Wiktionary:Requests for deletion

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/English add new English request | history | archives Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for verification/CJK add new CJK request | history Requests for verification of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.	Requests for verification/Italic add new Italic request | history Requests for verification of Italic-language entries.	Requests for verification/Non-English add new non-English request | history | archives Requests for verification of any other non-English entries.	Requests for deletion/Others add new | history Requests for deletion and undeletion 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.	Requests for deletion/English add new English request | history | archives Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/CJK add new CJK request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.	Requests for deletion/Italic add new Italic request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of Italic-language entries.	Requests for deletion/Non-English add new non-English request | history | archives Requests for deletion and undeletion of any other non-English entries.	Requests for deletion/​Reconstruction add new reconstruction request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of reconstructed entries.
{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

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 “green leaf”
• Out-of-scope: terms whose existence is in doubt

Templates:

• {{rfd}}
• {{rfd-sense}}
• {{rfd-redundant}}
• {{archive-top|rfd}} + {{archive-bottom}}

See also:

• Criteria for inclusion
• Page deletion guidelines

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. The most common reason for posting an entry or a sense here is that it is a sum of parts, such as "green 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 words whose existence or attestation is disputed, for which see Wiktionary:Requests for verification. Disputes regarding whether an entry falls afoul of any of the subsections in our criteria for inclusion that demand a particular kind of attestation (such as figurative use requirements for certain place names and the WT:BRAND criteria) should also go to RFV. 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 [[green 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 once a month has passed after the nomination was posted, except for snowball cases. If a decision to delete or keep has not been reached due to insufficient discussion, {{look}} can be added and knowledgeable editors pinged. If there is sufficient discussion, but a decision cannot be reached because there is no consensus, the request can be closed as “no consensus”, in which case the status quo is maintained. The threshold for consensus is hinted at the ratio of 2/3 of supports to supports and opposes, but is not set in stone and other considerations than pure tallying can play a role; see the vote.

• 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: In some cases, like moves or redirections, 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 is usually done using the aWa gadget, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS.

Oldest tagged {{rfd}}s
mendapat durian runtuh

November 2009

ever so

This is like many of the frequent and valid combinations of adverbs with certain Category:English degree adverbs. The other most common collocations on COCA of "ever" followed by a degree adverb and an adjective are ever more, ever too, and ever as. DCDuring TALK 15:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Consider this example.

• He was so camp.

  He was ever so camp.

If this is what it means, then yes delete as nothing more than ever + so. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The entry claims that there is both an idiomatic and a non-idiomatic meaning. Longmans DCE, RHU, and Wordnet agree that there is idiomaticity. MW3 gives special treatment to "so" at "ever".

This has made ever such a confusion. I am ever so sorry (=Am I ever sorry (US)) for wasting folks time on this. It is close enough to being an idiom for me. When "ever" collocates with "too", "as", or "more" it has a more specific temporal sense, often following a form of "become". It is decidedly odd that "ever" must precede "so" or "such", but that degree adverbs must follow "so" to give about the same meaning. Also one could say "ever so X nice" where X is one of a large subset of adverbs, possibly themselves intensified": "She was ever so damned cloyingly nice." DCDuring TALK 19:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Aha! Noting that everso is listed as a blue linked alternative spelling, I'd like this to be kept under the coal mine precedent when the spelling with a space is more common that the single word term. So keep or rfd everso as well. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"Everso" is a slender reed to lean on. It is not found in COCA (vs. 1100 raw hits for ever so). At best "everso" is dated or even a misspelling currently. The overwhelming majority of the raw b.g.c. hits are not English, word-fragment scannos, mentions, and proper nouns. We could either keep "ever so" as an idiom/near-idiom. I am inclined to favor breaking out items that would be buried in long entries that merit some special discussion as the grammar of this does. In the case of "coal mine", coalmine appears 6 times in COCA and coalmine 290 times. I disliked that argument, but it is more plausible in that case. "Everso" stretches the precedent beyond the breaking point, IMO.

Re: precedent generally. As we have such dreadful indexing of our "precedents", we would be likely to replicate some injustices of the pre-Victorian English common law system. Only those who plausibly claim to remember (accurately, sincerely, or not) can successfully win arguments in such a system. Newbies have a double disadvantage and will feel even more discouraged from participating (whether of inclusionist or exclusionist tendency). We really need to index RfDs to the sections and versions of CFI to which they relate. Attempting to do so would probably unearth many cases that were closed improperly, archived without being closed, or were decided on grounds that we no longer accept. DCDuring TALK 19:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Del--Pierpao 13:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that this should be kept, as a simple alternative spelling of "everso". BedfordLibrary 14:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Everso has been nominated for verification. If that fails, I'd favor deleting this. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

December 2009

mais oui

que si

Quite sum of parts. Bah is just an onomatopoeia, you can put almost any words after it. bah oui, bah si, mais non, mais si, bien sûr que si, bien sûr que oui, bien sûr que non. All these are very very attestable but not "idiomatic". If kept, maybe recat as phrasebook only. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

To give what I think is an English equivalent, how about hmm yes, hmm no or hmm maybe. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

delete bah non (I agree with the reason, and I also agree for hmm yes or hmm no, of course).

keep que si: this phrase must be defined to be understood, it must be kept, this is obvious.

I would also keep mais si, which means si, but with more intensity, and more spontaneously. This use of mais is not obvious at all. It's possible with other sentences as well but I think that, in mais si or mais non, adding mais also has the additional effect of being more polite, omitting it might seem rude in some cases. It's clearly a set phrase, just like au revoir. Lmaltier 22:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Que si failed RFV, which is just impossible because it's really common. But I still don't think it's idiomatic (but yes!) Mglovesfun (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

To find uses of this sense, add oh to the search. 1 900 000 Google hits for "oh que si"! Lmaltier 09:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a better argument for having oh que si than for having que si. —Ruakh_TALK 16:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

But that just means oh but yes. I don't see why anyone would ever look it up as three words, as what else can it mean but oh + que + si? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the same is true of que si, which means que + si. —Ruakh_TALK 18:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I was the personal that nominated it for deletion! Mglovesfun (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh! Confusing. I didn't see this discussion until after I had deleted [[que si]] for failing RFV; so I thought you were listing it here to get it undeleted. But I now see that you had listed it here a few hours before I deleted it. —Ruakh_TALK 19:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, in a French mind, que si certainly does not mean que + si. A French sentence cannot be composed of que + a single word, except in these 3 set phrases: que si, que oui, que non. Lmaltier 12:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, what does it mean? I can't tell you other than "que + si". Mglovesfun (talk) 12:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If you interpret it this way, then que si does not mean anything, because it's not normally possible to use a sentence composed of que + a single word. All Que ... sentences have a meaning only if they include a verb. These are the only exceptions I can find (with que nenni and que dalle). Lmaltier 16:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, the first two should definitely go, but que si is more debatable as Lmaltier says, I see no reason to restore it but I can see why others might want to. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Although these pairs of words are very common, they seem to mean nothing more than the sum of their parts. I would vote for deletion. BedfordLibrary 14:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleted [[bah non]]. I don't see any discussion above clearly about [[mais oui]], so haven't deleted it.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

alone

1. Of or by itself; by themselves; without any thing more or any one else; without a sharer; only.
   • Man shall not live by bread alone. —Luke iv. 4. Here, “bread alone” means bread and nothing else.
2. Unique; without peer or equal:
   • Euclid alone has looked on Beauty bare. -- Edna St. Vincent Millay

Both senses seem worded as adjectives. Both usage examples seem to show postpositioned adjectival usage. Adjective section misses these senses, but wording seems so early-last-century. I hope the translators noticed the problem in their work. Needs to be moved. Brought here because translators complain about too may ttbcs and checktrans. DCDuring TALK 02:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete. In "dough rises alone", the meaning is not immediately obvious that the bread rises by itself, even though alone is an adverb. Instead, we have a conception of a an isolated lump of dough that rises without anybody tending to it.

For the second definition, the counterexample "Euclid looks at Beauty alone", in construction similar to "Euclid looks at her often", makes that definition as an adverb farcical. VNNS 08:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: VNNS (talk • contribs) has effected the deletion of these senses and kept their translation tables.​—msh210℠ 16:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

brivet

Failed RFV, but I think we should keep it. The problem is that this word gets enough cites, but some spell it "brivet" and some spell it "brivit", such that neither spelling would actually pass RFV so far as I can tell. There are plenty of mentions, in both spellings, but it's the sort of dialect word that doesn't always make it into writing (which is probably why the spelling varies). —Ruakh_TALK 18:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if the two spellings combined pass an RFV, I'd count that as a pass. For coup de maitre There are some cites with maître rather than maître, as I considered them the same word. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

But I don't think that counts in general. If we define foobarre as an alternative spelling of foobar, what does it mean to RFV that? Could it pass without any quotations, on the grounds that foobar has enough quotations for the both of them? —Ruakh_TALK 21:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you asking for a one-time exception to CFI, for someone to come up with an argument why this "really" meets CFI, despite not meeting attestation in the traditional way, or a change in CFI? Is there a way this could be marked as exceptional? I see a case for a word that is dialectal to have relaxed standards. This seems much more likely to have had significant (colloquial) use than the attestable "inkhorn" words that we are flooded with, which are spoken with extreme rarity, perhaps only by those reading from print to ask what it might mean. DCDuring TALK 23:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Good question. I guess I'm not sure what I'm asking for. By my reading of the CFI, the word does meet them — but no individual spelling does. (I mean, it's possible that one or both spellings do, but no one's shown it, so for our purposes it's as though they don't.) I guess what I'm asking is, how do we want to handle that case? The word merits an entry, but neither [[brivet]] nor [[brivit]] qualifies to house it. —Ruakh_TALK 01:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I had always operated under the simple assumption that each single spelling, each form for the spelling, each attribute of each sense, all needed three citations if challenged.

Here we could simply find that there is no possible other interpretation other than brivit and brivet being representations of the same dialect term. It is a tenuous claim by our usual standards and, by our rules, could challenged. We could decide to keep it without prejudice.

Maybe we should have a tag and category for terms like this in need of additional citations. The circumstances of multiple reports of the term with about the same meaning and some valid attestation would seem to distinguish it from other cases that have less merit.

We do have other choices that keep the information and stay within our rules. We could harden our heart against the entry itself and:

1. put all the attestation and references into two? citations pages and/or
2. put all the discussions in talk pages and/or
3. start an appendix of such terms, possibly grouped by type: UK dialect, North American forest products industry, etc. and/or
4. insert only-in pointers to the appendix.

I am reasonably sure that all "real" dictionaries have headwords (with draft entries, sets of citations, and notes) whose admissibility into the dictionary is in doubt. We have operated on the assumption that these questions can be resolved relatively quickly, not on the scale of years or decades. As I recall, there was some prior discussion of some kind of limbo for entries that didn't quite qualify. DCDuring TALK 03:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

bring it on

Verb: Under the rules I understood this is the wrong title. Now it's just opinion. IMO, it should be at bring on. One could bring a thing or a person or the near-meaningless "it". Move to bring on. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 18:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Move/merge into [[bring on]] per nom.​—msh210℠ 17:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

bring it on#Interjection

Interjection: As with all imperatives so classified, it is not an interjection in the basic sense of the word. It is certainly not obvious what basic emotion one would assume was associated (fear?, anger?, grief?, lust? seeking?, delight?). Does it always or usually convery an emotion? I think not. There is the additional problem that one would have some difficulty in gathering evidence for attestation.

It would seem best treated as a redirect to the lemma bring on, with the lemma containing either a sense line with a non-gloss definition or a usage note referencing the imperative usage. Redirect to bring on. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 18:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Move to bring on and don't keep the interjection. The entry as it's written right now is awful, moving it is a good first step. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep as is. Yes, it's conjugatable to brought it on, brings it on, etc. but in the interjection sense it's almost never conjugated...--达伟 15:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Well no, verbs conjugate, nouns and adjectives decline, interjections are invariant. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Virtually every word can be used as a grammatical isolate or anaphorically. Right? "Anaphorically?" you ask? Pro-sentence? Anyone? DCDuring TALK 17:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've had a stab at defining bring on, but the definition needs some work --Rising Sun talk? 19:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep as per 达伟|达伟. Additionally, consider this: while bring it on and brought it on are commonly used, they have two different meanings; bring it on is generally used to indicate acceptance of a challenge (e.g., "Bring it on, fool!": "I accept your challenge, though it seems a foolhardy one for you to make."), whereas brought it on is usually used to indicate that someone's troubles are of his own manufacture ("I heard Smith's house collapsed in the storm last week." "Yeah, but he squandered his inheritance. If you ask me, he brought it on himself."). --SpecOp Macavity 15:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

How would you reconcile your argument supporting "keep" with the following:

• Template:quote-news
• Template:quote-news
• Template:quote-news

It looks to me as if this is a normal verb phrase, often used in the imperative in overheated contexts such as sports and entertainment. DCDuring TALK 16:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Is any sentence, phrase, or word spoken with emotional force to be shown here as an interjection? DCDuring TALK 16:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely hope not. Delete the interjection sense.​—msh210℠ 17:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

One, those uses are the exception to the rule. Two, here are a few definitions of interjection for you:

• Princeton WordWeb: an abrupt emphatic exclamation expressing emotion
• LanguageLinks: Interjections - are words or expressions used as an exclamation
• University of Cicinnatti: a word (one of the eight parts of speech) expressing emotion and having no grammatical relation with other words in the sentence

So yes, I would say that any phrase or word spoken with emotional force (such as the RfD'ed sense of bring it on) constitutes an interjection. --SpecOp Macavity 14:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I could easily entertain the idea of bring it on#Verb as distinct from bring it on#Interjection. "It" is quite empty in the uses of this expression that I have seen and heard and which now appear as citations for the verb. I suppose you could say it is a deixes, as any use of "it" is, but that strains the meaning of deixis. Obviously the phrase derives from typical use of "it", but the nature of the referent now seems quite vague: perhaps "intensity", "competitiveness", "maximum effort". None of those meanings is explicitly mentioned in the surrounding text. It seems to derive from the use of the term in competitive situations (eg, war, sports, electoral politics) or performances requiring or benefiting from intensity of effort (acting, other entertainment, speech-making, teaching?).

It is much harder for me to accept that there is any distinct meaning to the interjection apart. There can be emotion. But emotional content alone is no justification for a separate sense. Almost any word (and more obviously any phrase) can be delivered with various valences, types, blends, and levels of emotion.

If the rationale is that it is a speech act, then we should have as entries all oaths of office, pledges of allegiance, commands, legal formulas, etc.

If someone would care to demonstrate that there is a distinct interjectional sense not immediately following from grammar of imperatives, then the entry would belong here. I haven't run across such senses and no one has included any in the entry. DCDuring TALK 16:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment bring it has been created as an entry, so should a part of it be merged there instead? TeleComNasSprVen 23:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

blow

Rfd-redundant: Two senses, transitive and intransitive are specialized to electrical components. I have inserted more general senses intended to include those senses. If they are satisfactorily worded, the RfDed senses are redundant, though the usage example could be kept. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 00:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Another sense: to play a musical instrument. Also superseded by a more general sense, IMHO. Also note other additional senses. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 00:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I regrouped the definitions to put related definitions in the proximity of each other. It seems that the senses marked redundant are exactly that. When you delete the senses, please remember to check translation tables. --Hekaheka 11:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

a different ballpark

If you know what a figurative ballpark is, you know what this means. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 18:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it does seem to be idiomatic. Anyone think that this is not idiomatic? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The first bad sign is that wiktionary comes up first on a websearch. The second bad sign is that no OneLook reference has even a redirect for it.

I know that rules and consistency don't come easily for many, but what might the rule be for including this one? Some thought-starters:

1. The inclusion of a figurative sense of one term in a multi-word entry.
2. Not understanding the multi-word entry on sight.
3. The entry having an erroneous definition worded to avoid the formerly operative CFI?

Or is it just a case of "We don't need no stinkin' rules?" DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 15:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete The figurative meaning of ballpark is enough. We don't need the same ballpark, a slightly different ballpark, out of the ballpark, a (modifier) ballpark, or otherwise, in my opinion. TeleComNasSprVen 05:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

deleted -- Prince Kassad 21:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

a drop in the ocean

Redirect to drop in the bucket or move to drop in the ocean. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 18:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I would not redirect it to "drop in the bucket", as "drop in the ocean" and "drop in the bucket" are terms that differ in one word, and we do not have redirects for alternative spellings that differ much less.

Moving to "drop in the ocean" seems okay, but I am unsure about this.

Other terms that seem concerned (see also Category:English idioms):

1. a bit much
2. a cold day in Hell
3. a cut above
4. a cut below
5. a day late and a dollar short
6. a different ballpark
7. a dime's worth
8. a drop in the bucket
9. a drop in the ocean
10. a few sandwiches short of a picnic
11. a gentleman and a scholar
12. a good deal
13. a good voice to beg bacon
14. a great deal
15. a into g
16. a life of its own
17. a little bird told me, little bird told me, little birds told me
18. a notch above
19. a pull of the hair for being unfair
20. a riddle wrapped up in an enigma
21. a scholar and a gentleman.

I admit that I am not sure whether the terms that I have listed are in analogy with "a drop in the ocean" in these regards that recommend the moving, as I am not sure what these regards are. --Dan Polansky 10:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes to your first point: I should have offered alt form of drop in the bucket as my suggestion.

