Wiktionary:Requests for deletion

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
(Redirected from Wiktionary:RfD)
Jump to: navigation, search

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for deletion

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

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

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

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

Requests for deletion
add new | history | archives

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

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

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

Scope of this request page:

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

Templates:

Shortcuts:

See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request should be archived to the entry's talk page. This consists of removing the discussion from this page, and copying it to the entry's talk page using {{archive-top|rfd}} + {{archive-bottom}}. Examples of discussions archived at talk pages: Talk:piffle, Talk:good job. Note that talk pages containing such discussions are preserved even if the associated article is deleted.

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

Oldest tagged RFDs

Contents


December 2014[edit]

cooperation[edit]

How many distinct definitions of cooperation are there? Ignore the entry for a second and decide if you were writing the entry from scratch, what usage would not be covered by 'The act of cooperating'? Now to the entry itself

Active help from a person, organization, etc.

An orderly sharing of space or resources.

Association for mutual benefit, such as for purposes of production or purchase.

I don't think 'active help' is cooperation because it's not mutual, you can't cooperate with someone without their consent or against it, but you can help someone without their consent or against it

Orderly sharing of space or resources, this sounds like a specific example of cooperation

Sense #3 sounds like another example of cooperation. To me, it just sounds like the act of cooperating by another name.

This previously went to rfd (see Talk:cooperation) when there were seven senses and it failed to reach a consensus. Perhaps with only four senses, we can do it. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Senses #1 and #2 could be merged, since they express more or les the same concept, but sense #3 is distinct because it can refer to the organization or association itself rather than to the act of cooperating. --Tweenk (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
The definitions look like the product of some kind of encyclopedic, not lexicographic, effort. I would rather start over (RfC?) than work with the confused mess we have, but the RfD process limits us and may help preserve some of the translations.
I find that the most helpful thing one can do in defining English words is find any grammatical distinctions. For English nouns, a countability distinction commonly requires a distinct definition. Also, for a noun that is clearly associated with a specific verb, inclusive definitions either refer to the definitions of the verb or have to duplicate the senses of the verb, though possibly some verb senses may not carry over.
Sense three, because it starts "a" is countable and therefore distinct from the other senses. The most general countable definition would be something like "an act or instance of cooperating". Which definition is close to sense one "The act of cooperating", which is confusingly (mis)labeled as uncountable. "An orderly sharing" (sense 3) is possible among inanimate things whereas cooperation is usually among animate things, though I could imagine it being applied to, say, computer processes. Thus sense 3 seems wrong.
I think the more common uses of cooperation are uncountable. A general definition is something like "The process of cooperating". I suppose that senses two and four would be included in such a definition, though they seem at best to be two arbitrary classes of cooperation. Moreover, "active help" (sense 2) is a one-sided giving, whereas cooperation is essentially mutual. Thus sense 2 seems wrong.
Perhaps the best way to save the translations is to make sense 1 countable and make sense 4 the uncountable sense or make it a subsense of a new general uncountable sense "The process of cooperating." DCDuring TALK 14:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
This would preserve the bulk of the translations, as sense 2 and 3 have little not in sense 1 and 4, except in for words translating sense 2 that mean "help", not specifically cooperation. DCDuring TALK 14:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

Let's get this closed out. bd2412 T 13:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

January 2015[edit]

raucous[edit]

Rfd-redundant: "loud and annoying" redundant to "disorderly and boisterous". Look at the usage example 'raucous party', which would be as good under the "disorderly and boisterous". So delete/merge and improve. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Raucous needn't imply annoying. Equinox 21:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
@Equinox: A few dictionaries do include the reaction of the hearer in one of the usually two definitions: eg, "Making or constituting a disturbingly harsh and loud noise" Oxford US. "harshly or hoarsely loud" Collins. "disagreeably harsh or strident" MWOnline. DCDuring TALK 13:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that we delete this sense, but add the "loud" connotation to sense 1. Dbfirs 10:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
MW 1913 has "Hoarse; harsh; rough; as, a raucous, thick tone. His voice slightly raucous." (no mention of "loud") and not the "disorderly and boisterous" sense which is the most common current one, IMO. So meaning has changed. The dictionaries that incorporate into a definition the hearer's reaction to the noise always include "harsh/strident/hoarse/grating" in the definition. The "disorderly, boisterous" definitions do not include the hearer's reaction. DCDuring TALK 13:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

double radio-source associated with a galactic nucleus[edit]

Sum of parts (and the plural) SemperBlotto (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

  • It seems like it might be a set phrase. I find it interesting that the commonly used abbreviation, DRAGN, requires an unusual selection of letters from the initial phrase (a direct acronym would be more like "DRSAWAGN" or at least "DRAWGN". Can this be reworded and maintain the same technical meaning? bd2412 T 21:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    • More likely, the phrase was coined for the purpose of providing a suitable acronym, and is probably only found in actual use as a gloss for the acronym. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
      Oh, you cynic. DCDuring TALK 03:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
      There are three Google Books hits, albeit one is in German. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It is not sum of parts. It is not any old set of two radio-sources that are associated with any galactic nucleus. For instance, it is not about two radio-loud pulsars that orbit the galactic nucleus. Nor it is for a pair of H-I regions inhabiting the galactic nucleus region. Etc, off to infinity, for all the varieties of radio sources that can be found close to galactic nuclei. It is specifically about the configuration of radio lobes carved out of the extragalactic medium that line up with the galactic nucleus, which are detectable from Earth. If one or both of the radio lobes are not detectable from Earth, then it doesn't fit, even though theoretical models of the galaxy will feature two lobes. -- 65.94.40.137 05:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm with Semper. We cant't include every seven-word combination which has an exact meaning. Very often they have. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Buraq Wall[edit]

"A wall connected to the al-Aqsa mosque." We have no criteria for including or excluding placenames, so the question is, what level of granularity is too much granularity? (Hilariously, the larger place, al-Aqsa mosque, is a redlink.) - -sche (discuss) 06:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Funny, en-Wikipedia article on al-Aqsa does not mention Buraq Wall, but it is the same wall that the Jews call Wailing Wall, and which is more neutrally known as the Western Wall. The Arabic name for that particular wall translates word-by-word as "Buraq Wall" into English. Buraq, as we remember, is the name of the heavenly horse-like creature that took prophet Muhammed from Mecca to Jerusalem and back. Muhammed reportedly tied Buraq to this wall during his stay, hence the name. It's undeniably a remarkable place. If we decide to keep it, we might want to create a main entry of "Western Wall" and make "Buraq Wall" and "Wailing Wall" refer to it as its Muslim and Jewish names respectively. --Hekaheka (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

glücklicher Zufall[edit]

glücklicher Zufall = lucky chance event. Total SOP. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, SOP. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Another source I know has luck, serendipity (whatever that is), fortunate coincidence and lucky coincidence. Donnanz (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Then that source is trying to explain the word serendipity for German speakers. We can do that by putting {{t|de|[[glücklich]]er [[Zufall]]|m}} in the translation table of the English word. But the German term is SOP, meaning simply "lucky coincidence" and nothing idiomatic. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
      • OK, bearing in mind that Wiktionary likes to shoot itself. The entry in that source (for serendipity) dates back to 2004. The same source has unglücklicher Zufall. Donnanz (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Whether you're right or wrong, I don't see any relevance. We're discussing the German entry glücklicher Zufall, not possibly translations of it. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

February 2015[edit]

arnés pene[edit]

Doesn't look like the real thing to me (no pun intended) --Type56op9 (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It a real term in Spanish. Synonyms include pene femenino, cinturón poronguero, and cinturonga. —Stephen (Talk) 12:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • This looks like an RFV problem, not an RFD problem. bd2412 T 13:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
google books:"arnés pene" gets one hit, which is a book with no preview available, so we can't even see it. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

alta gama[edit]

I'd say this isn't an adjective. Possibly de alta gama would be an entry, however. --Type56op9 (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It’s a noun. —Stephen (Talk) 12:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Nounified. Any further objections? Renard Migrant (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

derogatory[edit]

Sense 2 seems to describe a noun, and i can't find it in any other dictionary. Not to mention how cumbersome it is to read. —This comment was unsigned.

The noun is "derogatory clause", so this is in fact an adjective modifying "clause". The definition may be outdated (a Google search suggests it comes from Rawson's 1884 Pocket Law-Lexicon) but that isn't a reason to delete it altogether. Equinox 20:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Move to derogatory clause. The definition we have appeared as a run-in in MW 1913, which does not mean that it takes the PoS of the headword. Thus it is arguably "created in error".
Further, derogatory clause seems to have another meaning, possibly a generalization of the one in question: "a statutory or contractual provision proclaiming that the document in which it appears, or a part of the document, cannot be repealed or amended."
I don't think it will turn out that there is use of derogatory in these senses apart from the word clause, either as derogatory clause or clause derogatory, but that would depend on someone attempting to create an adjective definition. DCDuring TALK 21:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Looking at derogatory clause at OneLook Dictionary Search I see no entries but derogatory clause in a testament at OneLook Dictionary Search show three references containing entries, run-in or full, and one with a null redirect. DCDuring TALK 21:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I found "if the clause be derogatory", so I disagree with the proposed move. Equinox 22:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

dial-a-ride[edit]

Rfd of the Spanish entry.

This is said to be "borrowed from English", but it looks to me like it is English. Sure, Spanish-speaking people in the US will use it in running Spanish sentences- as untranslated English. I've never heard it used, but I doubt it's pronounced any different than when a bilingual Spanish/English speaker would say it it in English. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete It seems to fail RFV anyway. The only uses I can find are in discussing US American services which have the brand name "Dial-A-Ride" in English, and in discussing a mathematical optimization problem called the "Dial-A-Ride problem". Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Created dial-a-ride problem. Equinox 22:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 02:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hoo[edit]

Doesn't make any sense. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

A search is not promising [1]. Equinox 05:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
This is about Sufi mysticism. Zaat is Arabic ذات (ḏāt) (essence), and Hoo (Hu) is Arabic هو (the pronoun He, as a name for Allah). —Stephen (Talk) 07:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
One possible cite with a different romanisation (there appear to be a lot on Google Books, but actually all are from the same guy): 1. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree the current entry is a mess. As to whether or not hoo has any attested (Sufi-related) meaning that could replace the current entry: there are some instances of Hoo, sometimes italicized and sometimes not, in Sultan Bahoo, The Life and Teachings. Searching is made difficult by the commonness of the phrase/interjection "Allah-Hoo" (with various capitalization), and the fact that many books not only discuss that phrase but its individual parts, saying things like:
  • "This sound of Hoo, Hoo will hit powerfully on your dormant kundalini. The Sufis have researched deeply into the sound Allah Hoo! They start with the sound Allah Hoo, then by and by the word Allah is dropped and only Hoo remains." (The Heartbeat of the Absolute: By Osho)
  • "They use Allah hoo, and slowly, slowly they change Allah hoo into simply hoo, hoo. They have found that the sound of hoo strikes exactly at the life source just below the navel." (Ek Onkar Satnam: The Heartbeat of Nanak)
(That is to say,) Many instances of hoo seem to be parts of longer terms, and/or transliterations of Arabic. - -sche (discuss) 22:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the main problem is that too much of the context is taken for granted and omitted, so an uninformed reader sees only the pieces, and not the whole. Still, I have my doubts as to whether this is English or transliterated Arabic. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Totally unconnected, but there's a place in Kent (England) by this name (Hoo St. Werburgh), and the area is known as the Hundred of Hoo. Donnanz (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Not to mention w:Sutton Hoo, site of one of the greatest finds of medieval European archeology. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted as RFV-failed per the above-linked RFV. - -sche (discuss) 18:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

moral diversity[edit]

Both senses strike me as SOP. But I'm open to being convinced otherwise. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The fried egg test is passed if we name a diversity of morals which does not meet the definition (much as a scrambled egg is an egg which is fried but does not meet the definition of "fried egg"). For the first sense, one example may be a diverse set of morals which no people are inclined to endorse. As another example, there may be diversity of moral inclinations which is so slight that it would not be a criteria of discrimination. This first sense of "moral diversity" refers to a criteria of social discrimination (much as a common sense of "age diversity" would excludes age differences at scales too slight to ground discrimination, or differences in the ages of corpses). The second sense (the older sense) is about good vs. evil. For this sense, the fried egg test might point to a diverse set of morals which all have the same quality (e.g. 100 different but equally evil moral inclinations). Such a set may have moral diversity in the first sense, but not in the second. If you can help improve the definition of either sense, I'd appreciate it--there is a long list of quotes on the citations page to help you. Silversalt (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

tight[edit]

RFD sense: "(sport) Not conceding many goals."

