somewhat useful to know that foo+־ות usually becomes "foo-os" or "foo-oth" in English, but a usage note at ־ות may be a better place to house that information, because I'm not convinced that anyone would look at "halachot", know what "halacha" meant but not know what "halachot" meant, and think "-ot must be an English suffix, I should look it up" as opposed to "I should look up halachot". PS, note that I am the creator of "-oth"—I think it is as deserving or undeserving as "-os". - -sche (discuss) 17:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep -os, and keep -oth if "halachoth" is really an English word. As -sche says, no one would ever look this up; however, they might well follow a link to it. It's (presumably) true that this suffix is not productive in English, but it is retained in English, which can't be said for all languages' plural endings. (There are plenty of English nouns from Amerindian languages, but I challenge you to find even one singular–plural pair where English retained the source language's number marking. Go ahead, try.) —Ruakh_TALK 05:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

@Ruakh: They wouldn't follow a link to it if we would just remove the links. The links should be removed in turn because it's not an English suffix. Moreover, even with your unfair Amerindian challenge (many such languages don't follow the Indo-European concept of countability), I easily found the example of pochtecatl (plural pochteca), which can be attested in English (both forms) via BGC. I don't really see your argument to keep. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Why isn't this analogous with -i, which forms the plural of some Latin-derived words? Furius (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

-i has been internalized into English. For example: rhinoceri. --Wiki Tiki 89 02:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

-x [edit]

Same as above, except this time for certain French nouns. It also isn't productive in English. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete per the definition itself. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

get your coat love, you've pulled [edit]

Tagged with {{delete}} by Thrissel (talk • contribs), but it passed RFD once before. I'm not sure myself. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I voted keep in that debate, and on reflection, I still tend towards keep. I suppose it's quite literal, but it's not as if you'd say this to someone only if you knew in advance they had a coat. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The {{delete}} tag is definitely bad form for an entry that has passed an RFD before. Will give Thrissel the benefit of the doubt and assume he hadn't checked the entry history. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't checked the history but I should have noticed its talkpage wasn't red-linking. Mea culpa, sorry. Personally I see it as an obvious SOP but I certainly won't flag a dead horse. Still, checking the history now I see it's also always been in that Phrasebook. You guys wanna keep it there as well? Just curious. --Thrissel (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Flag a dead horse eh? I quite like that. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

On second thoughts, so do I... --Thrissel (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete, SOP, not phrasebook-worthy material. —An gr 15:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Delete per Angr. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 18:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete The sense of pull is apparently the second oldest, second most common, or second most generally meritorious one, per [[pull#Verb]]. DCDuring TALK 18:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Keep. I would like someone to make it explicit what makes this a semantic sum of parts. Given the second definition of pull ("to persuade (someone) to have sex with one ") and the 4th or 5th definition of love, this would get rendered as: "get your coat, person dear to my heart, you've persuaded me to have sex with you". Is this used to address only sweethearts? Is this actually intended as an innuendo, meaning some people will not understand or will be unsure they understand the true intention? Is coat really involved? From looking at http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090324132200AAgOJZw, it seems someone wanted to know what it means. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It is clearly definition #5 of love. Having never heard this expression before, I was able to understand what it means simply by looking up pull and finding its definition #2. If that is not proof enough that it is SOP, then we need to redefine SOP. --Wiki Tiki 89 21:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Almost any expression actually used in speech is somewhat elliptical and uses specific senses of polysemic words much more likely to be understood by the actual hearers than any eavesdroppers. No dictionary can hope to document all of these. Even if documented they are extremely unlikely to be accessible to human users. If there is some thought that we are working to make it easier for machines, then I want to get paid for my contributions. DCDuring TALK 22:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Move to WT:BJAODN or Transwiki to WikiPikup. DCDuring TALK 22:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the Yahoo Answers answer that Dan Polansky linked to seems to say that to "pull" does not necessarily imply intercourse. Maybe our definition of pull should be adjusted? --Wiki Tiki 89 22:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

dolemite [edit]

Rare misspelling of dolomite. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Clearly a "word". Why is this an RfD issue rather than an RfV issue? In any case, a Google Books search for "dolemite" AND calcium brings up well over a hundred results; for example:

2013, Richard C. Ropp, Encyclopedia of the Alkaline Earth Compounds, page 364:

Marble is a rock resulting from the metamorphism of sedimentary rocks such as limestone or dolemite rocks.

2011, John P Rafferty, Britannica Educational Publishing, Geology: Landforms, Minerals, and Rocks: Minerals page 330:

...a review of recent scientific progress and remaining scientific and economic problems concerning the mineral dolemite.

1924, Arthur Hastings Grant, Harold Sinley Buttenheim, The American city, Volume 31, page 34:

These include limestone (calcium carbonate), dolemite (calcium and magnesium carbonate), sandstone and shales, as well as beds of chlorides of sodium (common salt), calcium and magnesium, and beds of calcium sulfate (gypsum).

Whether it is a rare alternative spelling or a misspelling, it is something we would have. Since the original word, dolomite, is "[f]rom French dolomite, named after the French mineralogist and engineer Déodat de Dolomieu", it follows that dolemite is indeed a misspelling. In that case, it's worth having to correct the errant. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

white supremacy [edit]

Keep. A Merriam-Webster term, also defined in other popular mono- and bilngual dictionaries. Even though it seems unfair to other races or ethnicities, whites are at the top of the food chain, that's why the term exists and is common. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep. The fact of this being an ideology is what makes it non-idiomatic. Going just by the literal meanings, one could say that there is "white supremacy" in ice hockey and "black supremacy" in basketball, but if you actually said that, you'd get some funny looks because the phrases carry ideological connotations. bd2412 T 02:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That distinction should be covered by a proper definition of supremacy. Delete all. --Wiki Tiki 89 03:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

black supremacy [edit]

Arab supremacy‎ [edit]

Seems obvious SoP as no other way to interpret this than as supremacy of the white (black or Arabs). Note supremacy has a dedicated sense, thought it probably shouldn't. And if it should, it needs to be worded so it's correct. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete, but I think the dedicated sense at supremacy is necessary. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 18:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

alpine-chough [edit]

Definition: "Attributive form of alpine chough, noun."

In other words, a noun used attributively. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I imagine this might not even meet CFI (who would say e.g. "an alpine-chough call" rather than "the call of an..."?). To me, entries like this are redundant because the hyphenation is mandated by grammar/orthography. It's like having an entry at Cheesecake, "sentence-initial form of cheesecake". Equinox ◑ 10:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Such words appear in books, look like adjectives, and will be looked up by people who want to know what they mean. (That said, I'm not sure this one, in particular, is attested. But this is not the forum for that.)—msh210℠ (talk) 07:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013 [edit]

estic calent [edit]

estic calenta [edit]

I don't know whether this meets the CFI. (Abstain.) I'm merely guessing it probably doesn't. Note that [[#I'm horny]] just failed RFD.—msh210℠ (talk) 07:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep unless the relevant sexual sense is added to calent. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Added. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

H.P.L.A. [edit]

Not dictionary material. Needs cleanup if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

WT:FICTION seems to apply. Probably not CFI meeting if it's only used by one author in one book. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There's an additional problem in that it's attributed to Stanisław Lem, who was a Polish author and wrote in Polish. This term therefore appears in translations of his works, and so may not even qualify under WT:FICTION. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

For the purposes of WT:FICTION, whether or not a book is a translation should be irrelevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that's not what I meant. I worded the second part of my comment badly and hastily, as I was passing on to write another comment in another edit window. WT:FICTION allows that "terms which have three citations in separate works […] may be included only in appendices", and also says "a series of books, films, or television episodes by the same author […] shall be considered a single work." So, if support for this term comes only from the short story collection The Cyberiad, then we're talking about a single work and this term would therefore not even be allowed in an Appendix. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

être à l'arrêt [edit]

Seems pretty SoPpy to me. être + à + l' + arrêt. --Wiki Tiki 89 16:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

At the very least, it should probably be moved to [[à l'arrêt]]. Oh, and the definition should be translated to English. (Currently it's in French-translationese, which means it can only be understood by people who already know the French expression — completely useless.) Is it “be at a standstill”? —Ruakh_TALK 04:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

There isn't much difference between being at a stop and being at a standstill. Either way I would say that [[arrêt]] should be improved as it is incomprehensible (to me at least), with the sense of "standstill" added. --Wiki Tiki 89 04:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I think there's a huge difference between being "at a stop" and being "at a standstill": the former means "located at a stop" (be it a stop sign, a stop light, a rest stop, or whatnot), while the latter means "making no progress". No? —Ruakh_TALK 04:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I think "at a stop" can mean either of those. For some reason the latter is what it makes me think of first. --Wiki Tiki 89 04:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep but definitely drop the être, in the same way we don't have be stationary. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

under pressure [edit]

under + pressure. --Wiki Tiki 89 16:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be the only common under + noun collocation with have. No under duress, under stress or under strain. under#Preposition does have this sense. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete, but ensure that relevant definitions are found at pressure. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a relatively big job as we have three senses and Collins, eg, has seven. DCDuring TALK 17:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I've added the Webster 1913 defs that we lacked. It could definitely stand some updating. DCDuring TALK 17:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

sous pression [edit]

Same as above. sous + pression. --Wiki Tiki 89 16:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know American Sign Language [edit]

This should go with the above -- Liliana • 19:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think knowing how to sign this would be much more likely to be useful in English-speaking countries than knowing how to say something like "I don't speak Azerbaijani" in Azerbaijani. bd2412 T 00:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it. Most people who speak sign language would already assume that most others don't. --Wiki Tiki 89 00:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is probably true. bd2412 T 02:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not particularly knowledgeable about this, but I don't think that's correct... --Yair rand (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

battery-backed save [edit]

-- Liliana • 18:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It is interesting that the def suggests that "battery-backed save" is the saved data, rather than the saving process or technology itself. That's probably just sloppy editing, though...? Equinox ◑ 11:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it? I'm not sure this is verifiable--Google Books doesn't come up with anything--and the web hits as often as not mention "battery-backed save feature", but web hits for "don't overwrite my save" shows a number of uses of "save" for the saved data. It doesn't turn up anything on Google Books, but Google Groups might turn up something.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Just like "game save" I think it can refer to both the process of saving and the saved data itself, with the saved data being the more commonly used meaning due to being the more commonly needed meaning. --Wiki Tiki 89 13:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW, keep, but I'd move to battery-backed, because it does not just mean backed by battery, but specifically that if the battery were to die, it [the save in this case] would disappear. --Wiki Tiki 89 13:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

second-to-last [edit]

Noun. I believe that the nominal use of this is best considered a "fused-head" construction, with an omitted, known-from-context noun. The synonym and the blue-linked translations are all adjectives in their entries.

As an adjective the entry is meritorious, though it might be SoP, because of the US/UK, register, and possibly regional differences in usage, IMO. DCDuring TALK 16:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

penultimate [edit]

Noun. Not the linguistics sense but the general sense seems to me to be another example of a fused-head construction. DCDuring TALK 16:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Even the linguistics sense is suspect; it's usually called the penult. —An gr 18:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

tuck [edit]

Etymology 2 is redundant to Etymology 1 noun sense 4 (Both are "snack food. Derived from the expression "to tuck in to one's food" meaning "to eat up", "to guzzle".") One needs to go. But which? Smurrayinchester (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I’d delete the one in Etymology 1. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 22:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

In my boldness, I've merged the etyms. The "eat" sense seems to derive from "push into a snug position." (See also etymonline.) — Pingku^dimmi 09:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

More Copyvio [edit]

Hello, I write because I've identified more copyvio from back when I was User:SnoopY—specifically, trammel and trifecta. Brownie Charles (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

And more still—
- agriglyph
- alpha geek
- anecdata
- astrophilately
- blaccent
- eat the wind, which probably should just be deleted outright
- error catastrophe
- food desert
- infomania
- leptogenic
- multilingualization
- nationist
- The etymology I posted of once in a blue moon
- One of my edits to onus
- open content
- petronoia
- scramjet
- skosh
- ubersexual

I'm sorry I've opened y'all up to this—the only thing I can say was that I was copyright-dumb back in the day. Brownie Charles (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

From which dictionaries did you copy? I could easily fix trammel by copying from the copyright-expired Webster 1913. The others seem much too new for such a simple solution. Why don't you try revising the definitions, especially in line with some citations? DCDuring TALK 01:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

There'd still be the old content in the histories. Brownie Charles (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Brownie, why don't you fix them yourself? --Hekaheka (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

We can now hide revisisions without deleting the entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The edit to onus for example, does not seem like a copyright violation. Dictionary.com cannot copyright single-word definitions. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking through these, several of these were either adapted (or I suspect so) from Wikipedia. Many others have been substantially rewritten. Petronoia I thought I sporked from a local newspaper but for the life of me I can't find the article I thought it was in. I've attempted to fix food desert; alpha geek is here from the last time I posted a batch of articles. Eat the wind and the etymology of once in a blue moon were from entries in the Uncle John's Bathroom Reader series; the former was a literal translation of another language and probably should be deleted. Brownie Charles (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

As I have noted before, copyright on dictionary definitions is extremely thin. Changing the wording just enough to make them original should suffice to eliminate copyright concerns. bd2412 T 01:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I should have noted, otherwise these were mostly from MacMillan Buzzwords. Newspaper was the (Cleveland) Plain Dealer. Brownie Charles (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

open content [edit]

Adjective. Not distinct from attributive use of noun. Does not otherwise behave like an adjective. DCDuring TALK 01:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you think of moving it to open-content? — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 05:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Bart Simpson [edit]

due process--Perdedora (talk) 02:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Note there are four citations given, along the lines of "the Bart Simpson of (some sphere of activity)". Our current definition does not list any traits of Bart Simpson that would explain such uses. (My preference is to delete, though.) Equinox ◑ 10:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete, per the vote on disallowing names of individuals. No need to hold fictional people to a lower standard than real people. 'The Bart Simpson of' should be treated no differently to 'the Barack Obama of' or 'The Cristiano Ronaldo of'. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete as is. Compare Benedict Arnold, for which the term is used as an exact substitute for the word "traitor". Rather than saying "Joe was like Benedict Arnold", or "Joe was the Benedict Arnold of the group", writers say "Joe was a Benedict Arnold". I see nothing equivalent for Bart Simpson. bd2412 T 18:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I may have found an actual use:

2001 August 20, Mark I. Pinsky, “Introduction: Epiphany on the Sofa”, in The Gospel According to The Simpsons, Westminster John Knox Press, ISBN 9780664224196, OL 7628135M, page 5:

A Baptist pastor, Dan Burrell, recorded an educational audiotape entitled “Raising Beaver Cleaver Kids in a Bart Simpson World,” instructing parents how to rear their children with “value and character.”

Apparently a few people also have a concept of Bart Simpsonization, meaning something like "delinquency":

1992 December 3, Rodricks, Dan, “Hey, man my folks are just cable thieves”, The Baltimore Sun, ISSN 1930-8965:

Personally, I think it's evidence of the Bart Simpsonization of America.
2004 October 11, “Mutual Consolation of the Saints: In the Face of Doctrinal Differences”, Minnesota South District Pastoral Conference:

For many years I have grieved over what I have termed "the Bart Simpsonization" of the church.
2009 May 25, Clean Teen Reads, “What do you consider offensive language?”, Clean Teen Reviews:

I deplore what I call the Bart Simpsonization of America—the snappy (and rude) comeback, the child who's disrespectful to her parents, the constant put-downs.

~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Haven't found any more, though. I say

Delete and replace with an {{only in}} pointing to the Wikipedia entry. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

We would need something structurally more like:

2009, Paul Mason, Meltdown: the end of the age of greed, page 131:

To fulfil its promise and maintain its ideological grip in a world full of Bart Simpsons, neoliberalism would now have to deliver one thing above all: relentless growth.

This would qualify if the author used the name, without explanation, to convey the characteristics of the people with which such a world was filled. However, in this case it looks more the author describes who Bart Simpson is and then speculates about this kind of world, which is the opposite of using the name as a word with presumed meaning. I agree with the idea of an "only in Wikipedia" signal. bd2412 T 22:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Compare Homer Simpson, by the way, where the definition refers not to a fictional character but to a particular kind of person. Equinox ◑ 13:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

pedra de amolar [edit]

Portuguese for whetstone. Sum of pedra (“stone”) de (“of”) amolar (“to sharpen”); (sharpening stone). — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 03:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, delete. - -sche (discuss) 05:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

law of unintended consequences [edit]

This page is problematic. First, it is not a word, but rather a longish phrase. Second, there are no sources for the purported definition. Third, there is almost no content on the page. —This unsigned comment was added by Lawrencekhoo (talk • contribs) 08:43, 9 January 2013‎.

Not to defend this entry, but to clarify our standards:

We have entries for many noun and other phrases, some rather longish;
We don't require, though we value, sources; and
We have many entries with such little context, often because we are a work in progress, but also because dictionary entries are not encyclopedia articles.

IOW, though I agree that "[t]his page is problematic", none of your reasons would warrant deletion. It is certainly in clear widespread use, so citations supporting the definition could easily be found. The principal reason to delete this would be a finding that its meaning-in-use was obvious from its component parts. Ie, it referred to a law + of + consequences that were unintended. I think all aspects of the meaning are expressed or implied by definitions of the terms.

There are those here whose stated beliefs in how our rules work would have it that the existence of several definitions of law and other terms (of] !!!!) makes it too hard for someone who had not heard the phrase before (ie, someone just learning English) to suss out the meaning. But I doubt that the entry will get many using such defense for this particular entry because it would probably demonstrate the bankruptcy of their reasoning. DCDuring TALK 14:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep, "the law of X" doesn't inherently mean "there is always X". Siuenti (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Then I guess we should have some citations that show that this is what it means. I suppose any attestable misnomer, false proposition, metaphor, or ellipsis should be included. For starts, how about the check is in the mail, book of love, face of death, and get to first base and three-legged stool (both figurative). DCDuring TALK 19:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Some of these should be in here. For example, the check is in the mail basically indicates a false assurance, which can not be discerned from any of the component parts. By contrast, get to first base is merely get to first base (with "get to" being exchangeable with "reach" or "make it to"). bd2412 T 01:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Republic of Iceland [edit]

Per Talk:Iceland. I abstain for now. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 19:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Strong keep I see no evidence backing up Liefurf's claim. "Republic of Iceland" is easy to cite. CIA World Factbook, a fairly authoritative source, gives Republic of Iceland as the "conventional long name". The Government of Iceland uses the long name, as do the European Union and the United Nations. "Republic" isn't used all the time, but it's certainly used by all the relevant official groups. Smurrayinchester (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

"Republic of Iceland" is an erroneous, not an official name of the country, even if it's cited, therefore delete. Like Canada, etc. Iceland is the official name of the country. Russia and the Russian Federation are co-official names of one country, i.e. both names are official but it's not the case with Iceland, it's just Iceland. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep as an attested geographic name. If it is demonstrably considered erroneous, a usage note can document that. However, the comment to Talk:Iceland could have referred to the definition line of "Iceland" reading "A country in Europe. Official name: Republic of Iceland." It is this definition line that is to be corrected. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for first now seeing this, but I was talking about the definition line in the page on Iceland. --Leifurf (talk)

fare dodger [edit]

Isn't it a dodger of fares, hence SoP? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Cited the form faredodger. Astral (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Could those citations be readily interpreted as typos? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

A search for "fare dodger" and "fare dodgers" in 1995 and 2002 turns up nothing. 2004 has "fare dodgers", but it's part of a quote. Astral (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. In Australia this term is commonly known as fare evader. That's probably not includable though. ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

We have tax evader (for better or worse). Equinox ◑ 13:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I have added a quotation to "fare dodger" DVD seller (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

m-m [edit]

Person who marked it says the hyphen is outdated. The fuck if I know. Somebody look at the history and find hirm and tell hirm to make hirs case here. — [Ric Laurent] — 15:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep, according to Wikipedia "The encoding system of the Manuel de Codage has since been adopted by international Egyptology as the official common standard for registering hieroglyphic texts on the computer." However, Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-09/Romanization of languages in ancient scripts 2 curiously doesn't mention allowing Egyptian in Latin script, though we do, and I don't think there's any appetite to delete them, is there? Anyway the user who nominated this for speedy deletion has been acting in good faith but should not be removing these. Please revert any instance of him/her speedy deleting Egyptian entries in Manuel de Codage format. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I would be opposed to removing Egyptian in Latin script. —Angr 18:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- I did it anyway. -- Liliana • 20:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I'm going to have to address a couple of things here. Firstly, my reason for marking it for deletion is that the hyphen should not be there (even in the Manuel de Codage system). Manuel de Codage uses the hyphen to indicate phrases which represent a single idea: e.g. wAD (blue) + wr (big) = wAD-wr (the sea). The hyphen in m-m seems to have been based on the idea that it was composed of m (in) + m (in), but that is no longer believed to be the case: Allen's Middle Egyptian Grammar, pg 84, which is definitive (for the time being) treats it as a single word, not a compound. The manuel de codage transliteration ought therefore to be mm (which is the same as the Gardiner/Allen/everyone else transliteration). This is why I speedy-deleted. I see now that my expanation for that decision was not very clear and that, the matter being more contentious than I thought, I should have rfded. I still think that it should be deleted

A couple of other things, regarding Egyptian (which you may wish to skip if you're not particularly interested): I have no intention of speedy deleting entries on the grounds that they are Manuel de Codage. However, I do think that a certain amount of consistency is necessary, and per several conversations on my talk page (e.g. User_talk:Furius#Redirects) and the talk page of WT:AEGY I have been converting them to redirects, soft or hard. Manuel de Codage is a transliteration for getting around the lack of the special characters which normal Egyptian transliteration requires (A problem which increasingly does not exist), and, as a workaround, I don't think it should receive primacy on wiktionary.