Some of them, not all (certainly not a into g), should be moved. I have looked at some of them and not been sure. Little harm comes from having them because the form with "a" is usually the most common, some times overwhelmingly so. For example, "little birds told me" is attestable, but raw bgc hits favor the singular almost 50:1. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 12:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I think they need to be handled one at a time. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 12:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Move and replace definition with {{alternative form of|drop in the bucket}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I would not say that "drop in the ocean" is a form of "drop in the bucket". A plain definition-by-synonym placed to drop in the ocean should do:

1. A [[drop in the bucket]].

I do not understand in what sense of "form of" should the one term be a form of the other term. --Dan Polansky 10:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

January 2010

turn to stone

Three senses. turn + to + stone. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 01:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing here worth keeping. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, delete, SoP.​—msh210℠ 18:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete as per discussion. Tooironic 22:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete. No controversy here. I spoke too soon. No opinion. —Internoob (Disc.•Cont.) 23:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC) 04:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume that the sense of turn used in the proposed-for-deletion sense "turn to stone--To metamorphosise into stone" is "turn--to become" with the example sentence "The leaves turn brown in autumn". However, the sentence that documents "to turn" in that sense, just quoted, does not use the preposition "to". Should not the entry "turn" first get expanded with the missing senses before this gets deleted?

The sense "turn to stone--To become completely still, not moving" is clearly figurative and thus idiomatic, documented by "The lions would creep up on their prey, but turn to stone when the prey looked in their direction".

“turn to stone”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. shows almost no dictionaries, though.

A similarly structured phrase, one whose usage I need documented somewhere for confident understanding and use, even if in an appendix, is "turn to ashes". --Dan Polansky 10:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What is idiomatic is the figurative sense of "stone". MZajac's notion of collocation documentation may perhaps begin with some predicates of this form. I think the best start is an Appendix, wherever the content may ultimately reside. BTW, "turn to" in this sense doesn't seem to be considered a phrasal verb. DCDuring TALK 11:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that we are missing a sense in the "stone" entry? What would the definition read, and how would it combine with "turn to <stone-definition>"?

I am not saying that "turn to" is a phrasal verb, but "turn brown" and "turn to ashes" are two distinct grammatical contructions, and both should be documented in "turn" entry, not only the first construction.--Dan Polansky 11:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can't say turn to rock, turn to concrete for the third sense can you? Or change to stone, become stone. Yes Keep third sense (moving to rfd-sense times three). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Websters 1913 had a figurative sense for stone. No OneLook dictionary follows them. What is more important is the proper handling of complements at turn. DCDuring TALK 12:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The complements are not really all that complicated. "Turn" + adj or "Turn" + "to" + noun. In both cases the meaning is "become". DCDuring TALK 12:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

At the very least, one can turn to jelly. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

To our current "(transitive) To become : The leaves turn brown in autumn ; When I asked him for the money, he turned nasty" I've now added "(intransitive) To become : Midas made everything turn to gold ; He turned into a monster every full moon".​—msh210℠ 18:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I am experimenting with the CGEL-recommended modifier and coordination tests for phrases. (See #AND function and #ABO system below.) In this case, I can find citations for "turn to solid/cold/icy/hard stone". Thus, it does not seem to form a set phrase. This kind of test would be a sufficient test of idiomaticity. That is, if a phrase did not admit modification (or coordination), then it should be included as a set phrase. Failure to meet the test puts a term on weak ground, but does not per se exclude it. DCDuring TALK 20:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

To Msh: I have made the sense you have added to "turn" more specific, by defining it as "To fundamentally change; to metamorphose." Revert me or adjust the def if it is actually too specific or needs any other adjustment or as you see fit.

On a marginal note, the first sense of "turn--to be come" is translated into Czech typically using the prefix "z-" indicating a change of state, while the other sense seems to be a change in substance rather than in state and is translated into Czech as "proměnit": "Midas proměnil všechno ve zlato." -- "Midas made everything turn to gold." --Dan Polansky 09:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If we choose to delete this, then we first need to consider the following citation:

• 2008, V. C. Andrews, Delia's Heart‎

  I felt his absence too deeply and saw the sorrow on all of their faces. My heart turned to stone in my chest.

This is clearly an idiomatic expression, but if we choose to delete (deprecated template usage) turn to stone, then we are missing either a sense of (deprecated template usage) stone or a sense of (deprecated template usage) turn (to). --EncycloPetey 23:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted definitions one and two, per EP yes we're trying to find another definition of stone to make this into a sum of parts case. That's probably a good indication that this should be kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A quick look at COCA reveals that the following terms showing figurative use with forms of (deprecated template usage) turn to: stone, ice, gold, ash, ashes, water, jelly, shit. They are used with "become" and "is" as well. This is clearly just making meaning out of words. We can as well put in every attestable collocation of verb and noun as keep this if only one or the other is slightly uncommon or figurative. DCDuring TALK 09:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Then it sounds like we ought to be concentrating on rewriting (deprecated template usage) turn (to), and not worry about (deprecated template usage) stone. This is a sense of the verb that means "to acquire certain properites of X" in either a real and physical way or in a figurative way. --EncycloPetey 05:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

hard-pressed

Rfd-redundant: Having or likely to have difficulty or to find a task almost impossible. I think this is a bad wording of "barely able", the newly added first sense. There is also another new sense. DCDuring TALK 01:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete the sense. Sounds the same to me no matter which way I look at it. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 03:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Can "barely able" always be replaced with "hard-pressed" or is the latter describing a specific aspect of being barely able? Obviously the person who added the second definition thinks so. If he's wrong, then delete. If he's right, one might consider combining the two [d]efinitions:

1. (deprecated template usage) Barely able, having or likely to have considerable or potentially insurmountable difficulty in completing a task.

   Although they are still available, I think we would be hard-pressed to find one on short notice. --Hekaheka 10:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The obligatory substitution would have to be that "barely able" would replace "hard-pressed". I certainly don't think that "hard-pressed" could substitute for all uses of "barely able", though I think it would substitute for instances followed by a to-infinitive. DCDuring TALK 11:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Clean up, the two sense are the same, but the context label seems a bit bizarre. I've only just realised it means followed by a to-infinitive form, not preceded. So this to me is a cleanup issue more than an RFD one. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

A problem with the long part of the definition is that it is not "substitutable" for the headword, AFACIT. That is, one could not substitute the long definition for "head-pressed" in a sentence with the result being correct grammatically. It seems to me to be a highly desirable feature of definitions and synonyms.

In Longmans's DCE and some other learner's dictionaries, "with" notes often appear. They always refer to what optionally or mandatorily follows the headword for a particular meaning.

A problem with our process is that the abundant instances of this kind of definition problem are not readily repaired if we are scrupulous about RfD. We haven't even established that "substitutability" is a requirement for all definitions that are not non-gloss definitions. I don't even recall the notion of "substitutability" ever being mentioned, except once or twice by me. DCDuring TALK 11:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

crib

crib#Noun Rfd-redundant 2 senses.

1. A covered structure, for confining animals.
2. A stall for large domestic animals.

I believe that these are adequately covered by: A small room or covered structure, especially one of rough construction, used for storage or penning animals. This last would benefit from further attention. DCDuring TALK 12:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

crib#Verb Rfd-redundant:

To engage in academic dishonesty by the illicit use of a pony or cheat sheet; plagiarism.

I believe this (if it indeed exists) is covered by:

To collect one or more passages and/or references for use in a speech, written document or as an aid for some task; to create a crib sheet.

--DCDuring TALK 12:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The "to collect one or more..." sense is marked "intransitive" but its usex shows transitive use. I also know it as transitive. but google books:"cribbed|cribbing for * test|exam|final|midterm" shows intransitive use also. So perhaps two senses are necessary, though the "engage in academic dishonesty" one may be too specific. (Or maybe they should be one sense anyway, tagged {{ambitransitive}}.)​—msh210℠ 17:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Both ambitransitive and bitransitive are ways of marking en.wikt as being for language insiders only, which does seem to be the reality, so perhaps it would be truth in advertising. Combining transitive and intransitive into one sense means that the definition cannot be subsitutable, which is, I think, a desideratum of a good definition. Non-gloss (good for grammaticals and interjections) or full-sentence (used in some language-learner dictionaries (COBUILD, Encarta) are alternative approaches.

I do see that both transitive and intransitive may be required. How does the transitive sense work? Is it "He cribbed the answers from an e-mail from his friend in the earlier class."? I guess it would usually be passive. DCDuring TALK 18:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

-collar

This looks like a combining form. I thought we excluded them as duplicative of the hyphenless entry. DCDuring TALK 23:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete for the same reasons I nominated #-ass. Mglovesfun (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's been more than three years, so I can't say for sure; but I'm guessing I did it this way because it seemed to merit its own etymology section. I'm not sure if I wasn't aware of the ===Etymology 2=== approach, or if I decided somehow that it wasn't appropriate here, but either way, I'm now fine with merging this into [[collar]] under a separate etymology. —Ruakh_TALK 14:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Redirected for now, though I think the redirect should subsequently be orphaned and deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Oozlefinch

A mascot of a branch of the US army. I doubt this meets CFI --Volants 15:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Strong delete, no usable content here. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks usable and citable to me.

Or does inclusion or exclusion just become a matter of voting against unfamiliar terms or terms used by unpopular people or institutions and for corresponding terms favored by those few who participate in this process? Rule of "law" or mere subjective opinion? See google books for prima facie, readily available (ie, nom or seconder could have found it in seconds) evidence of availability of citations. DCDuring TALK 16:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Right! Thank you! But as the name of a specific character, it needs attributive-use cites (which I suspect is what Volants meant). Move to RFV.​—msh210℠ 16:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have noted that favored proper nouns are regularly exempted from the application of the dead-letter WT:CFI. If WT:CFI is to be selectively ignored and not amended, why not totally ignore it? Because it is from an unpopular current subculture rather than one of those favored by some?

Whether or not CFI applies, but if practice/precedent does, why should this one be any different from Zeus, Odin, Thor, Confucius, Yahweh, et al (just pulling a few out of -- the air)?

And, having recourse to the last refuge of scoundrels, I invoke our slogan: "All words in all languages". DCDuring TALK 20:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I advocate ignoring CFI. Because of our overly bureaucratic rules, CFI cannot be updated. Not that bucket, spade and child do not meet CFI because they are not idiomatic. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Again, "bucket" is idiomatic per CFI: "An expression is “idiomatic” if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components." The full meaning of "bucket" cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components, as it has not separate components.

We do not have too bureaucratic rules for modification of CFI; our voting rules prevent wanna-be regulators from complicating CFI even further, and from putting things in there that do not have and never had anything like a community consesus support. --Dan Polansky 06:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Volants is Wonderfool. I know of no regulation of CFI that this term violates. It is attestable. Considering it outside of CFI, it would even have pronunciation and some etymology at a later point. The attributive-use rule has been voted down: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Names of specific entities. --Dan Polansky 06:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

authorization

The word authorization has 3 (or most recently, 4) definitions. Definition 3, "the power or right to give orders", should be deleted because it is a special case of the more general definition 2, "formal sanction, permission or warrant".

The "power or right to give orders" is just one example out of millions of formal permissions, such as "power or right to sign company purchase requests", "power or right to drive an automobile on public highways", "power or right to purchase alcohol", etc. This one special case example is not sufficiently different from all other possible examples of formal permissions to merit it's own definition. Parcheesy2 16:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

delete sense. I think the last three senses need reorganising. It seems to mean "permission" and "a document/item giving proof of having this" (currently both senses are in #2 which is confusing). There is also some (possibly proscribed) use to mean "authentication" (that may be computing specific). I don't see the current #4 as being computer specific. Conrad.Irwin 16:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with the last person. BedfordLibrary 15:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleted definition. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

可毒夫

Just a name of someone - should not be included in Wiktionary. Delete. Tooironic 19:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well this is interesting, it started off as Old Korean and has since become Madarin! I shudder to think, but is this used attributively? I mean we have Charlemagne, Hitler et al. Could this be considered a similar Mandarin term. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

solid

Rfd-redundant:

1. Template:typography Without spaces or hyphens.

   Many long-established compounds are set solid.

We already have this as an adjective. Does it exist without a copula?​—msh210℠ 20:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Is solid never an adverb? We talked for two hours solid. Can't we add a more general adverbial sense to this, then delete it as redundant to the first sense. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Are "spell", "print", "write", and "set" copulas? If not, then it would seem to be classed as an adverb. "Solid" does not seem to be interchangeable with "solidly". This would seem to be a case where our ability and willingness to be expansive in our defining allows us to reflect subtleties ignored even by MW3 and MWOnline, which join most dictionaries in showing solidly as if it were an inflected form of solid#Adjective. Collins finds the following distinctions for solidly in its French-English dictionary.

1. firmly [built, constructed, based] (solidement),
2. continuously [work, rain] (sans discontinuer)
3. unanimously (massivement) "to be solidly behind"
4. dependably
5. consistently

I'm not sure I understand what they mean in each case and whether every distinction is really worth making, but solid could substitute as an adverb, I think, for "firmly", "continuously" (time), and "continuously" (space). Neither "solidly" nor solid#Adverb seem readily interpreted with each of the many sense of solid#Adjective or at least the many (14 at MWOnline, 26 at RHU) senses it should have in a comprehensive dictionary as we claim to be. DCDuring TALK 15:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think they are copulas, yes (or maybe copula is the wrong word? See further for other examples, though, so you can see what I mean in case "copula" isn't what I mean). "It was written solid" is like "It was written big" or "Coffee is often drunk black in this house" or "The meat was eaten raw". Are such words normally considered adverbs?​—msh210℠ 17:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I only have CGEL to consult. I wish I had Quirk et al, Biber, and Curme, too. They refer to the kind of use in your three examples as "predicative adjunct". (It applies to a much wider range of verbs than the most inclusive list of copulas I've seen.)

I suppose we have to resort to the tests of adjectivity.

1. Are two words that part of the same NP more typographically solid when separated by an en-space than an em-space? (I can't answer that.)
2. Is it gradable? (I can't answer that, either.)
3. Can "solid" in this sense occur correctly predicatively after "become" (no), "feel" (no), "seem" (no?), "make" (yes?)?
4. Can "solid" appear attributively modifying a noun? "in its solid form, 'whitespace'" (yes).

Can it also be unquestionably an adverb? Possibly. "Some dictionaries tend to spell solid. Some usually hyphenate. Others usually space." There is no obvious noun. (One can almost always infer the existence of an "understood" noun.) It may not be attestable as an adverb though. DCDuring TALK 19:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

tobacco mosaic virus

SoP tobacco mosaic + virus. (Note the first-page estimate of 1277 hits for google books:"tobacco mosaic" -"tobacco mosaic virus" versus 5460 for "tobacco mosaic virus", so that the shorter term definitely is widely used.)​—msh210℠ 17:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess the virus is a qualifier. If kept we'd need to create cold virus, flu virus and some that I haven't thought of yet. That said, I'm still undecided. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No, this is the standard form of the name. It's a situation where scientists make a distinction between the disease/symptoms and the "organism" that causes those symptoms. Tobacco mosaic is a disease in plants, while TMV (the tobacco mosaic virus) is the viral particle that causes that disease. This distinction isn't usually made for human diseases, which is perhaps one reason so many people mistakenly say "HIV virus", when what they mean is either "HIV" or "AIDS virus". --EncycloPetey 16:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

But see [[tobacco mosaic]].​—msh210℠ 16:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like tobacco mosaic + virus to me. Delete and consider defining the first as the disease and then the virus that causes it. DAVilla 16:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

جدّی

Tagged by User:Placebo. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Redirect. While I don't know much Persian, I've seen debates on this before with Arabic. It's somewhat similar to macrons on Latin entries. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, the vowel marks and diacritics are used even less than in Arabic. They are used to teach children how to read in elementary schools, but beyond that, they are almost never used. --Dijan 22:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Redirected. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Dijan, you're right that the short vowel marks ( َ ِ ُ ) are almost never used, but the entry doesn't have one of those marks. It has a tashdid, which is often written. We should include entries with the shadda/tashdid. —Rod (A. Smith) 22:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok it's back again, at least for now. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

iTouch

"Shorthand for iPod Touch". Are these kinds of things supposed to have entries? --Yair rand 01:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

IMHO no. Delete --Diuturno 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Defense. There are over 510 hits for iTouch. --Widjedi 02:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is clearly verifiable and would no doubt pass RFV, but the issue is whether this is dictionary material. --Yair rand 03:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If anyone cares anymore, we actually have a policy, part of WT:CFI, that bears on this very point. If it is a brand name, that policy is at WT:CFI#Brand names. If it is not a brand name, then it is part of the language and normal attestation should apply. It would seem quite compatible with our populist, anti-commercial ethos to have such subversive corruptions of brand names, if that's what this is rather than a true brand name. DCDuring TALK 15:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say Keep. It is not a brand name. It is a nickname for the brand, rather like (deprecated template usage) Codies for Codemasters or (deprecated template usage) Mickey D for McDonald's. Equinox ◑ 21:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll accept that it's clearly verifiable if someone were to verify it with three citations which meet WT:BRAND. —Michael Z. 2010-03-23 02:53 z

But it's not a brand name: see above. It's a slang nickname for a product properly called iPod Touch. Equinox ◑ 16:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep if I understand correctly that it is not a brand name. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 19:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

How do we "prove" that it is not a brand name? Does that need some kind of attestation? Does a move to RfV help? DCDuring TALK 18:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Apple hasn't registered a trademark for iTouch. But a trademark, at least Stateside, need not be registered. Perhaps checking whether Apple ever refers to an iTouch as such, and/or whether it puts a "TM" after the name, would indicate brand-name status. (If they are using the term, I assume they're paying Tyco big bucks for the privilege.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Given the lack of registration, the lack of hits at apple.com for iTouch (well, lots of hits, but they're from visitors' questions and the like. I'm not seeing anything official, though I have to admit my search was not great), and Tyco's trademark, I think we can treat this as not a brand name and keep it.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

So, if Tyco accepted a settlement payment not to contest Apple's "Apple iTouch" trademark, than we don't subject it to WT:BRAND. But if Apple were to pay Tyco to use the iTouch trademark under license, we would. DCDuring TALK 20:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I said — or, at least, not what I meant. I meant that it doesn't look like it's Apple's brand, because (among other reasons, such as the failure of a search on apple.com) it's Tyco's brand.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I was just commenting on hypothetical and hard-to-know situations that show the ragged edge of WT:BRAND. Ragged edges, too, are a part of life. DCDuring TALK 19:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

stroke

Rfd-redundant:

• "A single act of striking with a weapon" redundant to "A blow or hit".
• "A streak of paint made with a brush" redundant to "A line drawn with a pen or other writing implement".