This is just a combination of "6. Well-rehearsed and accurate in execution." and "7. Lacking holes; difficult to penetrate; waterproof." as applied to football. It also seems rather inaccurate - you can't describe a goalkeeper as "tight" no matter how few goals they concede. There was one citation, which I've moved to sense 7. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Many of our sports senses are similar overspecializations of more general definitions and should be rooted out. DCDuring TALK 09:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
@DCDuring:: Why? If a word means something even slightly different in sports than it does generally, it should get a second definition. Purplebackpack89 00:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Tight means something distinguishable in many contexts, but we do users (Remember them?) no service by recording every possible nuance. Our list of definitions quickly becomes useless for humans, however valuable it might be for machines attempting to "understand" human speech. DCDuring TALK 04:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
"We do users no service by recording every possible nuance." I completely disagree with that. There is a great deal of use to be had in distinguishing between nuances. I cannot fathom how you and others have convinced yourselves that it is somehow more useful to users to have fewer definitions. Purplebackpack89 06:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
So users can quickly locate something close to what they want. Having "exactly" what they want but making it harder to find is no help. Think cognitive limitations and impatience. DCDuring TALK 14:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's a terrible excuse for not covering the language as well as we should. Our primary aim should be covering the language, not worrying about cognitive limitations. Generally speaking, you only have to read the first couple words of each entry anyways: once you pass the context part, it's clear whether or not you need to read on. Purplebackpack89 16:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
"...not covering the language as well as we should"? That begs the question of whether we should cover it that way. There are all kinds of semantic distinctions that could be made: eating an apple involves biting and chewing, eating soup involves drinking, eating many other things involves swallowing whole, eating things like shellfish involves eating only the edible part, while eating kumquats involves eating the entire thing. Creating senses for those would just add clutter without adding anything that people couldn't have easily figured out for themselves. Using categorical statements like that hurts your argument, especially when coupled with over-the-top absolute expressions (one of your most irritating affectations) such as "terrible excuse". I think that, at the very least, the sense in question needs rewording, since tight in sports can refer to preventing all sorts of things- not just goals. If we keep this, it should be a subsense of "Lacking holes; difficult to penetrate; waterproof", and have a definition along the lines of "not allowing opportunities for opponents". We might also consider how well "Lacking holes; difficult to penetrate; waterproof" covers the expession "a tight seal". Chuck Entz (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
In answer to should we, yes, I think we need to have more precise definitions. I'd also note that this discussion grew out of a desire to have different definitions for sports and non-sports context. Also, there is a second sports-related definition nobody's touching on...when I hear "tight" in sports, I assume people are talking about the score being close. Also, why are you knocking only me for painting with a broad brush, when this discussion started with DC positing that a whole bunch of sports-related definitions should be deleted? Purplebackpack89 21:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly, you seem to be of the opinion that Wiktionary should be designed for you, with your God-like cognitive capabilities and unquestionable good taste. But given those capabilities you don't need a dictionary. DCDuring TALK 22:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
How about you spend less time personally attacking me by accusing me of having a God complex and more time explaining why having fewer definitions is a good idea? Purplebackpack89 22:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I said nothing of the kind. I was trying to bring you down to earth, to realize that the ordinary Wiktionary user, for whom we should be developing it, are closer to the average human than to the average Wiktionary contributor in terms of raw capability, education, and patience. DCDuring TALK 22:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
But being of a lower capability and education would favor having more definitions... And I do consider the ordinary user, whom I believe wants as many definitions as possible, and uses other online dictionaries rather than Wiktionary because they have more definitions than we do. Purplebackpack89 22:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Arrowred.png I see this claim, again and again (not just from Purple): “users want _____” Do we have any hard data on any such statement? If so, where do we find it? Is it just a matter of combing through WT:Feedback? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

WMF seems to have many concerns with the means by which information is collected from users. Anything that smacks of tracking user behavior, which is very cheap to do, seems to be out of the question, partially on ideological grounds. Other cheap means of getting information are essentially anecdotal or suffer from selection bias of unknown nature and magnitude. Thus we are forced to rely on WMF's own efforts, which seem never to involve projects other than WP. Feedback is our best shot AFAICT, but it suffers from a selection bias. It might be possible to draw some inferences from the information available from site trackers such as ALEXA, which shows that worldwide Wiktionary users skew greatly toward those with "advanced" graduate degrees, compared to, say MWOnline. See Special:Statistics#See also. DCDuring TALK 23:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
There are some things that don't need a lot of data, like keeping rare, obsolete, archaic, and dated terms out of definitions, where an alternative exists (eg, subterraneous vs subterranean). What plausible definition of our user base could possible justify using such terms? We don't even try to exclude such terms systematically. DCDuring TALK 00:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, I regularly ask people about words, to find out whether they use them, have heard of them, have heard them used in certain ways, etc. My sample is the people in my neighborhood who walk dogs. They mostly have college degrees, but relatively few have advanced degrees. I recommend that all Wiktionary contributors get a dog and talk to the full range of people they meet while walking their dog. Those who live in university ghettos would have to take stronger measures for the same result. DCDuring TALK 00:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Let's get this right out of the way here. There is no conceivable way by which readers are harmed by our having properly labeled entries for rare or archaic terms, or even arguably SOP entries. People who never look them up will not see them, and therefore will not have any reaction to them at all. The real question is, what do people use dictionaries for? I would think that it is not controversial to say that the most common reason anyone would use a dictionary is if they come across a word in a book or other written work, and want to know something about that word - not necessarily the definition (although that will always be up there), but maybe the pronunciation, the etymology, the relationship it has to words with similar sounds or spellings. We offer features beyond those of the typical dictionary, like translations, citations, and even anagrams. I recall that we used to have some means to see which of our entries were being viewed by the most people. If we could get that back, it would be a great tool to see what readers were finding useful. bd2412 T 02:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Just for the record, "people who never look them up will not see them" is not true, because of anagrams, "random entry", predictive search, our pages being spidered by Google, etc. etc. Reminds me of the "if you don't like it, don't read it!" argument of the person who posts daily inflammatory comments on your favourite blog. Equinox 02:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Are we equating definitions with appropriate context tags with inflammatory blog posts? I am sure that the technology exists to leave archaic terms out of the process of creating anagrams. As for the rest, I concede that there is approximately a one in four million chance that a person clicking "random entry" will arrive at any particular entry, although it will actually probably be an Italian conjugation. Predictive search results only come up for those searching for words for which we have no entry, and will not be seen by people correctly typing in titles of existing entries. We can't control what people see on Google, but a Google search quickly turning up an archaic term on Wiktionary is probably a search for that archaic term. There is, after all, a degree to which people actually look for archaic stuff, and want to know its history of usage, etymology, and the like. bd2412 T 22:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with BD. There's no harm in having more entries, more definitions, and more sections. Purplebackpack89 07:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
It's perfectly real, just I wouldn't word it this way. For example, not all sports have goals, in cricket and baseball it's runs, in tennis and badminton it's points. Given that it exists and I can't see a definition it's redundant to, I would absolutely keep it. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I would like to merge the two poker definitions, #17 and #18 as I write this. But I would prefer to nominate once this discussion is closed to avoid confusion! Renard Migrant (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I think you can go ahead and merge those. This discussion should not affect that. bd2412 T 12:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Ailill mac Máta[edit]

Ailill mac Máta (< Máit?)

Amairgin mac Echit[edit]

Amergin mac Echit

Cairbre Nia Fer[edit]

Cairbre nia fer
This meaning of nia (later niad or niath, cf. Modern Irish niata (warriorlike, adj)) isn't there yet.

Cet mac Mágach[edit]

Cét mac Mágach

Cethern mac Fintain[edit]

Cethern mac Fintáin

Conchobar mac Nessa[edit]

Conchobar mac Nessa

Condere mac Echach[edit]

Condere mac Echach

Cormac Cond Longas[edit]

Cormac cond longas

Fedlimid mac Daill[edit]

Fedlimid mac Dall

Fergus mac Róich[edit]

Fergus mac Róch

Fionn mac Cumhail[edit]

Finn mac Cumal

Manannan mac Lir[edit]

This is a special case: Manannán is a unique name, possessed only by the god Manannán mac Lir. The elements are probably worth adding in their own right, Manannán in the etymology of the Isle of Man, and Ler in the possible origin of King Lear, and his Welsh cognate Llŷr. (He's also the father in the story of Clann Lir, where his four children were turned into swans by their evil stepmother.)