Thirdly, I not keen for Egyptian entries to have hieroglyphs in their namespace, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the main namespace does not display them correctly (even when they are not little boxes) - it just puts them one beside the other, so that what should be

becomes

(jtrw - river), which is a bit like breaking Korean hangul up into its constituent parts (i.e. almost never done and hideous). Note that in the latter case, the r hieroglyph (the large flattened oval) now comes after the w hieroglyph (the curl), even though it is pronounced before it. Furthermore, the main Egyptian fonts (Aegyptus and its derived forms) are also so fine that the individual characters are difficult to read (quite apart from the fact that they aren't forming words in the way that a reader expects them to). Secondly, it assumes that hieroglyphs are far more static than they actually are - the writings are actually highly variable: jtrw has eight major variant forms, and nearly infinite variations on them. All variants, however, were understood as jtrw. Thirdly, many rarer hieroglyphs do not occur in unicode - making it impossible to put them in the namespace (s3qb is an example - its determinative is a rhinoceros, but it cannot be found in unicode (were it included, it would appear between 78034 & 78077, but it is not there, as you can see on this page: Appendix:Unicode/Egyptian Hieroglyphs). Furius (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

be this close [edit]

I would just speedy this as obvious SoP but it turns out we have no definition of close that covers this. Someone add it, please. -- Liliana • 21:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

There's some implied meaning here, no? I was this close never refers to being far away from something, but it could. be this far away would in fact be a synonym, not an antonym. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete and add relevant definition to [[close]]. --Wiki Tiki 89 00:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete, and ~~add~~ tweak the def in [[close]] to explicitly allow figurative meanings of distance. — Pingku^dimmi 02:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete. DAVilla 05:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

black beetle [edit]

rfd-sense X 2:

(colloquial) A common name for many species of beetle that are black in color.
When capitalized, this name refers to Black Beetle, a fictional character, a comic book supervillain published by DC Comics (cf. other superheroes named Blue Beetle).

The first seems to me to be {{&lit|black|beetle}}. The second shouldn't be at this capitalization and probably not at any capitalization. DCDuring TALK 18:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Terminate with extreme prejudice. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 19:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I have speedily deleted the superhero: bad caps, let alone the usual arguments against pop-culture proper nouns. The rest remain for discussion. Equinox ◑ 21:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This may be a pain, but if there are specific species of beetle for which the local common name actually is "black beetle" (such that between two beetles that are black, only one would properly be considered a "black beetle"), then we should have those senses. Of course, this would be particularly applicable with respect to insects that are not actually beetles, or are not actually black. However, absent evidence of such species, I would delete. bd2412 T 04:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree conceptually, but I would expect that often we would find that there are definitions that included specific beetle species or genera (or subspecies or subtribes or subgenera etc) to be added, as I added the NZ species. It would be difficult to attest the general phenomenon that you mention and distinguish it from both {{&lit|black|beetle}} the taxonomic definitions. DCDuring TALK 14:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not really a sense of its own, but an umbrella for a number of potential senses. I've added a few species as subsenses that are referred to in Google Books hits without a qualifier. I also removed the translation section for this sense, since each species would have its own translations. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Including example species names makes the entry richer, but are they best presented as subsenses or as examples of the general phenomenon? Or, do they mislead?

I'm still not sure how to capture the phenomenon that I think BD is referring to. How often does someone referring to a black beetle "really" mean something specific?

This harkens back to dual uses of vernacular name. It seems to both mean a name that is used by normal folk and a name not in scientific Latin (Translingual) that nevertheless is in exact correspondence with a taxonomic name.

One of the items that might be useful for wiktionary to have in the definiens of species that are known to normal (non-scientific), especially rural-living, humans is the geographic range. That would enable us to have some targeted translation requests. If the translation tables are at the level of ambiguous names such as this, I doubt that they will be very useful. We can use the scientific "vernacular name", where it exists, as the site for the translation requests, but I'm not at all sure that such names will be the ones that will best facilitate filling the translation table. Shouldn't the translation tables be at the Translingual entry rather than any corresponding English entry for all species names, not just those that have no exactly corresponding English entry ? DCDuring TALK 16:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

For information, Wikipedia recognizes black beetle as a phrase applicable to a number of different species, and distinct from black-beetle: see w:Black Beetle. The issue is not simple, and I think that this page should be kept. Lmaltier (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

setembro chove and setembro neva [edit]

Both of these phrases have 0 lexicographic value, and belong in an appendix. It’s like having an entry for she sells sea-shells on the sea-shore. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 19:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, the definitions are written in very bad English. --Wiki Tiki 89 20:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete both. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess it would be like having an entry for "says 'what'", as in A:"Idiot says 'what'" B:"What?" A: [laughs at self-identified "idiot"] Siuenti (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

cê tem bruchove and cê tem bruneva [edit]

I don't see how we can keep these if we delete the above. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete, farcical, contains made-up words too. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I had nominated them to RFV. But yeah, delete. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 21:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

que te meteu and que time é teu [edit]

Idem. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 23:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

você chegou a pôr o cu de fora and você chegou há pouco de fora [edit]

Idem. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 23:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

quem poderá me defender [edit]

SOP. It’s not humorous, it just happens to be widely used in, and in reminiscence of, a comedy series popular in Brazil. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 23:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Ugh. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Even more worrying, I just added defender#Portuguese. No Portuguese at poderá yet. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

a luta continua [edit]

"The struggle continues"; widely associated with the anti-apartheid resistance movement.

Actually this is used as a motto for any sort of struggle, and therefore is a non-idiomatic sum of parts.

The entry originally called it Afrikaans, and a Google Books search suggests it might be citable in English. See also A luta continua. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 01:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone actually mistook Portuguese for Afrikaans? Wooow. - -sche (discuss) 02:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

~~Well seeing as it was used in South Africa as debatably a borrowing from Portuguese into English and Afrikaans, it's not that strange of a mistake. --Wiki Tiki 89 02:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)~~

Scratch that, it was Mozambique, not South Africa. --Wiki Tiki 89 02:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete. SoP, who uses it and why is not relevant to if it's includable or not. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, a sum of parts sentence does not stop being sum of parts if a well-known organisation starts to use it as a motto. Save The Children currently use no child born to die, which is a very noble idea, but not suitable for a dictionary. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you: there is no reason to include a motto, or to include a slogan. Unless it becomes a set phrase used by many different organizations in many different struggles with many different objectives. Lmaltier (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite a few other can go at the same time then. semper fi springs to mind. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I think "semper fi" is keepable if it's used in phrases like "He has a semper fi attitude" (as seems likely). This Portuguese phrase is harder to use attributively, though. (And I keep thinking it means "The lute continues [playing]".) —An gr 17:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

deleted -- Liliana • 15:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

waxing [edit]

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

What do you make of these: [16][17][18][19]? — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 23:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be what comes of our decision not to include {{gerund of}} alongside {{present participle of}} for English -ing forms. Any verb-ing form can mean "the action of the verb to verb", because -ing forms are gerunds as well as present participles. I've never understood why we try to hide that fact from our readers. —An gr 06:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV, those seem like the verb to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

@Angr: Why not just reform {{present participle of}} to {{en-ing form of}} and display Present participle and gerund of ...? Does that capture all the uses of the form or do we need more of a grammar lesson built into the display for "progressive"? DCDuring TALK 15:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You can't change {{present participle of}} itself because it is used in languages (such as Italian) in which the present participle and gerund are of different forms and have different meanings and usage. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

But we could bot-replace all instances in English with an en-specific template that was specific to the grammar of English. DCDuring TALK 15:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I suppose we could have an English-specific template that says "both present participle and gerund", but I'd rather we just had two senses, one with {{present participle of}} and one with {{gerund of}}. It's really only coincidence that the two are homophonous in English; it's not like they form any sort of semantically natural pair. It would be like having a Latin-specific {{la-dative and ablative plural of}} just because the dative and ablative plural of (I believe) every single Latin noun are identical. But we don't do that; we list the dative plural and ablative plural separately. And the English pres.ptc. and gerund are even less closely related to each other than the Latin forms are. Can't we get a bot to add {{gerund of}} underneath every instance of {{present participle of}} in an English section? —An gr 17:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I’m not sure. If they were the verb, wouldn’t they be “waxing the floor” instead of “the waxing of the floor”? — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 17:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily. In "Waxing the floor is fun" it can't be anything but a gerund. —CodeCa t 17:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

We must keep a sense of the noun because the plural is very much attestable. Whether it's this sense and/or the others, I don't know. Equinox ◑ 23:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

This sense is marked as uncountable. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

directeur sportif [edit]

SoP, directeur (“director”) sportif (“relating to sport”). English is obviously not SoP and will be retained. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

keep. It's the name of a profession, it's a term of the French language. And its meaning is not obvious at all, even for francophones: they can guess that it's a directeur and that its mission is related to sport, but this is not much help: many people called directeur and working in areas related to sport cannot be called directeur sportif. w:fr:Directeur sportif provides a definition. Lmaltier (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

general classification [edit]

The [[general]] [[classification]]. The fact it's used in cycling doesn't really seem to be part of the definition, just one way of using it. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

keep. I assume it's a set phrase in cycling. I may be wrong, but I'm sure that, in French, classement général (or général) is a set phrase worth an entry. This is less obvious for classement par points and classement de la montagne, but I think they also deserve an entry. Lmaltier (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

points classification [edit]

Mglovesfun (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

sprints classification [edit]

Mglovesfun (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

One of the sainted Dr. Pawley's criteria for inclusion in a lexicon is that a term be part of a system of terms. Clearly these constitute such a system. Also, GC, for example, is used as an abbreviation of general classification. DCDuring TALK 22:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Sainted by you, I don't think any of the rest of us elevate him to such as deistic status. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

de jour [edit]

Looks SOP to me. As does at night, which I'd like to see added to RFD --One angry dwarf (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi wonderfool. No, it's a set phrase. One would expect at the night. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 02:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

(Or "in the night" (which is fine). You can't use "at" with day, daytime, morning, afternoon, etc.) Equinox ◑ 12:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

keep, at least as an adverb. Used alone, de jour may be used adverbially (same sense as le jour). de jour is also used to qualify a noun in some cases. Clearly, phrases such as hôpital de jour or oiseau de nuit are worth inclusion. Lmaltier (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I've cited this as an English term. Keep in that language, as it's obviously idiomatic. I've no opinion on whether the French term should be kept, but it is useful for understanding the origin of the English term. Astral (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Only the French was nominated.—msh210℠ (talk) 04:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  - I just added English. At the time this entry was nominated, there was only French. So it was my understanding that the nomination would thus apply to the entry as a whole, not just the original language. Is this incorrect? Astral (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    - Yes, I think it is. The nomination was of whatever sense(s) were present at the time. Any senses added later were not nominated. Now, sometimes the nomination can be understood to apply to the added senses also — for example, if go up has senses "walk up the stairs" and "take the elevator upward" and is nominated for deletion as SOP and someone adds "take an escalator upwards" — but that seems not to be the case here. So unless someone specifically nominates the English term on this page (possibly in this section by saying he's adding it to the nomination), I'd say it's not included in the nomination.—msh210℠ (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Western Europe [edit]

"A sociopolitical region in the west of Europe." So it is, in essence, western + Europe. Nothing more, nothing less. No need to keep this or its brethren. -- Liliana • 19:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there any reason to believe that it is not also a geographical region? If not, as I suppose, then delete. Equinox ◑ 19:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

keep. Yes, this is a region at the West of Europe. But not any region. You forget sociopolitical, and this is a very important word in the definition. But the definition is not precise enough: it should explain which region it is, either by giving geographical limits, or by mentioning the sociopolitical characteristic. The geographical sense exists too, but it's very fuzzy. Lmaltier (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I kind of agree with Lmaltier, weak keep. Western Europe is more than just the west of Europe. It also specifically refers to the part of Europe that lay on the western side of the Iron Curtain, the countries of the original EU, and so on. I would consider it on par with Southern United States in terms of connotation. —CodeCa t 21:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep per Lmaltier. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

With this definition, delete. If it turns out the definition is more specific, say, only a specific set of countries is Western Europe, or if a certain country is in the west of Europe but is not considered part of Western Europe, then keep. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 23:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Western Europe has any geographical limits. It would be a bit like defining 'tall' using a number of centimetres. We should not define it geographically if that information is false. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep, but redefine. There are at least a few different concepts of Western Europe. The iconic Cold War one consisting of the non-communist countries west of the Iron Curtain looks idiomatic to me. I seem to remember seeing another one that groups France, the Benelux countries and the British Isles, but not the Iberian Peninsula. Yet another treats the former boundary between the Eastern and Western Roman Empires as the dividing line. Any based strictly on physical location/longitude would probably be SOP, but those at least partly based on historical or political factors probably aren't. It would be good to nail down which concept(s) we're using in our definition(s)- not the physical boundaries, but the concept(s). Chuck Entz (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I think a good case to look at would be Greece. I think Greece was considered part of the West, so there may be uses calling Greece a part of Western Europe, even though it is geographically in the east. —CodeCa t 01:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, similar to how "West" included Japan, Australia, etc. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's [the table of contents to Western Europe 2012] Which shows that Greece is included, but not the Czech Republic- or even Germany or Austria. I would say that there are many more books that contrast Greece with Western Europe rather than including it, but this example at least shows that one of the concepts of "Western Europe" in actual use isn't based strictly on longitude. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

See also Central Europe, Eastern Europe, Northern Europe, Southern Europe and corresponding Wikipedia articles. None of them can be defined with only one definition. --Hekaheka (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Which is because they're central + Europe, eastern + Europe, northern + Europe and southern + Europe. Depending on the viewpoint of the speaker, central, eastern, northern and southern (and of course western) can have a variety of meanings. This doesn't really make them idiomatic. -- Liliana • 19:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete per Liliana. --Wiki Tiki 89 19:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Albania, which is in Eastern Europe according to the Cold War sense, is physically to the west of Greece, which is in Western Europe, according to the Cold War sense. Please explain the geographical viewpoint that makes that possible. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

There are many such cases. Central Asia directly borders Europe, despite the name suggesting it should be in the center. That doesn't mean we need an entry on Central Asia. -- Liliana • 10:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

We've already got it, and it's really useful. Lmaltier (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, now you know what entry's the next to land on RFD. -- Liliana • 05:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Central Asia looks quite nice. keep Western Europe so that it may be turned into something similar. 11:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep per Lmaltier from 20:51, 20 January 2013. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

anybody's [edit]

I thought we had decided not to include words with -'s unless they had some nonobvious meaning (like New Year's). —An gr 20:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

But weren’t pronouns an exception? If not, delete. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 21:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

someone's passed RFD in the past. Equinox ◑ 21:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

But that was 5½ years ago and consensus can change; also, at least one vote in that very small discussion was predicated on the incorrect assumption that "someone's" in the meaning "someone is" or "someone has" is nonstandard. I would be opposed to keeping the possessive forms of pronouns that are simply {PRONOUN}+'s, as they are no different from the possessive forms of nouns that are simply {NOUN}+'s. I realize that to be consistent that would mean deleting one of my favorite words, y'all's, though. —An gr 21:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that pronouns are, or should be anyway, an exception to the no-English-possessives-ending-in-'s prohibition. Today I deleted four noun entries/L2 sections relying on the rule. I would be chagrined to find we no longer had consensus on that. DCDuring TALK 21:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Now I remember. The exception is one’s, not all pronouns. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 21:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we definitely need y'all's because it is technically not even grammatically correct. To me, if I was referring to a group of people as "you all", the possessive would be "all your" or even "your all" and so y'all's is necessary to demonstrate that that is not the case with the contraction. We should probably also have your guys', your guys's, and you guys's for the possible possessives of you guys. I would also say we need one's but I can't come up with a solid argument for it. The others I think we can do without. --Wiki Tiki 89 21:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The possessive form is worth keeping should be kept, ~~at least~~ as a translation target. The current rule (if it exists) not to include possessive forms with 's should not apply to pronouns, such as one's, nobody's, somebody's, anybody's and should be treated as words, like whose, theirs and hers. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

We have talked about making all pronouns exceptions. That's my position. Keep. DAVilla 05:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

stale metaphor [edit]

"A metaphor which has lost its impact due to overuse." IMO, sum of parts, with stale in sense of "no longer new or interesting". Compare stale cliché, stale plot, stale idea, all findable on Google Books. Equinox ◑ 02:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 20:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom. DCDuring TALK 23:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Purely SOP. bd2412 T 23:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Was going to delete, but dead metaphor makes it seem like this is a linguistic term. DAVilla 05:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

יונגער־מאַן [edit]

I'd say this is SOP. --Wiki Tiki 89 01:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep. According to the reference I have just added, the plural of yunger-man is yunge-layt, but layt is not the plural of man. (Weinreich's dictionary says the same thing.) Therefore, the plural formation is unexpected and cannot be deduced from the component parts. —An gr 13:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

We don't have an entry at לײַט, but based on German Leute, I think there is reason to believe that לײַט may also be an alternative plural מאַן and thus the difference would come down to usage differences between מענער and לײַט. We should investigate. Do you still have access to that dictionary you referenced? --Wiki Tiki 89 18:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I own it, and it says layt (unlike German Leute) is a singular noun meaning "adult, respectable person" and has a plural of its own, laytn. So not only is layt not the plural of man, by itself it isn't a plural in Yiddish at all. —An gr 19:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, it should probably be kept then. Strange that לײַט is used as a plural in this compound then. Are there any other compounds that have לײַט as a plural? --Wiki Tiki 89 20:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Weinreich's Yiddish dictionary gives gesheftsman with plural gesheftslayt, which is almost certainly a comparatively recent borrowing from German. Indeed, there are a number of compounds in German where -mann in the singular becomes -leute in the plural: Geschäftsmann/Geschäftsleute and Feuerwehrmann/Feuerwehrleute are the two that spring to mind, but I'm sure there are others. (Interestingly, this is not a modern attempt at being gender-neutral: even in the 19th century, when all businessmen and firemen were guaranteed to be male, the plurals were still Geschäftsleute and Feuerwehrleute.) But yunger-man apparently isn't borrowed from German; at least, I've never heard of a compound "Junger-Mann" with plural "Junge-Leute". In German, junger Mann and junge Leute really are just SOP adjective + noun phrases, and the plural of junger Mann is junge Männer. —An gr 21:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The German "junger Mann" and "junge Leute" are also idiomatic, especially as a form of address. It's included in German synonym dictionaries, some synonyms are: Adoleszent, Jugendlicher, Teenager, etc. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I have heard (pardon my probably nonstandard transliteration) yeshiva-layt as plural for yeshiva-man. I have no idea how common or standard it (plural or singular) is.—msh210℠ (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

In English (young man) and in Russian (молодой человек, lit.: "young human" - "youth" or a form of address) are idiomatic and mean more than and not only a "man who is young". A similar thing can be said about French jeune homme (there's an entry in the French wiki). The German term "junger Mann", plural "junge Leute", which is almost identical to Yiddish, it's also idiomatic. Like in other languages it's a synonym to "youth", "boy", "lad", used as a form of address, sometimes ironically. Keep. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Adam und Eva [edit]

SOP: Adam + und + Eva. I assume the only reasons its gloss Adam and Eve exists is because it's also Cockney rhyming slang, but that doesn't apply to this German entry. —An gr 18:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Certainly Adam and Eve has more merit to be there than just for its slang! DAVilla 05:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Does it? If it weren't for the slang term, wouldn't it just be Adam + and + Eve? —An gr 16:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it means "progenitors", at least in English. Siuenti (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep no consensus? DAVilla 04:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I vote keep as well as per Siuenti. I also think it's idiomatic, in terms of the time when the humanity started or expelled from paradise, etc. (you don't have to be religious to use it). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

neuntausendneunhundertneunundneunzig [edit]