Also, some {{rfc-def}}s, where the definition lines use "stroke" without explaining what it means:

• "(linguistics) A stroke of a Chinese character".
• "(art) A stroke of pen or brush".

The latter, if I understand it correctly, is redundant to "A line drawn with a pen or other writing implement", but maybe I don't.​—msh210℠ 17:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, we're missing a sense, but I don't know what it means: google:"knead * strokes".​—msh210℠ 18:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete first two listed senses. As an aside, we seem to have {{rfc-sense}} as well, so two templates for just about the same thing. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Since when is a paint brush "a pen or other writing implement"?--Prosfilaes 23:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Generally the article is a bit messy. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

喀斯特地形

Tagged by Tooironic for sum-of-partsness. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karst_topography . 71.66.97.228 06:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

安南山脈

As above. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep. 71.66.97.228 06:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Why? Mglovesfun (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

智慧道

You get the idea by now. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Evidence regarding the appearance and use of this term in print and online sources should be presented before any further discussion takes place. 71.66.97.228 06:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Well go on then. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

班达亚齐

Name of a specific city, which is not a large city. Tagged by Tooironic. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep. 71.66.97.228 06:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Why? Mglovesfun (talk) 08:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably because w:Banda Aceh is the capital of Aceh. --Erik Warmelink 23:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

deleted because it fails our current placename CFI. -- Prince Kassad 21:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

喀斯特地形

SoP. karst + topography. Delete. Tooironic 21:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I will have to disagree with you today Tooironic. 喀斯特地形 is actually a more formal name for 喀斯特. The two are nothing but the same (ie. NOT sum of parts), analogous to this is their English equivalents karst and karst topography - which mean the same thing. The word karst implies a topography and saying karst topography (which I think should be included in the dict btw) simply states it more explicitly. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 12:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying karst = karst topography? Then why add karst topography at all? Again, it's sum of parts. Melbourne = Melbourne city, birch = birch tree, etc. PS Please sign your comments in the future so I know who I'm talking to. Tooironic 09:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I am torn between the two to be honest. There is an entry for karst topography on the zh wiki, which also influenced my earlier mindset. I was thinking more along the line of an analogy to sparrows; what we commonly call a sparrow is in fact an English sparrow or a house sparrow. We don't call them house sparrows because it's implied. PS: Sorry about having forgotten to include me signature earlier, it was not a gesture of attempting to conceal my identity, it was more like - oh mine, it suddenly got busy at work and everyone was trying to distract me type of thing Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 12:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep per above, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karst_topography . 71.66.97.228 06:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

  That the term is used as a Wikipedia title is no reason for inclusion on Wiktionary. So far no one has provided any arguments as to why it should be kept. Tooironic 08:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

faire demi-tour

Sum of parts. (deprecated template usage) faire (deprecated template usage) demi-tour. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be faire un demi-tour? Polarpanda 21:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep. faire demi-tour and faire un demi-tour are used in different cases. Lmaltier 21:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - faire un demi-tour is SoP - to turn around (literally, e.g. by pivoting the feet), while faire demi-tour means sth like to go back on what one said (do the opposite of what you started doing or promised to do). There's no way to be able to figure that out, so definitely keep --Rising Sun talk? 21:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

More precisely, the meaning of faire demi-tour is to go back (before arriving to one's destination, or when there was no fixed destination). Lmaltier 21:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's better. Even better perhaps is turn around? Hmm, I think I've started to confuse myself. --Rising Sun talk? 21:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

While we're here, what's the difference between (faire) demi-tour and (faire) volte-face? --Rising Sun talk? 21:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The meaning of faire volte-face can be guessed from volte-face (but I feel that the page faire volte-face is needed too, and many other faire + noun phrases, such as faire la vaisselle or faire la cour, they are not obvious at all). faire demi-tour might also be used figuratively with the sense of faire volte-face (?), but it's not common, and I have not been able to find any examples. Lmaltier 06:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

back in

Non-idiomatic usage of "back" plus "in". But see also back into, which has some idiomatic senses. Facts707 08:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep - this can be transitive or intransitive: we can back in back a vehicle in. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 22:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Why does that matter? (Unfortunately since you're blocked you can't reply, if you want to reply to me by email, I'll post it here bona fida). Mglovesfun (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Phrasal verb, keep. DAVilla 16:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The unsupported assertion begs the question. By what criteria would we be able to distinguish between a "phrasal verb" and a verb + adverb? I have been looking forward to such criteria for about three years now. CGEL dismisses "phrasal verb" as a syntactic concept, so we need semantic criteria. It seems to me that it just a matter of presentational convenience, of reducing the size of back#Verb by off-loading a portion of what could be presented there to various "phrasal verb" entries. The difficulty that arises from this presentation is that it becomes more awkward to compare "phrasal verb" senses with verb + adverb senses. DCDuring TALK 17:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete. No OneLook dictionary has a definition, except for an oil-business glossary (for back-in#Noun). McGraw Hill's Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs (2004) does not have back in, though it does have back away, back off, back down, back into, back onto, back out, back over, and back up. Whether all of these are really idiomatic, I don't know. DCDuring TALK 17:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep as phrasal verb, as disclosed in these sentences: "He backed in steadily and stopped" and "Back the car in slowly". It is an antonym of "back out"--To reverse a vehicle from a confined space. The absence in OneLook is suspect, though. To me, phrasal verb is mainly a syntactic concept; particle phrasal verbs are English analogues of German separable verbs. --Dan Polansky 10:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The example sentences fail to disclose any idiomaticity to me. Could you help me see how there is meaning that is not a trivial derivation of back#Verb + in#Adverb. BTW, CGEL does not find "phrasal verb" a useful syntactic concept. DCDuring TALK 11:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure I see anything beyond semantic sum of parts, but what I see is a particle phrasal verb, sum-of-parts or not. English often replaces prepositional and adverbial prefixing of verbs with phrasal verbs (not true for Latin-based invaders that occupy a large section English). The space between "back" and "in" does not disturb my perception of one-wordness in phrasal verbs, so I do not necessarily look at whether the term is a semantic sum of parts. This perception is probably a consequence of analogies with Czech and German, in which the combination of a prefix and a stem in a verb is often rather sum-of-partish but for the missing space between the prefix and the stem; compare log in and einloggen. --Dan Polansky 13:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

So what? What does this have to do with English? If the Czech and German Wiktionaries would like to have such entries, that would be their prerogative. But I don't see any reason to let a possible cognitive convenience to those native speakers of any subset of languages who apparently unwilling to deal with English on it own terms determine inclusion in English. And one individual's perception of one-wordedness, though of Tea Room interest has little probative value. DCDuring TALK 14:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Luomahua Zhongwen et al.

Romahua Zhongwen, Pinyin Zhongwen, Romanized Chinese, Hanyu Pinyin Fang'an, Hanyu Pinyin Zhengcifa, Hanyu Pinyin Zimu ==

More bad User:123abc entries. All sum of parts and/or encyclopedic. All should be deleted. Tooironic 03:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well Romanized Chinese^[sic] seems to be Chinese which is romanized. I see no reason to keep it. If that goes then Luomahua Zhongwen, Romahua Zhongwen, Pinyin Zhongwen should go, but I can't comment further whilst knowing absolutely no Chinese/Mandarin. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

delete all. I see no reason to keep them. I will delete them as soon as I see a reply from Tooironic. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 12:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do you need my reply? Anyway, they are obvious deletes. Tooironic 14:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

something called respect as you are the one who put them on the table? They are now deleted. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 02:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Striking as deleted, based on consensus of 3 people and no opposition here. --Dan Polansky 22:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

ShamWow

If you can have Twinkie why can't you have Shamwow? The entry had 3 cites as required by WT:CFI. Polarpanda 11:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Because Twinkie has a separate meaning (apart from the cake). ShamWow doesn't seem to. SemperBlotto 11:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
  • If that's the criterion you don't need this page at all: Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion/Brand_names Polarpanda 12:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

    The entry seems to satisfy CFI through WT:BRAND. Anyone mind if I undelete it? --Yair rand 22:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

    Restored. Allowed by CFI. --Yair rand 00:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

passer à

I almost speedy deleted this, but I have enough of a doubt to at least list it. This is either sum of parts, (deprecated template usage) passer + (deprecated template usage) à, or just totally wrong - you normally say passer par (je suis passé par le parc - I went through the park). — This unsigned comment was added by Mglovesfun (talk • contribs) at 25 February 2010.

The definition is wrong. But you can say e.g. passer à autre chose. Lmaltier 21:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Which is nevertheless just , right? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This is worth a definition (another one), but here or in passer? This can be considered as a different sense of passer when followed by à. Lmaltier 20:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I'm for adding it to passer, the redirect wouldn't server a purpose as passer is the first result when searching for this. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

sexual abuse

"Abuse of a sexual nature". Also, I don't think it means rape as a synonym, it's just almost always gonna refer to rape. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

(I first posted this on the entry's discussion page, not being aware that it should be discussed here, so this appears there as well.)

I believe this term should not be deleted because it is more than the sum of its parts, being of historical and cultural interest (given that there was a point in history when people didn't use the term because it was a matter that wasn't spoken of). I intend to find more information on it from that perspective (i.e. date of first use, if possible). --Tyranny Sue 10:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd argue that "historical and cultural" information goes on the Wikipedia article, not here. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to have such an entry, it would have to be a lot more complete and well-cited than what we have. If it is a legal term, it is governed by 50 state laws in the US alone. ("All senses in all contexts of all words in all languages"?)

For starters, I have split the rape sense and RfVed it. Is sexual abuse a hyponym of rape, a euphemism for rape, or an innuendo of rape? DCDuring TALK 11:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

So what exactly is a "sexual abuse"? There should be at least one definition in the "sexual abuse" entry. The sum-of-partish sense defined as "abuse of a sexual nature" should be replaced and expanded rather than deleted. See also “sexual abuse”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. --Dan Polansky 11:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• To me it seems like a very "set" term, so I wouldn't want it deleted. Very common in journalism, and is the usual terms employed by support groups etc. Maybe it even has some specific legal signification. Ƿidsiþ 12:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If someone wants to improve the article, that would be a good reason to keep it, yes. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on it :) --TyrS 02:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Abandoned since March 2010. Still says "abuse of a sexual nature". Still delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

bùdié

Alternative form of -bùdié. That doesn't conform to our norms on suffixes, it should be moved to -bùdié. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• The alternative spelling is convenient for finding the word, such as e-mail/email.

Then you will have to have a hyphenated version for every chinese word/phrase. Hyphenation is by no means a standard in Pinyin. Spacing in Pinyin script IS the standard, a feature taken from western scripts. delete. It does not make look-ups easy at all. Why would anyone look up -bùdié instead of bùdié, I really can't imagine. My suggestion is to concentrate on adding toned pinyins and character combinations rather than things like that. It's really unproductive in my opinion. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C}

All this pinyin nonsense is indeed almost useless. Unfortunately people keep adding 'em. ---> Tooironic 11:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Pinyin is useful though you don't like.
  • It would be useful if the people like you that added them would use the correct formatting. ---> Tooironic 22:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    • What is the "correct formatting" of -bùdié? ---91.106.59.218
    • Could you let me know what is wrong of the formatting of -bùdié?
      • Gee, I've only told you about six times. Look at my changes at Guóyǔ. ---> Tooironic 00:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
        • But the formatting of -bùdié and Guóyǔ are different.

The point above is a good one. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

seised in fee

Should be 'to seise in fee' shouldn't it? Would this be considered SoP? Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 05:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• No - there are vanishingly few Google hits for that. It just needed properly formatting as an adjective, and given a better definition. Now keep. SemperBlotto 08:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. The mystery is entirely in the component words. (deprecated template usage) Seise is a normally inflecting verb. "In fee" is a normal prepositional phrase. I don't think "in fee" would merit inclusion. Black's Law Dictionary does not have either phrase, nor does any OneLook reference. In any event, "seised in fee" doesn't meet the tests of adjectivity: use after "become" or modified by "too" or "very". DCDuring TALK 15:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely verifiable. I was just not sure whether to include it as a verb entry or adjective. Will leave it as it is for now. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 03:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be seised + in fee, neither of which I knew as words but now I do, delete for sum-of-partsness. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I wrote the entry as "seised in fee" is used as a specific legal term, and as such this entry is useful for anyone like me who needed to know what it means. I don't mind if it is redirected providing that the redirect does not drop any of the meaning, but I do not think it should be deleted, any more than fee simple should be, because AFAICT from the sources I have see it does not necessarily mean free-simple (although it does not include estates held in free tail -- BTW why is there no entry for that?), because there may be (or have been if it is used to describe an estate in an historical period) some feudal obligations attached to the fee which AFAICT does not make all "seised in fee" "seised in fee-simple" but I'm not expert, and I have no way to judge if estates held in free simple can have feudal obligations attached to them. If they can then why the additional entry for fee and feudalism under fee#Noun? -- Philip Baird Shearer 11:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

So no consensus to delete. Time for this to be removed from this list. -- Philip Baird Shearer 12:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Neither the creator of the entry/sense nor the nom are the right ones to close out an RfD or RfV. DCDuring TALK 14:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that this is SOP, as seised merely reflects a type of ownership, and in fee (which we should have) describes the estate owned. We could just as easily say "owned in fee" or "possessed in fee" or "purchased in fee". We should definitely have entries for in fee and fee tail, but their absence is irrelevent to the inclusion of this phrase. On the other hand, legal dictionaries often contain entries for phrases that would be considered SOP for non-specialized dictionaries. bd2412 T 14:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for considering this. I have worked on in fee and "seise of" (also "possess of") to make this clearer. All of these seem archaic or dated, even in a legal context. Quotes would help, but does that seem right? DCDuring TALK 14:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

know

Rfd-redundant on two verb senses:

4. (transitive) To understand (a subject).

She knows chemistry better than anybody else.

is redundant to

3. (transitive, also intransitive followed by about or, dialectically, from) To have knowledge of; to have memorised information, data, or facts about.

He knows more about 19th century politics than one would expect.

She knows where I live.

Let me do it. I know how it works.

You people don't know from funny.

; and

7. (transitive) To be aware of (a person's) intentions.

I won’t lend you any money. You would never pay me back; I know you.

is defined wrong, and is actually just a use of

2. (transitive) To be acquainted or familiar with; to have encountered.

I know your mother, but I’ve never met your father.