Per WT:CFI: "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic. For instance, Walter Elias Disney, the film producer and voice of Mickey Mouse, is not allowed a definition line at Walt Disney." (These individuals are of questionable historicity, but the aforecited section of CFI says it "regulates the inclusion and exclusion of names of specific entities, that is, names of individual people, [...] names of mythological creatures", etc, emphasis mine) See also my and others' comments at WT:RFV#Lugaid_mac_Con_Ro.C3.AD. Someone else may want to nominate entries like Conall the Victorious. - -sche (discuss) 22:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete*, and I find it strange that these are marked English rather than Old or Middle Irish.
(*) Technically, Cairbre Nia Fer and Cormac Cond Longas have neither patronymics nor family names. The names mean (as far as I can tell from Googling - I'm sure one of our Irish speakers can put me straight) Cairbre, Hero/Defeater of Men and Cormac, Exiled Prince. I would assume that this sort of disambiguator would also make an individual ineligible for inclusion, although I see we do have Alexander the Great and Mary Magdalene. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Cairbre Nia Fer and Cormac Cond Longas are other examples of people, not names as names. Is it worth adding a section to Proper noun entries of "Notable bearers" or the like? With wikipedia links, say.
Mythical people is one thing, but gods is another. Manannán is a unique god. Similarly, I can't find any examples of Lugh as people, but there are names derived from him: Lugaid, Lugach, Lugair. The difference is that Lugh has many bynames -- samildánach, lámfada, macnia -- but Manannán is primarily known with his patronym. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 09:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd certainly support adding something like ", name of several ancient Irish kings." to entries like Conchobar and Ailill (which don't yet exist!), similar to what we have at Henry. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Takács de Saár[edit]

No such surname exists in Hungarian since de Saár is just a title so it is not an integral part of the name. In addition, Takács de Saár is a foreign form of the name while the Hungarian version is saári Takács. Einstein2 (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

entfernen[edit]

Rfd-sense: two senses added by a non-native speaker:

  • (reflexive) sich vom etw. entfernen, to go absent
  • (reflexive) sich aus etw. entfernen, to leave something

I don't see how these are any different from sense 2. -- Liliana 12:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The "leave something" sense is transparent (given German's relatively strict rules about prepositions, you can expect any verb meaning leave to be coupled to "aus"/"raus"), so delete sense 4 (although it would be nice to have a usage example that shows the use of "aus"). The "go absent" sense is less clear to me, as a non-native German speaker. Does it only refer to cases of running away, or is it equivalent to the broader English "go absent"? If, for example, I don't report for duty (that is, I don't show up at all), have I still entfernt myself from the troop? Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The example sentence is pretty horrible because absent without leave is idiomatic in English. Really, all it means is that you leave the troop. That's it. If you don't report for duty, you never left to begin with, in that case, you'd use sich entziehen. -- Liliana 00:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
In that case Delete both. Smurrayinchester (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

ёти[edit]

Misspelled word https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ӧти
Correct word as found in the official Komi dictionary http://dict.komikyv.ru/index.php/term/4,37848.xhtml Alcenter (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

catch flies[edit]

Not sure about this one. --Type56op9 (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep, I think. DCDuring TALK 18:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm familiar with this idiom in German too ("Mund zu, sonst kommen Fliegen rein"). Not sure what the best title would be, though - the current one strikes me as odd. -- Liliana 20:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Only flies? In Russian, if you gape, you can catch more interesting things. - -sche (discuss) 22:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Not sure; the given definition is a bit strange. (I seem to remember being told in primary school that "an open mouth catches no flies" is a South American proverb.) Equinox 22:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd say RFV but it would be very hard to cite because of all the literal usage of catching flies. I will attempt to add a definition which isn't patent nonsense. 95.144.169.113 17:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Isn’t this only used as try to catch flies? — Ungoliant (falai) 19:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Possibly the most common, but not likely to be the sole attestable use. I'd make it a redirect to whatever we decide the lemma is and also use it as part of a usage example there. DCDuring TALK 22:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I need shelter[edit]

Is this a common sentence? Surely "I need accommodation" would be a better fit? ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Neither is something I would say if I were looking for a room for the night. This is a double demonstration of why we don't have what it takes to produce a useful phrasebook. DCDuring TALK 13:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
"I need somewhere to stay" and "I need a bed for the night" are probably more likely. I can tell without looking that this is one of Daniel's; he created a few odd-sounding phrases like "I'm burned" (I've burned myself). Move to... somewhere better. Equinox 15:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete the stupid thing. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Kill with fire. 95.144.169.113 17:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Last call to salvage any of the content before I delete this tomorrow. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

mania[edit]

Senses 1 and 3 should be merged, IMHO, and I ask for support for this.

  • Sense 1: Violent derangement of mind; madness; insanity.
  • Sense 3: (psychiatry) The state of abnormally elevated or irritable mood, arousal, and/or energy levels.

The phrasing of sense 1 is directly from Webster 1913[2].

The genus of the merged def should be "mental disorder" or "mental illness" since I don't think psychiatry denotes a one-off temporary state of high energy level a "mania".

For comparion: mania at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. The psychiatry term doesn't mean 'madness' or 'insanity', it's a specific medical condition of elevated mood. Madness/insanity refer to many things like hallucinations which have nothing. In fact I suspect #1 is a dated definition not in current use. I believe only the medical definition is in use. Can anyone confirm or refute this? 95.144.169.113 17:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Given there's no overlap in meaning at all, can anyone provide a deletion rationale? 95.144.169.113 16:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay. I think the Webster 1913 definition (sense 1) was intended to cover the psychiatric sense 3. Yes, mania in the psychiatric sense and madness are not synonyms. I checked mania at OneLook Dictionary Search and found dictionaries only have two senses. Maybe I should have tagged sense 1 with {{rfd-sense}}, but it should not matter all that much since I ask for a merge. Another option is to send sense 1 to rfv-sense to see what sort of support in evidence that sort of definition has. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

sell oneself short[edit]

Included under second sense of sell something short. Should be a redirect. DCDuring TALK 20:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Both of those entries should be redirects to sell short since something is, obviously, not the only thing that one can sell short. In addition to selling oneself short, one can also sell someone (else) short. - -sche (discuss) 17:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Can sell short ever be used without an object between sell and short? I think a lot of our entry titles with something in them could also have a someone as the object, just it would be incredibly pedantic to have two separate entries for them. When I say "ever used", I mean more than incredibly rarely. 95.144.169.113 17:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
We have a few entries that include something as a placeholder in the headword in the way that I think is warranted for this. See some of the items in this search. There are others for which one, one's, oneself, and someone or somebody are placeholders.
The placement of short before or after the object depends entirely on the length/complexity of the object:
"I sold the S&P short." / *"I sold short the S&P".
"I sold short all of the Standard and Poor's index except for energy stocks." / ?"I sold all of the Standard and Poor's index except for energy stocks short."
With enough redirects, either could work. DCDuring TALK 22:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Diet Coke[edit]

The definition says: "(uncountable, informal) A cola-based soft drink containing no or low amounts of sugar". I think this wrong in two ways (see: Diet Coke):

  1. Diet Coke is not a noun, but a proper noun.
  2. It's not informal, it is a trade mark of Coca Cola Company.

If Diet Coke has become a generalized trademark, the entry should say so. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - also it is countable ("These idiots will have two Diet Cokes please, but I'll have a proper drink.") SemperBlotto (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Comparable (and IMO equally worthless in a dictionary, as non-genericised brands): Cherry Coke, New Coke, Vanilla Coke, Coke Zero, and variants of Pepsi, Fanta, Mountain Dew, Dr Pepper, Irn Bru, 7-UP, Sprite... oh, I could go on. Equinox 13:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: This RfD reveals the fact that we didn't have "diet" as an adjective. "Diet" is put in front of words and/or brands to denote something low in fat, salt, sugar or calories. As such, I have created the adjective sense. Purplebackpack89 15:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    Good point. I'd be happy to see this entry be deleted if we can ensure the relevant sense is covered at diet. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
@PBP: I think you're mistaken there, diet is a noun and a verb, and here it's being used as a noun modifier, not as an adjective. Donnanz (talk) 10:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
@Donnanz: If you're trying to make the case that diet is merely an attributive noun, I would point out to you than when diet is used as a "noun modifier" (your words), it's not used in a way consistent with any of the definitions of diet we currently have. That is why there is a separate definition of diet as an adjective, which has been attested. Purplebackpack89 13:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying diet is an attributive noun - it's a standalone noun. But when it's used to modify another noun, such as in diet cola, it becomes a noun modifier, not an adjective. But there seems to be two different schools of thought here, so if you insist in calling it an adjective in cases like this, it should at least be marked as "attributive". Donnanz (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I have very little doubt that the same people who use Coke as a genericized trademark also use Diet Coke that way. The question is, when they do so, do they spell it diet Coke (in which case it's SOP as diet + Coke) or Diet Coke (in which case it isn't SOP, but a direct genericization of Diet Coke®)? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
WT:BRAND applies. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't buy the stuff, but shouldn't anything other than the brand be called "diet cola"? Donnanz (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I would say keep this entry. Supermarket brands such as Sainsbury's and Tesco (in the UK) tend to be called diet cola, and this could be entered as a synonym. The supermarkets wouldn't be allowed to call their product diet coke. Donnanz (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
If we keep it without getting citations that show that it meets WT:BRAND, it can (and should) be RfVed. Let's skip the step and give this at least a month here to collect citations that meet WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 13:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe that's not necessary; all you have to do is check the product, which I did. Sure enough, the ® symbol appears next to the Diet Coke name on each bottle. Predictably enough the Pepsi product is called "diet pepsi" (that's the way it's spelt) but no ® symbol, even though Pepsi-Cola is a trademark. And Sainsbury's own brand is confirmed as "diet cola". How's that for an afternoon's work? Donnanz (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

kondo[edit]

Protologism? I can't see any usage before 2014. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC) (p.s. Might need moving to Kondo if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The usage started in Japan but I don't know how far back it goes. Book was published 2001 in Japan. SageGreenRider (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Was it published in English in 2001? If not, when was it used in English for the first time? Renard Migrant (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Move to RFV. Doubt it will pass, but there is limited usage on the Web. Equinox 16:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Even if it is new, I thought we kept hot words, provisionally at least? SageGreenRider (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    I've tagged it with {{hot word|date=2015-02-26}} which is the earliest citation in the entry. There might be something earlier, perhaps on UseNet. The English translation got a rush of publicity on March 26, 2014, but I didn't find hits for kondoed or kondoing until later. DCDuring TALK 13:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hoechst[edit]

Not dictionary material (not even close) -- Liliana 12:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It might me shown to meet WT:BRAND, if not in a consumer context then conceivably in an industrial one. It should be in RfV, but we can keep it here for at least a month to attract citations that meet WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 13:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep attested single-word company name, which can host e.g. pronunciation. Best evidence of consensus about company names or its lack I know of is at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI and company names. I doubt WT:BRAND applies to it, but maybe there are quotations that show use of this as a brand name for a product or service; I don't know of such quotations, and in their absence, my working hypothesis is that WT:BRAND does not apply. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Convert to an entry signifying that this is an alternative spelling of the place name Höchst (the German city from which the company gets its name). Etymology and pronunciation information would be the same. bd2412 T 02:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

pervasive developmental disorder - not otherwise specified[edit]

Highly doubtful we need this as an entry. It basically means what it says on the tin. -- Liliana 12:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom. DCDuring TALK 13:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Note that a lot of diagnostic names include "Not Otherwise Specified". Equinox 15:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I wrote that Wikipedia page. bd2412 T 19:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
not otherwise specified seems like a candidate for an entry, as does not elsewhere classified (nec). DCDuring TALK 20:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Also not elsewhere specified. A little coverage for these at OneLook. DCDuring TALK 20:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep. The current definition is inaccurate. "Pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified" is considered both an autism spectrum disorder and a pervasive developmental disorder in its own right (see the Wikipedia article), and not just a description applied to other disorders. At least it was pre-DSM5. Basically, the DSM5 rolled the separate diagnoses of autism, Asperger's, and PDD-NOS into a single "autism spectrum disorder" diagnosis. There's been some controversy over this change, particularly in the autistic community. Anyway, searching Google Books for "with PDD-NOS" yields results like "children with PDD-NOS" and "individuals with PDD-NOS," further establishing its status as a discrete disorder/diagnosis. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Obviously delete. And correct the plural if we keep it. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
This reminds me of the use of incertae sedis in taxonomy. I sure don't think that every taxon ("Taxon") that has some direct members that are of a lower rank than other direct members needs to have "Taxon incertae sedis" as an artificial taxon. That Wikispecies needs such things for presentation purposes does not make them real.
Similarly that DSM publication formatting needs a heading doesn't give any reality to it. DCDuring TALK 21:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