This is attested, I'm not sure if it is a word, but regardless I don't think it's idiomatic because it can be understood by any German speaker from its parts. That is, a German speaker who has never seen or heard of this word can nonetheless figure out what it means, just like its English equivalent is perfectly transparent to English speakers. Therefore, I think this should be deleted. (A note: While I think other numeral compounds like neunundfünfzig also fit this argument, I would agree to keep some of them for practical uses a-la phrasebook. But this word is unlikely to have a practical use.) —CodeCa t 22:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedily keep as it has already passed RFD. Moreover, keep IMO, just as any (attested) word without punctuation or spaces in it in a language that normally separates words by spaces should IMO be kept, as anglophones will look it up, not necessarily knowing where to break it down. (As English Wiktionary, our main audience is anglophones.)—msh210℠ (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Terms can always be RFDed again, there is nothing wrong with that. And there are languages in North America in which entire phrases can be encoded into one orthographical word, but that doesn't make those words idiomatic, and I would oppose including them too. I also opposed including fasque for the same reason; it's not idiomatic. The argument given against fasque was that it's part of elementary Latin studies. I apply the same argument here; a beginner in German will understand this, too. —CodeCa t 22:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't compare to fasque: in German, neuntausendneunhundertneunundneunzig is considered as a word, this is a difference. Lmaltier (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Not only can it be understood by breaking it up into parts, but it must be broken up into parts in order to be understood. --Wiki Tiki 89 22:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we usually re-RFD a closed RFD a mere year and half after closure, unless it as kept for no consensus. But I may be wrong. Anyway, I maintain my speedy-keep-as-already-passed view, above.—msh210℠ (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Move to RFV. I'd like to see whether it's actually attested in this form (as opposed to "9999") in three different uses (as opposed to mentions) in durably archived German texts. —An gr 22:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It actually has quite a few Google Books hits, I checked. So that won't be necessary. —CodeCa t 23:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

(After several edit conflicts:) google books:"neuntausendneunhundertneunundneunzig" gets a good number of results, I wouldn't bother RFVing it just so that it ends up back here in RFD. --Wiki Tiki 89 23:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

In that case keep as a word in a language. —An gr 23:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

But you voted delete on fasque. Why not here? —CodeCa t 23:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Because they're very different cases. Fasque isn't a part of speech; it's not a syntactic constituent, nor even a contraction of two adjacent syntactic constituents like didn't and im#German and lena#Irish. But 9999 is a part of speech and a syntactic constituent. It's a compound like armhole and meateater and any number of other semantically transparent compounds, all of which we keep. —An gr 16:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete. I confirm CodeCat’s statement that a beginner will understand this. Oppose speedy keeping, as the RFD took place two years ago. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 23:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

If I recall right, I voted for or at least symphatized delete in the previous RFD discussion, and I still do. I don't think we should treat numbers as an attestability issue, but a policy question. All German numbers from eins to neunhundertneunundneunzigtausendneunhundertneunundneunzig (999,999) and similarly the Finnish numbers from yksi to yhdeksänsataayhdeksänkymmentäyhdeksäntuhattayhdeksänsataayhdeksänkymmentäyhdeksän are written as one word. I hate to think the day when it occurs to somebody to write a bot which adds them all and then we discuss each of them individually. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

@Hekaheka: Only attested words can be entered, as you know. The Finnish example "yhdeksänsataayhdeksänkymmentäyhdeksäntuhattayhdeksänsataayhdeksänkymmentäyhdeksän" is not attested. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep (all words in all languages) - but I am not advocating adding any more, unless you honestly can't think of anything better to do with your time. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with that argument. Anything that should be kept should be added. Anything that shouldn't be added shouldn't be kept. --Wiki Tiki 89 15:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think so too. Voting keep is an implicit "we want this" vote, while delete means "we don't want this". So if you say that you want this, but not any others like it, then what do you actually want? —CodeCa t 16:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

OK - I'll change that to a simple keep. What language would you like me to write the bot for first? SemperBlotto (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

If you start with a well-documented language like German or Finnish, make sure the bot first checks BGC, Usenet, etc., to make sure each number is actually attested—written out in full as uses, not mentions—at least three times. If voting keep is an implicit "we want this" vote, I'm clarifying I only "want this" in the case of numerals that actually meet our attestation requirements. —An gr 16:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. But first, I'll add the remaining missing words from English, French, Italian and German. (as I said before, we have better things to do with our time) SemperBlotto (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with Semperblotto, except about the bot: I think that a good rule in such cases is the one suggested by Angr: Allow ordinary numbers above 100 only with (e.g.) 3 independent attestations in normal sentences, and without the help of a bot. The rationale for forbidding bots is that they could need an almost infinite disk space (as the set of integers is infinite), and that the Foundation cannot accept that. Lmaltier (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to reiterate my delete. We're not going to have a dictionary that is theee quarters of numbers in all languages. Not as long as I still live on this planet. -- Liliana • 16:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

After checking first 30 BGC hits, I'm changing my opinion regarding this particular word. It seems that in many cases it is used to signify "a large number of" and not literally 9,999. Thus, we do not need deletion, we need a new sense. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep all such compound words which meet attestation requirements. Ƿidsiþ 18:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Lean keep, for reasons I think I've made clear in previous discussions, or can expound later when I have more time. - -sche (discuss) 05:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This meets the letter of CFI, but perhaps CFI should be changed, even if just to exclude compound numbers. Any broader proposal, e.g. one which tried to exclude Zirkusschule, would be probably be impossible to formulate (a) to the satisfaction of inclusionists, and moreover (b) even just to the satisfaction of those who would like to exclude some compounds, but who would recognise the difficulty of deciding which compounds to exclude, and of formulating a rule that excluded only those compounds. For example, which of nonraven (fully decomposable into non- and raven), undo (un- + do), nichtinstrumental (nicht + instrumental), xłp̓x̣ʷłtłpłłskʷc̓ (?), erschießen (er- + schießen), neuntausendneunhundertneunundneunzig (...), neuntausend (...), nmitôgwes (n- + mitôgwes) and kmitôgwes (k- + mitôgwes) should be excluded, and what rule would exclude them and other compounds like them but not compounds unlike them? - -sche (discuss) 08:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep attested single word per CFI. This nomination seems to be an attempt to redefine "separate components" in WT:CFI's definition of "idiomatic" (WT:CFI#Idiomaticity), following on the apparent success of wrong argumentation (wrong IMHO anyway) at #fasque, having started on 14 January 2013. The relevant CFI regulation: 'An expression is “idiomatic” if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components.' If this RFD nomination is to be understood as being made within CFI, the nomination tries to broaden the word "separate" even more than it was already broadened in the "fasque" discussion, failing to make it clear why "headache" should be included and "neuntausendneunhundertneunundneunzig" should be excluded. As an aside: in the previous RFD discussion archived at Talk:neuntausendneunhundertneunundneunzig, there were 7 boldfaced keeps and 4 boldface deletes if one counts the nominator as bold pro-delete. For a 2011 attempt to delete a German compound, see Talk:Zirkusschule. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I still don't understand why the "single word" argument is valid. There are many languages where entire sentences can be made from a single word. In such languages, "word" is an open set because almost anything can be a word. Are we going to have entries for words meaning "my hamburger tastes funny" if they happen to be attestable? —CodeCa t 04:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete. And in my opinion, the comments that mention attestation are missing the point of the attestation requirement. If we decide that we really want entries for the German words/phrases for all numbers 1 through 9,999, then I think it's the height of wikilawyering to distinguish between the ones that meet the letter of the attestation requirement and ones that do not. —Ruakh_TALK 05:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- The attestation requirement is there for a reason. Specifically, as the start of the CFI says: "A term should be included if it’s likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means. This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of including a term if it is attested and idiomatic." If a word is not attested, it's not that there's some technicality we manage to get off on so we don't include it: it's that no one will have any cause to want to know what it means so we don't include it. (That said, I'm not about to RFV German 9996 if someone creates it.)—msh210℠ (talk) 06:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, no. Our attestation requirement is only a proxy for the real question, which, as you say, is "Would someone run across it?". It's true that no one would run across a truly unattested term, but our attestation requirement does not distinguish "attested" from "truly unattested". (Don't get me wrong, I support the attestation requirement in general. I think it's a valuable proxy for things that actually matter. And it does a good job of suppressing pointless arguments. But if someone wants to write a bot for the forms that everyone agrees as the German written-out representations of the numbers 1 through 9,999, then I think "O.K., fine overall . . . but hey, wait a sec, some of those forms get only two b.g.c. hits!" is not a sensible response.) —Ruakh_TALK 16:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Any number is a word and it should be kept if it is special enough. Then, why 9999? The determiner of the largest number written without a space in German is 999999 (neunhundertneunundneunzigtausendneunhundertneunundneunzig), and the longest is 777777 (siebenhundertsiebenundsiebzigtausendsiebenhundertsiebenundsiebzig). — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 06:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

gòl [edit]

nág [edit]

Accent marks are optional in Slovene, and are not used in normal writing. So this is a bit like Latin with macrons. —CodeCa t 23:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Does the Slovene regulator specify they’re optional, or are they optional because people don’t use them? — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 20:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I would say both. The official standard spelling dictionary of Slovene, Slovenski Pravopis, uses diacritics in the words, but only in their dictionary entries and only for pronunciation purposes. Any other prose in those definitions doesn't use diacritics. On the Slovene Wikipedia, none of the text uses diacritics, but sometimes when a new term is introduced (like in the lede section), it is given diacritics as a pronunciation aid. So they are never used in normal text, but are available to be used to disambiguate a word or to clarify the pronunciation of a new word. Diacritics in Slovene usually indicate the placement of stress, so their usage is very similar to writing something like RECord in English, to indicate that you didn't mean reCORD. —CodeCa t 18:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Got it. Delete. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 19:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

bitten-to-the-quick [edit]

Not well defined, but SoP anyway. See quick#Noun. DCDuring TALK 20:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Should be RFVed. Otherwise, keep. Ƿidsiþ 13:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

come to somebody's aid [edit]

come to someone's rescue [edit]

SOP. Delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete both, SOP. Maybe usage notes could be added to aid and rescue about its usage with possessive pronouns. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 17:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. Then also to [[assistance]].—msh210℠ (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 17:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't object to a hard redirect, in case, to the noun.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I meant "in each case" when I wrote "in case".—msh210℠ (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete both. The redirect might discourage the recreation of these better than the RfD-failed notice. DCDuring TALK 18:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

So are you saying we should hard-redirect?—msh210℠ (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Or to a new Collocations namespace or via {{only in}} to WikiPhrasebook, but those haven't been voted on yet. DCDuring TALK 22:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

They seem idiomatic and unusual, but I'm not a massive fan of these entries in general....maybe redirect to the nouns? With suitable usage notes? Ƿidsiþ 18:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Not only can the noun be replaced by synonyms so can the verb (go, hurry, run, sprint, race, speed). Adverbs can be inserted. You could also change tense and add modal verbs. OTOH, it is rather unnatural to say "It was his aid that I came to" or "It was to his aid that I came". This looks like a construction with some idiomaticity, but a rather low degree thereof. DCDuring TALK 21:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Rename to come to rescue and come to aid. Lmaltier (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The renaming idea would contradict our prevailing practice for this type of entry and would seem to be a matter for WT:BP.

It also doesn't fit the grammar of any form of these, which is either come to the aid/rescue/assistance of someone/something or come to someone's/something's aid. DCDuring TALK 15:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It's often found in titles such as BP agents come to aid of stranded Samaritans, Bedspring Spears Woman; Firemen Come To Rescue, or Bankers come to rescue of unpaid teachers, and it's more basic. This was the reason for my suggestion. Lmaltier (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't count titles as running text. They certainly aren't speech. The expression you would have as a headword might belong in a pidgin or creole. DCDuring TALK 22:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

An entry title is not speech either. But it seems that it was a bad idea. Lmaltier (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't see how this could possibly make sense knowing only the parts. The best I can come up with is "come (literally) to someone's assistance (whatever their assistance is)". I do suspect that there is something else going on though. You can also say "(person) [comes] to the rescue". It seems that the idiomaticity lies in "to" combined with some kind of word meaning assistance, but I can't really put my finger on what it is. In any case, until we resolve that specific idiomatic meaning, keep these entries as they are not SoP within the spectrum of definitions that currently exists at Wiktionary. —CodeCa t 22:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

bulette [edit]

fictional land shark from D&D --Tobby (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Move to RFV since it might turn out to be used (as the entry suggests) in other places, like perhaps roguelike computer games (they often "borrow" D&D monster types). Equinox ◑ 18:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I've added a cite from rec.games.roguelike.adom--apparently it was used in a rougelike game called Ancient Domains of Mystery--and a cite from alt.toys.transformers where it's used in a generic way. Plus a couple more cites, the original from The Dragon and a more-or-less generic one from rec.games.frp.dnd.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I've added a cite from the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game; in 2000, the owners of D&D released the base part of it under a pretty Free license, and thus many people are using creatures like bulette under a license that's for many purposes the CC-BY. I'm not sure where this goes with "fictional universes"; Pathfinder makes no reference to any universe owned by ~~D&D~~ Hasbro (owners of D&D).--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

accordion [edit]

This claims to be an adjective, but has but one cite, which only shows attributive use, not good enough for a word that is also a noun. DCDuring TALK 23:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Move to RFV. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013 [edit]

Popeye [edit]

Only used in one particular cartoon universe. Pretty sure this fails CFI. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 05:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The word is used in reminiscence of the character’s oddly-shaped arms: google books:"Popeye muscle", google books:"Popeye arm", google books:"Popeye biceps". But this might be better handled by creating those entries individually. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 05:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Does it fail CFI, I don't know, but it should not. Fictional characters (or fictional place names, etc.) should be subject to the same rule as other words, except that uses by the creator of the name might be excluded. And it's very easy to find uses of this word by many people. Lmaltier (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This should pass CFI based on the number of hits for "Popeye muscles" or "Popeye squint" alone. For example:

1967, Television Magazine, Volume 24, Issue 11, page 27:

They seem equipped to drag the building between them right down Pennsylvania Avenue, but their progress is arrested by two heroes of Popeye musculature, government men putting a check rein on willful industry.

Nov. 2006, Men's Health, Vol. 21, No. 9, page 60:

BIGGER ARMS, FEWER EXERCISES • Auburn University researchers have found that you can blow off boring wrist curls and extensions and still build your Popeye muscles.

2006, Laura A. Jacobs, Landscape With Moving Figures: A Decade on Dance, page 44:

The shapes were Disney animation — as if someone had loosened a screw in that machine — and the dancers looked like errant toadstools, or had Mighty Mouse chests and Popeye muscles, even Saturn rings around midriffs.

2009, Kaye Morgan, Killer Sudoku:

Roche's jaw tightened so much, little Popeye muscles appeared in his cheeks.

1991, Anthony Bruno, Bad Luck, page 28:

Lenny gave him the Popeye squint as he rolled off to Frank, the other bodyguard on duty, who was standing on the other side of the stage behind the Epps camp.

2000, Thomas S. Lee, Jr., The Gods Underground: Project Z, page 335:

In the corner of his vision he could see the form of the guard, imagining the Popeye squint was examining his every move.

2003, Barbara Haynie, The Terrain of Paradise, page 248:

Hale grinned and winked at her with an exaggerated Popeye squint he had used to tease her when she was a giggly kid.

2011, Steve Hamilton, Misery Bay: An Alex McKnight Novel, page 5:

He was looking at the man in the pink snowmobile suit with a Popeye squint in his right eye.

Cheers! bd2412 T 15:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Current definition probably fails, but I'd imagine there's a common noun definition out there somewhere so that we can move the proper noun definition to the etymology. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Saying that it is a cartoon character really doesn't convey the meaning in the examples given. I change my proposition from deletion to modifying the definition to express the meaning given in the examples. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 03:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

BD2412, we don't need citations to show that a proper noun can be used in attributively in English, we already know that. It would be like citing the word is in English. These citations don't show that Popeye is any different to say, David Cameron or John F. Kennedy. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. But there is an important difference nonetheless: Popeye is a single word, while, linguistically, from a language dictionary (therefore not encyclopedic) point of view, David Cameron must be considered as composed of two words. Lmaltier (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

@MG: If one says that a member of the Kennedy family has Kennedy charm, that use of Kennedy should not lead to inclusion. If one says that Bill Clinton has Kennedy charm (Kennedy not having been used previously in the work), I think that would be evidence that Kennedy merited inclusion. We could decide (ie, VOTE) to exclude such things as a matter of policy, but the usage would suggest that Kennedy is part of the lexicon in a way that goes beyond reference to a specific individual or family. (I do not know whether there is any usage that would meet our standards for Kennedy). DCDuring TALK 20:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, Kennedy should be included only as a surname. All proper names can be used in such a way. Allusions to an individual or a family don't make new senses. Lmaltier (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Then you feel differently about proper names only of fictional characters (since you want to keep Popeye)? That is odd. Equinox ◑ 21:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

No, not at all. I only consider their status of word. Confucius is a word, and is the name of an individual. Kennedy is a word (a surname). Popeye is a word (a fictional character). But John Kennedy is not a single word for us, because it cannot be studied linguistically, only John and Kennedy can be studied. And what I explain above was about includable senses. Lmaltier (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree. I see no difference between Kennedy in Kennedy charm and Bette Davis in Bette Davis eyes. —An gr 22:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any difference either, and I would exclude both senses. But I would include Popeye or Kennedy, for their actual sense (a fictional character, and a surname). We should include all words, whatever they mean. Lmaltier (talk) 06:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

For a non-hypothetical case, consider [[Marilyn Monroe]]. DCDuring TALK 23:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

So where a fictional character has a surname, like H. R. Pufnstuf, would you want to include that? How would you define it? Equinox ◑ 11:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

In same cases, people can create words at will, for their own needs. These words should not be includable, except if they are used by other people (unrelated to the creator), making them elements of the language. This is why I would exclude citations from all people related to the creator of the word, at least in a few cases: company names, brand names, fictional character names, fictional placenames. About your question: a name or a surname given to a single character should be defined as this character, of course. Lmaltier (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It is also worth noting, I think, that "Popeye" is a name/nickname in use beyond the fictional character. For example, see w:Popeye Jones and w:Popeye Doyle, along with citations such as:

1994, Eric Cummins, The Rise and Fall of California's Radical Prison Movement, page 216:

The UPU faction, headed by Popeye Jackson, drew considerable numbers of members away from the Prisoners' Union when it split off in 1973, primarily taking with it the union's more radical convicts.

There is also a character named "Popeye" in William Faulkner's 1931 novel, Sanctuary, which was written after the fictional cartoon sailor began appearing in comic strips (in 1919), but before the first Popeye short (in 1933). The character in the novel is a demonically evil gangster, and does not appear to be a reference to the pre-existing comic strip character. Separate from the question of whether we should have an entry on the fictional cartoon sailor, it seems clear that there are a CFI-worthy number of examples to include an entry on the name/nickname (compare the RfD discussion preserved at Talk:Crouchy). However, although some of these nickname uses might derive from the fictional cartoon sailor, reference to "Popeye muscles" or a "Popeye squint" come directly from the character. bd2412 T 00:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, do you mean "worth nothing", or do you mean "worth noting"? —An gr 00:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Oops, fixed. Certainly, it is worth something. bd2412 T 01:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep, upon further investigation. Here is another citation in print:

2009, ESPN, ESPN College Basketball Encyclopedia, page 99:

FAN FAVORITE: С Popeye Jones (1988-92) Befitting his nickname, Ronald "Popeye" Jones never came up short in the effort department.