Or at least 7 and 2 are redundant. I'm less sure about 4 and 3, but if they're not, then better usexes (and perhaps better definition lines) are necessary to distinguish them.​—msh210℠ 17:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think there possibly is some redundancy here, but I am a bit wary about know. It has a lot of shades which are partly obscured to English-speakers because the word covers a range of meanings dealt with by at least two verbs in other Germanic and Romance languages. This page definitely needs an update of some kind. I did quite a lot of work on knowledge not long ago and came up against similar issues. Ƿidsiþ 14:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Going by the usexes, 7 is not redundant to 2, but something substantially stronger. In the usex it means something like: To be aware of (a person's) intentions to the extent of being able to predict their behaviour. Or am I wrong in thinking this is a qualitative rather than quantitative difference? Pingku 17:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I think you are.​—msh210℠ 16:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

7 and 2 are both subsenses of 4. You can know (“understand the thoughts and habits of”) your enemy without ever having met them, or some unseen game animal you are setting snares for. You can know (“have the acquaintance of”) some guy down the hall at your work, without having any insight into their personality. —Michael Z. 2010-06-04 16:14 z

spruce

Rfd-redundant: (Adjective) Made of the wood of spruce. I think this not the only way that "spruce" is used attributively. For example, "spruce forest", "spruce needle", "spruce cone", "spruce bark", "spruce pest". If we are to include attributive use we need to include a more inclusive sense such as "being of or related to spruce". Of course, both senses probably should be deleted, monolingualexically speaking. DCDuring TALK 19:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Delete. I'm tagging and adding the adjective sense "Being from a spruce tree" to this rfd-sense, and saying "delete" for it, too.​—msh210℠ 18:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This should be at RFV to look for citations right? I generally thought stuff that's plausible as a true adjective goes there, and stuff that isn't gets deleted immediately. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Silicon this and that

I understand Silicon Valley, but do we really need all these:

• Cwm Silicon
• Silicon Alley
• Silicon Fen
• Silicon Forest
• Silicon Glen
• Silicon Hills
• Silicon Prairie
• Silicon Sentier
• Silicon Wadi

--Hekaheka 08:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. I would push for making Silicon a prefix/suffix/affix PoS entry. ---> Tooironic 22:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If these actually are commonly used to refer to these specific areas, then keep. Silicon might be a possible prefix in placenames, but we don't exclude New York just because new might also be used for other places. --Yair rand 22:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Yair. Keep. 50 Xylophone Players talk 16:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep, assuming the terms's definitions are correct and they are attestable. --Dan Polansky 12:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Striking as RFD kept. Pro deletion: Hekaheka, Tooironic (probably). Pro keeping: Yair rand, PalxiaX50, Dan Polansky. --Dan Polansky 12:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Princess Leia

Plenty of citations, and not a single one is “used attributively, with a widely understood meaning.” Every citations refers to the character and her appearance, and the definition is just as her proper name. —Michael Z. 2010-03-18 17:27 z

I think the hair references qualify. Polarpanda 23:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The hair references:

• “woman with Princess Leia braids”
• “her long black hair was coiled into two Princess Leia cinnabuns on either side of her Santa hat”
• “I’d often wear my hair up in two buns. Some of the guys jokingly called them my “devil horns” or my “Princess Leia” look”

In these hair references Princess Leia means “Princess Leia”. It's just a plain attributive use of the proper name, referring to the character and nothing else, demonstrating no “widely understood meaning.” —Michael Z. 2010-03-18 23:57 z

(Repeating myself) I agree in principal, but CFI is really really unclear on this. Equinox's term "generic use" is much better than "attributive use", noting that (deprecated template usage) attributive has two fairly different meanings. I proposed a draft changed to CFI on the Beer Parlor, and precisely zero people have commented. I've always wanted to change this part of CFI, butI don't consider myself a good drafter, hence I might be liable to cause as many problems as I solve (like WT:COALMINE). Mglovesfun (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

At least we agree that they are attributive... they are communicating the widely-understood meaning of a particular hairstyle. Polarpanda 00:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The definition to be deleted says “The fictional character Princess Leia from the Star Wars series.” And, indeed, Princess Leia, attributive of a hairstyle, means a hairstyle “of Princess Leia.” Same meaning as Princess Leia look, Princess Leia Pez dispenser, Princess Leia screensaver, Princess Leia costume, etc.

No meaning specific to a hairstyle. Do you mean we should define Princess Leia as a common noun meaning “a hairstyle like Princess Leia's?” There is no citation like “she wore a Princess Leia” or “hair up in a Princess Leia,” so this is not supported. —Michael Z. 2010-03-19 02:32 z

The hairstyle, being widely-known and used attributively, should be incorporated into the definition. Polarpanda 12:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

We're discussing deleting the sole definition, with its entry, since it lacks supporting citations per CFI. If you have a different definition, then go ahead and add it to the entry, Polarpanda – this request wouldn't affect it. If you can find three qualifying citations, then please add them to citations:Princess Leia. Thanks. —Michael Z. 2010-03-19 15:24 z

The kind of hairstyle that Princess Leia has is encyclopaedia material, and "Princess Leia" itself (which is the term we are defining) does not on its own say anything about hair. Compare "a Marilyn Monroe dress" [1]. Equinox ◑ 12:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The braided hair buns are iconic and specific, just as John Lennon glasses and Nehru jacket are specific. However, I would agree that this kind of quote would support an entry for (deprecated template usage) Princess Leia hairstyle or (deprecated template usage) Princess Leia braids, and would not support an entry for (deprecated template usage) Princess Leia. --EncycloPetey 02:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Must you encourage them? —Michael Z. 2010-03-23 03:06 z

• Delete per nom. bd2412 T 19:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

se laver

Per the se verbs above, sum of part, (deprecated template usage) se + (deprecated template usage) laver. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Weak keep and if so expand. There are two distinct uses here:

• se = direct object: « Elle l'a lavé. » → « Elle s'est lavée. »

  This is completely SOP.

• se = indirect object: « Elle lui a lavé les mains. » → « Elle s'est lavé les mains. »

  This is SOP from a French-speaker's standpoint, but many (most? all?) English-speakers learn the construction “se laver ___” long before they learn the construction “laver ___ à ___”. The former is the primary instance of the latter.

—Ruakh_TALK 17:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You are right, there are two possible uses. But you are wrong: they are not considered as SOP from a French speaker's standpoint. French speakers who say elle s'est lavée don't think she washed somebody; whom? herself, therefore I add s before the verb. Actually, se laver is considered as a verbe pronominal in French: you can find the definition of se laver at laver (not at s) in French dictionaries, but the definition is present, and this shows that French speakers consider it as something really worth a definition. For example, it's very clearly separated from laver in the Petit Larousse dictionary. Actually, English speakers are much more likely to consider it as SOP: they reason more, they feel less.

The best solution is probably to mention se laver in the laver page (because it's where most dictionaries mention it) but to also have a se laver page.

Some other French verbs are only (or almost only) used as pronominal verbs. On fr.wikt, some contributors tend to consider that they should only have a se ... page, other contributors only a page without the se, and other ones (including me) consider that having both is useful. Lmaltier 21:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

SOP doesn't mean that you do sit and reason out the meaning from first principles, only that you could. You say that French speakers don't think she washed somebody; whom? herself, therefore I add s before the verb; but then, they also don't think somebody washed his/herself; who? her, therefore I put the subject elle before the verb. This doesn't mean that "elle se lave" is non-SOP; it means only that competent speakers can assemble sentences without realizing they're doing it. —Ruakh_TALK 21:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I was referring not to a conscious reasoning, but to a French speaker's brain: the brain assembles words, and this process is not conscious, of course. But in this case, the brain uses se laver as a single word, as a pronominal verb (it's called a verb), not as a combination of two words (a pronoun + a verb). This is what I was meaning, and this is what explains the presence of a definition in French dictionaries. blue car is blue + car, but se laver is se laver in the mind. Lmaltier 21:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I don't think we're actually disagreeing with each other. :-)   —Ruakh_TALK 22:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Redirect to laver, where this should be dealt with like all other pronominal verbs, ie as a separate context-tagged def line. Ƿidsiþ 12:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I would like to change our policy of not having French reflexive verbs unless they are always reflexive (such as s'agir, the impersonal verb) but I've found more than enough opposition on both this Wiktionary and the French one. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

tippy

1. rfd-sense (obsolete, colloquial, or slang, absolute, with the) In the height of fashion.
2. rfd-sense (colloquial or slang) clever, neat, smart.

These both seem part of: (obsolete, colloquial, or slang) fashionable, tip-top. If they are distinct they would need citations. Isn't the word actually a derivative of "tip-top", capable of bearing any and all of its meanings. DCDuring TALK 19:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, the use of (deprecated template usage) ??? is just the pits for our normal human users. DCDuring TALK 19:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

These senses are in the OED. What would improve on absolute?—uncomparable, incomparable, non-comparable? Is there a reason you didn't go to RFV? —Michael Z. 2010-03-31 02:05 z

1. Possibly omission. See [full text] of "adjectives, absolute" at MWDEU.
2. I thought that the senses were simply redundant by the standards we often apply (which admittedly lead to drastic exclusion of senses in widely used polysemic words). I would be happy with attestation.

As tip-top#Adjective (1722 per MW Online) apparently antedates tippy and as -y sometimes is used to construct derived terms (and as the sense seems at first blush to be close to senses of tip-top), I think this merits some clarification. DCDuring TALK 12:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(colloquial or slang) clever, neat, smart. I don't really know what this means. RFV sure although it's difficult to imagine either passing. But yeah, go for it. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

the pits

I think this should be a redirect to pits, which could probably stand some improvement. DCDuring TALK 19:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a few similar ones I come across from time to time starting with definite article: the man, the shit, the thing, the dickens, the landlord are some such examples to ponder. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 19:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd do the opposite, remove the pits from pits. I remember and shit, and whatnot, and crap - and shit was nominated for deletion for sum-of-partsness and kept by consensus. Keep all. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

en ami

Sum of parts? SemperBlotto 07:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

SoP in French but not so in English (borrowed from French obviously) Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 07:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It was in the wanted list. Why do you put SOP terms in the wanted list if you don't want people to create them? Flushlight 08:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if French is a clear-cut SOP term. For this construction, we'd normally use en tant qu', but en ami is more common than en tant qu'ami. The translation's good, though. Interesting to see what native speakers have to say about this. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 09:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, certainly... but regardless of what native speakers think about it, the fact remains that our target audience is English speakers, the majority of whom I would assume are natives... so if this entry is standard SOP on fr.wikt, if it's useful to English speakers learning French.... it should stay. So I "vote" for keep. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 12:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I've ever heard anyone say this. Maybe RFV, not RFD. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify myself, it is considered an English term as well - take a look at Merriam-Webster and dictionary.com (although in truth, I've never heard of it used in English!) Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 19:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It's true that it's SOP in French, but some French dictionaries find it useful to define en ami or venir en ami, despite their limited space available. Therefore, it might also be useful here. Lmaltier 20:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

What about en amis? This is just as SOP, but more plural. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 21:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

other

other#Adjective. AFAICT, this doesn't meet the tests for being an adjective in either of the senses given. See Wiktionary:English adjectives.

There may be a true adjective sense, but it would not be common in normal speech. Most uses are of other#Determiner. Many contributors are neither patient enough to read our full entry nor familiar with the concept of (deprecated template usage) determiner. Thus, we can expect future contributors to add an adjective PoS unless we make special provision under the adjective PoS, such as as pseudo-sense: "See [[other#Determiner|other (determiner)]]." Rising Sun talk? contributions 21:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

A true adjective sense is something like "alien, different".

Only Macmillan, and Cambridge Adv Learner's, among OneLook dictionaries, use determiner for the main senses of other, as does Longman's DCE. Thus, we will be putting our users on the bleeding edge by emphasizing the determiner PoS. How can we have a prominent link to something helpful for users not familiar with "determiner"? I would like a PoS header link, though we only use that for the various abbreviation headers and seem to disprefer the practice. DCDuring TALK 10:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have made the changes to other#Adjective that would support this deletion, but not the changes at other#Determiner, which needs careful rewriting. DCDuring TALK 11:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

Brethren

Like Arms above, it's just brethren capitalized as part of a title or a proper noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it has its own special meaning; it's an abbreviation for the w:Church of the Brethren, just as Friend(s) is used for the Society of Friends (commonly called Quakers).--达伟 17:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not in our entry right now. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Move to RfC. DCDuring TALK 12:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Continuity IRA

I hope our proper noun CFI will cover organizations. In the meanwhile, this needs attributive-use citations. DCDuring TALK 22:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

At the very least, this should survive inclusion as an abbreviated or informal name of the organisation. Its full term in Continuity Irish Republican Army.--Dmol 23:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

630 Google book hits for the exact phrase. Keep SemperBlotto 07:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

RfV is the other page.

No one has yet even seriously proposed that organization names be added to the other encyclopedic content already here. Attributive-use citations, then, please. OR why not just include all attestable proper names? I suppose that they are much more within the capabilities of our contributors than other words. DCDuring TALK 10:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I proposed some stuff like Bloc Quebecois and Labour Party for deletion last year, and they all passed for no consensus. That said, I favor deletion here. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

As DCDuring points out, we don't have rules for this (that work). Mglovesfun (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I say, treat this like a brand name. I highly doubt this will garner three citations across three years using the name without providing context. bd2412 T 19:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

limba afgană

Sum of parts. I thought this was the sort of entry we'd just about decided against. Certainly French and Spanish have similar constructions, (deprecated template usage) langue espagnole, (deprecated template usage) lengua española. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Note nominating all the 'limba' entries in Category:ro:Languages. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Spanish language names do not normally include the word lingua. In Spanish, we just write español, inglés, alemán, francés. French also usually does not use langue in language names, but just says français, anglais, etc. Romanian, OTOH, does include limba in most language names. —Stephen 05:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

FWIW there is fr:langue anglaise (et al.) on the French Wiktionary, although that's tenuously relevant. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've now added {{rfd}} to all the other "limba" entries currently in Category:ro:Languages, linking to this section, so that anyone watching those pages can weigh in.​—msh210℠ 15:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

These should be kept if nobody wants to delete them. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Send to RFV. For this particular one, there are no citations at all because there simply is no Afghan language. The fate of the other "limba" entries should be decided elsewhere. -- Prince Kassad 17:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

limba afgană is now moved to RFV. -- Prince Kassad 20:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

big gun

1st sense: A large-caliber artillery piece. Looks suspiciously big + gun. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 18:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, move it to be under the other sense, and listed as merely {{&lit|big|gun}}.​—msh210℠ 19:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

What he said. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

So'P. Gun is the artilleryman's usual term for an artillery piece other than a mortar or howitzer (while cannon is not, so some definitions in gun look to be wrong). —Michael Z. 2010-04-08 19:28 z

Update: OED gives the phrase great gun, also big gun, meaning artillery gun, in contrast to small gun, meaning a hand firearm (“the terms are now obsolete;” 9 quotations given for great gun from 1408–1849, 3 for big gun 1886–1915). —Michael Z. 2010-04-13 17:29 z

If that's true, big is not subjective here, so the phrase is not SoP. But then our definition needs revising.​—msh210℠ 18:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

obtuse angle

Sum of parts. Imprecise definition. SemperBlotto 21:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that sum of parts applies here because it is very widely used and is quantifiable. This is a specific mathematical term that all dictionaries should have because of how widely used it is. I don't see how obtuse + angle is sum of parts because obtuse does not accurately describe an obtuse angle. Razorflame 21:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking that this functions as one word, so it passes under line 1 "all words in all languages". We also have acute angle and reflex angle. Interesting to read our article on word, "a unit of language […] " Mglovesfun (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Really? Seriously?

Razorflame, have you read the respective definitions of obtuse angle and obtuse? How can “an angle that is greater than 90 degrees” really mean more than “of an angle: greater than 90 degrees” plus “angle?” Mglovesfun, what do you mean when you say these two words put together “functions as one word?” They function as two words, one referring to an “angle,” and the other describing it as “obtuse.”

(Really?) —Michael Z. 2010-04-10 00:37 z

• delete as SOP along with acute angle and reflex angle, well found by Gloves --Rising Sun talk? contributions 01:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as SOP. The term reflex angle, mentioned above, might be worth keeping, but acute angle should not. --EncycloPetey 01:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. obtuse—Of an angle: greater than 90 degrees but less than 180 degrees. The apparent sum-of-part-ness is achieved by passing the angle-specific meaning of "obtuse" into the "obtuse" entry. See also Talk:free variable. --Dan Polansky 10:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

So is, e.g., barking dog only apparently sum-of-parts, because it passes the dog-specific meaning of “barking” and the barking-specific meaning of “dog?” What about obtuse edge, obtuse arc, obtuse form and other usages of this obtuse? OED has an old citation which reads “Into two obtuser angles bended.” There are book titles “Explore Acute to Obtuse: Step-by-Step Beginning Geometry...” and “Obtuse and acute cornice mitres.” —Michael Z. 2010-04-10 14:16 z

• • Michael, see word, definition one is a unit of language, it doesn't mention spacing. CFI doesn't make this distinction either, editor do, but it's not codified anywhere. It doesn't say "all word in all languages unless they have a space in them". Mglovesfun (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Then precisely which lexical words do you perceive in the phrase “angle is obtuse” (338 G.B. matches). It appears to me that obtuse behaves as a normal adjective, not only as a component of the phrase “obtuse angle.” —Michael Z. 2010-04-10 14:16 z

• Weak delete. I reject Mglovesfun's argument because it's not obviously correct and he's presented no evidence for it; I reject Dan Polansky's argument because [[obtuse]] has to have the angle-specific meaning anyway (in addition to Mzajac's examples, consider also google books:"obtuse and acute angles", which gets >1000 hits). That said, google books:"angle is an obtuse angle" gets more hits than one would expect — about half as many as google books:"angle is obtuse". Contrast, say, google books:"dog is a male dog" and google books:"dog is male". So that suggests that this might be a "set phrase. But it's not a very reliable test — google books:"cat is a male cat" does very well relative to google books:"cat is male", due mostly to a widespread footnote to Shakespeare's use of "gib cat" — so I'm not inclined to base a "keep" vote on it. —Ruakh_TALK 14:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

  I admit that we need the sense in both "obtuse" and "obtuse angle", just like we need a sense both in "complex" and "complex number". A list of cases, given in Talk:free variable: algebraic number, algebraic integer, bound variable, cardinal number, complex number, free variable, imaginary number, rational number, real number, transcendental number, free software, open set, closed set, complete graph, normal distribution. ---Dan Polansky 09:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• My argument does indeed seem quite refutable. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Added 3 Citations:obtuse#Of_an_angle, showing how it is extended to things having such an angle. Note that obtuse has both a mathematical/geometric sense and a physical/topological sense, and perhaps a grey area between. Cf. citations in reflex —Michael Z. 2010-04-10 16:39 z

• Keep, a very common collocation. In the OED. In most translating dictionaries. In fact keep all of these. Ƿidsiþ 12:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

OED has a note “Freq. in obtuse angle” under the headword obtuse, adj., and three citations of this sense without that collocation. Maybe we need a spare “form-of” entry for “obtuse angle: common collocation of obtuse.” —Michael Z. 2010-04-11 15:06 z

If we keep this, then won't we also need entries for obtuser angle, obtusest angle, more obtuse angle, and less obtuse angle? —Michael Z. 2010-04-12 15:40 z

Also obtuse-angled, obtuse angled. See also Citations:obtuse. —Michael Z. 2010-04-12 15:57 z

• Keep all. Clearly set phrases. bd2412 T 18:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Strong delete obtuse angle, per arguments above. It's an angle that's obtuse.​—msh210℠ 22:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

acute angle

• Delete as SOP. --EncycloPetey 03:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. acute—Of an angle, fewer than 90 degrees. See "obtuse angle". --Dan Polansky 10:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Weak delete. (Same reason as for "obtuse angle".) —Ruakh_TALK 14:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If we keep this, then won't we also need entries for acuter angle, acutest angle, more acute angle, and less acute angle? —Michael Z. 2010-04-12 15:40 z

Strong delete acute angle, like obtuse angle.​—msh210℠ 22:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

reflex angle

• 'Weak keep. The geometry definition added by Majac to (deprecated template usage) reflex begins "of an angle". If reflex in this sense is only ever used with angle, then this is a set phrase as should be kept. The usual, expected adjective in English would be reflexed, so this looks like a case for keeping, based on the available evidence. --EncycloPetey 03:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It mainly refers to angles, but it is not found only in the phrase. —Michael Z. 2010-04-10 03:27 z

• 1878, James Maurice Wilso, Elementary Geometry, London: MacMillan, p 10:

  A polygon is said to be convex when no one of its angles is reflex.