可供軍用, 可供军用, 可耕地, 可得到, 可編程, 可编程, 可共患難, 可共患难, 可讀音性, 可读音性, 可變化合價, 可变化合价[edit]

@WikiWinters: Sum of parts. Wyang (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Wyang, Atitarev: I don't always agree with CEDICT when it comes to proper nouns, because some terms are SOP, but I don't think these are in the same category, and all of these terms are found in CEDICT. --WikiWinters (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Why do think they are not SoPs? Wyang (talk) 05:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
If you take 可得到, for example, it has the distinct meaning of "available," whereas 得到 means "to obtain." One is an adjective and the other is a verb. 可得到 is not the same as 可的得到 or 可以的得到, which are both certainly SOP as they are simply literal variations of the original. --WikiWinters (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
可得到 is SoP, as 可 is not tightly attached as in a word, e.g. 1) adverbs may be inserted: one may say 可轻易得到 (that can be easily obtained; easily obtainable); 2) it may act as the predicate of a sentence: 一些小幸福可得到。("Little moments of happiness can be obtained.") These show that its actual meaning is "can be obtained", not "obtainable". Wyang (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, thank you, that's understandable. I shall practice more discretion when creating entries in the future. Do you think all of the terms nominated for deletion should now indeed be deleted? --WikiWinters (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Wyang (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Re: "可得到 is SoP, as 可 is not tightly attached as in a word": Seems to be a non-sequitur: what has deducibility of the meaning from parts have to do with tight attachment? Consider look up and the phrase "look it up" for an English example of a separable non-sum-of-parts term. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep 可耕地, 可读音性 and 可讀音性. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
These are not words in Chinese. Wyang (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
IMO, some terms are worth keeping. I haven't checked well, though. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
A few will pass Lemming test. Terms 可耕地, 可共患難可共患难 are also included in the ABC dictionary, which is shipped with Wenlin software. 可共患難可共患难 seems very idiomatic. Component seems a very productive prefix to form "-able" adjectives (in English translations), e.g. Wenlin generates a big list of such words, just a few, which we are currently missing:
--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • This should have been posted as individual items. I don't envy the editor who is going to close this. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • These terms should be assessed individually.
可供軍用 - Delete. Not idiomatic.
可耕地 - Keep of course. This is in the 現代漢語規範詞典 for goodness sake.
可得到 - Delete. Sum of parts.
可編程 - Delete. Sum of parts.
可共患難 - Keep. Idiom. We should also add the idiom 可共患難不可共安樂.
可讀音性 - Keep. Technical term.
可變化合價 - Keep. Technical term.
---> Tooironic (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Are technical terms a problem? We have English technical terms. --WikiWinters (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
可耕地 means "arable land" not "cultivable"! 可共患難 should be deleted; 共患難 and 可共患難不可共安樂 can be kept. 可讀音性 - not a technical term and not a word in itself - there is something wrong when what you yield on Google is nothing but foreign dictionary hits. 可變化合價 - not a technical term, sum of parts 可變 and 化合價. Wyang (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Nutcracker[edit]

The name of a ballet? I'm sure this will stay put in the end, but hey...you never know. --Type56op9 (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

  • The name rings a bell. Or is it the Nutcracker Suite? Donnanz (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete: like book titles, IMO doesn't belong here. Equinox 20:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I love the ballet, I've seen it twice. Nevertheless, delete. Not dictionary material. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Abstain. If the name of the ballet had anything lexicographically interesting about it, I would vote keep. But this is capitalized common noun nutcracker, so no interesting pronunciation and etymology can be expected; the current translations provided in the entry seem to be translations of the common noun nutcracker. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I would be inclined to keep it for that very reason. Donnanz (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete. If a name of a ballet is included, next thing is an opera, then a play, then poem, book, plays, poems, books, operas…--Hekaheka (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

East Prussia[edit]

Restore. Make entry just like Northern Ireland, West Germany, etc. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It was never deleted. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV: It uses {{no entry}} but there is no RFD discussion. I just looked at the history, it seems it was never a full entry. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The entry is there now, for you to judge. --Hekaheka (talk) 06:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Certainly seems of historical use. A dictionary entry saves someone from going through the whole who-shot-John of the relevant history, unless they want to pursue a WP link. DCDuring TALK 10:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Restore/keep: along with many other historical geographical regions. Purplebackpack89 14:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
It seems comparable to North Dakota. Weak keep. - -sche (discuss) 16:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
To me it seems more like Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, or Confederacy, only smaller. DCDuring TALK 16:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep, it had a capital city, and we could add Province of East Prussia normally known as 'East Prussia'. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015[edit]

negativity thinking[edit]

I'm feeling somewhat borderline about this entry. So I'm not advocating deletion, but it still smells a bit SOPpy. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

ː For sure, it is easy enough to deduce the meaning from the parts, but if it was purely SOP, wouldn't it be "negative thinking"? Partly, it may be my definition does not do justice to the jargon-y way it is used. I was trying to avoid sounding judgemental one way or the other, but it is used by the "Postive thinking" people as a put-down of any sort of criticism, or questioning of the doctrine of positive thinking̃

Posterity will thank us for attesting this awkward bit of minor-league psychobabble, won't it? DCDuring TALK 11:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
It sounds so weird I'd actually keep it. Because to me it doesn't make any sense. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The more usual form is negative thinking. I don't see much value in this entry. Donnanz (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

strijderin[edit]

This word has been rdf for quite a while.

The normal feminine form for warrior/fighter stijder is strijdster in Dutch and I had never heard of strijderin. Goolge produces mostly omitted spaces in the combination "strijder in ..", but WNT does mention it as "unsual" in an article from 1925, and there is a few hits from around 1800 that say the same and mention strijderse as another unusual and archaic alternative. Perhaps keep, but mention as rare and archaic? Gunmhoine (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Snickers[edit]

A particular chocolate bar. Compare Mars, Bounty, Twix, Toblerone, Kinder Egg, Toffee Crisp, Aero, Wonka Mud Sludge. --Type56op9 (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

My favourite mainstream chocolate bar, by the way, is the Crunchie. Mars Bar party, Hershey squirts and Hershey highway all exist BTW, and Milky Bar kid seems like it might warrant inclusion.
  • It was renamed from "Marathon" years ago. Probably a registered trademark. Donnanz (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Actually, it was always called "Snickers" in the U.S., since its introduction in 1930; it was called "Marathon" in the UK, but was changed to "Snickers" there in 1990. bd2412 T 18:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I suppose it should undergo RFV since it's quite well known. Personally I fail to see the value of brand names in a dictionary, though. Equinox 13:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes brand names are used generically with such frequency that the reader may not realize that the word is a brand at all. Sometimes authors presume the brand name to be so well known that they use it as a descriptor with no context whatsoever, so that the reader unfamiliar with the brand will not know what the word means. Those are the kinds of cases intended to be covered by WT:BRAND. In any case, even coined brand names (like coined place names and coined surnames) are words with their own etymology, pronunciation, and occasionally derivations. Where a reader is likely to come across such a word in print, and lacks contextual cues to place the word, these are useful things to have. bd2412 T 16:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Here is an example of "Snickers" used out of context, where a reader would need to look it up to know what it means:
  • 2012, Peter Sinn Nachtrieb, Bob: A Life in Five Acts, page 24.
    BOB. Jeanine used to pull out a Snickers from her purse every time we hit a snag, like when there was four hours of traffic to get to Hoover Dam, when I got a B on a chemistry test, or when we got to the Michelle Kwan Museum and it was closed for renovation. I could really use a Snickers right now.
The work gives no further context to the meaning of "Snickers" other than a "Snickers wrapper" being found later. It could just as easily be a medication, a cosmetic, or a sanitation device. More will likely be easily found. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. After further examination, this easily meets WT:BRAND with uses in print that provide no context as to the meaning of the term. I have added a half dozen more. There are also such things as Snickers ice cream (which usually contains pieces of actual Snickers) and Snickers pie (which is a pie made with ingredients common to a Snickers, but not necessarily actual Snickers). bd2412 T 17:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - "all words in all languages" SemperBlotto (talk) 08:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I have come to the conclusion that my objection to brand names in a dictionary is more of a broader objection to a focus on contemporary brands in fiction, novels, news, etc., and I basically hate postmodernism. (Dickens didn't fill his books with references to corporations.) My brief mortal span isn't going to win that battle, so what the hell, keep it, and let the "professional" dictionaries catch up, and see who tries to sue us for not covering their brand's "meaning" properly. Equinox 02:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Shakespeare did some product placement, as it turns out, mentioning the wines of specific regions (Canary, Malmsey, and Sack). Maybe he was paid to do this, or maybe he just did it so that the reader/audience member could get an authentic sense of the character through the character's mention of the beverage. See, e.g., Love's Labour's Lost, Act V., scene ii: Biron. "Nay then, two treys, and if you grow so nice / Metheglin, wort, and malmsey: well run, dice!" Branding as we now know it didn't exist in Shakespeare's day; naming wines by specific region is about as close as he could get to it. bd2412 T 17:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Probably closer to the "martini, shaken- not stirred" James Bond references: used to establish an image, rather than sell something. I imagine there was also incentive to throw in some alcohol references to go with the sexual innuendo and bathroom humor designed to appeal to as broad a spectrum of theater-goers as possible: you had your sophisticated character studies and musings on the nature of society, along with thinly-disguised penis jokes and references to clearing the countryside with laxatives- something for everyone. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I should add that the closest thing to product placement was politics: King James published a treatise on witchcraft, which just happens to be a big part of Macbeth, as is Scottish history. There's also a reference somewhere to vikings as "Norweyan", since referring to them as Danes might put the queen, who was from Denmark, in a bad light. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I suspect that one would not have to go too far past Shakespeare's day to find mentions of actual commercial brands in literature, either as paid product placement, or as narrative tools used to describe characters by reference to the characteristics associated with the brand. I recall reading that Charles Dickens refused an offer to buy the placement of a "patent medicine" in one of his books, but I suspect that the account shows the practice to be an established one at that point. bd2412 T 22:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Gott ist tot[edit]

Certainly a famous phrase but, as far as I can tell, not actually idiomatic. Belongs more to Wikiquote. -- Liliana 17:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Trying to be a dictionary is hard enough without trying to be Wikipedia and Wikiquote as well. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 22:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Wiktionary is neither Wikipedia nor Wikiquote. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all[edit]

Ain't this just a famous quotation? SoP! Equinox 03:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete. It means just the literal meaning of all the words. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Sum of parts. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete. I thought for a moment about the value of having translations for the phrase, but that's no more than the value of having translations of any other SOP quote. bd2412 T 01:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just too straightforward to merit an entry here. --Romanophile (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Deleted.​—msh210 (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

haematopoesis[edit]