This pretty clearly indicates use of the nickname as a reference to the attributes of the cartoon sailor. Note that this source makes no mention of said sailor, and only presumes that the reader will immediately understand the significance of "Popeye" as a nickname. bd2412 T 04:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

pre-shared key [edit]

Apart from being something of a mess: it's precisely a key that's pre-shared. Equinox ◑ 16:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

little Hitler [edit]

This is not idiomatic at all, it just uses a sense of little we are currently lacking. There are many many other collocations that use this sense of little to mean "alike". -- Liliana • 21:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 21:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete. I don't think this is any special meaning of little. This is just belittlement and a metaphor that has been lexicalized. DCDuring TALK 23:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Quite common, and is in e.g. Chambers, but to me it's covered by little + Hitler (common noun); we even indicate they are synonyms by including little Hitler within the def line for Hitler (!). Equinox ◑ 16:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

But we'll have to change that if little Hitler gets deleted. —An gr 17:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes; I only mentioned it because its current presence as a synonym supports my statement that a little Hitler is nothing more than a little (i.e. petty, small-time) Hitler. Compare little jobsworth, which is also common. Equinox ◑ 17:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Just SoP.--Dmol (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep for now. If someone shows actual evidence that "little" is used in this way for a variety of terms, I might support deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

There's another missing sense, as in "you little bastard", "you little shit", "you little cunt". Mglovesfun (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete. There are little Napoleons; little Stalins; little devils; little Bogarts; little Capones; little Castros; little Jesuses; little Houdinis; little Lenins; little Mandelas; little Mozarts; ......... --Hoziron (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, delete. DAVilla 04:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

go for it [edit]

The interjection section of this entry was deleted following the discussion which has now been archived to the talk page, but the verb section, which was tagged towards the end of that RFD, was never discussed. - -sche (discuss) 09:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems okay to me. DAVilla 04:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

base off of [edit]

SoP, no base on or base upon. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

But we are just lacking [[base on]], which Macmillan and McGraw-Hill Idioms & Phrasal Verbs have. We should put in a request at WT:REE. DCDuring TALK 14:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we're lacking is because it's not admissible, at least not the sense I'm thinking of. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

box [edit]

"(transitive, Jamaica, African American Vernacular) To punch (a person)" redundant to "to strike with the fists". I originally just added {{UK}} to the context labels, before I realized it's just the same sense twice. Was gonna speedy it but I'm not qualified to merge the translations. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

unleavened bread [edit]

SoP. Equinox ◑ 04:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

My vote for now is delete as SOP. But given its religious significance I suspect it might have enough idiomatic translations to justify making the entry a translation target. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 04:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Although it sometimes is used when referring to any bread that's made without leavening, the most common sense is in reference to the type of bread associated with the Passover. Being unleavened isn't the whole definition~~: one could make bread that is unleavened by heating dough with yeast in it before it has a chance to rise- I don't think that would qualify it as unleavened bread in this sense~~. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't follow. If the dough had yeast in it, it would be "bread made with a raising agent", woudn't it? (Even if the raising agent never had a chance to work.) "Unleavened" is currently defined as "without any yeast or other raising agent", rather than as, say, "unraised", so dough with yeast in it wouldn't be "unleavened" by any sense, would it? - -sche (discuss) 08:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't check my definitions. I still think there's more to it than lack of yeast, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks a bit like one of those terms that's culturally important but in linguistic terms has nothing to offer. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment. Even if you don't actively add a raising/leavening agent, it will rise/leaven unless you bake it quickly. For this reason, the baking of Passover matzot is timeboxed to 18 minutes. So, does "unleavened bread" include bread that leavened on its own, without the use of leaven as an ingredient? —Ruakh_TALK 05:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Isn't unleavened bread sort of like vegetarian chicken; i.e. not actually "bread" by definition, because it is leavening that makes a foodstuff become bread rather than, say, a cracker? bd2412 T 13:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Even if that is true, I don't think it alone justifies an entry. A "so-called king" isn't a king, for example, and a "failed state" isn't a state (arguably — I'm sure there are better examples). Equinox ◑ 13:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

And I don't think it is true. Neither our definition, nor Wikipedia's, nor that of any of half a dozen other dictionaries I've checked, says that leavening is a necessary condition for being bread. At best they say "usually" with yeast or other leavening, and dictionary.com explicitly says "with or without yeast or other leavening agent". So the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth is real bread. —An gr 13:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Still, if someone gave you a piece of matzoh and said, "here, have some bread", wouldn't think them as mistaken as if they said the same thing while handing you a bowl of oatmeal or a scrambled egg? bd2412 T 16:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't. I might think it a little odd, but not flat-out wrong as with a bowl of oatmeal or a scrambled egg. But then every week someone puts a wafer as flat as a matzoh in the palm of my hand and calls it bread, so maybe I'm more used to it than other people. —An gr 16:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the oddity of it is enough to justify a definition explaining that, for example, unleavened bread is not bread that failed to rise because some ingredient was left out, but is a food made from most of the same ingredients as traditional "bready" bread, but intentionally prepared in a way that causes it to avoid rising. bd2412 T 19:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep. The term "unleavened" seems mainly used with "bread". Google Ngram Viewer for unleavened bread,unleavened suggests that almost two thirds of uses of "unleavened" are as part of "unleavened bread". This is a non-CFI consideration, I admit. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to keep such terms. Traditionally we have not.

My vote is to delete, but weakly since I'm sympathetic to non-rising as a result of more than non-leavening. DAVilla 04:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep because this is a term of the English vocabulary. In French pain sans levain is SOP too, but it's exactly the same case: this is a term of the French language, a term nobody uses without having learned it first. Lmaltier (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete. The entry for unleavened explains perfectly what the word means and this is only "unleavened + bread". It's not so uncommon either. There are dozens of varieties in almost every corner of the World, see e.g. flatbread. --Hekaheka (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

broiler chicken [edit]

SOP, delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

But it seems plausible that broiler chicken was the original term, and this was then shortened to broiler, like house music becoming house. Equinox ◑ 15:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe the definition is wrong. A "broiler chicken" is not merely a chicken "suitable" for broiling, since just about any chicken can be broiled; rather, broiler chickens are a breed of chicken raised for broiling as opposed to egg-laying or other uses, and as opposed to wild birds. Broiler chickens are biologically different from naturally occurring chickens or chickens raised for other purposes, growing very quickly with oversized legs and other market-friendly features. bd2412 T 16:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep. It does seem to be the original term. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

after Saturday comes Sunday [edit]

This barely-attested slogan is sometimes attributed to Muslims, but not, as far as I or the commenters on its talk page can tell, ever actually used by Muslims... which is beside the point that Wiktionary is not a repository of (real or hypothetical) political slogans. What's next, "you didn't build that"? - -sche (discuss) 05:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Slogans aren’t dictionary material. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 06:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Send to RFV I suppose. It's no worse than "I approve this message", and we don't exclude fictional things, e.g. hoverbike. Equinox ◑ 10:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep and RFV, the meaning is really not intuitive at all. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not a semantic sum of parts, so keep in RFD and move to RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep if it's true, correct if it exists but not as claimed, RFV if you feel it's necessary. DAVilla 03:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Items in Category:en:Artistic works [edit]

Per Equinox and Mglovesfun's comments on 清明上河图, I'm moving almost all of these for consideration. We can discuss them in general here, and issues specific to individual entries under their subheading. Personally, I'm inclined to delete any entry that is solely the title of a work of art. The only things in the category which I am not moving are: Frankenstein, Iliad (also means "an epic story" in general), King James Version, Lord's Prayer (Neither of which strike me as artistic works in the same sense as the others), Macbeth (also a personal name), mosaic, Playboy, and Tom Sawyer (also a verb).
The items which I have moved are:

Furius (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: following this comment by Mglovesfun, I refactored this discussion, which began as one big lump, into individual sections. - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to confirm all the "keep" votes that -sche added in my name below. —An gr 20:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment:' These things should not have all been bundled into a single RfD. They are completely different from each other! We've got books, fictional characters, works of art, and things in a whole bunch of different languages. This should probably be speedy closed as procedurally keep all Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 17:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

But they've been split apart into separate sections; see below. Equinox ◑ 17:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Mona Lisa [edit]

I would keep the Mona Lisa if, as I suspect, much figurative usage of "Mona Lisa" can be found. ("Has [overly-acclaimed artist] painted another Mona Lisa?" is unlikely to be asking if the artist has made a copy of the old painting, it's likely asking if she has produced a work that shos comparable talent and is comparably valuable / culturally significant.) - -sche 22:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I would want to keep as translation targets all that have foreign names distinct from the English names (not counting mere transliterations into other writing systems). That appears to be all of these except Guerrillero Heroico. —An gr 22:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

All of these except Guerrillero Heroico? "Mona Lisa" is "Mona Lisa", "Mona Liza", "Μόνα Λίζα", etc. (French also refers to it as "La Joconde", but does no more to make it a dictionary entry, IMO, than the various insulting nicknames Latin America has for George W. Bush do to make [[George W. Bush]] a dictionary entry.) - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

And Italian calls it La Gioconda. Sounds like dictionary-appropriate information to me. —An gr 20:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Italy has other names for Bush, too. Is [[George W. Bush]] dictionary-appropriate? - -sche (discuss) 20:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

They have other nicknames for him, they don't have a different name for him. A better example would be [[John Paul II]] and [[Benedict XVI]], both of whom do have different names in different languages, though our entries [[John]], [[Paul]], and [[Benedict]] probably suffice for that. —An gr 20:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I would want to delete the specific proper names of buildings and/or works (all already well detailed at Wikipedia): Arc de Triomphe, Chopsticks, Guerrillero Heroico, Hansel and Gretel, Jabberwocky (but keep the unnominated adjective jabberwocky, which is a generic word), Leaning Tower of Pisa, Mona Lisa, Romeo and Juliet, Star Trek, Venus de Milo. Equinox ◑ 21:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep as having translations that cannot be guessed from the English term: French: la Joconde, Italian: la Gioconda. Furthermore, the English pronunciation may be unclear, although that rationale may lend itself to including a vast number of names of works, which I am unsure is a good thing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep: per Polansky Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 17:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Arc de Triomphe [edit]

Delete; see my comment about Guerrillero Heroico. - -sche 22:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Equinox voted to delete this, see his comment in the "Mona Lisa" section. note placed by - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Angr voted to "keep as translation targets all that have foreign names distinct from the English names (not counting mere transliterations into other writing systems). That appears to be all of these except Guerrillero Heroico." (see his comment in the Mona Lisa section) note placed by - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Given that the English name isn't distinct from the French, is Arc de Triomphe actually English at all? Furius (talk) 06:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Since we don't call it anything else in English, yes. Alternatively, we could change the ==English== label to ==French== provided we keep the translation table, though we normally don't have translation tables in non-English entries. —An gr 07:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Chopsticks [edit]

Delete; see my comment about Guerrillero Heroico. - -sche 22:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Equinox voted to delete this, see his comment in the "Mona Lisa" section. note placed by - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Angr voted to "keep as translation targets all that have foreign names distinct from the English names (not counting mere transliterations into other writing systems). That appears to be all of these except Guerrillero Heroico." (see his comment in the Mona Lisa section) note placed by - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we should treat these the same as names of specific people: if they've entered the language as a more generic term for something they exemplify, they should be kept. Examples I can think of are the Bible (a fundamental source), "War and Peace" (a voluminous text), "Venus de Milo" (missing arms- mostly in humorous reference), and "Chopsticks" (very rudimentary/elementary piano music). Some of the entries above are names of truly iconic images (Guerrillero Heroico and Vitruvian Man, for instance), but it's the image- not the name for it- that's become part of the culture at large. Wiktionary is a dictionary of written and spoken language, not visual language- so those should be deleted. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

comment moved during refactoring by - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep, as the Portuguese translation currently entered in WT does not seem to be guessable from "Chopsticks": Bife; see also bife and pt:bife. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Guerrillero Heroico [edit]

I would delete Guerrillero Heroico, Chopsticks (do we want Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen?), Arc de Triomphe (do we want Denkmal des polnischen Soldaten und deutschen Antifaschisten?) and Star Trek (do we want Doctor Who?). - -sche 22:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Equinox voted to delete this, see his comment in the "Mona Lisa" section. note placed by - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Chuck voted to delete this, see his comment in the "Chopsticks" section. note placed by - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 17:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hansel and Gretel [edit]

I'm not sure what to do with Hansel and Gretel. (Abstain, I guess.) - -sche 22:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Equinox voted to delete this, see his comment in the "Mona Lisa" section. note placed by - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Angr voted to "keep as translation targets all that have foreign names distinct from the English names (not counting mere transliterations into other writing systems). That appears to be all of these except Guerrillero Heroico." (see his comment in the Mona Lisa section) note placed by - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Jabberwocky [edit]

I'm not sure what to do with Jabberwocky. (Abstain, I guess.) - -sche 22:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Equinox voted to delete this, see his comment in the "Mona Lisa" section. note placed by - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Angr voted to "keep as translation targets all that have foreign names distinct from the English names (not counting mere transliterations into other writing systems). That appears to be all of these except Guerrillero Heroico." (see his comment in the Mona Lisa section) note placed by - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep as an attested single-word name of a specific entity. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

What in the world — do you want entries for every single-word book that title has been mentioned three times?! Equinox ◑ 18:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I admit that my rationale is incomplete. I would be hesitant with names of books that are a capitalized common noun that did not originate from the name of the book. For other single-word attested book names, I guess I would like to see them included, with exceptions that do not come to mind at this point. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep: it's a metaphor. It was written to be a metaphor, and still is Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 17:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Kama Sutra and Kamasutra [edit]

I equate the Kama Sutra/Kamasutra and Odyssey to the Bible and Iliad, and say keep them accordingly. (All four are often used generically: "The Lesbian Kama Sutra" is a book of sex tips for women who love women, "The Programmer's Bible" is a book programmers can turn to for guidance in times of need, etc.) - -sche 22:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Angr voted to "keep as translation targets all that have foreign names distinct from the English names (not counting mere transliterations into other writing systems). That appears to be all of these except Guerrillero Heroico." (see his comment in the Mona Lisa section) note placed by - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not certain about Kama Sutra/Kamasutra (it feels like an exception — hard to say why, but I imagine some professional dictionaries do contain it, while probably none would contain Star Trek), Odyssey, and Vitruvian Man. Equinox ◑ 21:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep per Bible, Magna Carta. bd2412 T 18:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep "Kamasutra" as an attested single-word name not originating as a capitalization of a common noun. Keep "Kama Sutra" as a slightly more common variant of the name. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep: per B.D. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 17:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Kept. - -sche (discuss) 18:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Leaning Tower of Pisa [edit]

I lean (no pun intended) towards deleting this. - -sche 22:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Equinox voted to delete this, see his comment in the "Mona Lisa" section. note placed by - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Angr voted to "keep as translation targets all that have foreign names distinct from the English names (not counting mere transliterations into other writing systems). That appears to be all of these except Guerrillero Heroico." (see his comment in the Mona Lisa section) note placed by - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Pertinent CFI regulation: Wiktionary:CFI#Names_of_specific_entities. My personal rationale within the underdetermined CFI for names of individual things is the one of translation targets, including Russian Pádajuščaja bášnja (falling tower). On the lemmings note, Collins seems to have an entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Question. Are there translations of the name of this building that are not merely SOP descriptions of leaning tower of Pisa, or some other set of SOP terms (as falling tower) in the language at issue? bd2412 T 16:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Odyssey [edit]

Keep; see my comment about the Kama Sutra. - -sche 22:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Angr voted to "keep as translation targets all that have foreign names distinct from the English names (not counting mere transliterations into other writing systems). That appears to be all of these except Guerrillero Heroico." (see his comment in the Mona Lisa section) note placed by - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Equinox was not certain whether to keep or delete this, see his comment in the "Kama Sutra" section. note placed by - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep per -sche. bd2412 T 18:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Redefine to be the same as odyssey and keep that. Send the current definition to RFV to prove it's really used generically - I'm dubious. Siuenti (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep; it is a single-word name of a work, alongside Lysistrata and Decameron. Pertinent CFI regulation: Wiktionary:CFI#Names_of_specific_entities. Its usefulness is diminished a bit by the existence of lowercase odyssey: the pronunication can be found there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep: per Polansky Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 17:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Kept. - -sche (discuss) 19:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Penrose stairs [edit]

Keep. Penrose stairs refers not to a specific work of art, but to a type of endless staircase figure in any artwork. Penrose stairs appear in Ascending and Descending by M. C. Escher, in the movie Inception[20], as a symbol in political cartoons[21], in sculpture, &c. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree: I would keep Penrose stairs, Penrose triangle, etc. as they are types of optical illusion, and countable: not like Mona Lisa, one specific object. Equinox ◑ 21:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought that Penrose stairs was a term for any staircase looped in that impossible way, not just the specific drawing Penrose made. The citations I've put at Citations:Penrose stairs are a start towards demonstrating that, so I'd keep that entry. - -sche 22:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Accordingly, I would change the definition from "A drawing by Penrose..." to "A set of stairs, originally depicted in a drawing by Lionel Penrose and Roger Penrose, that are impossible to fully construct as a three-dimensional object." At least, I would add "...or a set of stairs like the one depicted in that drawing" to the end of the current definition. - -sche (discuss) 22:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Angr voted to "keep as translation targets all that have foreign names distinct from the English names (not counting mere transliterations into other writing systems). That appears to be all of these except Guerrillero Heroico." (see his comment in the Mona Lisa section) note placed by - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep as a descriptor for a class of things, rather than an individual work. bd2412 T 14:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Would anyone like to provide some citations to prove it's a class of object? Siuenti (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- 2012, Eddie J. Smith, Halloween, Hallowed Is Thy Name, page 255:
  
  It is like the image below, called the Penrose Stairs. We can climb and descend the stairs of human intelligence and never get anywhere. All the while we are merely going around in a circle, as if caught in the trap of the Penrose stairs.
- Note that the image actually provided is a rather shoddy generic drawing of an unending stair set, and not an exact reproduction of Penrose's original artwork. bd2412 T 23:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep. No reason for deletion relating to WT:CFI was stated. An entry for a common noun. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Kept. - -sche (discuss) 20:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet [edit]

Romeo and Juliet are used so often as stand-ins for any (ill-fated) overly romantic couple that the entry is probably worth keeping, but I suspect the definition should be generic and mention of Shakespeare's play should be confined to the etymology. - -sche 22:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Equinox voted to delete this, see his comment in the "Mona Lisa" section. note placed by - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Angr voted to "keep as translation targets all that have foreign names distinct from the English names (not counting mere transliterations into other writing systems). That appears to be all of these except Guerrillero Heroico." (see his comment in the Mona Lisa section) note placed by - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep: If it's used as a stand-in, it's idiomatic Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 17:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek [edit]

Delete; see my comment about Guerrillero Heroico. - -sche 22:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Equinox voted to delete this, see his comment in the "Mona Lisa" section. note placed by - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Angr voted to "keep as translation targets all that have foreign names distinct from the English names (not counting mere transliterations into other writing systems). That appears to be all of these except Guerrillero Heroico." (see his comment in the Mona Lisa section) note placed by - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep, but fix. "Star Trek" is frequently used as an adjective to denote sleek technology and futuristic concepts:

2012, David M. Darst, The Little Book that Still Saves Your Assets: What The Rich Continue to Do to Stay Wealthy in Up and Down Markets, page 170:

Such portfolios lie on the so-called efficient frontier, which sounds very Star Trek, and is shown in Exhibit 12.2.
2012, D. Crawford, Nirvana in the Garden of Eden: The Quantum Leap and Evolution Of 2012, page 285:

Reality is more Star Trek than people care to admit.
2011, Eddie Rowley, Westlife On Tour:

'This is very Star Trek,' Bryan pipes up as he examines the sketches of the space suits.
2007, Michele Bardsley, Don't Talk Back To Your Vampire:

Older vampires learned how to dissemble and reassemble their bodies in a way that was very Star Trek.
1992, Faith Popcorn, The Popcorn Report, page 110:

Sounds very Star Trek, but Virtual Reality technology exists right now.

I would note also that a derived form, Star Trekky, is well attested. bd2412 T 14:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep the entry but

Delete the noun senses. Replace this with adjectival entry per BD2412. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

My delete votes were for the current entries, of course. Saying "keep" when you want a totally different sense or part of speech is misleading. Not sure if this is an adjective, anyway: sure, "very Star Trek", but you could say an actress was "very Monroe". Equinox ◑ 23:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

My delete vote was for the current, nominated entry. Saying "keep" when you really want a totally different sense is misleading. (Anyhow, is it really an adj? "More Star Trek"? "Very Star Trek"? Not sure.) Equinox ◑ 23:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me clarify my vote then. I mean to keep the noun sense for the same reason that we have a noun sense for Thomas Jefferson at Jefferson, to support derivations like Jeffersonian, but adjust that definition to reflect the qualities for which the term is used as an adjective (i.e., futuristic, sleek technology). Fans will tell you that although Star Trek and Star Wars both feature high tech settings, Star Trek tends to have a cleaner, sleeker, and more regimented look and feel, while Star Wars tends to have a rougher and more guttural look and feel. By the way, I would merge the two adjective senses that have just been added, as I think they are redundant. bd2412 T 00:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to edit those adjective senses however you think appropriate; they're a first attempt. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and combined them. The whole notion is futuristic in the manner of Star Trek. For example, a forum post on this page: "I admit that the iPad is very Star Trek but as the saying goes, jack of all trades, master of none". bd2412 T 02:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, though in that case I take it to mean the iPad is very "like the handheld PADDs crewmembers use on Star Trek: The Next Generation". ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep: Numerous other definitions dependent on the existence of this Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 17:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Venus de Milo [edit]

I lean towards deleting this; see my comment about Vitruvian Man. - -sche 22:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Equinox voted to delete this, see his comment in the "Mona Lisa" section. note placed by - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Angr voted to "keep as translation targets all that have foreign names distinct from the English names (not counting mere transliterations into other writing systems). That appears to be all of these except Guerrillero Heroico." (see his comment in the Mona Lisa section) note placed by - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Chuck voted to keep this, see his comment in the "Chopsticks" section. note placed by - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep: Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 17:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Vitruvian Man [edit]

google books:"a Vitruvian man" suggests that Vitruvian Man might be genericised often enough to be worth keeping (and I lean towards doing so), but I'm not sure, because google books:"a Venus de Milo" is also attested, and I lean towards deleting it. - -sche 22:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Angr voted to "keep as translation targets all that have foreign names distinct from the English names (not counting mere transliterations into other writing systems). That appears to be all of these except Guerrillero Heroico." (see his comment in the Mona Lisa section) note placed by - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Equinox was not certain whether to keep or delete this, see his comment in the "Kama Sutra" section. note placed by - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Chuck voted to delete this, see his comment in the "Chopsticks" section. note placed by - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

anthropormorphic [edit]

This is a misspelling of anthropomorphic, and doesn't seem to be a misspelling that would merit an entry. Rspeer (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. Deleted. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It is surprisingly common as a mispelling at Google Books. DCDuring TALK 09:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

lose the baby [edit]

Looks like a classic case of SOP. Compare lose hair, lose the match, lose the race, lose the signal, lose the keys, lose the plot (idiomatic), lose one's life. --Three littlish birds (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Already covered at lose, sense 5 ("experience the death of"; e.g. you can lose your parents), and not a fixed phrase (e.g. "she lost her baby" is fine). Equinox ◑ 13:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete. No need for me to comment here. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Lose the pregnancy would be unidiomatic, but lose the baby as a colloquialism for "to suffer a miscarriage" is not. It is idiomatic because its precise meaning cannot be determined strictly from its constituent parts. It's not clear that lose the baby means to suffer a miscarriage, as "the baby" could mean an infant. Thus the phrase has a number of possible alternative meanings: to have an infant die, to misplace an infant, to have an infant taken away (e.g., "the biological mother ultimately lost the baby after a custody battle with the adoptive parents"). I would not oppose moving it to something like lose one's baby, though. Astral (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep. I imagine the baby talked about is the one the unfortunate mother-to-be would have had, not the foetus; so the term is referring to a loss of something one does not yet have. — Pingku^dimmi 15:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

@Astral: That reasoning applies to individual words as well. One cannot tell which meaning is intended without resorting to the context, often outside the particular sentence. I don't see why a human would want to have a dictionary that consisted of all possible collocations involving polysemic words. For a machine of certain architectures it might be more cost-effective to have a really big look-up table instead of contextually based selection, but I doubt the utility of this for humans. It's a shame that we don't have a way of monitoring usage that we are willing to use.