If you have to go to 1878 for a quote, then reflex in that sense may be obsolete or archaic, which still argues for keeping the combination. See also WT:RFV#reflex. --EncycloPetey 03:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't have to. —Michael Z. 2010-04-10 05:54 z

• Keep. --Dan Polansky 10:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. This b.g.c. hit is a recent example of reflex, in this sense, outside the collocation reflex angle. But I'm not familiar enough with this term to say for sure whether such usage is normal idiomatic English. —Ruakh_TALK 14:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Added some citations to reflex. Its application seems to be extended to geometrical entities having such an angle. Note that reflex also means concave, and there may be a grey area between the mathematical/geometric sense and physical/topological sense. —Michael Z. 2010-04-10 16:39 z

Delete reflex angle per the cites added to reflex and the arguments presented above for obtuse angle.​—msh210℠ 22:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

right angle

• Keep; set phrase, where right has several possible meanings. --EncycloPetey 03:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a set phrase, but let's not get into the other thing. If we include every phrase where components have more than one meaning, then we'll be defining black dog, just plain ornery, and justice hailed for years of service. —Michael Z. 2010-04-10 06:01 z

I didn't mean to imply cause; I simply noted two things about the term proposed for deletion. We've used this pair of rationales before, so I'm surprised you weren't familiar with them. In any case "black dog" is not a set phrase, so I don't see why you're tossing it into traffic. --EncycloPetey 06:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. --Dan Polansky 10:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Weak keep. In current usage, a sentence like "that angle is right" is scarcely intelligible as meaning "that angle is a right angle". Indeed, google books:"angle is a right angle" gets many more hits, especially recent hits, than google books:"angle is right", . —Ruakh_TALK 14:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Weak keep per Ruakh. Note that prime number, which I nominated for deletion a while back and still think should be deleted (but it was kept) is not like this: "n is prime" is common. But "N is right" is not, in my experience.​—msh210℠ 22:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

See citations:right#Of an angle. —Michael Z. 2010-04-13 17:13 z

Since that definition of right has failed RFV, and also the consensus here, kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

round angle

• Keep. The term round has several geometic definitions, only one of which applies to angle, and which is not used in combination with other terms or predicatively. --EncycloPetey 03:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. --Dan Polansky 10:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Is the term "round angle" in common use in the US? I've never heard it in the UK. Dbfirs 20:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Not in general textbooks that I've seen. I've seen a different term used, but haven't been able to recall what it is (and don't have access to a copy of the book where I remember seeing it). I do have at least one math text that calls it a full angle. --EncycloPetey 20:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

A couple of books I've seen say this is a rare name, but it seems to help envision dividing up a full arc.[2]

Kept round angle.​—msh210℠ 15:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

-burger

Per DCDuring, all the derived terms seem to be compounds, not stem + suffix. I dunno what tests we have to determine what the difference is, but if it's just instinct, I say delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

keep. A compound which has turned into a suffix. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 23:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No. The evolution seems to have been (deprecated template usage) hamburg steak (?), (deprecated template usage) hamburger (1884), (deprecated template usage) cheeseburger (1928), (deprecated template usage) burger (1937). I believe the other derived terms are subsequent. (deprecated template usage) cheeseburger would seem to be a blend. As (deprecated template usage) burger antedates the others, we would seem to have a noun used to form compounds. If it did exist independently, especially before the derived terms, then it would be better considered a suffix. DCDuring TALK 02:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I think (deprecated template usage) burger is enough and this could be deleted. If someone deletes it, can they please make sure that the box of "derived terms" is moved to (deprecated template usage) burger? Equinox ◑ 17:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have edited (deprecated template usage) hamburger, (deprecated template usage) cheeseburger, and (deprecated template usage) burger to be consistent with the etymological story that I tell above. I will edit all the derived terms to use {{compound}}. DCDuring TALK 18:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

"burger" now has as a second definition: "(chiefly as a combining form) A similar sandwich or patty." I don't think that combining forms can miss a dash. It is "-burger" that is a combining form. Given that "cheeseburger" is derived from the model of "hamburger" rather than from "burger", it follows that "-burger" is the implied combining form. Keep "-burger" as a combining form. Keep the list of derived terms in "-burger". And the etymology currently given in "-burger" seems correct: "Back-formation from hamburger, as if it were ham + -burger." Delete "burger--(chiefly as a combining form) A similar sandwich or patty." Also, it is dubious that "cheeseburger" is a compound. Properly, propably, "-burger" is merely implied, and all the burgers are derived on the model of "cheeseburger", which pioneered this sort of derivation from "hamburger". But I do not see how to determine how exactly the burgers were derived. Entering the burgers as derivations in the implied combining form "-burger" seems okay. --Dan Polansky 08:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

axiliary

Misspelling of (deprecated template usage) axillary, but is it common enough? Cf. the 629 hits yielded by google books:"axiliary" with the 14,000 yielded by google books:"axillary"; *(deprecated template usage) axiliary occurs at <4.5% the frequency of (deprecated template usage) axillary.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 06:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

as

Nominating two senses s.v. ===Adverb===:

2. Considered in this way.

Let's discuss this as a question of business.

3. In the manner specified.

The kidnappers released him as agreed.

The first of these looks like a preposition to me, covered already by the ===Preposition=== sense

2. In the role of.

What is your opinion as a parent?

The movie features Al Gore as a streetwise pimp.

, and the second like a conjunction, covered already by the ===Conjunction=== sense

1. In the same way that; according to what.

As you wish, my lord!

.​—msh210℠ 16:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Already my head hurts. For sense #2, Delete. The gloss is not substitutable in the usage example, which would make me suspicious. Moreover, I cannot see what verbal, adjectival, or adverbial it might be modifying as a stand-alone adverb. It is also clearly not a sentence adverb. In the usage example "as a question of business" seems to be analyzable as (!) a prepositional phrase. It can also function as (!) a PP in other settings, of course.

Sense #3 seems harder. The conjunction definition you propose is not substitutable in the usage example. I think the sense also works with present participles and prepositional phrases: "The parties were seen as agreeing on a range of issues", "This prisoner exchange was allowed, as being in agreement with the current efforts to show good faith"; "The exchange was welcomed as in agreement with outsiders' assessment of an easing of tensions." Other dictionaries show this as an adverb. CGEL has a classification that I can't reconcile with our PoSs. We do have the option of "conjunctive adverb". IOW, I am uncertain but skeptical on this. DCDuring TALK 23:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed 2.​—msh210℠ 19:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

silly pill

SoP. If necessary, though IMO it's not, we can add a usage note to [[pill]]:

A noun preceding (deprecated template usage) pill might be a condition against which a pill is taken, as in (deprecated template usage) hypertension pill; a part of the body the pill is supposed to aid, as in (deprecated template usage) heart pill; a quality to be reduced by the pill, as in (deprecated template usage) cholesterol pill; a condition to be caused by the pill, as in (deprecated template usage) sanity pill; or a quality to be augmented by the pill, as in (deprecated template usage) silly pill.

​—msh210℠ 18:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

So why wouldn't a silly pill be a condition against which a pill is taken, e.g. at a mental institution? Doesn't seem obvious to me, so keep. DAVilla 10:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "SoP", please? — This comment was unsigned.

Sum of Parts, our shorthand to indicate that a multiword term's meaning is readily determined from its component words, usually augmented by context-specific knowledge and the general knowledge of many inhabitants of our planet, at least those who have access to the Web. See Wiktionary:Glossary#S. DCDuring TALK 23:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Well it is not talking about a real pill, and certainly not one that is silly. And how do I sign, please? — This comment was unsigned.

Signing is accomplished by typing "~~~~".

It may be a fictional pill, but it would have to have be just like a real pill for us to know what it would mean.

I was only able to find one quote at Google books and two at News that seem to be using a sense close to what is in the entry:

• Template:quote-news
• Template:quote-news

--DCDuring TALK 00:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

In the first and third of those quotes it's an actual pill that makes one silly. Of course, it's hypothetical rather than existent, but who cares? I can't understand the second quote, myself, but here's another, also referring AFAICT to an actual pill that makes one silly.​—msh210℠ 18:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

prostate cancer

Now that's what I call sum of parts. Strong delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Although, some cancers (like this) use an attributive noun, whereas others use an adjective (cervical cancer, not *cervix cancer). Ƿidsiþ 07:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Are any of these idiomatic, do they meet our criteria? If we keep these, why not broken leg, broken finger, broken arm? Mglovesfun (talk) 07:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Not that I would love this, but we recently kept soil pollution, defined as "pollution of soil". I would never have guessed! Besides, Widsith has a point here. Now I do not need to guess what eturauhassyöpä might be in English. --Hekaheka 13:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Erm, was that his point? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to demonstrate one aspect of it. If the names of different forms of cancer are not formed according to uniform pattern, a user who is looking for a correct English term for X-cancer might appreciate an entry which helps him choose between adjective+cancer and noun+cancer forms. --Hekaheka 12:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this justifies keeping it. By the way, is there an adjectival form of prostate? If so, I've gotta start using it in everyday conversations. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 13:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Prostatic cancer is used, though apparently less commonly than prostate cancer (2000 vs 6000 hits on g.b.c). Pingku 16:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Delete.​—msh210℠ 17:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Also "cancer of the prostate" at 1375 on b.g.c. DCDuring TALK 14:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd delete cervical cancer too. Wasn't it dental abscess we deleted last year(?) on the grounds you can have an abscess anywhere. Same goes for cancer. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I was a little surprised to see this entry, but I created the Dutch equivalent for it anyway. delete Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 01:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't really care if it's deleted, but I now favour keep. The meaning is obvious, but on the other hand it's not predictable that we'd call it this, and the translations are useful (I know that's not a popular reason..). Ƿidsiþ 05:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Occitan has a single word for grow a beard, would you want that entry? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I laughed, but thinking about it....maybe? Ƿidsiþ 14:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, I think. This is but one of at least three common ways of saying the same thing in English: "prostate cancer", "prostatic cancer", "cancer of the prostate". I don't see how we can keep this without having the others, explaining how they differ in usage, and supporting our position with citations or corpus research. DCDuring TALK 14:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

  This just in: some OneLook lemmings have this, and also prostatic adenocarcinoma. DCDuring TALK 15:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If we keep this, why not prostate tumor, prostate tumour, throat cancer, throat tumor, throat tumour. We could get a bot to create them to save time. If we can find a language that has a single word for write with a pen, would we include that as an English term? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(No -- that is very different from "grow a beard", in that no one actually says it...well, not unless being deliberately specific. Ƿidsiþ 15:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

And, warming to the theme, there should be pericardial/peritoneal/pleural mesothelioma. Pingku 16:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

gastric cancer first. Delete--Pierpao 07:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep If we are to cover somewhat technical terms, we need to follow the technical subspecies of lemmings. About a dozen OneLook dictionaries and glossaries (mostly medical, but also Wordnet and 21st century dictionary) and some translating dictionaries have this. If WT:CFI does not have another rationale for keeping such multi-word entries, so much the worse for it. The lemming rationale seems a good protection against the limitations of CFI.

  "Prostate" is itself an ellipsis of prostate gland and seems to have no other usage or meaning. "Prostate cancer" occurs more than 1500 times of the 2700 occurrences of "prostate" on COCA. Three OneLook medical glossaries have enlarged prostate as well. In contrast, no OneLook reference has prostate tumor/prostate tumour (9 hits at COCA. DCDuring TALK 14:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Would not be interpreted by anybody as anything other than (deprecated template usage) cancer of the (deprecated template usage) prostate. (deprecated template usage) cervical cancer is different, in that it means cancer of the cervix of the uterus, not cancer of the neck (also called a cervix in medicine). Facts707 11:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

A further question, IMO, is if kept, what should be in the entry? Saying it's cancer of the prostate isn't gonna help anyone. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, my Oxford Medical dictionary defines it as ‘a malignant tumour of the prostate gland, a common form of cancer in elderly men’, and goes on to give a few key characteristics. Ƿidsiþ 11:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be fairly well covered at WP. DCDuring TALK 13:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't speak

I think this English phrasebook entry should be deleted due to the lack of unintuitive grammatical information of each translation, which was pointed out regularly in the recent RFD discussions #I don't speak Middle French and #I don't speak Bulgarian. In my opinion, other alternatives such as I don't speak English, eu não falo português and Appendix:I don't speak seem more suitable to cover the concept of I-don't-speak-that-language. --Daniel. 21:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to I don't speak something (as with do you speak and do you speak something). —Stephen 21:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah the old counter deletion deletion debate. Keep or rename. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• delete all such pages except the XYZ entries for I don't speak XYZ --Rising Sun talk? contributions 23:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I wrote this page as response to the discussion on deleting/keeping numerous "I don't speak X" -entries (see above). We have currently 350 languages in Wiktionary. It means that potentially 350 "I don't speak X" -entries might be written, each translated into 350 languages. This would potentially spawn 350 x 350 = 122,500 entries for the cross-translations of "I don't speak X" -es in every language. Following this route, the "unintuitive grammatical information" would have to be repeated 350 times for each language. Wouldn't it be more practical to write 350 "I don't speak X" -entries (one in each language) and explain the language-specific grammatical information in them, once per language? I think it would; therefore I give a strong keep. --Hekaheka 10:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep per Hekaheka. Useful for any traveler who wishes to learn the basic "I don't speak" [insert local language name]. bd2412 T 15:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

As per Stephen G. Brown. The approach should be taken as in do you speak something? + the existing Appendix:I don't speak with a lookup. It's a good idea to link them all together. So I support a redirect or rename. Hopefully the existing translations with the grammar won't be lost. --Anatoli 05:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Redirect only Should be a redirect only to an Appendix, not a main dictionary entry. Remember this is a dictionary, not a phrasebook or translation guide. Is there a Wikiphrasebook? Facts707 11:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

  See Category:English phrasebook. DCDuring TALK 14:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

  Wiktionary definitely includes a phrasebook. See Wiktionary:Phrasebook, and BTW: from the main page: "Wiktionary has grown beyond a standard dictionary and now includes a thesaurus, a rhyme guide, phrase books,..." --Yair rand 17:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

  • I would support a redirect solution as well. bd2412 T 17:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Wiktionary does indeed have WT:Phrasebook, although it is not mentioned anywhere in WT:ELE. Facts707 18:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why would you assume that it would be mentioned in the layout guidelines? (Note that it is mentioned in the Criteria for inclusion.) --Yair rand (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep, since all the "I don't speak […] " entries have been deleted apart from this and I don't speak English. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

age bracket

The prerequisite definitions for both age and bracket can be found at their pages. So we should probably delete this one, right? ---> Tooironic 04:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Lemmings have this: Cambridge Advanced Learner's and Wordnet. DCDuring TALK 14:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

What is this "lemmings" thing you keep talking about? Seems I'm not quite up to speed with the latest Wiktionary jargon. Is it in our CFI? ---> Tooironic 13:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Not jargon. It is from the myth that migrating lemmings will follow each other even to certain death. See w:Lemming#Mass-Suicide Myth. Pingku 14:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

For us lemmings are of the species Lemmus lexicographicus subspecies communis, ie, other dictionaries, especially those findable at OneLook, but also subspecies commercialis, vulgaris, chartaceus, etc. In this case, only some of subspecies pedagogicus (Cambridge Advanced Learner's) and semanticus (Wordnet) were involved. DCDuring TALK 17:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I see in the CFI about other dictionaries is "an appearance in someone’s online dictionary is suggestive, but it does not show the word actually used to convey meaning", which is about attestation, not idiomaticity.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete per nom.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

the one

Could be a redirect to one#Noun. Of course, has connotations that are greatly hormone-enhanced. DCDuring TALK 16:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes. The article debate. This comes up time and time again. Have we reached any kind of consensus? Arguably combinations like these are so fixed that it would almost seem absurd to move everything to the noun entry. ---> Tooironic 23:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