Needs deletion, the correct spelling is haematopoiesis (see also hematopoiesis and Oxford). Donnanz (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

(This is an RFV issue, but nvm) Seems to be a not uncommon misspelling (rate approx 1/50)
  • 1916, Charles Russell Bardeen, Irving Hardesty, John Lewis Bremer, Edward Allen Boyden, The Anatomical Record
    Nevertheless, it is possible to notice certain features of the haematopoesis in the bone marrow, characteristic for this organ, which appear already in the embryo and are very conspicuous in the adult animal.
  • 2004, Dr Timothy T. Marrs, Bryan Ballantyne, Pesticide Toxicology and International Regulation, John Wiley & Sons (ISBN 9780470091661), page 177
    In medium- and long-term studies on mice, rats, and dogs, haemolytic anaemia with compensatory increased haematopoesis and increased methaemoglobin content was observed.
  • 2006, World Health Organization, Pesticide Residues in Food - 2004: Toxicological Evaluations : Joint Meeting of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment and the WHO Core Assessment Group, Rome, 20-29 September 2004, World Health Organization (ISBN 9789241665209), page 372
    They showed haemorrhagic lesions in the stomach mucosa, blood- filled and dilated alveolar vessels, degenerative processes in proximal kidney tubules of females, atrophied spleens with signs of decreased haematopoesis, some giant spermatids in testes, and decreased haematopoesis in the bone marrow of males.
Change to {{misspelling of}}. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The ratio of 50 ((haematopoesis*50),haematopoiesis at Google Ngram Viewer) suggests an alternative spelling to me rather than a misspelling. Keep, obviously. This is not a RFV issue since attestation was never in the slightest doubt: this is obviously attested in use. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I found afterwards that SemperBlotto made (or listed without entering them) quite a number of similar entries. So maybe treating it as a misspelling may be the best option. It is a difficult word to spell after all. Donnanz (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2015[edit]

cel mai abstract[edit]

cel mai mic[edit]

cel mai mare[edit]

cel mai amărât[edit]

All these are equivalent to Spanish "el más x" or similar in other Romance languages; they are completely SOP (e.g. the first one means "the most abstract"). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Or an English entry for the most abstract. Strong delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all four Romanian items per Metaknowledge and Renard Migrant. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all. The constructions may be utile, but they don’t require entries. Nonetheless, these might be O.K. as redirects. --Romanophile (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Deleted all.​—msh210 (talk) 03:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

loop tape[edit]

Is it just a tape that loops? I'm not sure I'm giving it due credit, but we shall see. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete. loop#Noun has the specific definition "An endless strip of tape or film allowing continuous repetition." DCDuring TALK 19:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

take upon[edit]

I think this is only used reflexively, as to take upon oneself. When used non-reflexively, don't people say "take on"; that meaning is already documented under take on. Kiwima (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

RFV maybe? I agree but I think we should try to cite 'take upon' without a reflexive pronoun. I can't imagine it though: "he took it up his mother to finish the task". Nah! Renard Migrant (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

tug one's forelock[edit]

This looks like SOP to me. The further meaning is in the gesture, not the phraseKiwima (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I just thought I would give you a heads up on this: There are quite a few MWEs that are associated with gestures and postures. This is not a fatal criticism: you should stand up for your instincts and beliefs and you can thumb your nose at our conventions, even those of lexicographers generally. (See thumb one's nose at OneLook Dictionary Search.) But I think that the words referring to the gesture stand for the meaning of the gesture.
I seem to recall Equinox having used this expression in a meaningful way, though I misinterpreted it, as it is not an expression that is part of the general lexicon in the US, IMO. DCDuring TALK 10:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree that this should be deleted, because of the cultural meaning. If it means 'to show respect' then it passed WT:CFI#Idiomaticity as not easily derived from the sum of its parts. From which of these three words do you get the meaning 'to show respect'? Renard Migrant (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
There are lots of gestures that have cultural meaning - do we define them all? Stamp one's feet (anger), point one's chin (give directions), wiggle one's fingers (silent clapping), put ones arms akimbo (show anger or exasperation)... My own impulse would be to add the phrases that are not clear what gesture one is talking about (e.g. snap one's fingers) or the ones that are used figuratively (tip one's hat, etc). If someone can show me where this phrase falls into one of those two categories, then of course it should stay, but as far as I can tell, it does not. Do people say "I tug my forelock to you"? Kiwima (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I hate to rain on your parade (Not really, I'm having fun.), but it all depends on how they are used. If tug one's forelock is used in speech or writing in a context in which it is virtually impossible that that was literally what took place (Just as I am not literally raining on your parade, I not being a rain cloud and you probably not having a parade.), then that figurative meaning clearly merits inclusion. DCDuring TALK 19:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Point one's chin? Never heard of it, can someone create it, if real? Renard Migrant (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
It's only SoP if referring to the physical act (and not to some metaphorical version). I've never seen anyone actually tug their forelock. But it means "to show respect", so keep; cf. "forelock-tugging class traitors" which I just found on Google. Equinox 13:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I've tweaked the entry a bit, moving the physical gesture to the etymology, and adding figurative citations. Okay? Equinox 13:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, if you have found uses which refer to more than just the physical act, then by all means it should stay.Kiwima (talk) 07:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Kept.​—msh210 (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

cuesta arriba[edit]

Seems like SOP cuesta + arriba to me. --Sucio green (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a set phrase and the lemmings principle applies. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe the entry should be tweaked to reflect that the phrase is often used to mean "uphill work" or "a lot of effort". Keep, by the way. -- ALGRIF talk 09:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
As in the popular columns advising: "Cómo superar la cuesta arriba de enero", for example. -- ALGRIF talk 12:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

delivery drone[edit]

It may be in the news lately, but this phrase is really just delivery + drone. Parallel constructions include "delivery truck", "delivery boat", "delivery plane" (which has an additional, unrelated meaning), "delivery bike", and even "delivery camel"- all citable from Google Books.

  • Keep - I disagree. "delivery drone" is the name for this type of aircraft. You cannot use the term drone as it is not specific enough. Please see the many news stories using this name and it is the name Wikipedia is using. Thank you WritersCramp (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The name might be specific to the kind of vehicle, but so is "orange bicycle". That's a good reason to have a Wikipedia article, not a Wiktionary entry. bd2412 T 01:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect, "orange bicycle" would not survive at Wikipedia, unless it was a "specific name". In addition, you seem to have overlooked the "news articles", which are using the name "delivery drone" for the unmanned aerial vehicle. WritersCramp (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete, what else can delivery + drone mean but a drone that does deliveries? He's not overlooked the news articles, he's made reference to them, so, the exact opposite. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Exactly. bd2412 T 18:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
"Delivery drone"is very specific in its reference because, so far, there's just the one type. In 10 years, there may be a multitude of different types based on different technologies, types of deliveries, different manufacturers, etc.- but they'll still all be delivery drones. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
As for your point on usage: the newspapers also often make references to the "best-selling author, Steven King", but that doesn't mean that we should have an entry for it even if we ignored our rules on entries for individuals. It's just a matter of a convenienient and concise way to say something. It also doesn't hurt that "delivery drone" has a nice rhythm to it and alliterates. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a delivery drone. Google Books shows books written all about the delivery truck; it seems reasonable to add that if delivery drone stands. The very important delivery camel also seems important, given that they've gone from delivering wood for Noah's ark to delivering pizza in the modern day, at least if Google Books is to be trusted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. - By the way, when did they stop calling them "radio controlled aircraft? Just wondering why now they are all "drones".? - ALGRIF talk 10:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Deleted.​—msh210 (talk) 03:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

stiff peaks[edit]

Sum of parts? Plural only? I could well be wrong. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Well you'd never try to beat an egg into a single stiff peak. But delete, they are undoubtedly peaks which are stiff. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I dunno, I feel like this is a technical term in cooking. Egg whites that have been beaten to stiff peaks do not have peaks that are "rigid, hard to bend, inflexible" (per our definition of stiff); in fact they can be easily pushed over with your finger. They're merely stiff enough to support their own weight. See [3] for definitions of when beaten egg-white peaks are soft, firm, and stiff. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
It's just relative. "Loud" in music isn't the same as "loud" in aircraft testing. Equinox 19:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep. It is also a good anchor for translation to other languages. An of course a technical concept in cooking. Not only stiff peaks, it includes more. [4]. It would be here before. Take A LOT (days) of time to find the right term and the translation --Lagoset (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete. A culinary sense may or may not need to be added to "stiff", but one can "beat eggs until they are stiff", etc, showing that this phrase is not idiomatic. - -sche (discuss) 21:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Why not added before to peaks? (plural). Can see the result now?. --Lagoset (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
It is preposterous to claims that this is plural only. This Google Groups search already provides abundant UseNet attestation of the singular.
Out of the context of food preparation you could not be sure what was being referred to. In context it is obvious SoP. Delete. DCDuring TALK 21:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
18 entries, compared to 2650 in the plural!!. It is really strange cannot see a definition in Wiktionary :-?, when you own see a wide use in culinary arts.--Lagoset (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
See only#Adverb and plurale tantum ("plural only"). DCDuring TALK 00:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. What can I say, I like to cook. I know exactly what this phrase means in that context, and it is not exactly what one would think from saying "stiff" and "peak". bd2412 T 00:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is like medium rare, well done, sunny side up, and over easy. —Stephen (Talk) 10:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, I'm a native speaker and it wasn't quite clear to me what it meant, even when referring to eggs. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. What Equinox said and what -sche said. SOP.​—msh210 (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I have added a culinary sense to stiff — as I noted above, one can "beat egg whites until they are stiff", etc, so stiff has a culinary sense regardless of the collocation stiff peaks. I've also added an eggy citation, which uses both stiff and peak but not stiff peaks, to peak. - -sche (discuss) 20:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Just to be picayune, cream can also be whipped/beaten to form stiff peaks. bd2412 T 21:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing and editing the entries accordingly. - -sche (discuss) 15:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I would add for comparison that we have a culinary sense for medium and for rare, and that does not preclude our having medium rare. bd2412 T 16:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

unmanned aerial vehicle[edit]

Just what it says on the tin. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep - can we delete this Metaknowledge guys admin powers, he seems to have a bad case of OCD! WritersCramp (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey WritersCramp why don't you judge entries on their merits instead of on who created them? Renard Migrant (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't even have a definition, it links to UAV which is the initialism. Sometimes initialisms link to the expanded form, this one links to the contracted form! Speedy for no usable content? Renard Migrant (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. DCDuring TALK 21:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. This seems like a vehicle that is both unmanned and aerial. There is a very slight "set-phrase"-ness to it from the fact that "aerial unmanned vehicle" is almost nonexistent, but I think this stems from the commonness and the rhythm of "aerial vehicle". bd2412 T 14:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even the definition states the obvious. --Romanophile (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

economic embargo[edit]