@Pingku: That would be a reason to make sure that there is an appropriate sense of baby. I am reminded of the use of the term beef in English to refer to cattle on the hoof. The frequency of use of beef rather than cattle or steers increases the closer the animals are to the abattoir and the more the mind of the speaker/writer is on the end product.

Delete. DCDuring TALK 15:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The claim that this phrase only applies to a foetus is just wrong. Real example from the Web: "Leanne said: “I lost my baby when he was three months old." This is a live baby that had been out of the womb for 3 months. Equinox ◑ 16:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I never claimed that the phrase is used exclusively to mean "to suffer a miscarriage." As I noted, the phrase can mean many things. When it is used to refer to the death of an infant, it isn't idiomatic. When it is used to refer to suffering a miscarriage, it is, since it's not transparent precisely what is meant by "the baby." The unidiomatic meanings don't warrant definitions, but the idiomatic meaning does. Of course, if you knew your friend was pregnant and she said, "I lost the baby," then you could figure out what she meant by context, but reaching that understanding would require prior knowledge. A phrase that requires prior knowledge to understand cannot be considered SOP. Not to mention that the term "baby" only applies postpartum in most non-colloquial/technical definitions, and miscarriages typically involve the loss of not just an embryo or fetus, but of the placenta and amniotic sac. Perhaps that's splitting hairs, but those things are part of what makes a pregnancy a pregnancy, and thus make a miscarriage categorically different from other possible meanings of "losing the baby." Astral (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Pregnant women often feel the "baby" inside them kick, or joke that they're eating a lot because "the baby is hungry". A man often announces to his friends that he and his wife have learnt from an ultrasound that "it's a baby boy!": and he doesn't mean she's given birth several months premature, he's referring to the fetus which is still inside the womb. Right-wingers accuse "abortionists" of "killing babies". "Fetus, unborn child" is well-attested as a sense of "baby", and the idea that "lose the baby" is idiomatic because it uses that sense is mistaken. - -sche (discuss) 18:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Add the sense "fetus" (not "unborn child" which faces the same difficulties) to the definition of baby and then delete. —An gr 18:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete per Equinox. What is the point of having specific definitions, like def. 5 of lose, if we’re going to add every SOP that uses it? — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 14:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment. I don't see that the current definition of "To suffer a miscarriage" is a semantic sum of parts in terms of "experience the death of"; the mother could have lost a baby due to a car accident after birth. However, it is unclear that the specificity of the current definition is warranted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete per Equinox, -sche: straightforward SOP.—msh210℠ (talk) 07:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep but move to lose one's baby. This term admittedly hovers near the borderline of idiomaticity, but I think it squeaks through as an idiom. It is possible to lose a baby in the most common sense of the term "lose" and also to lose a baby in the much less common sense of "lose" used here. In the interest of having a clear and complete dictionary, I'd keep this definition. -- · (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep in some manner. Perhaps move it. Without any other context, this phrase is taken to mean "lose an unborn baby", which is not SoP. However it can either be used with the definite article or a possessive adjective. This, that and the other (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Ƿidsiþ 06:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

μύρμηξ sense 2 [edit]

Sense 2 "a beast of prey in India". This meaning is presumably derived from Herodotos 3.102. I'm not convinced that it's a distinct usage from sense 1. For context, here's the passage:
"Οὗτοι ὦν οἱ μύρμηκες ποιεύμενοι οἴκησιν ὑπὸ γῆν ἀναφέρουσι [τὴν] ψάμμον κατά περ οἱ ἐν τοῖσι Ἕλλησι μύρμηκες κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον, εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ τὸ εἶδος ὁμοιότατοι· ἡ δὲ ψάμμος ἡ ἀναφερομένη ἐστὶ χρυσῖτις."

"These myrmekes of theirs, which make their dwellings underground, bring up the sand just like the myrmekes in Greece, in just the same way, and they are very much identical {superlative} [in] appearance/form, but the sand which [they] bring up is gold."

Some have argued that the story is actually a garbled version of an Indian practice involving marmots, but if that is so, Herodotos certainly seems unaware of it - for him, μύρμηξ clearly means "ant" and only "ant"
Furius (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Aerialdrome [edit]

As far as I can tell, this word is used solely for a building in Seattle - so, if OK, would be a proper noun. Also needs formatting and severe pruning if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

getting used to [edit]

getting used to —This comment was unsigned.

It's certainly strange having this as a noun: look at the example sentence, and compare "this world record will take some beating". Equinox ◑ 22:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Consider the following examples:

Getting used to that was slow and painful.
That took some slow and painful getting used to.
The Frankish race […] were slowly and painfully getting used to all these changes.
All this takes some painful getting used to.

I think these are patterns that all gerunds can follow, in order of decreasing frequency. Try substituting "walking (home)".

OTOH, one cannot insert an adverb, adjective or pronoun between getting and used to with no following nominal. I think this might be a set phrase when it does not have an explicit following object. DCDuring TALK 23:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I think there are two parts to this: the phrase "take getting used to", and the simple gerund phrases. The first can have modifiers such as "some", "much", "a lot of", "quite a bit of", "no", "very little", etc. It also can have "accustomed to" substituted for "used to", but, aside from this snowclone-ish quality seems at least a bit idiomatic. The other is pretty solidly SOP: "I was awaiting his getting used to the idea" / "I was waiting for him to get used to the idea'", "getting used to the new user interface needs to be a high priority" / It needs to be a high priority to get used to the new user interface" are examples of how one nominalized verb construction can be substituted easily for the other. In addition, you can substitute just about any other synonym for this sense of "used to": not just "accustomed to", but "inured to", "habituated to", "comfortable with", etc. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we agree that it is only the form without an explicit following object that could be idiomatic. The grammar is odd which supports idiomaticity.

"P takes/needs (X) getting used to (P)."
"P needs (for) X to get used to P."
"P takes/needs being got(ten) used to (by X)."
"P needs to be be got(ten) used to (by X)."
"X needs to get used to P."

What's odd to me is "getting used to" instead of "being got(ten) used to". DCDuring TALK 02:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

delete. Compare: "It takes some figuring out", "it takes some looking into", "it takes some thinking about", "it takes some mulling over", "it takes some fixing". --Noodlefrow (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Is that like how we should delete [[hot dog]] because it's just like "hot cat", "warm dog", and "temperature-having animal"? —Ruakh_TALK 05:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete, easy. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

@Ruakh: I don't think you are giving his examples enough credit. To me they suggest that I was mesmerized by the interaction of get and used to and the missing complement to used to in this headword. get used to is somewhat idiomatic. It appears in some translating dictionaries. Obviously it needs to appear in the lexicon of my idiolect as I couldn't analyze it properly. DCDuring TALK 13:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, if his examples deserve any credit at all, then you're right that I'm not giving them enough. "It takes some getting used to" is clearly grammatical and gets tens of thousands of b.g.c. hits, whereas IMHO his examples are all ungrammatical, or at least very questionable, and none of them gets more than 20 b.g.c. hits, so clearly MHO is not alone. —Ruakh_TALK 17:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

How about "needs some more thinking"? That gets 100,000s of hits. Equinox ◑ 17:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

"Thinking", of course, is a straightforward gerund. We can also say, "I need to think some more." We can't say *"I need to get used to some more." —Ruakh_TALK 19:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that your position could bear some thinking over or your reading some catching up. It is not hard to find contemporary examples in fictional dialog that fit with my perception that these constructions are becoming acceptable. DCDuring TALK 20:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

If "these constructions are becoming acceptable" but there was a time when "getting used to" was the only acceptable construction of its kind, might the "in a jiffy" rule apply? - -sche (discuss) 22:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Every new construction has a prototype. How long an interval between the attestation of the first and the second, third and fourth etc do we need. I'd love to see the research in the discussion. DCDuring TALK 23:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep. I am not really sure, but I am unconvinced by the pro-deletion arguments. We should have looking into and mulling over, much like we have look into and mull over. Whether we should have these as noun entries is an open question; having these only as "verb" entries seems odd. Furthermore, I am unclear about whether we should have get used to or get used. For related discussions, see Appendix:English -ing forms. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep. I have also created get used, to me the formatting is OK but feel free to change the definition and formatting. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Whether we keep or not get used is a positively misleading headword. Used to is an idiom in itself.

Almost all English linguists's grammars since the 1930s note the use of get as a passive marker, which passiveness is what mesmerized me. Actually clicking through the four apparent lemmings at get used at OneLook Dictionary Search shows that there are no OneLook references that have this and they don't even have a coherent redirect. In contrast, used to at OneLook Dictionary Search has numerous lemmings. DCDuring TALK 13:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it matters either way, but — I don't think this is the eventive-passive use of "get" ("get killed" ≈ "be killed"). Rather, I think it's the inchoative use ("get angry" ≈ "become angry"). The two uses are related, of course. —Ruakh_TALK 15:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I am still trying to understand this fully. I simply didn't realize that get had the essentially grammatical role of forming passives. In that role, it is indistinguishable in many cases where it is used with an "-ed" form from the "become" sense. This is apparently identical to the ambiguity in such cases between "be" as copula and "be" as former of passives. DCDuring TALK 16:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

In this case (eg. I will get used to it) "to get" means "to become", not "to be" (eg. This program gets used a lot.). Still, I think "to get used to" is very idiomatic. Not sure if the entry should include "to" but the term and its usage is not intuitive to many foreign language speakers. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I've looking at a few grammar books of various vintages about this. The problem is that the grammar of get (“forming the passive of certain large classes of verbs”), get (“with appropriate adjectives, become”) and used to (“used to indicate habitual/repetitive aspect in the past", "formerly”) are all a bit sticky in themselves. To lexicalize this expression getting used to and/or get used to misses the underlying subtleties of the constituents in the wide variety of uses in which they occur.

I wonder whether we should have an appendix of the ways in which English expresses conceptual tense and aspect, which can be through inflection, modal verbs, modal adverbs, and periphrasis using lexical verbs and temporal adverbials. Each language has its own combinations of ways of doing this. DCDuring TALK 01:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it has to be so complicated. Is it just to fend off the deletionists? I don't know if there is a 100% argument (apart from "coalmine") to keep entries that have a space in the middle. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

reekin o pish [edit]

SOP. Granted, it survived RFD back in '06, but back then things were different. --Noodlefrow (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Persil [edit]

Discussion moved to WT:RFV#Persil.

Chief of Party [edit]

A designated chief of a party. Or is it by some fine distinction contrasted with chief of staff? Or an alternative form? Capitalisation is an issue, if to be kept. — Pingku^dimmi 14:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Move entry to chief of party. I think at least some of the three senses are usually lower case in running text.

Move to RfV. It needs to be cited and contextualized.

This is presented as a capitalized common noun. I would imagine that any proper noun (ie a title of an official position would be capitalized). I don't know why we have Prime Minister and President as separate entries, unless we are into glorification of the roles and the holders thereof. Usage notes at or, better, referenced at the corresponding lower-case entry seem much better and less like idolatry. DCDuring TALK 16:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if it is an Anglicization of chef de partie. SemperBlotto (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

collect up [edit]

Tagged but not listed. As for why, I have no idea. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Without looking at the history, I'm fairly sure that it was tagged because in this case (and in many cases) up is just a verb-modifying intensifier that does not otherwise alter the meaning of the verb modified. I'm fairly sure that it wasn't listed because this page has been full of nominations. DCDuring TALK 20:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Same's true for wake up mind you. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It's probably also true for quite a few of the 471 terms in Category:English phrasal verbs with particle (up). Chuck Entz (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

However, only certain verbs do this, e.g. we have collect up and gather up but not amass up or acquire up. Equinox ◑ 23:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

behavioural pattern [edit]

"A design pattern that identifies common communication patterns between objects and increase flexibility in carrying out this communication." where "common communication patterns" is a long way of saying "behaviours" (and also the plural behavioural patterns. Furius (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep. DAVilla 12:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion restored. This was archived as having failed by a non-admin; clearly it has not, as the entry still exists, and a clear consensus on the merits of the term has not been reached. bd2412 T 16:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Argh, as with most Sae1962 entries, I have no idea what this means. If this gets kept, please define in a way that English speakers can understand it. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep. It’s idiomatic, but I agree that it could have a better definition. I’ll try to work one out. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 23:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

creational pattern [edit]

"A design pattern involving object creation mechanisms that are suitable to the situation" i.e. a pattern which creates things Furius (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Not any pattern, a design pattern. Keep. DAVilla 12:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep this technical term. --Sae1962 (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete. I note that in addition to "creational pattern", w:Creational pattern also uses the phrases "creational design pattern", "object-creational pattern", and "class-creational pattern". And while my own instinct is to treat creational as non-predicating, b.g.c. even finds the sentence, "The Singleton and Factory patterns are creational: used to generate one or more objects." —Ruakh_TALK 04:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, deleted as copyvio, but that's neither here nor there, since of course this discussion could conclude that the entry can be recreated without the copyvio. —Ruakh_TALK 04:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion restored. This was archived as having failed by a non-admin; clearly it has not, as a clear consensus on the merits of the term has not been reached. bd2412 T 16:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep. It’s the name of a specific type of design pattern. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 22:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

closed. The entry is gone, there's no use in discussing whether it should be kept. First create the entry, then RFD - not the other way around. -- Liliana • 16:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

structural pattern [edit]

"A design pattern that eases the design by identifying a simple way to realize relationships between entities" i.e. a pattern which provides structure. Furius (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Not any pattern, a design pattern. Keep. DAVilla 12:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Then that meaning ought to be stored at pattern (an extension of meaning one point one, perhaps). Because anything at all can have a design pattern behind it - w:Category:Software_design_patterns contains 83 different types of software pattern, so far. The meanings of all of them are deductable from their first component - and when one can't do so from that component's wiktionary entry, that reflects the need for a more technical definition at the entry for the first term. All of them have the same meaning in computer science regardless of whether they are a pattern or not. Furius (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep this, as it is a term of a special kind of design pattern. --Sae1962 (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Clearly not a term, but a two-word phrase. Note that structural patterns are also called structural design patterns. —Ruakh_TALK 04:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, deleted as copyvio, but that's neither here nor there, since of course this discussion could conclude that the entry can be recreated without the copyvio. —Ruakh_TALK 04:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion restored. This was archived as having failed by a non-admin; clearly it has not, as the entry was deleted for reasons unrelated to the merits of the term, and a clear consensus on the merits of the term has not been reached. bd2412 T 16:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep per Sae1962: it’s the name of a specific class of design patterns. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 02:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

closed. The entry is gone, there's no use in discussing whether it should be kept. First create the entry, then RFD - not the other way around. -- Liliana • 16:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

All words from old languages on the Korean Peninsula [edit]

As per Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#All_Goguryeo_words_in_the_main_namespace, I would like to propose deleting all words in Category:Silla_Old_Korean, Category:Old_Korean_nouns and Category:Baekje_nouns. (The words in Category:Goguryeo_language have already been deleted.) Is there an easy way to delete all of them? --BB12 (talk) 08:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser is better than nothing. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

delete.py -- Liliana • 18:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

March 2013 [edit]

attentat [edit]

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

One definition says attentat is any appealed (i.e. claimed to be wrong) lower-court holding/ruling/whatever. The other say it's any wrong (and therefore appealed) lower-court holding/ruling/whatever. I'd venture a guess that only one of those is correct, but have no idea which. (Both might be, though.) Of course most citations won't help distinguish which meaning is correct, but careful citation-finding/reading could help. (I haven't time now, I'm afraid.)—msh210℠ (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. It could be that they are both describing the same thing, with the one sense being an objective one meant by a disinterested observer, and the other being what is meant by the appealing lawyer, who in argument would be claiming wrongness. It does sound somewhat abstract though. — Pingku^dimmi 13:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

flat as a pancake [edit]

I'm not missing something here am I? This isn't something cryptic like fit as a fiddle, this is just a straightforward simile. Pancakes are flat, things can be flat like them. There is no knowledge needed to decode this beyond what you'd learn at pancake ("A thin batter cake fried in a pan or on a griddle in oil or butter."). Smurrayinchester (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I honestly would keep this for reasons I can't articulate at the moment. I suspect someone will do it for me. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

A lemming check at flat as a pancake at OneLook Dictionary Search shows that we are not the only ones who find this possibly inclusion worthy. float glass is flatter than a pancake, but 'as flat as float glass' is not a common collocation though it is one syllable shorter.

I prefer SMW's standard of decodability, but others will use the fact that "pancakes" are, for some reason, the everyday standard of flatness, and someone (ie, the multilingual) might want to know how to encode and translate. We are likely to have many such cliches.

I prefer 'as flat as yesterday's beer', slightly more novel, playing with alternatives senses, etc. DCDuring TALK 22:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep as a simile, outside of CFI. Similes are often uninteresting for the decoding direction ("What does 'flat as a pancake' mean?"), but are key for encoding direction ("How do I say 'very flat' using a simile?") and for translation ("How do I render 'flat as a pancake' using a Spanish simile?"). --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep: Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 17:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Weak keep, I think, just because flat as a pancake and flat as a board mean two different things.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

plenty [edit]

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

precedent [edit]

Two noun senses:

(obsolete, with definite article) The aforementioned (thing).
- 1621, Robert Burton, The Anatomy of Melancholy, New York 2001, p. 74:
  
  A third argument may be derived from the precedent.
The previous version.

Both of these seem to me to be "fused-head" constructions of the adjective with different context-dependent nouns understood. They are very much like "rare" in:

"Did want dark or light meat?" / "I'll have the dark."

We have the "preceding" sense of precedent in the entry. It is possible that the fifth sense ("an earlier draft of a document") may suffer from the same defect. DCDuring TALK 18:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep: Since when wasn't precedent a noun? Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 19:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

He is challenging only two of five senses. Equinox ◑ 19:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't they have plurals? If they do, then keep. Equinox ◑ 19:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Dunno about the second one, can it be cited? Something like this is a precedent of my essay/this is a precedent of the song? As for the first one, it's an adjective, ergo delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Very many adjectives can be used in plural in fused-head constructions to refer to a wide range of things, known from context, so I don't think that can be a definitive test. For example, color adjectives can be used in the plural to refer to, say, game pieces. OTOH, many adjectives can't be readily pluralized and even the color ones may be used in agreement with a plural verb: "The red (one|ones) is|are more attractive."

We wouldn't want agreeable and disagreeable to be defined as nouns because of citations like this:

1855, Blackwood's magazine, volume 77, page 331:

The disagreeables of travelling are necessary evils, to be encountered for the sake of the agreeables of resting and looking round you.

"We wouldn't want agreeable and disagreeable to be defined as nouns because of citations like this." Well, I would! See e.g. nouns at unanswerable and married. If we don't do this, then there seems to be no way we can have an entry for the (attestable) plural, as what else would its part of speech be? Equinox ◑ 11:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

What is a fused-head construction? In any case, the first nominated definition’s usex seems to be the adjective precedent with the noun argument implied, so I’ll go with delete.

I don’t know about the second one. I’d have to see a usex before voting. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 00:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Is "fused-head construction" another made-up term? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

@MG: What was/were the other one(s)? DCDuring TALK 12:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

@Ungoliant: In English, determiners, quantifiers and adjectives can be used as nominals without an explicit noun or pronoun.