How about the one and only, my one and only, the President, the Queen? For the most part the battle is over and "the" lost. This one is debatable. If I go to the dog pound to make a selection, I might well say "He/she/it/this/that/here/there is the one." If this were used in sentences like "The one brought me some lovely chocolates.", I might go along with the gag. DCDuring TALK 00:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Even some different orthography would lend credence to the possibly distinct "romantic" usage. "I think she is "the ONE"." or "I think he's "the" one." DCDuring TALK 00:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Strong keep. I also tagged it as Template:idiom. Very common idiom in English. Facts707 11:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say keep, I don't think the king and the queen are very comparable here. Seems to represent more than just the + one. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep at one, dropping article in title per our convention (cf. the wheel etc.) and per expectation in English. DCDuring, I would have one and only. DAVilla 10:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably a good one to have. I wonder if there are particular aspects of the use of "the" that elude folks. I would argue that there is very little to be said about "the one" that wouldn't be redundant to a full explication of this kind of use of "the". I don't think language learners will ever learn real English unless they can generalize this use of "the". Accordingly, I wish we could redirect to "the" all of the entries beginning with "the" (with exception, including especially proverbs and phrasebook entries). Perhaps we need a new kind of entry for expressions that are NISoP where all (or more than one of ?) the parts are essentially grammatical, as "the" and "one" are in this case.DCDuring TALK 14:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete or redirect, perhaps to the per DCDuring.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

garden hose

Wikipedia page notwithstanding, this is sum of parts: a hose one uses in or is found in the garden. Can be re-expressed as "yard hose", "backyard hose", "outside hose", etc. Delete. ---> Tooironic 09:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Not "sum of parts" as mentioned in the edit comment when created. Narrows the meaning of "hose" to just the "water" use, i.e. the phrase does not mean "stockings worn in the garden" or "a tube to hold up tomatoes or other vegetables in the garden, much like string or wire is usually used". A garden hose is also usually used to carry water, not other fluids. It also is a synonym for "hosepipe". The test is whether a person who is reasonably fluent in English and knows the component words would reasonably be able to figure out the meaning of the term without prior knowledge of it. Facts707 09:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"yard hose" and "backyard hose" should also be there as alternative forms, although they are much less common according to Google. "Outside hose" should probably not be defined - it does not appear to mean a garden hose necessarily and could be any hose designed for outdoor use, including stockings (i.e. the meaning can only be determined by the context). Facts707 09:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete, I think. Is it just me, or are these debates becoming less and less clear cut? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not the debates so much, but is also not just you. I have had the same experience. That's why I try to pin down criteria, if possible. DCDuring TALK 14:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

One can readily understand that "hose" - in a "garden" context - could easily refer to "a flexible tube conveying water" (indeed, it is the most common sense, and the Wiktionary entry for it reflects this). By your logic, we would include any common collocation as long as at least one of the words had more than one meaning. ---> Tooironic 12:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Right. Delete.​—msh210℠ 16:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• My criteria are not ‘can someone easily work out the meaning of this?’, but rather ‘are these two words often used together in this language to designate a single specific idea?’, which is what I mean by idiomaticity and I suppose what I mean by a ‘set term’. Is this one? Maybe...the Wikipedia article is under this name, but on the other hand most people usually probably just call it ‘a hose’, so....I will abstain, I don't think it does much harm but equally I don't think it's greatly required. Ƿidsiþ 19:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep, I think. My parents don't have what I'd call a "garden" – they don't have flowers or vegetables or herbs or the like — but they do have what I would call a "garden hose". If I heard one of the other potential phrases you give, "yard hose" or "backyard hose" or "outside hose", I'd probably understand it (at least, given enough context), but they're not phrase I'd use, and I don't remember ever coming across them. —Ruakh_TALK 19:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

  I would read this collocation as referring to a garden-type hose, a hose of the type usually used in gardening. When the audience includes a large portion of middle-class homeowners and their families, this is a handy way to refer to it.

  But it does not seem to be a set phrase. If this were a set phrase, I would not expect "fire and garden hose" to outnumber "fire hose and garden hose" at bgc, as it does, by 175 to 18. Among lemmings, only Wordnet and its fellow travelers include this.

• Delete DCDuring TALK 20:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

  But if it is "a hose of the type usually used in gardening," then again the signification (the actual type of hose) will be understood only by those who already know it. The meaning seems clearly not compositional, since "garden" implies nothing about diameter or material. And although a reasonable Martian might guess that a "garden hose" is a hose of the garden sort, only someone already familiar with the term and/or its referent could plausibly guess to what sort of hose it refers. -- Visviva 07:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ruakh, you're arguing that it's a specific type of hose that can't be guessed from garden + hose (like barbecue sauce). Maybe. But I don't think of it as a specific type of hose, just a hose whose primary function is in the garden. — This unsigned comment was added by Mglovesfun (talk • contribs) at 06:34, 14 May 2010.

I a way, it is a certain type of hose. In tables of data about hoses and hose material, "garden hose" seems to be how the industry refers to the tubing used to make garden hoses. Thus there may be an uncountable sense, restricted to use in technical and business contexts, that is "idiomatic": "tubing suitable for the manufacture of household garden hoses".

But a "garden hose" used for another purpose might be called a "hose", "water hose", or "garden hose" (a hose I have for gardening, a hose that was sold for gardening, a hose someone might use for gardening, a hose of the most common type). It is not obvious that this is an idiom. My evidence above argues against it being a set phrase. It is somewhat evocative, having been used by President FD Roosevelt in 1940 to justify US aid to the UK before US entry into WWII and in similes such as "would be like trying to put out a fire raging in a New York skyscraper with a pail and a garden hose.".

If the countable sense is wiktionary-worthy, should we be specifying what accounts for its being a genus of standardized products (mass-produced, standard lengths, standard end fittings, designed for normal household water pressure)? DCDuring TALK 11:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm wearing my house-coat and my garden hose. —Michael Z. 2010-05-15 06:47 z

Well, seeing that one of the meanings of garden is pubic hair, I can see how some people might be confused. But the vast majority of people familiar with the term garden hose know it to be a hose of a certain diameter that is typically used in residential settings or sometimes for cleaning of windows or floors of retail stores, etc. That's what the entry is for, to show that the phrase has a particular meaning that is more than just "sum of parts". Incidentally, I had never heard of the term (deprecated template usage) hosepipe which apparently is a synonym of garden hose. Had it been "hose pipe", would the arguers for deletion here have argued that phrase is merely SoP since everyone knows it's just a hose connected to a pipe? Facts707 07:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. We don't have hose bib, power washer, or power washing either. Does anyone think these are SoP? Because I plan to add them at some point when I have time. Facts707 08:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

On closer look, yard hose does not necessarily mean garden hose and could mean either a hose in a residential yard or a hose in a train yard. So entry not useful. Similarly, backyard hose seems to just mean a hose in someone's backyard as opposed to one in the front yard. So no point in that one either. Facts707 09:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

And a garden hose is a hose used in a garden. (And that entry is looking more encylopedic by the day.) ---> Tooironic 23:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Move to Wikipedia DCDuring TALK 01:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep. If none of my other arguments are sufficiently persuasive, I think we should keep it because it is a synonym of (deprecated template usage) hosepipe. Do we have a policy on this, similar to WT:COALMINE? Facts707 15:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

We also have front yard, which an English speaker could presumably figure out from the two words separately, but which is apparently deserving of an entry. Facts707 15:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• When I acquired my current house, it did not have a garden, but it did have a garden hose. And by that I mean no more or less than "the kind of hose they will sell you at the hardware store if you ask for a garden hose." That such an understood meaning of the phrase exists seems like the very definition of idiomaticity, but, confusingly, it also seems to be used above as an argument for deletion. To break it down:
  • Not all garden hoses are in or of gardens. Anecdotes aside, there are numerous non-garden-related quotes on b.g.c., e.g. "Use a garden hose to insulate electric wire."
  • Not all hoses that are in or of gardens are garden hoses. There are other types of hose that are used in gardening contexts; differing approaches to irrigation, for example, may involve either a soaker hose or a pressure hose. It is even possible to envision a fire hose being used for irrigation/mulch/lining, but only in the most far-fetched scenarios would it ever be referred to as a "garden hose" ... even if the fire hose had been purchased specifically for garden use.
• I can see no reason not to keep. -- Visviva 07:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. How about “I'm using this fire hose as my garden hose?” Garden hose is the normal kind of hose used in the garden. If a guy once used a garden hose at his shop, that doesn't suddenly make the term idiomatic. The SOP term means “hose for the garden,” not “hose never ever used outside of gardens.” Delete —Michael Z. 2010-06-03 19:41 z

I don't know of English usage, but in Finnish puutarhaletku (calque of garden hose) refers to a certain type of hose, i.e. a hose designed for low pressure water distribution outdoors (does not tolerate heat, chemicals or pressure but is resistant to UV light and has a light armoring that looks like a net). The name comes from the principal use of this type of hose, but it is called puutarhaletku even if used for some other purpose. Of course I might call any hose that I happen to use in my garden puutarhaletku, but if I go to hardware store and use the word there, it has a specific meaning. If that's the case in English, the entry should probably be kept after rewriting the definition. The second definition is by far too specific. --Hekaheka 03:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

sick man of Asia

sick man of East Asia

sick man from (deprecated template usage) sick man of Europe + of + NP. Not a set phrase (See synonymous sick man of East Asia). DCDuring TALK 16:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

...and see also google news archive:"sick man of africa", with references to Chad, Zaire, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Omar al Bashir, and Robert Mugabe, and that's just among the first ten hits. Not a set phrase at all. Delete.​—msh210℠ 16:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have an entry for (deprecated template usage) sick man? Equinox ◑ 15:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. But we'd be ahead of our fellow lemmings. By the misnomer principle, in the metaphorical applications to countries (organizations?) this might meet WT:CFI. And it seems to have been most memorably use in an 1853 conversation between Czar Nicholas and the British ambassador about the Ottoman Empirey (apparently not "sick man of Europe"). The quote from Atlantic suggests that it may be worth having: each of these "except for" countries is the industrial sick man of its region. It seems to be a synonym of weak sister. Hmmm, older and broader than I thought. DCDuring TALK 16:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

After reading sick man I intuitively knew that these must be referring to the Qing Empire. No, I'm kidding. Keep. (Although adding East doesn't do much for me). DAVilla 10:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

smack one's lips

Sum of parts. You can smack your mouth, smack some wine, smack at a treat, or just smack. See quote in smack. —Michael Z. 2010-05-16 06:46 z

Well the definition is "To indicate one's current or anticipated pleasure, as derived from food." That's perhaps figurative use, rather than idiomatic. I probably favor an RFV, with outright deletion as second choice, and keeping it as third choice. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The definition given is transparently not NISoP. From WT:TR#smack one's lips it isn't even clear that most here believe the lips are much involved in the not-yet-provided definition of the sound. If they are correct, then, by the misnomer principle, the definition that specified the sound would be NISoP. DCDuring TALK 15:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

apiculata

This entry has the wrong part of speech (specific epithets are never proper nouns), wrong "language", and no definition. --EncycloPetey 18:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

amygdalina

This entry has the wrong part of speech (specific epithets are never proper nouns), wrong "language", and no definition. --EncycloPetey 18:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

aethiopica

This entry has the wrong part of speech (specific epithets are never proper nouns), wrong "language", and no definition. --EncycloPetey 18:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

paniscus

This entry has the wrong part of speech (specific epithets are never proper nouns), wrong "language", and no definition. --EncycloPetey 18:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

troglodytes

Translingual section only. This entry has the wrong part of speech (specific epithets are never proper nouns), wrong "language", and no definition. --EncycloPetey 18:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted by Opiaterein June 5.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

sapiens

Translingual section only. This entry has the wrong part of speech (specific epithets are never proper nouns), wrong "language", and no definition. --EncycloPetey 18:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted by Opiaterein June 5.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

duvet cover

A cover... for a duvet. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. We have pillow case too, but that's a WT:COALMINE case. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 21:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete. SoP. Can be re-expressed in many other ways "doona cover", "blanket case", etc, etc. ---> Tooironic 09:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If the definition ("a decorative cover for a duvet") is correct, keep, as there's no indication from the parts that it's decorative. However, I doubt that that's the case.​—msh210℠ 15:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

A brown leaf is often brittle, should we include that on those grounds? ---> Tooironic 23:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking that if you put curtains or a plastic ground sheet on a duvet that isn't a duvet cover. I'm sort of regretting rfd'ing this. It's one of those "SoP but wouldn't want to delete it ones", like CD player and DVD player. Also, are doona cover and blanket case Australian? Never heard of them. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. And don't regret, I think it's well worth deleting. ---> Tooironic 03:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If you put curtains on a duvet, that's not a duvet cover, but that doesn't mean this isn't SOP. It's like a newspaper editor: I'm not one, even if I buy the Times at the newsstand and go through it with a red pen tsking. A newspaper editor is someone meant to edit newspapers (so to speak), and a duvet cover is something meant to cover duvets. But see my remarks, below, that I'm posting simultaneously with these but in reply to Tooironic's question.​—msh210℠ 15:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

A brown leaf is often brittle, yes, and if brown leaf were defined as "A leaf that's brown and, often, brittle", I'd say to delete it. But if brown leaf were defined as "A brittle, brown leaf", excluding fresh leaves that happen to be brown, I'd say to keep it. This is the same: there are very plain-looking things that cover duvets, and then there are decorative ones. If a duvet cover is only the latter, then duvet cover is keepable.​—msh210℠ 15:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with msh210 & Tooironic. If it helps, googling "plain duvet cover" gives 176,000 hits. Can a cover be both plain and decorative? Dbfirs 16:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep, it's a specific thing and this is what it's called. Ƿidsiþ 17:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

  So is a bucket of water - how is this entry any different? ---> Tooironic 03:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

  But I don't think a bucket of water is a specific thing. The equivalent of that would be a "cover for duvets", which is obviously not a set phrase. This, however, is, and it has a very specific lexical referent, to me at least. Ƿidsiþ 13:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I have understood a duvet cover is basically a large bag made of bedsheet cloth into which a duvet, blanket or other cover may be slipped. It is used instead of a top sheet in order to make the top sheet/cover combination more manageable. It may be plain or decorative. See [3] for a selection of duvet covers. If I'm right, the entry should be kept but the definition rewritten. --Hekaheka 13:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This was apparently silently deleted by RIC yesterday; I have undeleted it. By the way, none of our senses of (deprecated template usage) cover seems to cover this. Ƿidsiþ 04:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hekaheka, on June 3, switched the definition it no longer says the cover need be decorative. Delete if it's now correct.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 19:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

deleted -- Prince Kassad 21:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

cleave

Sense: To pierce or penetrate. Usage ex.: "The wings cleaved the foggy air." The definition misses the essence of the figurative poetic use. The gloss terms are not even proper synonyms IMHO. DCDuring TALK 14:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the sense above this one is redundant as well. IMO this is the sort of occasion when cleaning up the entry beats any RFD or RFV. I'll volunteer, although I'd need to think about it before doing it. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I wonder whether I shouldn't have RfVed it. Maybe it exists and the usage example is just inadequate. DCDuring TALK 14:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

RFV is better than RFD. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we just combine with sense 1, including "to cut or penetrate"? They are all part of the same sense. Dbfirs 06:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

... and why don't we just say that the verb is both transitive and intransitive in all senses? Repeating the same definitions with each label just seems to complicate the entry unnecessarily. Dbfirs 07:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

tattoo

Etymology 2: "From taptoe, the time to close the taps." Looks like an etymology. "Time to close the taps" appears to be a definition of the Dutch taptoe. Pingku 15:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

From what I can gather it is a reference to closing beer taps, thus signalling the "end of the day." I think that is specific to the Dutch - "taptoe" being "tap" + "to." Not nautical. I have requested an entry for "taptoe." Pingku 09:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete on the grounds I have no idea what it means. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, delete the sense, it is just the etymology. Dbfirs 08:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

But Dutch taptoe does not mean "time to close the taps" (well, at least, it doesn't mean that anymore), it's either (military) "evening/night roll call" or "military music performance" (esp. during the evening). If the sense "close the taps" has survived in English nautical use, that would be somewhat relevant. --Erik Warmelink 19:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not "time to close the taps" is a correct etymology (or a correct translation of Dutch "taptoe") is secondary to the point that the sense we are discussing is not a definition (which it should be), but rather an attempted etymology. I'd still like to see a Dutch "taptoe" entry, though. It would be nice to get the etymology correct (and in the right place). Pingku 16:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sense deleted.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Spassguerilla

This seems to be a proper noun, rarely mentioned in English. Is there any reason to keep it? DCDuring TALK 04:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Almost no mention in English, and they all refer immediatly to the German. More like a transliteration with the SS replacing that B looking character they use in German. Can we make it a redirect to the German entry as such.--Dmol 04:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That character is called Eszett or scharfes S and ß has nothing to do with a B, but with a long s (ſ) followed by a z. Given the non-existent notoriety of this movement, I support the deletion. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 16:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Notability is an irrelevant consideration at Wiktionary, though not at an encyclopedia. DCDuring TALK 11:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll take DCDuring's word (well, two words, "rarely mentioned") for it and say delete. Really, though, this shoulda been at RFV.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a dream

Sum of parts. See dream#Noun. Wiktionary is not Wikiquote. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Common catchphrase in US. Appears in The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition (2005). DCDuring TALK 16:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Agree with Mglovesfun. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 16:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Like with "bank parking lot", this often means "on a grand scale" (or whatever the wording of its definition is, I've closed it now), but often doesn't. Delete.—msh210℠ on a public computer 00:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete. I agree with Mglovesfun. --Actarus ^{(Prince d'Euphor)} 18:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. Guys, come on - I went to the effort to provide CFI-sufficient citations for a clearly idiomatic use of the phrase which varies from the expected meaning of a sleep-related occurrence. Also, people have gone to the trouble of providing translations. bd2412 T 15:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

  I don't understand your rationale. What are you saying?