Pretty clear SOP; see Talk:economic blockade for a related but slightly more unclear case that eventually failed RFD. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - Both economic blockade and economic embargo are idioms that are often used in both the news and literature. Unfortunately, this Metanoknowledge has gone through my User page and flagged four entries for deletion. My often asked question is why does Wiktionary allow these douche bags to have admin powers? WritersCramp (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete. WritersCramp only wants to keep the entry because he created it, not because of its merits. Often being used in news and literature are not relevant factors - so is black car. It should be deleted because it fails WT:CFI#Idiomaticity as is easily derived from the sum of its parts. If you know what economic and embargo mean, you know what an economic embargo is. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Merits of this entry aside, it's quite reasonable, when one sees one problematic entry, to look at the user's contributions to see if there's a pattern of creating similar problem entries- which there has been for years in your case. Fortunately, other people can see what you're obviously blind to, and you help things along by spewing out mindless, rabid nastiness like the above that shifts the focus from the entries to your misbehavior. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. DCDuring TALK 21:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 21:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Leave me alone. --Romanophile (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Deleted.​—msh210 (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

bylaw enforcement officer[edit]

Maybe bylaw officer is worth keeping, but this seems to be just an officer who enforces bylaws. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. DCDuring TALK 21:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
BD2412's got this bang on, I have nothing to add. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Deleted.​—msh210 (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

alcohol-dependent[edit]

The definition is misleading; it's just a person dependent on alcohol. The hyphen is strange to me as a native English speaker, but seems to be attested (although it is much more rare than alcohol dependent.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

  • More likely to be an adjective, I would have thought. Donnanz (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete as self-evident SoP, like "drug-addled", "cocaine-addicted", etc. Equinox 22:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, single word. Ƿidsiþ 08:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • On the fence. Could be considered a single word. But not necessarily. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep the noun (verifiable) and include the adjective as well. A Google search reveals how many writers leave the hyphen out, when they should know better. Donnanz (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete this strictly compositional MWE. DCDuring TALK 03:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. What DCDuring said.​—msh210 (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

magic point[edit]

A point of magical energy. Seems SoP given the context gloss. Other arbitrary things can be measured in points ("Bots begin the game and respawn with 10 health points") and not just in video games. Equinox 22:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Although it is SoP, it is also ambiguous for a non-native speaker, given the number of meanings for point -- I would keep.
Keep. I don't consider this SoP because the precise meaning isn't readily deducible from the component words. "Magic points" are a player stat. But someone who didn't have that prior knowledge, and knew only that the term was related to games, might very well conclude they are a type of score. Not to mention that "magic points"/"mana points" are an almost universal feature in RPGs. It's spawned the abbreviation MP. "Magic points"/"mana points" are a discrete, notable concept in the gaming world in a way that "WP" (wisdom points), "SP" (stealth points), etc. are not. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 08:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

snitch bitch[edit]

On one hand, it rhymes. On the other, it looks to me like we're talking about a snitch considered a bitch (or hell, vice versa). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Rhyming collocations often turn out to be set phrases, though. bd2412 T 15:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't find it that obvious, what it means. I would keep it. Is this really 'easily derived from the sum of its parts'? Renard Migrant (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The definition is, roughly, "a prison snitch". I see nothing in it about being a bitch. So it doesn't seem to be SOP; keep.​—msh210 (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

police brutality[edit]

The first and second defs are SOP; the third def is bullshit that would die in RFV ("I was attacked by a police brutality"?). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

What strange wording! Definitely reduce it to one sense, at least. Equinox 00:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
A combination of the first two defs would be non-SOP if either the illegal or unjustified parts were part of the term's meaning, but I don't think that either are accurate. Any brutality can be called this, even if it's justified and in a country where it may be legal. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
At the very least, it should be heavily edited to get rid of the anger and loaded words that permeate the entry: "wanton extreme and inhumane duress, typical of a beast" isn't exactly npov. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Wiped the slate clean and wrote a new, consolidated definition. Keep. I don't consider this one SOP because the meaning is narrow. The term "police brutality" is restricted to acts of unjustified violence committed by police officers in the commission of their law enforcement duties. An off-duty police officer punching a man for harassing his wife in a bar wouldn't be considered an instance of "police brutality." -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I would keep more or less as rewritten. If a police officer uses "brutal" violence to take down a dangerous criminal, this is not what is typically considered "police brutality"; the term is reserved for "brutality" that is in excess of what the situation requires, of a kind that law enforcement officers are supposed to be trained to avoid. bd2412 T 14:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
brutality has a long-standing definition of "The use of excessive physical force e.g. police brutality." I don't see the distinction you give; if an officer uses brutal ("Savagely violent, vicious, ruthless, or cruel") force, then it is police brutality; if the police officer uses large but necessary force to stop a dangerous criminal, it's not brutal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete as SOP.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
X brutality = brutality practiced by X > delete. --Hekaheka (talk) 08:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
There's even a specialized sense at brutality to cover this. Ergo, delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
This is still more precise than that sense of brutality. A schoolyard bully or a random guy starting a bar fight can use force than is "excessive" for the situation, although neither of them has the legal right to use any force. Police brutality is an abuse of the authority to use force. bd2412 T 13:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I consider those the same thing. The force is excessive because they don't have the authority, legal or moral, to use it. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep completely idiomatic. It's actually euphemistic for police assault, nothing to do with being ‘animalistic’ or ‘unintelligent’ (OED definitions of brutal). Ƿidsiþ 08:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • As I pointed out above, it is completely SOP with our definitions for brutality. Whether or not it is SOP with OED doesn't seem relevant, nor does whether or not it is SOP with brutal, which may or may not have much connection to brutality in actual usage.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, but consider the ‘In a Jiffy’ test at WT:IDIOM. ‘Brutality’ in that sense is something that comes from euphemistic phrases like “police brutality’, which the word has a very specific meaning. I actually also suspect that this term passes the PRIOR KNOWLEDGE test as it has a specific meaning in legal/criminal terms, see e.g. here. Ƿidsiþ 07:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

prisoner abuse[edit]

Abuse of a prisoner. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

It just doesn't get simpler than this. If only it were possible to communicate with WritersCramp, but as far as I can tell, it isn't. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC). Oh and delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn’t create a new sense. Nonetheless, it’s odd to me that we still have an entry for child abuse. --Romanophile (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Deleted.​—msh210 (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

police protection[edit]

And protection by police. I think this might be the last of the obvious SOPs added by WritersCramp. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. I grant that there is some ambiguity here ("police protection" could also refer to something like bulletproof vests worn by police for their own protection), but the phrase as currently defined is one that will always be transparent in meaning from the context, which will describe something or someone as being under the protection of the police. bd2412 T 14:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
It actually says "law enforcement agency". Surely police protection is not a law enforcement agency, it's a system? Still, to what extent is police protection protection by the police? Is it actually by other bodies that aren't the police? Even then, is that even relevant? Renard Migrant (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
@BD2412:, even the bulletproof vest definition would be police + protection. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
This, and neighbouring entries on this page snitch bitch, police brutality, prisoner abuse and law enforcement agency are all creations of WritersCramp. Nomen est omen? --Hekaheka (talk) 08:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The creator is a mere hint, or else one ends up in the logical fallacy of ad hominem; even generally bad editors can produce good entries, and we investigate those on a per-entry basis. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Oh and I voted keep for a couple of his entries above. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ƿidsiþ 08:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Further comments: this is also in the OED, and in Collins (with two definitions). I don't consider it sum of parts at all. Consider that in general, ‘X protection’ means ‘protection of X’, e.g. in phrases like ‘wildlife protection’ or ‘child protection’. But ‘police protection’ does not mean ‘protection of the police’ but rather protection by the police. Ƿidsiþ 07:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Then, a fortiori, the multiply ambiguous head butter must need an entry. DCDuring TALK 12:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Ask and ye shall receive: head butter. bd2412 T 13:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, are you suggesting that headbutter is not valid? I'm not sure of your point. There is no need to deconstruct the idiomaticity of ‘head butter’ since it already exists as a common single word. That's not the case with ‘policeprotection’, which is why I was trying to look at our expectations with noun-noun compounds. Ƿidsiþ 13:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

law enforcement agency[edit]

Law enforcement (insuring adherence to the law) + agency (department or other administrative unit of a government). Am I missing something? Renard Migrant (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, unless there is some unusual value for translations or something. No different in construction than "food safety agency" or "tax collection agency". bd2412 T 15:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I would 100% keep law enforcement as it's more than the enforcement of the law. It doesn't normally refer to judges making rulings on civil matters, for example, it's mostly policing. Not used much in the UK, I would tend to gloss as US and Canada. Perhaps others, I don't know about NZ, AUS, India, etc. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Quick! There are no translations yet. --Hekaheka (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as a translation target; thanks for the tip, Hekaheka. W:Law enforcement agency has some interwiki that shows translations that do not appear to be word-for-word translations: German Strafverfolgungsbehörde (Straf-verfolgung-s-behörde), Czech policejní orgán, Polish organy ścigania, etc. Furthermore, WP says it is a term of "North American English" (U.S. and Canadina?); is it true? If so, this is lexicographical info that adds to the value of the entry as a lexicographical one. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Interwikis aren't necessarily translations, sometimes they're similar concepts which are 'close enough' to merit an interwiki. I'd argue back but since we all know that WT:CFI isn't binding, you're entitled to vote keep for any reason you like. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The assumption that, without CFI, there would be nothing to argue about seems strange to me. The unstated assumption is that we want to built a good multilingual dictionary. The good then gets broken down into multiple further requirements, such as accurate, complete, succinct, detailed, clear, verifiable, and the like. Some of these requirements clash. Even without CFI, they are there by implication. The current CFI is a particular operationalization of some of these requirements. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Who's making that assumption, just you? It's not my assumption to be clear. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
@Hekaheka: It's not clear (to me) what your vote really is. Undecided for now. Russian правоохрани́тельные о́рганы (pravooxranítelʹnyje órgany) fits more "law enforcement agency", though, not "law enforcement". probably the same with the Czech policejní orgán. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep idiomatic set phrase. Ƿidsiþ 08:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd ask you to justify that opinion, but I know you don't do that. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd ask you not to be so passive-aggressive, but I guess that's a bit pointless too? It's idiomatic because this is the natural way to say it in English and that cannot be predicted. No one refers to the post office as a ‘delivery enforcement agency’. Also, institutions like corporate tribunals, peacekeeping forces etc. are agencies that enforce the law, but they are not what we mean when we talk about law enforcement agencies. Ƿidsiþ 08:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
All of that is covered by law enforcement rather than law enforcement agency. Law enforcement agency is just law enforcement immediately followed by the word agency. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom.​—msh210 (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

hop[edit]

“a narcotic drug, usually opium

Redundant to “(US, slang) Opium, or some other narcotic drug.” — Ungoliant (falai) 15:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete; I don't think we even need to use the RFD process to do something like this. bd2412 T 15:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I was gonna say the same thing. Why even nominate? Speedy deletion is part of our process. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
In case someone thinks the other one should be deleted, if it really belongs in a different etymology section. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Alright, well, delete one of them. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

child abuse[edit]