"Would you like a rare piece or a well-done one?" "I'd like the rare (one)."

"We have sets of four glasses and of six (glasses)."

"Where are the sausages?" "I bought some (sausages) yesterday."

I don't think that there is any point in assigning the underlined terms acquire a new PoS. The deletion of the terms in parentheses seems like a part of normal grammar. DCDuring TALK 13:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

DCDuring TALK 13:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment: It seems like we're putting the cart before the horse here. We're RfDing something before we even bothered to ascertain if it can be verified Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 17:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

hoe komt het dat [edit]

While it is a common phrase, it is not idiomatic. komen has a meaning "to happen, to arise" which I just added. With that meaning, this means literally "how does it happen that" or "how come that". —CodeCa t 23:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a translation would be how comes it (which should be a blue link IMHO) --Sister Nana (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

"How does it come that he always get the best assignment?" is decidedly non-idiomatic in English. One could say "How does it come about that […] ?", though CodeCat has provided a more natural way. Probably the most idiomatic, albeit informal, way is "How come he gets the best assignment?". Note that that is omitted. I don't think it is even optional. DCDuring TALK 22:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

But come can't be used in this sense generally, only with how. In Dutch, on the other hand, the sense is general to all uses of komen: although it is most frequently used with het as a dummy pronoun, it can also be used with other subjects. —CodeCa t 22:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

ter vervanging van [edit]

Although this is a common collocation, it can be understood by its parts: to/for the + replacement + of. The word vervanging could also, in theory, be replaced by any other verbal noun. —CodeCa t 21:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

als gevolg van [edit]

Again, not idiomatic: as + consequence + of. —CodeCa t 21:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

in het midden van [edit]

Definitely not idiomatic, it translates word for word to its English translation. —CodeCa t 21:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

high-quality [edit]

Sum of parts? If OK, should the comparative and superlative really lose the hyphen? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Single word. Ƿidsiþ 10:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, two words connected with a hyphen. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Check here for instance. Ƿidsiþ 17:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a "Word Count Tool". I asked it about A high-quality, never-been-married, fully marriage-eligible bachelor. and was told "6".—msh210℠ (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Because it's six words. What your point? Ƿidsiþ 07:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

In fairness Widsith, I think you're well capable of thinking for yourself. Just because the OED says anything with a hyphen in is a single word, you don't have to believe them. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me – the OED doesn't say anything on the subject one way or another. But it's a well-established convention in journalism and publishing that two (or more) words linked with a hyphen are counted as single words. Ƿidsiþ 18:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes counted as a single word, that's mathematics. Presumably in terms of journalism 5/6 is a single word too, no? As it contains no spaces. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

By the expansive logic often expressed here, this entry might be required because the trio low-quality, average-quality, and high-quality is strongly preferred over other ways of expressing the same notion at least in some context. For example, low-grade, medium-grade, and high-grade are not normally applied to most consumer goods.

But I don't see how someone trying to prepare a speech or write something could actually find the appropriate entry in English Wiktionary. If someone could explain that, I might accept such entries, as we seem to have become a translating dictionary rather than a monolingual one. In a translating dictionary, preferred collocations, even though completely transparent and trivial from the point-of-view of a decoder, would seem to be need to be included provided they are findable.

Ergo, Delete DCDuring TALK 13:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, for example I am currently reading Spenser and he never refers to anything as ‘high-quality’. So when did this word start being used? In what contexts? This is what a good dictionary shows. (high-quality is in the OED, by the way, and their first citation is not until 1910.) Ƿidsiþ 17:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

@Widsith: To which comment were you directing the comment immediately above?

The argument made would apply to any arbitrary sequence of terms. For example, preferred sound sequences could change so free combinations of word might change in relative frequency, ie not be 100% free. DCDuring TALK 18:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand that sentence. I thought you were originally asking what the value of this entry is, and I was giving you some reasons why it might be valuable. At any rate there are plenty of things I would like to know about this term, and I expect a dictionary to tell me. The OED includes it, so why do we think it's beneath us exactly? Ƿidsiþ 18:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete SOP.—msh210℠ (talk) 07:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep as it fits our generally inclusionist line and it is enough of a word for OED. Following the same type of argumentation as was used with "bath towel" above (bath towel is not a towel to wipe the bath), "high quality" should be kept, because it's not the quality of being tall. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I now agree - keep. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep per Hekaheka Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 16:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep Now it's the high-quality entry it is for the purposes of translation, and no one logged what it was meant to be used for when it was totally-wrong.--Riverstogo (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Arabic script [edit]

Maybe replace with {{only in|{{pedia|Arabic script}}}}? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a reason for it to be deleted? —An gr 20:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

E.g. Talk:Cyrillic alphabet. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that Cyrillic isn't the name of a language. Arabic script is more than sum of parts because it's not just the script of Arabic, it's also the script of Persian, Pashto, Urdu, Ottoman Turkish, some varieties of Kurdish and Azeri, etc. etc. etc. And no definition at [[Arabic]] captures that. —An gr 20:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Er? Doesn't the sense "the Aramaic-derived alphabet used to write the Arabic, Persian, Pashto, Urdu, and Uyghur languages, among others" exactly capture that? - -sche (discuss) 23:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely (or delete).—msh210℠ (talk) 04:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Presumably, the charge is that the term is a sum of parts. I don't think it is a sum of parts. For one thing, "Arabic alphabet" should not be parsed as noun + noun; it should be parsed as adjective + noun. "Arabic" (noun, "The Aramaic-derived alphabet ...") seems derived as a shortening of "Arabic script". The same seems true of "Cyrillic" in relation to "Cyrillic alphabet", so I would oppose deletion of "Cyrillic alphabet" if it were sent to RFD again. The alleged adjective at "Cyrillic" defined as "Denoting an alphabet devised for writing the Old Church Slavonic liturgical language" seems to be created artificially to be claimed to be attested by "Cyrillic alphabet". "Cyrillic" in "Cyrillic alphabet" IMHO means "of or relating to Cyril" and "Cyrillic alphabet" is, unsurprisingly, an alphabet associated with Cyril. Curiously, lemmings do not seem to have "Arabic script". --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

drift apart [edit]

This seems SoP, using existing ~~figurative~~ non-locative senses of the components. DCDuring TALK 18:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Note that google books:"drifted together" gets a rather impressive 11,300 hits, strongly suggesting there is nothing 'special' about this collocation. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep, idiomatic, defined at Cambridge, Macmillan. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is this idiomatic? Would be nice if you gave reasons without me having to ask. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

When people drift apart, the don't float or drift in liquid in opposite directions, they gradually lose contact with each other. The definitions of drift and apart don't describe this and they shouldn't. The choice of picking on this term but not on e.g break up puzzles me. It's a great term, which we should keep because for me (as an example), even with sufficient of exposure to English, the meaning is not obvious from its parts. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Of course. -- So why didn't you two marry each other, then?. I don't know. We just seemed to drift apart. Clear as a bell to any L2 English speaker, innit? -- @DCD, Impressive number of hits for random (but highly probable) collocations is a non-argument, and you know it. -- ALGRIF talk 16:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep. ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

- A discussion has started at Appendix talk:English phrasal verbs#Statistical methods with Phrasal Verbs Join the discussion there, too. Part of my argument there is as follows. -- If a translator picks up that drift apart translates as a functioning phrasal verb - but does not pick up "drift together" in the same way, we can be very sure that "drift apart" is actually being used as a phrasal verb in the bulk of actual samples in actual Corpora. This seems to be a much better result than "my gut tells me it is SoP". We are supposed to be reflecting actual usage, (not prescriptive). If statistical results are strongly indicative of "phrasal-ness" (descriptive) - then to insist otherwise based on an anecdotal sentence pulled out of thin air is surely being prescriptive. -- ALGRIF talk 11:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

pull apart [edit]

SoP with literal sense of pull and ordinary adverbial sense of apart. DCDuring TALK 18:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete, easy. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

We'll see. DCDuring TALK 20:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 02:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete. - -sche (discuss) 03:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep this, add another sense from Macmillan dictionary: to separate two people or animals that are fighting. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Having done this, in the case of animals, the means by which one separates the fighting animals is by grabbing one dog's leg and pulling until the dogs are apart. It helps to have two people. I don't think you can find an instance of this without there being literal pulling. As for people, I similarly doubt that an instance can be found that does not involve literal pulling. A single individual cannot pull two fighting adults apart unless one is immobilized. Thus a test as to the separate meaning would be that an individual pulls apart two fighting adults without pulling. DCDuring TALK 12:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

One can come inbetween two people who are exchanging punches and talk them into stop fighting. --biblbroks_{дискашн} 13:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course one can. I just don't think you will be able to find pull apart used to characterize the situation. Many other terms are used to characterize means of stopping a fight. I don't think this term has the resultative force that Macmillan's definition says it does.I have less respect for Macmillan's than for many of the other OneLook dictionaries.. DCDuring TALK 14:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Consider this instance:

1971, John Roc, Winter blood, page 44:

I pulled them apart. But only for a moment. Calvin pushed past me to where the boy was whimpering, beyond mortification, in pain. As Cal came upon him again, Billy collapsed, turning himself into a fetal mound on the floor.

There are other similar ones.

As to Macmillan's quality, here is their definition in full: "pull someone apart to separate two people or animals that are fighting". The headword, as they word it, could be defined as to separate important parts of a person's body from one another. See draw and quarter". DCDuring TALK 14:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned one example of separating people engaged in a fight (by coming inbetween) since I imagined one could use pull apart to describe such an act. Anyway, I'm not sure what the example with Cal an Billy should show. If I got the names right (Cal and Calvin being the same person), wouldn't it be possible that the narrator had pulled Cal and Billy apart by coming in between them since afterwards Cal pushed past the narrator? If Cal and Calvin were two different persons, then the example doesn't show anything to me. --biblbroks_{дискашн} 17:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Semms to have been missing a major meaning .. to dismantle a machine or other mechanical device. To strip down. Added now. -- Keep -- ALGRIF talk 16:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep: The entry how has 4 senses. If in doubt, these can be sent to RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I would like to see something more than assertions to defend the three senses concerning:
1. opening something by pulling on it,
2. separating combatants and
3. disassembling.

I see no reason to keep RfDs evidence-free. To be clear about this: The question is not whether one could find usage where the term is used to describe an situation that could also be described by the glosses offered, but rather to find unambiguous usage where the literal, SoP sense does not explain the usage. Thus, if a third-party government causes two combatant nations to stop fighting and some author says the the third-party pulled them apart, that would be unambiguous favoring inclusion IMO, even though it still is relatively transparent. As metaphorical extensions are hardly unusual, this should not pose an insuperable challenge if these terms are used as the advocates assert. DCDuring TALK 20:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

behind [edit]

Adverb sense no.5 appears to depend entirely on the phrasal verb usage. I doubt this is a real adverbial sense. -- ALGRIF talk 15:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

If it were true, that this was only in use in truly phrasal verbs, then we would need a place to indicate the contributions that a particle gives to phrasal verbs it is part of. And we would be denying users the chance to construct the meaning from components. If we could show that there was no use except in true phrasal verbs, then we could indicate with a context label the restrictions that might apply, eg, (only in phrasal verbs). DCDuring TALK 18:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I find the noun sense 2. "bottom, downside" puzzling. To which sense of "bottom" and "downside" is it referring to? I don't see any sense amongst our definitions that these two words were sharing. Or is it actually the same as sense 3. "butt, the buttocks"? If that's the case, we need another sense to "downside", and to combine 2 and 3. --Hekaheka (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

@DCD That place you were asking about? It is in the appendices where the phrasal verbs are separated and organised by particle. The user is invited to make the best understanding of the meaning(s) of the particle for himherself. It is almost a "criteria" of phrasal-verb-ness, that the meaning held in the particle is somewhat subjective and often not an exact map to the standard meanings of the corresponding adverbs and prepositions. And yet, the phrasal verb itself is normally very precise in meaning. See subcategories of Category:English phrasal verbs -- ALGRIF talk 11:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

run out [edit]

(intransitive) To expire, to come to an end.
(intransitive) Of a legal right, to expire, to terminate.

I see no semantic distinction of any kind between theses senses. DCDuring TALK 11:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

No difference. The translations were for sense 2 (To expire, to come to an end) but the translation gloss matched the "legal", changed the translation gloss to match sense 2, added Russian. Delete sense. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Sense deleted.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

churl [edit]

A "boorish person" is an "ill-mannered lout". The two senses are equivalent. Smurrayinchester (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom. That's the second time lately Shakespeare/Shakespearean has been associated with an RfDed duplicate sense. Too bad a search would not be effective. DCDuring TALK 14:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Sense deleted.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Walmarts [edit]

We have this entry, but not the singular. That is kind of strange, isn't it? —CodeCa t 22:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Comparable to my test entry of Pringle, perhaps. (Pringle and Walmarts are inflected forms used in English, but neither of them is the actual registered brand name.) Equinox ◑ 22:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I know, that is kind of why I am bringing this to attention. WT:BRAND says that we admit brands that have "entered the vocabulary", but how can Walmarts have entered the vocabulary when Walmart has not? It makes no sense to me. Either both should be included, or neither. —CodeCa t 22:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You can pluralise any branded thing really: "there are two Asdas in my town", "they sell Toyotas" (we have that one), "his previous phones were Samsungs"... and we would almost certainly include any brand that has become a verb, e.g. hoover, sellotape. Why not a noun? (I think it's a terrible idea to include such nouns, but why are they different?) Equinox ◑ 14:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Separate question: why is this classified as a proper noun? - -sche (discuss) 00:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Lhasa apso [edit]

Adjective PoS header, defined as "A particular breed of dog." DCDuring TALK 14:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Deleted, unless I'm missing something, should not have been listed here. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like user error. I would speedy it. Equinox ◑ 16:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

@MG: Why not? If not here, where? I don't like to delete anything, except outright vandalism, unilaterally. DCDuring TALK 17:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you not delete total and undeniable errors? Apparently not. Could I persuade you to start? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

There are lots of things I think are errors, where others disagree. This is where I find out how others think of them. DCDuring TALK 20:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

There is such a thing as being bold. You wouldn't have been made an admin if people didn't trust your judgment. If you're 95% sure something's a mistake, go ahead and correct it or remove it. In the unlikely event you're wrong, it's easy enough to revert your edit—it's a wiki, and the page history is right there. —An gr 21:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

There's a difference between disputed gray areas like SOP or phrasal verbs and the claim that a definition starting with "a breed of dog" is for an adjective. We would be up to our eyeballs in idiotic and/or insane garbage and these pages would be unmanageably huge if everyone followed your practice. It's not tidy, and you have to be prepared to apologize and revert yourself at times, but there are just too many edits that need patrolling for us to wait for rfd/rfv on stuff like this. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The only difference between vandalism and good faith nonsense is the author's intention, which is always speculation. There's no 'real' difference between them. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

homem-morcego [edit]

Easily citable, but not dictionary material IMO. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 13:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

A definition would be a first good step in keeping it. "A nickname pertaining to Batman", is that supposed to mean "(colloquial) Batman"? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Deleted.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

TS girl [edit]

Both senses are simply [[TS]] + [[girl]]: TS (“transsexual”) + girl (“woman of any age”) and TS (“Tourette syndrome, or other syndome abbreviated TS”) + girl (“young female human”). As shown by the citations I've added to [[TS]] and more that are available on G Books and Usenet, both senses of "TS" are also used with "man", "lady", "boy", "woman", etc... and as the entry [[girl]] notes, "girl" can be used alone or in combinations to refer to an adult woman. Note that the entry previously claimed that a "TS girl" could also be transgender, but I removed that because (a) I could find no convincing proof of that on G Books or Groups (if it's reinstated I will RFV it) and (b) I did find things that suggested that "TS" could be expanded to include "transgender", which would mean even the old definition was SOP. - -sche (discuss) 20:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Sense 2 in particular seems rather disingenuous and clunky. We could replace it with the &lit template, but I doubt the usefulness of having it at all. Equinox ◑ 20:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Sense 2 looks like a windup to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

This is one I created quite a while back because it was listed at WT:REE and I wanted to help with the backlog. Sense 2 was a good-faith attempt to account for the numerous citations I found which use "TS girl" to refer to a young female patient with Tourette syndrome or Turner syndrome. I thought that only featuring the LGBT slang sense in the entry might erroneously create the impression that those citations were referring to transsexual/transgendered persons, and that's something I wanted to avoid, given the sensitivity that gender identity issues hold for some. I can understand if this was excessively cautious and misguided thinking on my part, but it definitely wasn't "disingenuous" or a "windup."

The line between "transgender" and "transsexual" is vague and somewhat ill-defined. The words are often used interchangeably, but some have a strong preference for one over the other. transwoman and its coordinate terms use both in their definitions, so it seemed prudent to me at the time to follow suit, rather than seem to give preferential treatment to one word.

That said, I don't really care one way or another about retaining Sense 2, but I think Sense 1 arguably qualifies as a set phrase. We have little girl and baby girl, both of which have relatively transparent meanings. But, overall, this is not one I feel particularly strongly about. Astral (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

If we can attest ts-girl ala t-girl, that would make it seem more like a set phrase than SOP. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 04:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Cited TSgirl. Could not find citations for ts-girl, despite trawling through dozens of pages of Usenet results. Must've created it because it was listed at REE along with TS girl. Astral (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

ts-girl [edit]

As above, presumably. Or on a Gerald Gardnerian note: as above, so below. ;) - -sche (discuss) 20:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

palmetto [edit]

Adjective: two senses: "relating to the palmetto palm" and "Of or pertaining the the US state of South Carolina, as the Palmetto State".

That would seem covered by attributive use of the noun, different senses. I doubt there is any unambiguously adjectival use of this word. DCDuring TALK 00:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The first one is clearly attributive use of the noun, delete. I don’t know about the second one. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 16:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete. South Carolina is the Palmetto State, but you can't say that the state is palmetto. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

deleted -- Liliana • 07:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I need Internet access [edit]

If anyone wants to use this phrase, or translate it into a foreign language, they will not be able to access Wiktionary. We are on the Internet, and they do not have access. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Note, since December 2012, the existence of I need .... Mglovesfun (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

An intriguing argument. Delete. Ƿidsiþ 12:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a good deletion rationale. Somebody could still use the information, e.g. giving it to someone as a print-out or over the telephone, or memorising it for later. See Talk:I'm mute for a similar case. ~~Equinox ◑ 13:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)~~ Thus Keep as long as we have a phrasebook; I still dislike the phrasebook being in mainspace. Equinox ◑ 00:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Or I may book a hotel room (from my home computer or over the phone) and want to add a phrase "I need Internet access" (about my future hotel room). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

All the same delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Move to WikiPhrasebook. DCDuring TALK 13:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

It's already in the Phrasebook. —An gr 14:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 16:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep; you could be using an expensive phone connection, or have a downloaded version, either in toto, useful summarized form, or temporary cache.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Is Internet access one of the things needed for survival? I think not. delete or prove the opposite. -- Liliana • 21:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Since when is that a criterion? Would you delete everything in Category:English phrasebook/Needs except I need food, I need shelter, and I need water? —An gr 13:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Which would make for a pretty crappy phrasebook. I can't find the one's I own, but there was a lot of non-survival items in them, and I'm sure any modern one would have have "I need Internet access".--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete. I need ... already covers this. —CodeCa t 00:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

...and all other "I need" -entries for that matter. I have a constructive idea: let's delete all other "I need" -entries and write a whole bunch of examples under I need .... How's that? --Hekaheka (talk) 08:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Only for languages where "I need" can simply be attached to "Internet access" without conjugation. If it is actually being used as a phrase book, just the fact that Internet access does not exist would significantly complicate the forming of the phrase; putting Internet in the proper attributive form may be a challenge in and of itself.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

There's too much opposition to "I need ..." entries and I agree that many of them are repetitive, even if the phrases themselves are very important for communication. I would move to "delete" if someone makes a good appendix, summarises translations from all "I need" pages (I have already tried to do it in I need ...#Translations. Inflection is a bit of a problem, so some full examples are desirable but not a huge deal. What about a translation only entry for "Internet access" using {{translation only}}? In my Russian translations of I need ... I gave "мне нужен ..." (masculine object), "мне нужна ..." (feminine object), "мне нужно ..." (neuter object)., "мне нужны ..." (plural objects). Other languages can be done similarly where the sentence form may be different dependent on the object of the needs. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep. @Codecat: I need ... is utterly useless as it isn't possible to derive accurate translations from it. @Liliana: How is internet access not being necessary for survival relevant at all? --Yair rand (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep.Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Still waiting for the theoretical entry that Matthias wants to delete. I am older than my own age? Equinox ◑ 20:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep per Equinox ("Not a good deletion rationale. ..."), and Yair rand ("How is internet access not being necessary for survival relevant at all?"). --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Note that this entry was included in a mass nomination, #"I need …" phrasebook entries (soon to be archived) which was closed as delete. -- Liliana • 12:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013 [edit]

Internet access [edit]