  1. That we should suspend our standards because of effort?
  2. That those arguing against inclusion are being unserious?
  3. That any attestable phrase that uses the word "dream" in the sense of "a hope", "an inspiring vision" thereby merits keeping?
  4. Or that all allusions (or all pretentious, misleadng, jocular, or jesting words) should be kept because they are intended to imply something about the speaker?

  DCDuring TALK 17:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

From experience, when editors use clearly idiomatic it means it's not clearly idiomatic, so extra emphasis is needed to make people think it is. A bit like when editors use in edit summaris clearly not SoP. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

When people hear the phrase "I have a dream" followed by a broad aspirational statement (or even merely intoned as though a broad aspirational statement is going to follow), they understand that the speaker is not referring to a dream during sleep in exactly the same way that they understand a speaker not to be referring to a literal dead horse being beaten. Furthermore, if I were to say, "I have a dream that all the spoons in the sink will be washed and put away", you would instantly understand that I was not explaining a dream during sleep, but that I was making a joke by implying that washing the spoons and putting them away was some grand aspiration, achievable only in some sort of ideal future. The joke is impossible to understand without an understanding of the idiomatic meaning of the phrase. bd2412 T 18:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Right. That's why we have Wikiquote: to be repository for expressions that might have that kind of allusive content. Are you now suggesting that any expression that bears some cultural meaning should be part of Wiktionary? For me the oeuvres of The Talking Heads, R.E.M., The Temptations, Frank Sinatra, Cole Porter, Rogers and Hammerstein, and the KJV are full of such terms. It has been suggested that we might have catchphrases, but no one has yet made a proposal to amend CFI to make it clear that we had such a consensus, nor is it clear that there is such a consensus.

For now, I think we need to confine ourselves for the most part to denotation and skip connotation, irony, and novel metaphor.

I could see us providing a link to Wikiquote using {{only in}}, at least after it is modified to allow such a reference. DCDuring TALK 18:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "I have a dream" would not qualify for individual inclusion in Wikiquote, except as part of the much longer quote into which it was incorporated by Martin Luther King, Jr. It is not a "catchphrase" in that sense. A person coming across this phrase being used in the jocular sense and being confused by its import would turn to a dictionary, not a book of quotes, to determine its meaning. The bigger picture is that it might be useful to people who would look for this sort of thing in a dictionary first. bd2412 T 18:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we can protect people from not getting jokes. It would be easy enough to provide a link to q:Martin Luther King, Jr.#I Have A Dream (1963). or to w:I have a dream. We also can and do keep citations for items that fail to meet CFI in the opinion of participating contributors. At some point we might have default search hit citation space as well as principal namespace. DCDuring TALK 19:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It is more than just jokes, though. The phrase is widely used in speeches and essays, and sometimes they border on whether the speaker is being serious or ironic in use of the phrase. bd2412 T 21:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The deletion of this entry is out of process and should not stand. It says right at the top of this page, "Entries and senses should not normally be deleted in less than seven days after nomination" (with discussions often taking weeks to arrive at a correct resolution), and that time has not passed. Is there something about this entry that requires such unusual haste? The discussion is still ongoing. bd2412 T 02:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The discussion is ongoing and not an easy consensus either way. As such, the entry should stay for a while yet. Restored. I take no position on whether it should be eventually deleted or not. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is, I think, an example of the sort of usage which sits on the border between serious and sarcastic, which can only be properly comprehended if the idiomatic sense of this phrase is understood:

• 1995, Sidelines, vol. 2-4, p. 34:
  • I have a dream that one day donors and beneficiaries will reach for one another with open hearts and open hands, and no questions asked. I have a dream that donations will flow like milk and honey and no strings attached. I have a dream that the oppressed will travel the highway of freedom in BMW's, preferably in 740s, but if need be, in 318s (as long as they have fuel injection).

This is not a neologism, and is not strictly speaking sum-of-parts because the combination implies something not conveyed by any individual parts, a grandness (perhaps grandiosity) of scale. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

In light of the phrasebook discussion, I think we should consider an appendix for phrases like this one, falling short of qualifying for individual inclusion in Wikiquote, but having a particular connotation that is only fully comprehensible in historical context. bd2412 T 17:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep, clearly goes beyond a mere quote as a literary device. DAVilla 11:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete, I think the search function would nicely bring up Wikipedia for the MLK speech: I Have a Dream, where it is well covered (and MLK's speech certainly inspired many writers and speakers). But otherwise, it's just noun sense 2 of dream (a hope, a wish). We have a dream, she had a dream, he had a dream, they had a dream... Where do we draw the line? I don't see any idiomatic, figurative, or even "set phrase" of the expression. The author of the Sidelines quote could just as well have said, "I hope that..." or "I wish that", or "I would be wonderful if", or "It would be my dream if". Also, I don't think the phrase necessarily means "on a grand scale" - a child could use it such as "I have a dream about getting ice cream after basketball practice." In other words, any grandness or altruism in the phrase is only detectable by context, not by the phrase itself. Facts707 21:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

high-resolution

SOP.​—msh210℠ 17:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep per the lemming test; is independently defined in major dictionaries, including AHD, Macmillan, Encarta and WordNet. The meaning seems specific enough to raise reasonable doubt as to compositionality. -- Visviva 17:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in the CFI about lemmings.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Note the existence of (deprecated template usage) hi-res and (deprecated template usage) lo-res. Equinox ◑ 23:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

When two words are connected by a hyphen, does that produce a new single word? If so, this should be kept (even though the meaning is obvious). BedfordLibrary 15:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Consider large-waisted for example. English hyphenates phrases in attributive use.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

city

Two proper noun senses with the head word "the city" referring to Manhattan and san Francisco. Arguably these should be at City. In fact, I'm not sure whether to rfc these or move them, or what. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I added those (diff, diff), because I thought at the time that cites supported both senses as lowercase. If cites support both, we should have both.​—msh210℠ 15:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely in any part of the world "the city" with or without an upper-case "C" regularly refers to the nearest city, just as "town" refers to the nearest town. The word doesn't "mean" that particular city or town in any dictionary sense. Dbfirs 20:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

But Manhattan is not a city.​—msh210℠ 20:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It is the best-known borough of the City of New York. It is a keep by the misnomer principle. Just as the "City" in UK refers to small area(s ?) of London and to the UK banking industry. Attestation and presentation (eg, main entry or alternative spelling) are separate matters. DCDuring TALK 22:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Or... maybe... does city also mean "the main part of a city" or some such? (I can imagine someone living within the borders of a town saying "I'm going to town" to mean the main part of the town. I can't quite picture that for city, but perhaps it's used.) If so, then the "Manhattan" sense is just an example thereof and can be deleted. The question then is, should we have that sense of city, and of town? (We lack both.) Is it a separate sense, or a metonym not worthy of a sense?​—msh210℠ 16:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I am far from convinced that these 'definitions' of the word city belong in a dictionary at all; I'm with Dbfirs. They definitely don't belong under this entry - they should be under The City or, just possibly, City, if anywhere. Is 'The City' really used for Manhattan in particular, or for New York City in general, as Wikipedia maintains? Why isn't Oklahoma listed as well? What about Manchester City football team? many more claimants are there for this title? Where do we stop? --Oolong 19:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

quite a bit

quite a few

Sum of parts. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Possibly comparable: quite a lot, rather a lot. Equinox ◑ 18:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Which sense of quite is this referring to? Polarpanda 22:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't get the grammar of this expression in our PoS framework. What part of speech is "quite"? If it really is an adverb, what adjective or verb or other adverb would it be modifying.

Cambridge Advanced Learners, Macmillan, and Collins COBUILD (all aimed at learners) show it as a "predeterminer". Some other dictionaries show "quite a" or "quite a something" as an idiom. We need to have a usage note and perhaps a category for predeterminers if this all "quite a" expressions are not be be considered as idioms. I don't yet get what CGEL says about these. I would favor accommodating all predeterminers within our existing PoS headers until we have evidence that a large proportion of normal users (at least of learners) are being taught this grammatical category. We could use redirects from some of the most common examples, such as those Equinox refers to. DCDuring TALK 01:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep at least "quite a few". It is not evident from the parts that it means more than a few. --Hekaheka 06:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Err on the side of keep both. Merriam-Webster Online has both. --Dan Polansky 10:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Striking as no consensus for deletion. Voting for deletion: Mglovesfun. Voting for keeping "quite a few": Hekaheka, Dan Polansky. Voting for keeping of "quite a bit": Dan Polansky. Unclear: Equinox, DCDuring, Polarpanda. These are only few clear votes, but the nomination has expired months ago, without getting enough clear votes for deletion. --Dan Polansky 10:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I need gasoline > I need gas

Delete. Outside of phrasebook, sum of parts. As a phrasebook entry, it is not a particularly common phrase. google:"I need gasoline" has 119,000 hits, compared to google:"I love you" with its 77,900,000 hits. google books:"I need gasoline: has mere 35 hits. --Dan Polansky 09:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It is however a very useful phrase, which is one of my suggested criteria of inclusion in a phrasebook - see the beer parlour. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobody I've ever known even in the US says gasoline, though, so I'm going to move it to I need gas. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 12:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

For once, I agree with Opiaterein. Most people in the United States would say I need gas instead of I need gasoline. They would also say I need to get gas. I therefore vote keep is this is definitely worth keeping because of how often it is used in the United States. Razorflame 13:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Survival language isn't necessarily going to be common in writing, either in print or online. This does turn up in phrasebooks, e.g. of Romanian and Spanish, and it's easy to think of circumstances in which a traveler would need to say this. (Although all in all, "Where is the nearest gas station?" seems more likely...) So keep pending the articulation of any broader Phrasebook policy. FWIW, I think the title "I need gasoline" is good because it is less ambiguous than "I need gas", and clarity seems more important than idiomaticity or naturalness. (Especially given the tendency for these entries to attract extra "definitions" that have no business in a phrasebook.)

BTW, the fact that we have separate "entries" for I need gasoline and I need petrol shows how utterly useless the methodology of mainspace is for handling phrasebook content. As an American, I would be quite happy to have the entry at I need petrol; can we just flip a coin or something? -- Visviva 13:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

In an earlier and rather unrelated BP discussion, I actually flipped a coin in order to help the community to choose between two similar results [4]. However, I don't see uselessness or the inherent need to choose from the specific examples of I need gasoline, I need gas and I need petrol, since people are expected to search for any of "gasoline", "gas" or "petrol" in order to find these and related entries. They probably would want to hear and read some pronunciations too. --Daniel. 14:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it's possible. But if a phrasebook user is searching for "I need gas/gasoline/petrol", then presumably they are an English speaker (of some non-trivial fluency level) looking for a TL translation of the phrase. Such a user isn't going to need or want information about the English phrase, and will only be frustrated by the excess clicking required to get to the translation.

Of course, there is the case of a LOTE speaker proceeding from the LOTE phrasebook entry (in the rare cases where one is present) to the English entry. In principle, a speaker of Foovian would go to the Foovian Wiktionary's phrasebook to find suitable information on English equivalents. But most other Wiktionaries are in even worse shape than ours, so we should expect that many people will use the phrasebook in reverse, looking up the Foovian phrasebook entry on EN Wiktionary and then proceeding to the English phrasebook entry for pronunciation & usage. On that basis I guess I can see a justification for the separate US and UK entries, though it still seems bass-ackwards. Again, it seems like a properly-structured appendix could handle the needs of these two constituencies much better. -- Visviva 14:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This is an excellent case study. Wherever it's placed, the entry should have both "I need gas" and "I need petrol" with usage tags. There's no point in having separate pages with separate translations that can get lost in the shuffle, not to mention that the user will probably want to know about the other phrase in case it's more relevant. Maybe we should have a phrasebook space, and title the pages with a minimum but unambiguous phrase, like phrasebook:need gasoline.

阿山

Mandarin section. I know nothing about Mandarin, but an anonip suggested deletion as SOP on the entry's talkpage.​—msh210℠ 18:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. 阿 is just an informal prefix, which can be placed before any name to indicate that communication between persons addressing each other by this prefix is casual and informal. Here's a little more information, which we really should have in this dictionary also. bd2412 T 20:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• Yep, delete per nom. The Min Nan section should include the literal meaning though to avoid disambiguity. (If such usage can indeed be used in that language.) ---> Tooironic 22:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't we keep names and pet names, etc.? Please keep. It demonstrate the difference in usage between Mandarin and Min Nan, as explained by User:A-cai. --Anatoli 00:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not a pet name in the sense of Petey for Pete or Juanito for Juan, it is simple a name prefixed by a particle that can be prepended to any name (or even to symbols representing titles or occupations). It is more like the old fashioned practice of saying "Br'er" before the name of another as an abbreviation for brother. We would not include individual entries on all of those possible collocations, common as Br'er John, Br'er Thomas, Br'er David, Br'er Smith, Br'er Jones, and Br'er policeman might be. bd2412 T 00:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The entry seems to suggest that 阿 overwrites another character: "a familiar way of calling someone who's given name ends with 山" (shouldn't that be "whose"?) So if someone's name was yushan, this would still be a nickname for them. I dunno, that's murky territory. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 17:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is used in that way at all (and for the record, so far as I know it's use at all is prevelant only rural Southern China), but if so, this would also apply if someone's name were Yushen, or Xigang or Zhibao, or any of thousands of other multisyllabic names in the Chinese language. We would be justifying as many "阿foo" combinations as there are Chinese characters. bd2412 T 18:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

religious naturalism

Encyclopedic subject matter. Candidate for {{only in}}. DCDuring TALK 09:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not what really matters. The question is, is this just naturalism of a religious nature. And frankly from the unhelpful definition, I'm not sure. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Is spiritual naturalism by the same contributor in the same boat? There is also religious naturalist (and spiritual naturalist). bd2412 T 18:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There's something in the UK called the Plain English Campaign, and this is exactly the sort of thing they'd hate. We need a decent definition before we can decide if it's SoP, or just delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Then delete all four. bd2412 T 01:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep the entry; whether the definition is correct is another question. It does not seem to be a semantic sum of parts. "Encyclopedic subject matter" is an invalid reason for deletion of an entry with a definition. Entries similar in some regards include dialectical materialism, logical atomism, moral objectivism, transcendental idealism, subjective idealism (redlink), and logical positivism (redlink). The claim (made by no one so far) that the term is a semantics sum of parts can be reviewed if some evidence for the claim is presented. It is not clear why "naturalism" is not already an encyclopedic subject matter, and whether we want to delete "naturalism" per "encyclopedic subject matter". Interestingly, “dialectical materialism”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. shows several dictionaries, while “religious naturalism”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. only shows Wikipedia. Nonetheless, the argument of "encyclopedic subject matter" would probably also apply to "dialectical materialism". --Dan Polansky 11:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm eighteen years old

Every age between 1 and 120, and perhaps more, because there are things that are 1547 years old and more? This can and should be handled under "old", sense #5. Examples can be added to the translations pages. I did this for Finnish already. Also I am twenty years old and I'm twenty years old should go. --Hekaheka 05:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Technically, these 120 utterances would only be defined in entries in they are attestable. That is, if no one said "I'm ninety-seven years old" yet, then we don't add that. As an additional rule, perhaps we should not count references to fiction, because there would be some "I'm seven hundred years old", and so on. --Daniel. 08:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, plenty of those in the Bible. But not really useful for humans. --Ivan Štambuk 18:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Stricken, phrasebook entry - does not belong at "old sense #5". — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 17:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "not belong". The examples are exactly of this sense:

How old are they? She’s five years old and he’s seven. We also have a young teen and a two-year-old.

My great-grandfather lived to be a hundred and one years old.

I think Phrasebook is misunderstood and misused, if any entry can simply be justified by saying that "it belongs to phrasebook, no counterarguments apply. --Hekaheka 04:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

We really need to develop a CFI for the phrasebook. There currently isn't one beyond attestation, which really isn't good enough. There was the starting of a discussion about this on the BP but again it appears to have fizzled out. Until such time as we have a suitable CFI (which imho should include usefulness as a key criterion) we don't really have much option but to keep these wherever they turn up. I think we nearly got consensus that the phrasebook shouldn't be in the main namespace, but whether it should be an appendix or a separate (pseudo) namespace is still not certain afair.