Abuse of a child. Assuming the definition of child neglect is accurate, I've decided not to RFD that as well for the time being. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep. There's a Wikipedia article on this subject, which is sort of my personal litmus test. It's a discrete concept in a way that, say, "tax form" or "religious tract" aren't. Child abuse is viewed as a significant sociological ill and there have been many books and studies written about it. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
That's a poor litmus test even by your own personal standards as to what ought to be kept; we agree that tax form is unworthy of an entry here but it does have a Wikipedia article. Similarly, many things have been written about which are not worthy of an entry based on lexicographical standards alone. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I never suggested it was a definitive test. It's a way to loosely gauge whether multi-word constructions are SOP or worthy of definition. The existence of a Wikipedia article, at a minimum, suggests that the thing in question may be more complicated than simply word A + word B.
This gets plenty of hits on OneLook. It's evidently something other dictionaries have deemed worthy of inclusion. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 05:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia has an entry for list of cats. That's why using Wikipedia as a definitive source for entry titles is such as bad idea. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Another thought thought that just occurred to me is that this term has a narrow meaning. It could conceivably refer to the abuse of one child by another, or abuse inflicted on a person by their child, but it refers strictly to abuse committed against children by adults or minors in a position to be responsible for a younger child (e.g. teen parents, babysitters, older siblings). -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps the problem is not that we have child abuse listed, but that the definition is not precise enough. It simply says mistreatment, but child abuse is usually considered something more severe than mere mistreatment - it is something that can cause long-lasting or permanent damage to the child.121.72.243.109 06:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
We could always go the route of providing some legal- or regulatory-type definitions, but we would be faced with the elastic and protean nature and vast number of such definitions. This is particularly true as the crime is in the jurisdiction of the components of federally organized nations, such as US, Canada, Australia, and Great Britain, not to mention the numerous smaller Anglophone nations. DCDuring TALK 16:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep and revise. Many state statutes do not actually use the phrase "child abuse", but use a variation, such as "willful abuse upon a child" or "welfare of children: abuse and neglect". An example of a state that does specify "child abuse" is Colorado, for which the law states:
COLO. REV. STAT. §18-6-401 (2014). Child abuse
(1)(a) A person commits child abuse if such person causes an injury to a child's life or health, or permits a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation that poses a threat of injury to the child's life or health, or engages in a continued pattern of conduct that results in malnourishment, lack of proper medical care, cruel punishment, mistreatment, or an accumulation of injuries that ultimately results in the death of a child or serious bodily injury to a child.
I think a legalistic definition is appropriate for this term. bd2412 T 17:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
This focuses much of the ambiguity in the term mistreatment, though malnutrition and proper are also quite fuzzy. The ambiguity, which is part of actual normal and legal usage, I think, remains. DCDuring TALK 19:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
That's not particularly surprising, though. Our own definition of mistreatment is "improper treatment; abuse", which is also ambiguous. I think in this particular definition, it means "mistreatment... that ultimately results in the death of a child or serious bodily injury to a child". bd2412 T 18:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Is that a legal definition? I In everyday use in current US culture, it would not require such drastic physical consequences, rather than serious pain and perhaps psychological damage. DCDuring TALK 18:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
It's a definition for purposes of prosecution as a crime in Colorado. bd2412 T 19:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. It means more than the sum of its parts. And it's in the OED. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Yep, keep. Donnanz (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep using the lemming heuristic: in oxforddictionaries.com[5], Collins[6], and Macmillan[7]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

abgesehen von der Tatsache[edit]

Clearly SoP, though we were missing the relevant definition of abgesehen up until now. -- Liliana 17:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

That wouldn't work because there's also abgesehen davon (other than that) which wouldn't be covered by an entry abgesehen von. You can even phrase it like davon mal abgesehen. -- Liliana 22:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep it until you make your minds up about abgesehen von. dict.cc has quite a few entries for that. Donnanz (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 17:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, SOP for absehen (disregard a matter). Same would be true for an entry 'abgesehen (da)von' (aside from that, disregarding the former). SOP everywhere. Korn (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

GeoServer[edit]

Name of a specific software product. Also Sae1962 -- Liliana 18:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Not enormously famous outside the GIS sphere. Equinox 18:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Needs to meet WT:BRAND, and I find no hits at all detached from a description of the product. bd2412 T 18:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

diminished value[edit]

SoP SemperBlotto (talk) 09:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

w:Diminished value says that diminished value is different from depreciation which is when the value diminishes with the passage of time, like a second-hand car being worth less than a new car. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
To me it seems that the entry is a misconception. Diminished value is that which is left after a loss, not the loss itself. In accounting the loss may be called impairment, write-down or revaluation. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it's worth keeping, but maybe some rewording is necessary. Donnanz (talk) 09:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia-logo.png Diminished value on Wikipedia.Wikipedia:Diminished value (which has "issues") implies that diminution of value is a synonym. I don't find an entry for diminished value at OneLook, so one would have to look elsewhere for an insurance-industry glossary for help. If it is not a term of art but is intended for normal people to understand then the components + the context should directly provide the meaning, ie, SoP. DCDuring TALK 15:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I take back my previous comment. After taking a closer look, it seems that the term has a specific legal sense comparable to "damages". I did some rewording and added two quotes. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Hekaheka: So, are you saying that, in actual usage, the equation "original value" - "diminution of value" = "diminished value" is not true? The WP article's assertion that "diminished value" is synonymous with "diminution of value" makes no sense to me. Is this the product of the lack of knowledge of arithmetic, failure to understand the ordinary meaning of "diminution" or "diminished", or willful abuse of language by advocates? DCDuring TALK 01:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@DCDuring: Your equation is true also, but it is a SOP sense. The non-SOP sense appeared illogical to me as well on the first sight, but if you google up "pay diminished value", you'll get convinced that it is used that way in the insurance business (it would make absolutely no sense to pay the remaining value as compensation for the loss). As I wrote, the usage seems comparable - not completely similar - to that of "damages", which in addition to it's "normal" usage is defined as "money paid or awarded to a claimant (in England), a pursuer (in Scotland) or a plaintiff (in the US) in a civil action as compensation for a loss suffered by the same". --Hekaheka (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Of your three alternative explanations I would put my bets on "willful abuse of language by advocates". More seriously, I would say they use "diminish" as transitive verb. --Hekaheka (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
If you look at the edit history, the original entry had a very non-lexicographical description of what diminished value is in the insurance context, liberally sprinkled with links to a commercial website. I did my best to prune it down to an actual definition, but I still have no clue as to exactly what they were trying to say. The commercial site does have explanations, but they're likewise not very well-written. I should probably have hidden the original edits as promotional material, but I hoped someone would have more luck making something coherent out of the entry if they had access to the original version. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Did you check the definition as it is now after my edits? Is it still incoherent? --Hekaheka (talk) 07:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I am feeling a strong urge to prescribe here. Perhaps I should lie down until the feeling passes. DCDuring TALK 08:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

abolir[edit]

Discussion moved to WT:RFDO#Template:es-conj-ir (abolir).

Аерофлот[edit]

It's Bulgarian, Ukrainian, S.-Croatian (Cyr.), etc. Not Russian, see Аэрофлот. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

w:ru:Аэрофлот backs you up. I believe you, just delete it. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Speedied but can be restored as Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian (Cyrillic) and Ukrainian entries. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
That's not restoration, that's creating a new entry. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
That's nit-picking, but the entry could have been "converted" to the correct languages rather than delete it. I have done this before. Donnanz (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
You're right, of course. Often reworking takes more time then creating new entries. I just didn't feel like doing it then and hoped that someone would do it (which is easy, even if one doesn't know these languages). Since nobody did, I did it myself now (I don't think I had to, though). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Excellent. You must know more about these languages than I do - absolutely nothing! Donnanz (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Slavic languages are very close but knowing that these are all proper nouns meaning "Aeroflot" is not much knowledge really in this case. I am not 100% sure about the stress in Makedonian and no idea about the diacritics in Serbo-Croatian, so I didn't add them. Even if these entries were made without the gender info, they would be still fine as a temp solution, don't you think? My point is, you can create entries in ANY language, if you're certain about the info (Pos, sense) and know the format of entries for these languages. :) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, they must be a wee bit like the Scandinavian languages in that respect, although one has to be aware of spelling variations with those. Donnanz (talk) 09:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Cyrillic-based and close Slavic languages have variations and even traps too. Compare Russian/Ukrainian pairs: е/є (je), э/е (e), и/і (i) and ы/и (y). They are quite confusing, if you know only Russian or Ukrainian. I think it's maybe more confusing than ö vs ø. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The Balkan sprachbund and the Ottomans in the past influenced the South Slavic languages very differently compare to East Slavic and West Slavic languages. And there's Bulgarian, a Slavic language that I think it has way too many French, Italian expressions and Turkish loanwords in colloquial situations, unlike Russian. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 10:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you really delete the history?Dixtosa (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I did but there was nothing sexy there, see Special:Undelete/Аерофлот. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Not wrong to delete the history of a deleted entry. The fact it subsequently gets recreated in a different language is irrelevant. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

thingmajig[edit]

Deleted before without process. Does anyone think this should be deleted? The reason for deletion would probably be that this is a misspelling of thingamajig, and a rare one too. thingmajig, thingamajig at Google Ngram Viewer. Attested in Google books: google books:"thingmajig". --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

  • There's so many variants of thingamajig that I wouldn't even regard this as a misspelling, just a variant. And it seems to roll off the tongue better than thingamajig. Donnanz (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

themseaufwärts[edit]

Book case of SOP. Korn (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why singlewordness would be an argument against SOP. Decisionmaker is equally book case SOP and should go as well, yes. Korn (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Obviously the rules we usually use for English cannot be applied to other languages. You can do this with virtually every other river in the world, like rheinaufwärts, donauaufwärts etc. -- Liliana 21:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep. Requires prior knowledge that this is a compound word, something that is not obvious to a non-German speaker like myself. Actually, the fact that German even has compound words may not be known to many. --Dmol (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
If we allow 'is compound word written without space' as a CFI, we're opening the floodgates for terrabytes of German and Finnish nonce words, though. Korn (talk) 07:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Both German and Finnish are both WDLs, though. Any word that is not attestable per CFI can be deleted. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
That is a sort of good point, but what about little attested languages? Do you propose we should allow SOP terms for languages that write these terms without spaces?Korn (talk) 11:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
For LDLs, a term must have at least one mention (not even a use), e.g. being listed in a print dictionary is sufficient. So even for those languages we have to show that someone else has either used or mentioned the term in question. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The arguments in Tanzschule are convincing, but do not actually hold up to the current policy which says 'if SOP, delete'. This is SOP and hence has to go according to the rules set up. I propose to amend the CFI to accommodate for foreign languages with continuously spelled compounds. Because I would interpret "separate" as 'parts exists outside of compound' and never have gotten the idea that it should mean 'compound is not spelled in a single word'. (I still don't think that's what was meant, actually.) Policies should be specific, though. While proposing this change, I still point out the floodgates that opens one more time; maybe someone can find a workaround, or we just accept the possibility. Korn (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Let me cite the actual policy for you, from WT:CFI#Idiomaticity, and let me note that WT:CFI does not contain the string "if SOP, delete". The policy text is this, boldface mine: "An expression is idiomatic if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components." The components Tanz and Schule are not considered separate in Tanzschule, and therefore Tanzschule is considered idiomatic per our policy. Our policy does not define "separate", but our common practice does. Since this is an Angloamerican project, common practice is important, and can comfortably complement our policies where they are silent. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

nicht zutreffend[edit]

clear case of SoP -- Liliana 22:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