Access to the Internet. Comparable to "bulletin board access", "computer access", "car-park access", pretty much any access. Second sense (machine used to connect) is metonymy or something, not a true definition for this term. Equinox ◑ 15:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Simple. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep for idiomatic translations. —CodeCa t 15:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Are there any? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

If not, feel free to RFD the translations that are currently listed. —CodeCa t 00:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question, currently all the translations are unidiomatic single words, but we keep unidiomatic single words. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete. SoP. Normal construction rules. DCDuring TALK 16:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Maro 21:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I only suggested to have it as a "non-idiomatic translation target" as per the discussion above, so that "I need Internet access" (if it's considered an important phrase) could be added to a translation appendix, when we have enough translations. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 03:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom. "Access" doesn't really add much to it. ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

deleted -- Liliana • 14:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

မကပက [edit]

See Talk:မကပက. Note, I'm not discouraging generating entries from translations (especially for long-time responsible contributors) but it should be done with care, with some checking and we have {{attention}} tool. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy delete or RFV I guess, I cannot see any other options. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I've speedied it. It's not in any of the print Burmese dictionaries I have. —An gr 09:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, the discussion goes on in Talk:မကပက. @Hippietrail, please don't consider it harsh but please verify before adding entries in languages you don't speak. We had people banned and you know it for too multiple erroneous entries (this is not a threat or warning, it's a request!). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

da [edit]

Adverb defined as "yes in Russian". Not an English word by its own admission. Equinox ◑ 15:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

That's what I was gonna say, any citations showing it as English would contradict the definition. The noun definition (A Russian yes) has the same issue. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I've seen a few times in articles or blogs about Russia or Russians when "da" or "nyet" ("net") are used jokingly, sarcastically, etc. Like he doesn't take nyet for an answer, and the like. Perhaps similar plays are possible for other languages, e.g. oui/non, ja/nein but they are not as common in my opinion. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Patrick M. Dunne, Robert F. Lusch - 2007 "When Will Wal-Mart Say da to Russia?"
Richmond, Yale. From Nyet to Da: Understanding the New Russia. Boston, MA: Intercultural Press, 2008. Volkov, Solomon. Magical Chorus: A History of Russian Culture from Tolstoy to Solzhenitsyn. London: Vintage Books, 2009 "From Nyet to Da: Understanding the New Russia" (title)
Vol. 18, No. 9 - Magazine "Packer merely bobbed and weaved his head, saying "Da" or "Nyet" to everything." --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

If we are going to regard it as English then we need to rework the definition (for example, it could be defined simply as "yes" with a usage note saying it indicates Russianness). Equinox ◑ 09:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I think there should be something here noting that "da" is a common representation of the Russian word for yes, at least in English. I've added some ideas to Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2013/April#Cross-script.2Fmutated_semi-borrowings about how to do this, though, since I think this is a bigger problem and that adding an English section is suboptimal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hankyū [edit]

Since this is capitalized, it refers to a proper noun (hankyū is fine.) Hankyū is the Romanization of 阪急, which is a fine company but I doubt its name merits inclusion. --Haplology (talk) 10:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the applicable policy here is either WT:CFI#Company_names or WT:BRAND. My reading of these suggests that neither Hankyū nor 阪急 would merit inclusion, as the only proper noun I can find that would be romanized as Hankyū is 阪急, and 阪急 is only ever used as the name of the conglomerate, its various subsidiaries and affiliates, or products made by these. By way of comparison, I note that the JA WP has articles about Hankyū things like specific Hankyū trains, such as the Hankyū 800 (ja:w:阪急800系電車), but that's the encyclopedia. The JA WT doesn't have any 阪急 entry -- see the empty page at ja:阪急. Nor does it have any entries starting with 阪急 or any other proper nouns with the hankyū reading, as seen in the JA WT index of JA terms. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hankyū is only a romanisation. 阪急 (Hankyū) doesn't exist. はんきゅう (Hankyū, hankyū) exists but it has another sense. Speedying Hankyū (converted by me to a romaji entry) and removing the proper noun section from はんきゅう. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 20:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

イリノイ州 [edit]

This is a blanket request for discussion over how to treat all entries for place names with 市 (city), 州 (state), etc. intact. A name like イリノイ州 literally means "Illinois State" and is usually used when plain "Illinois" would be used in English, yet they are not inseparable: "Illinois University" is イリノイ大学, not *イリノイ州大学. Searching for イリノイ州に行く ("go to Illinois State") yields ten times as many results as イリノイに行く ("go to Illinois.") I suppose a case could be made for including イリノイ州, but I think it's a weak case, and such a page raises a question: should there also be an entry for plain イリノイ? Having both types of entry makes thousands of duplicate entries and that's not fun.

Most of the translations do not have 市, 州, etc. For example, I just created ブカシ from a translation at Bekasi. The title of the corresponding Japanese Wikipedia page (see w:ブカシ) is ブカシ, but the title of its infobox is ブカシ市. I propose moving all place names like イリノイ州 to forms like イリノイ, or at least encouraging new pages to be of the latter form. --Haplology (talk) 06:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I was going to create カムチャッカ but wasn't sure if our rules demand カムチャッカ半島 instead. Often unsure with translations, so added both テムズ川 and テムズ as translations for Thames. 利根川 (Tonegawa river) would sound incomplete without "川", though. The English name includes "gawa", so "Tonegawa river" is "Tone river river" :) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

My favorite example from the Department of Redundant Geographical Place Names Redundancy Department was a sign in Tokyo labeling a waterway in romaji as the Shin-sen-gawa River -- where "Shin-sen" was spelled in kanji as 新川.

So it's the New River River River.

Brilliant.

-- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 01:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It may be still difficult. Most Japanese Category:ja:Islands end in 島 or 諸島. Should they become redirects? What about Category:ja:Seas. 黄海 or 北海 without 海 are not sea names, like Yellow Sea or Black Sea without the word "sea". --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, now I'm leaning toward keeping this page because it's very helpful to learners, although why Illinois should have that privilege is another question. I still want to suggest keeping place names, especially foreign place names, as short as possible. Maybe an entry for a city like　ブカシ should have a usage note about 市. Perhaps the fact that something is a geographical feature makes the issue more complicated? --Haplology (talk) 04:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I think Japanese text (and Chinese too?) almost always indicates what kind of thing a place name is, by suffixing with 市 or 群 or 県 or 国 etc. etc. For that matter, folks often append these suffixes in speech as well. As such, it might behoove us to have entries for both イリノイ and イリノイ州. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I can accept having both pages. If that is the case, there ought to be some difference between them. Something to the effect of イリノイ being an abstract place name, and イリノイ州 referring to a specific place in the world? On a page like イリノイ, the gloss would just be Illinois without any mention of a state, and there would be a ====Compounds==== section that included a link to イリノイ州? I don't plan on adding a compound section to every page like that at least initially, but ideally, in its most complete form, it would look like that? --Haplology (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

We should keep both イリノイ and イリノイ州. In this particular case, the latter is much more common. In Japan, Illinois is less known than, say, Kansas and you usually need 州 to indicate it is a state. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite: why is Kansas so much better known than Illinois in Japan? —An gr 18:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

fudge packer [edit]

"One who packs fudge". If included at all, this should just be the {{&lit}} template. Furthermore, the only citation given is from South Park, where it is clearly being used to indicate the "anal sex" sense (despite a superficial, joky scene of the supposed gay person packing some candy). Equinox ◑ 12:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Changed to &lit as it’s clearly the non-idiomatic use of fudge packer. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 12:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I wholly agree with the RfD and the change. DCDuring TALK 17:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see this cited and also the last sense 'one who practises anal sex' (but not necessarily gay sex). I though fudge packer always meant a male homosexual; I'm probably just wrong though, which is why I'm not advocating an RFV. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

all right, my lover [edit]

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

pages with term "erweiterter Infinitiv" [edit]

Hello, please deleate the following pages. See also discussion User talk:Bigbossfarin#Erweiterter Infinitiv. The articles which include the Template need to get modified.

--Bigbossfarin (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted Category:German erweiterte Infinitive. For anyone else reading this discussion, I note that the category it redirected to (Category:German zu-infinitives) as well as the entries in that category are fine and should not be deleted, with the possible exception of some or all senses of zu haben. - -sche (discuss) 02:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

For future reference, deletion of categories and templates should be brought up at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others‎ instead of here. Fortunately, this was resolved so quickly that there was no point in moving it. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

A little note... It's kind of silly, but you never know. The template {{zu-infinitive of}} looks suspiciously like it belongs to Zulu, because of the code prefixed to it. I don't think we'll ever want to use this same name for Zulu infinitive forms, but consistency is still a good idea. So can it be moved to {{de-zu-infinitive of}} so that it's clear it belongs to German? —CodeCa t 03:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. - -sche (discuss) 18:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about a phrasebook entry I'd like to create - I need you [edit]

We have phrasebook entries I love you, I like you, I miss you, which seem to be safe.

Would people rfd a page I need you if I create it? If yes, then why? Just checking the moods before I waste my time adding a bunch of translations. We have too many "I need ..." entries, which upset some editors but not this one, which I think is important. I don't think we need I want you but if it's created by someone and kept, I'll add translations. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Which sense do you mean? If your boss at work says "Bob, I need you", that's rather different from a clingy lover saying it. There may be other senses of the sentence (but not of the individual words). Equinox ◑ 07:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

None of the uses I can think of belong in a phrasebook that meets my idea of what a phrasebook should be. But that's not worth very much.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

hadron physics [edit]

Sum of parts. (needs a headword if OK) SemperBlotto (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

p.s. Also several similar entries by the same author.

Delete per Nicole Sharp. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

inclusion as compound noun and subfield [edit]

Copied from talk:hadron physics. Nicole Sharp (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. If "hadron physics" is "physics of hadrons" then it may not be a good candidate for a dictionary entry (in the same way "brown leaf" is "leaf that is brown") — even though it's a good topic for an encyclopaedia. Equinox ◑ 13:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Except that "hadron physics" is a compound noun versus "brown leaf" is an adjective and a noun. It should be included along with other subfields of particle physics. Nicole Sharp (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts caused by moving the topic- twice) It seems to be a compound only in the sense of one noun attributively modifying the other, like "geranium leaf" versus "philodendron leaf". There's really nothing in "hadron physics" that can't be explained by looking up hadron and physics- except for topics beyond the scope of a dictionary. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz that makes sense actually, in that respect I agree. How should hyperlinks to hadron physics from e.g. hadronics#synonyms be edited to avoid linking to a nonexistent page? Nicole Sharp (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

If that is the consensus, then hadron physics and meson physics could be deleted. Nicole Sharp (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Both deleted. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

sexuality studies [edit]

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

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

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

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

privacy seal [edit]

Just a seal of privacy, isn't it? There's also quality seal and similar combinations. -- Liliana • 10:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep. There's nothing in the SoP claim that indicates it is something to do with the internet. I'd have thought it was one of those old wax seals on a letter.--Dmol (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The "separable prefixes" in Category:German prefixes [edit]

As I argued on User talk:Mglovesfun, these aren't actually prefixes. Verbs that are formed with these are really compounds of an adverb and a verb, and they are treated as such in Dutch. The list of entries to be deleted includes at least: ab-, an-, auf-, aus-, auseinander-, bei-, dar-, durch-, ein-, fort-, herab-, heran-, herauf-, heraus-, herein-, herum-, herunter-, hervor-, hin-, hinaus-, hinzu-, mit-, nach-, nieder-, ober-, quer-, rück-, um-, unter-, vor-, voran-, voraus-, vorbei-, vorher-, weg-, wider-, wieder-, zu-, zurück-, zusammen-, über-. —CodeCa t 12:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I've argued there that they are considered "separable prefixes" (trennbare Vorsilben) by German and foreign grammarians alike. I currently don't have any German resources and don't actively work with German, so was using what I studied at Uni long time ago about German and what I found on the web. In my opinion they are prefixes, not adverbs. The term itself, "trennbare Vorsilben" is used a lot in German books and uses the above as examples.

French Wiktionary cites zurück- from "das Digitale Wörterbuch der Deutschen Sprache" (edited by Berlin Academy of Sciences(1961-1977)). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

But if they are prefixes, what distinguishes them as such? The fact that they're attached to another word? What makes it distinguishable from a compound then? To me, the distinguishing part of a prefix is that it can't occur alone, but these adverbs do all occur alone and have the same meaning when they do. Furthermore, it's not even possible to distinguish the "prefix" from the adverb in many cases. Is "ich gehe zurück" a use of zurück or of zurück-? Therefore, I say that these are compounded adverbs, not prefixes. —CodeCa t 13:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

They are distinguished by the spelling and the word stress. German often uses separable prefixes to form new words or expressions, which may be SoP's in other languages.

Adverb: "gut singen" (to sing well).

Sie singt gut, sie hat gut gesangen. Er sagt, dass sie gut singt. Sie hat begonnen gut zu singen.

Separable prefix: "zurückkommen" (to come back, to return).

Sie kommt zurück, sie ist zurückgekommenen (some verbs use sein to form Perfekt). Sie sagt, dass sie morgen gut zurückkommt. Sie hat versprochen. morgen zurückkommtzukommen.

The word stress falls on separable prefixes, whether written together or separate. Adverbs are pronounced equally, IMHO. (The stress patterns of separable prefixes also apply to set expressions, like radfahren/Rad fahren).

Like with other prefixes, separable prefixes may change the original meaning of the verb, like zurückkehren (to return), from zurück- +‎ kehren ("to sweep back").

I hope a German speaker could join. I suggested to RFV (not RFD) on User talk:Mglovesfun, because prefixes need proper definitions, many of them have just "# a prefix" instead. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Being able to change the meaning doesn't make them prefixes, it just makes the combination a distinct lemma, like give up. In fact, I don't see any difference between give up and aufgeben; they are just calques. Both are a combination of an adverb and a verb. So why would auf- be a prefix rather than an adverb combined with the verb geben, while up is an adverb combined with the verb give? —CodeCa t 00:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The difference between the English "up" in "give up" and "auf-" in German "aufgeben" is not great indeed but the perception, spelling and classification is different, as per German grammar, Duden classifies "zurück" [22] as "Präfix (=Vorsilbe)" (there's also an Adverb article).

Germans use "-" in describing prefixes (including separable) or in collocations like "ein- und aussteigen" - "to get on and off". --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The use of - is also not an indication, because in Dutch you can write something like zink- en kopermijn "zinc and copper mine" where the two words are clearly compounds, zinkmijn "zinc mine" and kopermijn "copper mine". The usage in German is no doubt the same. Duden is a dictionary, so they don't really count as a source, but it would be helpful if they said why they consider them prefixes. If we don't know why, it doesn't help us much because I don't think we can just follow their lead in this regard. —CodeCa t 00:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess just because they are spelled together and words with them are used in dictionaries, words with adverbs are not spelled together. To explain the etymology of "aussteigen", which is never defined as simply "steigen" with an adverb "aus", the etymology would describe the verb as "aus-" + "steigen". Nouns like Zink and Kupfer that may act like prefixes and become prefixes in compound words like, so in Zinkgrube/Zinkgmine Kupfergrube/Kupfermine Zink- and Kupfer- are also prefixes but they don't necessarily need inclusion because it's just a common way to form compound words. Can we consider words like aus- as adverbs turned prefixes?

I like to treat words like hereinkommen and herauskommen also as solid words enter and exit, formed with prefixes like Russian входить and выходить, rather than English verbs like come in and come out. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Then let me add some further arguments. Historically these are verb-adverb compounds. In medieval times, these verbs were commonly written with a space, or without one, without any difference in meaning. So etymologically speaking, they are adverbs. If they are adverbs turned prefixes, at what point do you consider them prefixes? That is, what distinguishes aus+steigen written as one word, from aus-+steigen? I still haven't seen anyone explain yet what makes a prefix "different" from an adverb in this case. —CodeCa t 01:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Still no input from others? Where's Matthias?

Re: at what point do you consider them prefixes?I guess exactly from the point Germans started writing them together, not a moment before. It is generally accepted that "give up" is verb + adverb and "aufgeben" is "(separable) prefix + verb". Other than spelling, pronunciation (word stress), general perception, dictionary references, they are not different from English adverbs. If entries like zurück- are deleted, then people will always wonder how words like zurückkehren are formed. (Spelling and native language affects perception of foreign words, that's why we often classify foreign PoS to match our own). I don't have much to add, I would feel sorry for those entries to be deleted. I admit they should be improved and usage notes could be added to explain the origins. I understand your concern too, since zurück- et al could be added to many verbs to make new ones not in this dictionary yet. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Digression. For comparison - what we call "words" and how we count them often differs on who you ask. A Japanese person says just 一言 one word: 知らない！ (shiranai!) ("I don't know!"), a Chinese person just says 四个字 four characters/words: 我不知道！ (wǒ bù zhīdào!) ("I don't know!"). End digression --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Further digression: Four characters actually... Wyang (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks, I digressed too much and forgot how to count :)

OK, after the digression. Japanese 知らない can be considered as verb 知る in the negative form but some will argue that ない is word attached to a form of Japanese verbs to make them negative. It's written solid, like any Japanese clause, so "one word" may cover longer expressions. The Chinese 我不知道 has three words but four characters. Since there are no spaces in Chinese, 字 (zì) is perhaps used more often than 词 (cí) (“word”), unless you're a linguist who likes to make distinctions between 字 (zì) and 词 (cí). What should an English speaker say when asked how many words there in "get up"? One or two? Does it depend on education? I'm sure Germans say that "aufstehen" is one word not two - "auf" + "stehen". I'm surprised if the Dutch don't consider "op-" a prefix in "opstaan", not just an adverb "op" + "staan". --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

@Anatoli: "ist zurückgekommenen" isn't grammatically correct, and "zurückkommtzukommen" isn't a word at all... - -sche (discuss) 15:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a few silly typos while copy-editing, thank you for spotting! Of course the forms are "zurückgekommen" and "zurückzukommen". Ich soll mich schämen! Ich verspreche, von nun an darauf achten, dass ich weniger dumme Fehler im Deutschen mache! :)

That's "von nun an darauf zu achten". —An gr 20:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Vestanden, danke für die Korrigierung. Das war auch dumm. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

For reference: The last relevant RFD discussion is above on WT:RFD page at #zurück- from December 2012, later to be found at Talk:zurück-. A previous relevant discussion is at Talk:herbei- from November 2010. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The old discussion again... there are really good arguments for both points of view (see Dan Polansky's links above). The main argument for adverb status is that unlike other prefixes, the elements can appear separated from the stem. (But note that compounds in German usually don't allow movement of their parts either, so that's not really a good argument.) The main argument for prefix status is that unlike other adverbs, some elements never appear alone, i.e. without their verbal stem (such as herein or herbei). However, those are not the only possibilities. The Institut für Deutsche Sprache calls the elements in question Präverben ("preverbs"). As is pointed out on that website (in German -- let me know if you would like me to sum up the arguments in more detail), it's also an open debate in linguistics. So I don't think there's a simple solution here that will satisfy all needs... Longtrend (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I still say that they are adverbs, that are written together with the verb when they immediately precede it, and written separated otherwise. This is not only the historical situation but also how it still works today. Any difference between the spacing is only apparent when the adverb might be attached, not when the rules require it to be separated. This means that in, for example, a main clause, there is no discernable difference whatsoever between a separable verb and a verb that happens to be accompanied by an adverb, because both are written and pronounced the same way. As I pointed out, the practice of writing the verb together with the adverb only developed in the middle ages, and at that point all adverb+verb combinations were what we would today call separable verbs. Another reason to distinguish these two cases is that there are also cases of genuine prefixation, where the prefix can never be separated. In a few cases the difference is even the only distinguishing feature between verbs. I am not at all convinced by the analysis of other dictionaries, because I feel that they ignore some of these arguments. Not everything that can be attached in front of a verb is a prefix. In fact, I'd argue that these words are not even compounds, because even compounds aren't separable. So if you put things on a scale, according to how autonomous the first part is, you have: prefixed (cannot appear alone) - compounded (can appear alone, but not in this lemma) - separable (can appear alone, also in this lemma in some forms) - two separate words/phrasal verbs (always appears alone). The only difference between the latter two is in the spelling; in speech, they are indistinguishable (because you can't pronounce spaces). Dutch, at least, has verbs of all four kinds, although true compounded verbs are fairly rare; one example is stofzuigen. —CodeCa t 13:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so you don't agree with the compound analysis either. That's the point of view I tried to introduce before. So {{prefix}} might not be appropriate for "separable verbs", but {{compound}} isn't quite right either, at least as long as it uses categories such as Category:German compound words. Longtrend (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

They're somewhat closer to compounds, at least. But you are right, they behave much more like phrasal verbs than anything else. —CodeCa t 15:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Has anyone addressed differences in word order? Do adverbs normally go at the end of the clause? I vaguely recall a quote by Mark Twain where he described his frustration when he realized that the separable prefix was in Volume II, and he only had Volume I. It looks to me like the separable prefixes- at the very least- are a set of words that are syntactically different than other adverbs, and should be included in a separate category. Whether you want to call them prefixes, or adverbs that act in a certain way, the category is worthy of retention. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Separable verbs actually don't behave syntactically different from verb+adverb combinations at all. A Dutch speaker cannot see from a phrase like ik laadde mijn telefoon op "I charged up my phone" whether "op" is part of the separable verb opladen or the adverb op used in conjunction with laden. What matters, of course, is that opladen is idiomatic in that its meaning is not the sum of its parts, but then neither is charge up in English, so that argument is moot. The only way a speaker can tell the difference is when, due to syntax, "op" happens to be placed immediately before the form of laden, where the presence or absence of the space is the only clue. But that clue is kind of artificial because it's not present in the spoken language, and even in writing the two are somewhat equivalent: people tend to leave out the space the more idiomatic the combination is, but it is a continuum and it can be ambiguous. What this means, really, is that separable verbs only actually exist in writing; in speech, they are not distinguishable from verb + adverb. I used Dutch as an example here, but Dutch and German have almost the same syntax and the examples apply to German just as well (if you translate the words). —CodeCa t 15:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

They do behave different which becomes clear when you look at more complex examples. I'll use your sentence translated to German. If you add "true" adverbs, you can see that the separable parts from the verb have to appear last: Ich lade mein Telefon heute auf vs. *?Ich lade mein Telefon auf heute. Even with more adverbs added, the verbal "prefix" (or whatever it is) should appear after them, otherwise the sentence becomes really awkward: Ich lade mein Telefon heute schon wieder drei Stunden lang ... auf. Longtrend (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure that example is not really contrived? In Dutch, there is no such distinction: ik laad mijn telefoon vandaag op and ik laad mijn telefoon op vandaag are equivalent, just stylistically different. Further altering the order also doesn't change things that much: ik laad mijn telefoon vandaag alweer drie uur lang ... op, ik laad mijn telefoon op vandaag, alweer drie uur lang. The adverb could even be placed first: op laad ik mijn telefoon vandaag. That variety could be used to contrast it with another adverb, but since there is no other adverb in this context that it could contrast with, it appears a bit strange. A better example would be open doe ik de deur "I open the door (as opposed to closing it)" and dicht doe ik de deur "I close the door (as opposed to opening it)", from opendoen and dichtdoen respectively. —CodeCa t 16:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm pretty sure that's a solid difference. Nobody said that Dutch and German are alike ;) Placing the separable part first for contrast seems to work in German, too (auf mache ich die Tür), but I don't that matters here. Longtrend (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Even so, I don't think that is evidence at all for considering them prefixes. Even if separable verbs are not exactly the same as phrasal verbs with an adverb in German (which I still have some doubts about), then they are still far more like phrasal verbs than they are like prefixed verbs. And they are also somewhat closer to compound verbs than to prefixed verbs because the parts of a compound can be used individually as well (which is the case here too). I am also not sure what we have to gain from creating separate entries for the "prefixes" when they have the same meaning as the corresponding adverb anyway - ab- means the same as ab, so this duplication is counterproductive and confusing. I therefore still think that these prefixes should be deleted; even if we don't agree what they are, I think it's pretty clear they're not mere prefixes. —CodeCa t 17:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Could we make ab- et al soft redirects to ab et al, to avoid content duplication while still covering ab- et al? Some thing like ===Prefix=== {{de-pref}} # Prefixed form of ab? - -sche (discuss) 20:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer to just say "see ab" because I don't agree with calling it a prefix... —CodeCa t 20:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Originally I said there are good arguments for both the prefix and the compound analysis, but in fact it seems there are good argument against both views. The separable elements are not prefixes under the assumption that prefixes always precede their stem and nothing can intervene between the prefix and the stem. They are not adverbs forming compounds either under the assumption that compounds in German can't be split up (which is true for every other case); such an analysis would also leave unexplained the fact that some of these "adverbs" don't appear individually (i.e. without the verbs). So whether or not we want to have separate entries for the "separable" elements in question (i.e. whether or not we want to follow CodeCat's request for deletion), we should find a new way of describing the etymologies of "separable verbs". Longtrend (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Which adverbs do appear individually, though? Don't adverbs always appear with a verb anyway? —CodeCa t 22:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Good point. Actually, only some separable elements could be called adverbs. Others are prepositions (überlaufen), adjectives (feststellen), and maybe even nouns (radfahren/Rad fahren) and infinite verbs (kennenlernen/kennen lernen) (see here). Longtrend (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems that all of these separable verbs have in common that some argument of the verb is used in collocation with the verb. I don't see how Rad is an adverb, but why would über or fest not be adverbs? —CodeCa t 23:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

To say they are adverbs would just be speculation IMO. In German, adjectives can be used as adverbs without changing their forms, so fest might indeed be an adverb, but I see no reason to treat it so (it doesn't alter the meaning of the verb stellen in any way, as feststellen is idiomatic). Prepositions such as bei (as in beistehen) can't be adverbs in any case, and as you admit, nouns and verbs can't be either. Longtrend (talk) 09:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

forestry [edit]

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

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

and that these two senses should be merged:

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

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

The second, at least, strikes me as different; a tree farm is not a forest.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I understood "commercial tree farming" to include forests. DAVilla 05:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I support merging sense 1 and 2 (perhaps as “The science, art and pratice of […] ”), but 3 and 4 strike me as different, unless parallel rows of same age, same species trees counts as a forest. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 19:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I support merging sense 1 and 2 along Ungoliant's lines.

Senses 3 and 4 could be merged by simply replacing "forests" with "trees" in sense 3. Further revision might be desirable. I don't think that the non-tree portions of the forest environment play anything other than a supporting role to the trees, in the main uses of this term. Also, I wonder whether some may be trying to redefine forestry to refer to management of the forest ecosystem without regard to its commercial use. DCDuring TALK 00:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

w:Forestry says "Modern forestry generally embraces a broad range of concerns, including assisting forests to provide timber as raw material for wood products, wildlife habitat', natural water quality management, recreation, landscape and community protection, employment, aesthetically appealing landscapes, biodiversity management, watershed management, erosion control, and preserving forest as 'sinks' for atmospheric carbon dioxide." Italics bring out examples where merely talking about trees and farming isn't good enough.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

weakest link [edit]

Rfd-sense: The part of a system that is most likely to fail or cause problems. Adequately covered by link, where it is even given as an example. Not sure what to do with the other definition. -- Liliana • 14:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

But that sense of link refers to literal links. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 15:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The example may perhaps be misplaced. The first sense refers to any kind of link, even figurative ones like here. -- Liliana • 15:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep, in essence I just plain disagree with Liliana-60's reasoning. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep as idiomatic. The term goes beyond the original meaning of the link (as an element of a chain). A weak member of a team can be the weakest link. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

But how does "A connection between places, persons, events, or things." not cover that? -- Liliana • 12:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a member of a group, not as a connection, but simply as a member. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The second sense is a reference to a specific show called w:The Weakest Link. I doubt that it has any use outside of that, but you would need to rfv it to be sure. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I would delete the 2nd sense (no strong opinion on this but we don't keep names of shows here) but keep the first. Russian has an identical and common idiom, which I added as a translation. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete Completely trasparent use of well-established figurative senses of both components. DCDuring TALK 13:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep first sense. Definitely idiomatic. "Link" is not synonymous with "part," and, by extension, "chain" is not synonymous with "system"/"greater whole"/etc. Things may be described as the "weakest link" of something even if the something in question doesn't represent a chainlike sequence: "my mom's gambling was the weakest link in my parents' marriage," "low voter turnout is the weakest link in American democracy," etc. Astral (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep first sense, in consideration of citations like 2006, Taylor Bell, Glory Days Illinois: Legends of Illinois High School Basketball, page 108: "I worked hard at basketball because I didn't want to be the weakest link on the team". I can't find any books that otherwise refer to a player on a team as a "strongest link" or really as a "link" at all. Delete game show sense. bd2412 T 16:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete per DCDuring. I added what I think is an appropriate definition at link. Examples of usage include: “weakest link,” “strongest link,” “most valuable link” and “every link.” — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 23:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete per Ungoliant et al.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

delivery system [edit]

A system for delivery (in this case, of a nuclear missile, but could be anything, e.g. a DHL technology for parcels). Equinox ◑ 01:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

At the time of editing, there was no suitable definition of delivery. Hence the entry. --Preferits (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete. DCDuring TALK 13:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It most certainly does now; act of conveying, where convey has the relevant meanings. Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

昨日の晩 [edit]

This, as well as 一昨日の晩 and 一昨日の朝, are clearly non-idiomatic noun phrases ("yesterday evening", "the evening of the day before yesterday", and "the morning of the day before yesterday" respectively.) The user also created a nifty table which would benefit some other entries if moved to them, once the links to these offending entries are removed. A template for that? --Haplology (talk) 04:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Which table? Please note some translations into JA just need to be split into SoP way of translations (e.g. using multiple {{l}} or , please don't delete but break up. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The table is on the other two, 一昨日の晩 and 一昨日の朝. I don't understand how to break up translations, could you provide an example please? --Haplology (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If "一昨日の晩" were used as a translation on last night I would change it to: 一昨日の晩 (きのうのばん, kinō no ban). Sometimes it's just easier to use the JavaScript to add SoP translations, even if it's not 100% right. I mean the translation may be correct but not idiomatic and can later be broken up into parts, for which you want to have links - 一昨日の晩 is three links, instead of one. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand. The Javascript is the assisted translation entry thing? Just to check, I have been changing links like 連絡する to t|連絡|alt=連絡する|tr=れんらくする, renraku suru, and the same thing with -na adjectives, and that's ok right? --Haplology (talk) 05:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes (1) and yes (2), I've been doing the same thing with するverbs and なadjectives. BTW, I have posted on 1000 JA basic words discussion in BP, please check. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete 昨日の晩 because we have already 昨晩.
Move 一昨日の晩 and 一昨日の朝 to 一昨晩 and 一昨朝 respectively, though they are rarely used. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

te reo Māori [edit]

Names of languages in Maori are created by adding te reo "the language" to the name of a people or country. So this just means "the Maori language". I think we've deleted similar entries in other languages before? —CodeCa t 20:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If that's the precedent, then yes. However, it's a common phrase in NZ English, in which it is perhaps non-SoP? Here are some cites [23]. Note entries 1, 5 & 6 in particular. Furius (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

That would make it keepable as an English term, not as a Maori one. —An gr 19:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, yes. That was what I had in mind. Furius (talk) 07:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

We've tried to delete similar entries before (e.g. in Russian), but it hasn't always happened. [[Türk dili]] was RFDed but passed due to COALMINE. The RFD on русский язык et al. is still open, with (by my count) two users favouring deletion and one favouring keeping. - -sche (discuss) 18:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

player to be named later [edit]

I don't think I need to explain this. Also not 'baseball' as claimed. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

What's next !!? Delete. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hardly worse than most likely to succeed. Delete. Equinox ◑ 21:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 23:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to be explicit: We are deleting this despite the fact that it has clear cultural reference that gives it more meaning than its components. DCDuring TALK 04:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't that something more be better covered at an entry for to be named later. See, for example:

1984, David Shields, Heroes: A Novel, page 257:

In 1762 we were traded to Spain for a backup center to be named later.
1998, Brant E. Ducey, The Rajah of Renfrew: The Life and Times of John E. Ducey, page 284:

Samis and Ducey agreed to a trade that saw first baseman Jack McGill return to the Eskimos for a left-handed pitcher to be named later.
2012, Chris Jensen, Peter Golenbock, Baseball State by State: Major and Negro League Players, page 14:

Gamble possessed the most impressive Afro ever displayed on the diamond. The Yankees acquired the outfielder from the Indians in 1975 for Pat Dobson and a hair pick to be named later.

Therefore, move to to be named later and redefine to indicate that it is not necessarily a "player" but any currently unspecified object to be identified in the future in exchange for a trade in the present. bd2412 T 01:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Also to be announced later, to be revealed later, to be disclosed later, to be discussed later (more than 100k Google hits each against 400k of "to be named later") and probably many others formed with this pattern are quite common expressions, but they are all completely predictable from their parts. Delete, don't move. --Hekaheka (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete (delete to be named later, too, if anyone creates it). - -sche (discuss) 08:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep the term with possibly a different definition, as I do not understand the following sentences:

"Noles was sent back to the Cubs a month later on Oct. 23 as the player to be named later."[24]
"In a late-July deal, the Angels acquired Dan Osinski, a hard-throwing righty from Kansas City for “a player to be named later.”"[25]
- Notice the quotation marks.
"Thus you see established players with significant careers traded for fringe players, future draft choices, or the famous “player to be named later."[26]
- Again, notice the quotation marks, suggesting something not altogether straightforward is going on. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It is a formula in sports press releases/journalism, but it is transparent. IMO no such literal use would justify inclusion. There may be figurative use, possibly just of the form to be named later as BD suggests, that is a reference to this kind of element in an exchange. DCDuring TALK 12:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is an example of such figurative use of to be named later:

1998 February 17, “Market Place; No Sales, but Watch the Stock Soar”, New York Times:

Initial Acquisition Corporation, which had gone public in 1995 as a blind pool, Wall Street's shorthand for "give us the money now, and we'll buy a company to be named later."

This suggests that a synonym for player to be named later is pig in a poke. DCDuring TALK 13:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

1992 July 10, “Starbeams”, The Kansas City Star:

Boris Yeltsin wants to swap factories, minerals and other property to pay off Russia's foreign debt. Could we have Mikhail Gorbachev and a ballet company to be named later?
1990, “Quarterly Review”, volume 14-17, page 278:

The effective implication of this transfer practice is that an individual policyholder is not investing in a specific insurance company but rather in some company-to-be-named-later
2005, Jeffrey McGraw, Made to Be Broken:

“Maybe she didn't like the mother-in-law she was going to inherit and might want to trade her for an in-law to be named later and a few draft choices?”

I think these show that there is extended use of to be named later in a sense not quite literal. DCDuring TALK 13:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I would add that this differs from the more literal uses in phrases like to be announced, to be revealed, to be disclosed, to be discussed. If a couple has a child "to be named later" (although it now occurs to me that the "later" is also superflous to the phrase), that literally means the child has not been given a name yet. This is the same issue that makes named for and named after (above on this page) idiomatic. With regard to things being traded, they already have a "name", but have not been identified. We do have entries on TBA and TBD. bd2412 T 15:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The sense of name#Verb is clearly the common one of "specify, identify", so that alone does not justify inclusion. One possibly idiomatic sense of this is "something of little value", which follows in real life from the "pig in a poke" sense. DCDuring TALK 17:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The sense of name#Verb is ambiguous. "Specify" and "identify" are unambiguous terms that could be used there in theory, but in practice are not. bd2412 T 03:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is at all ambiguous in the context in which this expression is used. A native speaker or journalistic or other popular writer would not use a polysyllabic Latinate term when name can be used without risk of any misunderstanding by the audience. DCDuring TALK 04:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Many of these uses are really a snowclone that can either compare a deal to a sports trade, or change the context to that of a sports trade for humorous effect. The phrase "to be named later" is the key part. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think a snowclone with the degree of fixedness exhibited by to be named later, ie, no other inflected form, no substitution of synonyms for "named", uncommon substitution for later (at a later date, etc.), constitutes an idiom.

Move to to be named later. DCDuring TALK 18:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Move and revise along the lines of pig in a poke per DCDuring. DAVilla 00:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

most likely to succeed [edit]

Another one that comes up the heading 'no explanation necessary'. If this passes I'm totally creating most likely to blow up a chemical plant. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete. The yearbook info is just encyclopaedic about where this is used. We wouldn't have an entry for no smoking just to remark that it's often seen on restaurant signs. Equinox ◑ 21:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete precisely per nom. bd2412 T 23:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 23:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom. The usage example, "most likely to blow up a chemical plant", doesn't exist anywhere outside of Wiktionary. --Dmol (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to be explicit: We are deleting this despite the fact that it has clear cultural reference that gives it more meaning than its components. DCDuring TALK 04:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Almost any word or phrase has cultural context and implications. Equinox ◑ 14:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No I think it has precisely the meaning of the sum of its parts. I think walk your bike is quite comparable per Equinox (which you DCDuring, nomination for deletion successfully). Mglovesfun (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Clearly the term's denotation is SoP. But the term in the potentially idiomatic sense apparently intended is almost always used of a young person for whom there are high expectations of conventional overall success in life, not of just anyone succeeding at just anything. I am not arguing in defense of this particular term, just for making explicit the criteria being applied and for the consistent application of such criteria across entries. I know that no one would want to be excluding terms with regionally or temporally restricted idiomaticity that was not apparent to those outside the place or time. Nor would anyone want to be in the position of assessing the importance, attractiveness, or popularity of the cultural phenomenon, let alone including or excluding items for such reasons. DCDuring TALK 15:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep: Another bad nom by Mglovesfun. "Most likely to succeed" and "Most likely to blow up a chemical plant" are in no way analogous. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 20:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 21:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

special move [edit]

Cut out the rather encyclopedic (and incorrect) definition and you get "A move that is special". -- Liliana • 07:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This is the "set phrase" for these, especially in fighting games, but the meaning does seem obvious. Note it's sometimes also just called a special, e.g. (from Google) "They'll need to give SF [Street Fighter] characters some better specials." Equinox ◑ 14:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Strong keep. DAVilla 00:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

green line [edit]

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

pohjois- [edit]

Finnish is an agglutinative language and often forms compounds by putting words together. Some words are changed during this process by converting them from the nominative singular form into their inflectional stem. This includes words ending with -nen, which becomes -s- when an ending is attached (see the declension of pohjoinen) or when the word is used in a compound. This process is completely regular and predictable, so every Finnish word ending in -nen automatically has this stem form with -s-. For that reason, it seems wrong to treat this as a prefix (since there is Category:Finnish words prefixed with pohjois-), this is just the combining form of a word. It's the same as how Russian сам (sam) becomes само- (samo-) in a compound, like in само-вар (samo-var), and Greek and Latin also have such combining forms of most words. —CodeCa t 14:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, the Institute for the Languages of Finland, also known as KOTUS, lists pohjois- in their wordlist, which we have copied in Wiktionary as Finnish index. They list it as prefix. They don't list every word formed this way, e.g. varsinais- (from varsinainen) is not included, although it is used in some place names, see Varsinais-Suomi. I also think the commonness of this form speaks for keeping it. A simple Google search for "pohjois-" gets 27.6 M results, which - to be honest - includes millions of inflected forms of pohjoinen (“northern”). Further, the process of forming these prefixes/attributive modifiers is regular but not perfectly predictable. Notable exceptions include the colours sininen (“blue”) and punainen (“red”) which become sini- and puna-. I would say majority of adjectives cannot be transformed this way. I have never heard common adjectives such as tavallinen (“common, ordinary”) modified to tavallis- whereas erikoinen (

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup add new \| history \| Archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification add new \| history \| archives \| Index Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for deletion add new \| history \| archives Requests for deletion 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 Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.
{{rfc-case}} - {{rfc-trans}} - {{rfdate}} - {{rfd-redundant}} - {{rfdef}} - {{rfe}} - {{rfex}} - {{rfap}} - {{rfp}} - {{rfphoto}} -

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion

Contents

July 2012 [edit]

worse 2 [edit]

selector [edit]

am Ende [edit]

abranchiata [edit]

preferences [edit]

Scouts [edit]

television show (undeletion request) [edit]

August 2012 [edit]

-side [edit]

ding up [edit]

stimulus package [edit]

abscond [edit]

hidden [edit]

articled [edit]

bulgarian kieli [edit]

-ware [edit]

automatic ticket stamping machine [edit]

ticket stamping machine [edit]

have an axe to grind [edit]

have an ax to grind [edit]

work breakdown structure [edit]

go on [edit]

troaking [edit]

September 2012 [edit]

parvenu [edit]

dice [edit]

fittin undeletion [edit]

at arm's length [edit]

face-to-face [edit]

one's marbles [edit]

of that ilk [edit]

Language-related entries [edit]

camelback [edit]

stick with [edit]

gadzookery [edit]

pansexual [edit]

October 2012 [edit]

stick of furniture [edit]

Indo-European studies [edit]

-a [edit]

information velocity [edit]

belldom [edit]

E. faecalis [edit]

information technology [edit]

a [edit]

in such a way that [edit]

a 2 [edit]

Finnish-Canadian [edit]

go out the window [edit]

sail close to the wind [edit]

computer system [edit]

machine independent [edit]

bit [edit]

Copyvio [edit]

caching proxy [edit]

discussion room [edit]

November 2012 [edit]

Playmaster [edit]

fa bolle [edit]

All Goguryeo words in the main namespace [edit]

-buster [edit]

fledgling [edit]

rosary [edit]

extinct volcano [edit]

Green Hornet [edit]

bitch [edit]

life's a bitch [edit]

payback's a bitch [edit]

see you when I see you [edit]

Hylobatidea [edit]

trolly dolly [edit]

write once, run anywhere [edit]

vaginal sex [edit]

key set identifier [edit]

observable universe [edit]

known universe [edit]

physical universe [edit]