  • You obviously didn't look to see whether there is an entry for n. z., (not to be confused with NZ). But maybe not applicable should be allowable as a common term. Donnanz (talk) 08:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
It's common but nothing more than the sum of its parts. Green grass is a common term, too. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

mehr als zuviel[edit]

another typical SoP case -- Liliana 23:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Can you say it like this? I came across "Mehr als genug ist zuviel." (More than enough is too much). Donnanz (talk) 08:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Good point. I'm only familiar with mehr als genug. b.g.c only finds historical books. -- Liliana 09:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
In that case, deletion may be in order. Donnanz (talk) 12:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

wall hanging[edit]

Sum of parts? ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Altered to countable. I would be inclined to keep it, the description is reasonably accurate, and I don't think it's all that obvious from the sum of its parts. Donnanz (talk) 08:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
It's a [[wall]] [[hanging]] though isn't it? The definition is 'a wall decoration [] ' Might as well change it to 'a wall hanging'. Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Donnanz. I don't see how this could be changed to "a wall hanging" when attestations are easily found for "the wall hanging[s]" or "[his/her] wall hanging[s]". For example, '2008, Robin Amber Kilgore, In Her Bathrobe She Blogged, page 91: "Flustered, he began to scrub his wall hanging feverishly in the kitchen sink". That does not seem particularly transparent to me at all, and if you didn't know that the character was an art lover with a spider infestation, you might think he was scrubbing the wall while somehow hanging in the sink. bd2412 T 14:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete It's wall+ sense #3 of hanging (noun). Would you guys want to see ceiling hanging, window hanging, Christmas tree hanging, door hanging, car mirror hanging… they're all attestable. --Hekaheka (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Are they? I get no usable Google Books results for car mirror hanging, ceiling hanging only gives results for ceilings being partially impacted, and door hanging seems to only give results about installing doors, or doors that are for some reason "hanging". On the other hand, "wall hanging", in the sense defined here, gets hundreds of hits. bd2412 T 18:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Car mirror hangings are not something to write books about, but a simple Google search gets 14,000+ hits. I'd assume at least 3 of them fulfil our CFI. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Door hanging could refer to the hanging of doors on hinges (OK, you mentioned it). And we shouldn't get confused with (death by) hanging, nor with paperhanging. Donnanz (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I assume you mean interior rear-view mirrors. The hanging objects are also known as danglers or danglies. Donnanz (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
At times one gets what one wants to see. "Door hangings" gets 220,000 direct Google hits. BGC has these: [8] [9] [10] [11]. These are only with attributes "beaded" and "beautiful". Additional attributes will bring additional results. --Hekaheka (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, using the lemming heuristic: present in oxforddictionaries.com[12], AHD[13], and Collins[14]; seems to be even in Merriam-Webster unabridged[15].--Dan Polansky (talk) 05:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

vector[edit]

msh210 and Keφr seem to be fairly inactive as of late, but we are in need of mathematicians. To me, the first three definitions all seem like various parts of the true mathematical definition of a vector. They are mathematically distinguishable, but not lexically distinguishable, in the sense that I don't think one could find a use exclusive to any of those definitions that did not fall under all of them, hence my belief that they ought to be merged. That said, I await the judgement of more knowledgeable individuals, especially with respect to what the merged definition would look like. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the three mathematical definitions could be condensed to two definitions, but I'd be unwilling to have a single one. What the three senses we have at the moment effectively mean is:
  1. A mathematical quantity consisting of a magnitude and a direction.
  2. A mathematical quantity represented in a format like (x,y,z), which can be thought of as representing a magnitude and a direction.
  3. A mathematical quantity which can be meaningfully added to another quantity of the same type, and also multiplied by a scalar
Sense 1 is arguably a subsense of sense 2 (or possibly vice versa), although there are ways of representing magnitude and direction vectors that aren't ordered tuples (for instance, "1 mile in a north-westerly direction" is a vector), and there are ordered tuples for which magnitude and direction are physically meaningless (quantum physics uses vectors as a convenient way to represent the state of particles, but these vectors aren't directly related to any distance or angle in the physical world - rather, they only 'exist' in a mathematical abstraction called a Hilbert space - and supercomputers often represent all sorts of data in vector format just because that's easier for parallel processors to handle). Both of these senses are solidly from the realm of applied mathematics. Sense 3 on the other hand is restricted almost entirely to pure mathematics. These vectors do not necessarily have anything at all to do with distances and magnitude, and they don't necessarily even represent numbers - they could be functions, matrices or even entire fields of numbers. The only thing that makes them vectors is the fact that they have two properties: you can add them together, and you can multiply them by scalars (typically, this means just a straightforward real number). Now, sense 1 and 2 are both technically redundant to this sense, but this sense is so vague and so far removed from our everyday intuition of a vector that we wouldn't help anyone by merging all the senses here. I would suggest instead having:
  1. A member of a vector space.
    1. (Mathematics, physics) A directed quantity, one with both magnitude and direction; the signed difference between two points.
    2. (Mathematics, physics, computing) A mathematical quantity represented by an ordered tuple.
    3. (Pure mathematics) A mathematical object representing a member of a space on which addition and scalar multiplication are defined.
Any suggestions are of course welcome. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Never really been a fan of organizing things as definition, subdefinition. I think it's fine the way it is. Purplebackpack89 20:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Our current senses are:

  1. (mathematics) A directed quantity, one with both magnitude and direction; the signed difference between two points.
  2. (mathematics) An ordered tuple representing a directed quantity or the signed difference between two points.
  3. (mathematics) Any member of a (generalized) vector space.

IMO these are distinct even lexically. (I read the nomination above, and not, fully, the replies thereto, so forgive me if I repeat something already said. Thanks for the ping, by the way.) When a high-school physics teacher refers to velocity as a vector as opposed to speed, which is a scalar, he means sense 1, not sense 2 or 3. (Velocity is a vector in sense 3, certainly, and can be re-defined so it's a vector in sense 2, I suppose, but neither of those is what the teacher means.) When a high-school math teacher says "[1,2] is a vector", that's clearly sense 2 (and only possibly sense 1). So we need 1 and 2 both. And of course 3 is different, including e.g. polynomials.​—msh210 (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep the three separate as per msh210 above. I disagree with the reformulations made above; in particular, in the 3rd sense, vector space meets certain axioms which the redefinitions fail to ensure. The definitions in this revision are good "as is". The axioms are listed e.g. in Wolfram Mathworld. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

cõtempt[edit]

Manuscript variant, not a truly different spelling, right? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. One could compare this to or Govʳ, but whereas superscript r is not a letter in English or French and ʳ is included in Unicode as a "modifier letter" rather than a plain "letter" — leading to the conclusion that this is better encoded as Govr, not as Govʳõ is a letter even in English (in a few loanwords). That makes cõtempt seem more like vp: it's using one letter to spell something that would now be spelt with a different letter(s). And we couldn't automatically redirect õ spellings like we do long-s spellings, because they are standard in some languages (e.g. is probably attested both in Vietnamese as the word for "old male servant" and in older French as a variant of bon). Compare also WT:T:ADE#dafuͤr, where I note that there are hand- and typewritten works that contain things visually similar to dafuͤr and dafűr, and ask if it is good to use those Unicode codepoints to represent those things. I'm on the fence... - -sche (discuss) 21:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems silly to delete it while we have things like pvblic for public — which I'm in favor of deleting by the way. I'd add cōtempt to this as well as it's the same thing. Same in Middle French that I've seen, and thus, very early modern French as -sche points out. You could have bõne and bonne in the same text, even in the same sentence you could encounter both. I would treat these are typographical variants not spelling variants and delete these, however I think precedent is against me in terms of vp. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hassidic Jew[edit]

This was RFD'd many years back and kept as a "set term", but I don't think that's sufficient to justify it. It's a set term because there's no other way to say it, but that doesn't mean it isn't still SOP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Is it SOP or a pleonasm? Is it possible to be a Hasidic non-Jew? Does being a pleonasm rescue a term from being SOP? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Re "Does being a pleonasm rescue a term from being SOP?": I don't know if there are cases where it could rescue something, but it certainly doesn't automatically rescue things, given that I doubt we want an entry on google books:"dead corpses". (Note that most uses are pleonastic, but it's possible some are contrasting dead corpses with reanimated corpses and thus avoiding pleonasm.) - -sche (discuss) 18:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not a pleonasm: while all Hasidim are, indeed, Jews, not all Jews are Hasidim. I grew up on the edge of a Jewish neighborhood and I've met and spent time with very many Jews, but none were Hasidic (I remember one breakfast at a Jewish friend's house where I was the only one not eating bacon- I was on a diet). Chuck Entz (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what definition of "pleonasm" you're working from, but plenty of sources describe tuna fish as one, even though not all fish are tuna. That all Hassidim are Jews may suffice for Hassidic Jew to be considered pleonasm. (That said, it seems the main reason people talk about tuna fish is that the fish part seems redundant to them — you can just say tuna — whereas Hassidic Jew doesn't have the same part of speech as bare Hassidic. I doubt anyone would advocate saying Hassidic person to avoid the redundancy of Hassidic Jew.) —RuakhTALK 06:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Anyway, OneLook says no one but us considers this an entryworthy term, and I don't believe being pleonastic rescues it from SOPpiness, so delete. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

sudden death[edit]

sudden + death. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The "not caused by violence" part of the definition makes it not SOP (see Sudden cardiac death inter alia). Getting hit by a bus or shot in the head may well cause a [[sudden]] [[death]], but not a [[sudden death]]. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep per Angr. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above. bd2412 T 17:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • In what context is this definition used? It doesn't correspond to any medical definition. Is it legal? Absent some specific context, the reasoning advanced above seems specious. fast car is not used in reference to railroad cars, but that doesn't make it entry-worthy. DCDuring TALK 18:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
General usage. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Never heard it outside of the sports sense in the US. DCDuring TALK 22:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
We were talking about the other definition. FWIW it (the definition you refer to) is used in sports outside the US. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant: I know. I am saying that I never heard that sense in the US; sudden infant death and, especially, sudden infant death syndrome yes, sudden death in that sense no. DCDuring TALK 14:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, countable in this sense. Donnanz (talk) 09:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    How does countability support inclusion? DCDuring TALK 14:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
That was added as a note. I have altered the entry. Donnanz (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

peace talks[edit]

SoP? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Well, I would keep it; it's one of those terms which never seems to be used in the singular form. But I think the term can be used outside inter-country discussions, between trade union and company for example. Donnanz (talk) 10:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete, it's because talks is plural only in this sense. What else could peace talks possibly mean but talks that have the objective of peace? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Listed by Oxford: [16]. Donnanz (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I never said it wasn't. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep using the lemming heuristic: present in oxforddictionaries.com[17] and Collins[18]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)