Regarding this entry specifically, I think we should have phrasebook entries for "I am __ years old" which explains how to construct the sentence in the target language, gives several examples, and links to where you can find the appropriate number to put in. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wander-

Not a prefix, but the word stem of wandern and the normal way how to use a verb in compound words in German. Maybe this is a candidate for speedy deletion, too? --Zeitlupe 07:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Now this one is a more difficult issue. Note that Wander does not exist as an independent noun. -- Prince Kassad 08:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've walked up and down several Wanderwegs in Switzerland - is that a reasonable use of the prefix? SemperBlotto 08:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Wanderweg is a compound word. I don't think that you call the first part in a compound a prefix. But I am not an expert in grammar. Maybe someone should decide this, who knows the exact definition of prefix --Zeitlupe 12:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No, not as a noun, but as a verb, "wander" is the word stem of wandern. You can build a compound word starting with a verb too. Example: Kochgeschirr (cookware) is derived from the word stem koch from the verb kochen (to cook), not from the noun Koch (cook). See also w:de:Zusammengesetzte_Wörter#Typisierung_nach_den_beteiligten_Wortarten if you can read German. --Zeitlupe 12:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete If part of a compound is simply a word, which means the same thing in the compound as it does alone, then we should not have an affix entry for it. Ancient Greek is chock full of this phenomenon. We should only have affix entries when the part of a compound does not have a standalone counterpart, or means something different when its used as a compound. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 13:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"Wander" is the root. German verb forms end in -en or -n, so "wandern" is the verb formed from that root. Basically, Zeitlupe is right.S Marshall 18:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Deleted per discussion. Ƿidsiþ 06:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

fifamigi

fifamigo

No google book hits. Google searches get some hits, but it doesn't look like anything 'durable' that can be cited as such. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 22:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This is Esperanto. (I find mentioning that makes it easier for me to find the new Esperanto words up for deletion.) There's a durably archived fifamiga, but no noun or verb forms I could find. Ripping it apart, it's an entirely regular Esperanto word: fi- (corrupt) + fam (famous) + -ig- (to make) + -o (noun).--Prosfilaes 00:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not the correct venue for this request. This should have been requested for verification, not deletion. Razorflame 00:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If you can verify it, do it, or else it's going to be deleted. Anything can be Esperanto through the systems of derivation, but if there's no durable record of its being used, wiktionary isn't the place for it. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 02:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Move both to RFV.​—msh210℠ 16:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

RFV it should not be here. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

As said: Move both to RFV. --Dan Polansky 07:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added three citations of verbal forms from soc.culture.esperanto to fifamigi.--Prosfilaes 01:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Move to RFV, Mglovesfun (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

RCI

It's the name of a specific radio station, and therefore not dictionary material. -- Prince Kassad 15:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Correction: it's the initialism of a proper noun. I'm not sure if we have ever actually determined whether these are keepable. I asked about the validity of entires like RMIT a few months ago but got no reply. ---> Tooironic 23:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

What he just said. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Note I've converted this to an {{rfd-sense}} as I've added the distinct sense "residual current indicator". Thryduulf (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

in default

NISoP. No meaning beyond (deprecated template usage) in + (deprecated template usage) default. DCDuring TALK 16:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Right. Delete (or redirect to default, I suppose).​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. This term does not appear in Ballentine's, Black's, or Bouvier's law dictionaries. bd2412 T 13:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Redirected but not struck. Should it just be deleted? DAVilla 09:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

association

Rfd-redundant. "A connection to or an affiliation with something" redundant to "The state of being associated". I these aren't intended to be the same, it's just the wording. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• I can see no difference worthy of a separate sense. They should be combined into a single sense, separated by a colon. There's nothing wrong with a single definition line laying out two ways of describing the sense. bd2412 T 13:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fine. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

love affair

Is this really a set phrase? Seems SoP to me; rephrasable as "romantic affair", "illict affair", etc. ---> Tooironic 13:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It may not be a set phrase, but many lexicographic lemmings find it includable. See onelook. DCDuring TALK 13:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Needs a second definition, "had a love affair with tennis" doesn't mean an adulterous relationship with it. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a set phrase, "romantic affair" and "illicit affair" aren't synonyms, also they're true adjectives (romantic, illicit) while this is love used attributively. But (in theory) we don't keep set phrases unless they're also idiomatic. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep as a set phrase. Note that "set phrase" does not rule out "semantic sum of parts". Also, "set phrase" is an extra-CFI consideration. --Dan Polansky 12:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Striking as no consensus for deletion after more than 4 months. In terms of voting, only Tooironic seems to vote for deletion; DCDuring seems to abstain or weakly support keeping while leaving a comment as food for thought, with a useful link to OneLook. --Dan Polansky 12:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Count Dracula

Famous fictional character from literature, but (unlike, say, Jekyll and Hyde, Frankenstein's monster, or Mrs. Robinson) probably not a generic term for anything. I would delete this for the same reason I would not admit Tom Sawyer. Equinox ◑ 21:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

...which we have. Goddammit. But it's supposedly a verb. Equinox ◑ 21:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Tom Sawyer#Verb might be OK, at least in the US, subject to confirmation by attestation. DCDuring TALK 22:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Delete or replace with {{only in}} WP. DCDuring TALK 22:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Strong keep as linguistic per use in metaphor: "the Count Dracula of the corporate world", "the Count Dracula of law enforcement", "the Count Dracula of experience" all found on first page of Goole Books search. DAVilla 06:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep, per DAVilla, and redefine. --Yair rand (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that the old attributive use rule is gone, we do need more, better thought out rules to deal with this stuff. Having said that, we usually ignore the rules and just have a 'vote', unlike RFV where we rely on evidence. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

My best shot at it was here. DAVilla 05:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Trichording

I don't think this should be capitalised, or a noun. The definitions is "(slang, gaming) Moving in multiple directions, or about multiple axes.", which I don't think is correct. --Volants 18:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

So why's it here? Move to rfc. Equinox might be our most experienced user in terms of gaming. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I can see a couple of dozen uses of this term on Usenet. The capital letter seems to be wrong; I would expect trichording. There are also mentions of bichording (moving in two axes at once?). It seems to be almost exclusive to a single game, Descent (1995), which possibly raises the "fictional universes" spectre. Equinox ◑ 16:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Just found this on Wikipedia: "Particularly in first-person shooters (FPSs), straferunning (known as speed-strafing among players of GoldenEye and Perfect Dark, and as trichording among players of the Descent series) is a technique that allows a player to run or fly faster through levels by moving forwards and sideways (strafing) at the same time."

trouser leg

pant leg

Looks like SOP to me. --Volants 18:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(Adding pant leg header, above.) Yeah, delete both.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Delete trouser leg.​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete and make sure our sense of leg#Noun covers it. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete per MG. DCDuring TALK 19:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

We have a sense "A part of garment, such as a pair of trousers/pants, that covers a leg".​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete trouser leg, keep pant leg per COALMINE. --Yair rand (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize it was spelled joined-up also. Yeah, keep pant leg.​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep both. For the moment just voicing the importance of this word, not sure what criteria it should fit in yet. --Anatoli 23:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep pant leg per Yair rand, abstain on other. DAVilla 05:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• trouserleg also meets CFI (it's in Ulysses for a start), so it looks like both pass per COALMINE. Ƿidsiþ 16:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Kept pant leg.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted trouser leg.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

stiff

Rfd-redundant "Of a penis, erect" redundant to "Of an object, rigid, hard to bend, inflexible".​—msh210℠ (talk) 07:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

They're really quite different senses. Though the logic behind them is the same, what exactly happens and in what contexts it might be used is not obvious. Thus I think the differentiations are very important, especially for ESL learners. ---> Tooironic 09:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

...and similar to wet which applies both to an object being filled with moisture and a women's sexual arousal. ---> Tooironic 09:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the sense relating to "he became stiff" is needed because it implies penis without saying penis - this sense is just the most common sense of stiff - delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Tooironic's arguments about stiff and wet, also they can be used about the persons as if their whole body is stiff or wet (e.g. "he is stiff", "she is wet"). In Russian (normally) they won't even translate as adjectives. Although this meaning are easily understood by native English speakers (by extension), they do cause problems to ESL learners. Keep this sense and add a translation gloss to match the number of senses. --Anatoli 23:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Then it should be "of a person", not "of a penis". bd2412 T 23:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

What bd said.​—msh210℠ (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's also what I said. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that: then I misunderstood you the first time, Martin. I thought you were saying that a (currently nonexistent) "(of a person)" sense would pass but the current one fails, whereas I thought bd was saying that the current sense passes (but must be reworded). (The difference between those is that if no one bothers to reword it, then does the current one get scrapped or not? According to the way I understood you, yes; according to bd, no: it will sit there until it is reworded.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realise we lack that sense. Perhaps I should read the f'k'n entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems to contradict "painful" sense that applies to parts of the body, so keep. DAVilla 05:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Or at least amend other sense to refer strictly to muscles, if that would be correct. DAVilla 05:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Houdini

From WT:CFI#Wiktionary_is_not_an_encyclopedia: "Wiktionary will give the etymologies, pronunciations, alternative spellings, and eponymous meanings, of the names Darlington, Hastings, David, Houdini, and Britney. But articles on the specific towns (Darlington, Hastings), statue (David), escapologist (Houdini), and pop singer (Britney) are Wikipedia's job." Sense: "The magician and escape artist Harry Houdini." Hmm... --Yair rand (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete per this infallible analysis. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

So, in the sentence (from Google books) "But the more the film focuses on the psychological cat-and-mouse game between its heroine, who is a troubled police detective, and its villain, a megalomaniac who fancies himself a new Houdini, the more it loses momentum and its claims to credibility." - we are just to read the meaning of "Houdini" as just another surname? Shouldn't we tell our users what it actually means? SemperBlotto 07:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No. We provide an etymology and a WP link. en.wikt is not an encyclopedia. We are not a print dictionary and are therefore not limited to our own content, but also include by quick reference all the content of WP. delete. DCDuring TALK 08:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

keep: the current page is not about the artist, it's about the word Houdini. And it's quite normal to include a definition with the meaning of this word (I don't know what eponymous meaning means). This page is no more encyclopedic than blue fox : blue fox also provides the meaning, but the page is not about the animal. Lmaltier 18:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The only thing under challenge is the proper noun sense, which specifies an individual person. This is clearly not in accord with our existing policies and practices. I don't know whether the surname "Houdini" has actually been used by anyone besides the famous Houdini. If not, I don't think that we would include the proper noun PoS at all. But I'm not inclined to challenge a proper-noun definition as a surname. DCDuring TALK 18:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah Lmaltier, per yourself "we don't include specific individuals, we include words". This entry as a whole isn't nominated for deletion. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

We include words, and explain their meanings. We don't include animals, we include words used as names for animals, but we also explain which animal this name is used for. I don't see the difference. Of course, the meaning of a surname or a first name is not a list of individuals, and it's difficult to provide a definition for them. But in the present case, it happens that the meaning is a specific individual. I just wanted to insist on the fact that the page is not about the artist, it's about the word, and the reason given for deletion does not apply. Lmaltier 18:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This should also be kept - just like Hitler. BedfordLibrary 15:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep "The magician and escape artist Harry Houdini" if it can be shown that the surname "Houdini" is commonly used to refer to the escapologist; the quotation provided by SemperBlotto suggests that. As regards the text from CFI, show me the vote or Beer parlour discussion; back then, CFI was edited by regulators wanna-be as they saw fit, failing to track community consensus. If I had the courage, I would just send the whole section of CFI titled "Wiktionary_is_not_an_encyclopedia" for removal from CFI. The section tries to regulate things that are "names of specific entities", and we now well know that "there is no agreement on specific rules for the inclusion of names of specific entities", per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Names of specific entities.

The quoted section of CFI first appeared in the current full reading with the examples in a 13 September 2005 revision of CFI, by Eclecticology, in an edit deceptively summarized as "Some simplification and re-ordering", an edit that increased the complexity and detail of CFI. Eclecticology, a wannabe regulator, incidentally claims that voting is evil: Wiktionary_talk:Votes/pl-2010-06/Number_vs._numeral#Voting_is_evil. When voting is evil and forbidden, regulators have free hand to impose regulations as they see fit, as there is no other sound process of creating or rejecting regulations. --Dan Polansky 09:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever read m:WM:PIE, w:WP:POLL, or any of the other similar, consensus-supported pages throughout Wikimedia? (Or WT:NPA, for that matter?) --Yair rand (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I did. Polls are not evil. m:WM:PIE is not supported by consensus; it is an essay expressing views of some Wikipedians. That is also what it says on the tin at the top of the page: "This is an essay. It expresses the opinions and ideas of some wikimedians or Meta-Wiki users but may not have wide support. This is not policy on the Meta-Wiki, but it may be policy or guideline on other Wikimedia projects. Feel free to update this page as needed, or use the discussion page to propose major changes." The opening passage of the page is this: "Polls are evil. Don't vote on everything, and if you can help it, don't vote on anything," with which I utterly disagree. --Dan Polansky 08:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:POLL says that "polling is not a substitute for discussion". I agree. But it also holds that discussion is not a substitute for a vote.

On WT:NPA or no personal attacks, the things I have stated about Eclecticology are relevant to the authority of the section that you have quoted. I admit that I could have avoided them, especially the "wonnabe regulator". Nonetheless, the "wonnabe regulator" hypothesis can be verified from the history of WT:CFI and has bearing on the discussed subject, so it is not the species of fallacy of relevance known as ad hominem. In any case, the section added by Eclecticology has no trace to a vote or a discussion; it is a regulation imposed by Eclecticology, AFAICT. The diff that I have given above gives a deceptive summary: that is a fact. This raises even stronger doubt about the legitimacy of the section that you have quoted. --Dan Polansky 08:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, the edit summary is an accurate description of the edit. I don't see any content in that edit that wasn't there before. The content quoted was added in this edit by User:Uncle G. --Yair rand (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that is embarassing. I should double-check before I make an accusation. I am sorry, and I naturally take back what I have said: the summary given by Eclecticology was not deceptive--that was my misreading.

The Houdini thing has arrived on 22 May 2005, as you have pointed out. --Dan Polansky 16:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a misunderstanding above: Houdini is not a surname. As a proper noun, it always refers to this artist. The artist is the meaning of the word, this is the reason for my opinion. Lmaltier 16:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Red Nose Day

A specific annual charity event. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep, unlike the entry above that compares these two, this entry is not obvious from its words.--Dmol 23:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting distinction. It would seem to disqualify London Marathon, but allow Sport Relief (another UK charity event). Mglovesfun (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete. These are the criteria that I would judge it on, personally, and I was only able to find one citation of metaphorical use:

• 2008, Dandi Palmer, Green Fingers, Lulu.com (publisher), ISBN 190644210X, page 62

  Gordon should have covered his pallet of strawberries with brown paper. They were standing out like Red Nose Day against the churned up ground.

DAVilla 06:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

waist-shake

This all looks like tosh. I'm copying all the article here. --Volants 09:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

==English

===Etymology===
Popularised by the "I am a Japanese School Teacher" editorials; compare [http://outpostnine.com/editorials/teacher51.html "Catch-Up Part II - Waist-shake"]

===Noun===
'''waist-shake'''

# {{slang}} [[sex]], sexual intercourse

====Usage notes====

Often accompanied by a pelvic thrusting motion.

Move to RFV. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I've not found any durably archived uses, but [5] is a mention that suggests it's a calque of a Japanese slang term. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Google

Proper noun. We don't do names of specific entities. I don't challenge the capitalized common noun or verb. I have added an "etymology", which could probably use enhancement. DCDuring TALK 01:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

We don't do names of companies, so deleted. However, according to newly amended WT:CFI, "there is no agreement on specific rules for the inclusion of names of specific entities" such as a search engine. We do have Yahoo! by the way. DAVilla 06:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep both Google and Yahoo!, please. --Anatoli 01:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Eliminating the proper noun doesn't even eliminate the "Google" spelling of the common name, so a translation target remains. yahoo would remain also. As it is an onomatopoetic term, any form should provide an equivalent target for transliterations. None of the forms of "yahoo" have any translations now. DCDuring TALK 02:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I will add Yahoo! translations later. What are you requesting to delete? Do you suggest to replace Proper noun with noun (proper noun->noun)? The verb should be lower case but I think we should keep Google capitalised but some translations have it as a noun, not a proper noun. Judging by interwikis, it's a popular entry and it must be a proper name in most other projects. I don't really mind if it's changed to a common noun (no strong opinion). --Anatoli 03:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

He's requesting deletion of the proper noun, the specific entity, that is, the definition of Google as a search engine. I'm sure the verb is fairly safe. DAVilla 06:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

With regard to We don't do names of specific entities. and We don't do names of companies: well, we don't do names at all, we do words, all words. Some names are words (e.g. platypus, Google, London, New York or Confucius) and deserve an entry, while some names are composed of several independent words (e.g. Winston Churchill) and don't deserve an entry. Lmaltier 07:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep per Lmaltier and change to noun, instead of proper noun, per google#Noun. TeleComNasSprVen 23:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me wherefrom it follows that "we don't do names of companies"? CFI says "Being a company name does not guarantee inclusion. To be included, the use of the company name other than its use as a trademark (i.e., a use as a common word or family name) has to be attested." This text first appeared in CFI on 21 November 2007, formulated by DAVilla. (There was previously a slightly different text on company names, one that treated company names and brand names together.) When DAVilla, who edited CFI without a vote, says what we "don't do", that sounds as implausible as anything. Show me a Beer parlour discussion or a vote. --Dan Polansky 09:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Re "We don't do names of specific entities. ...DCDuring TALK 01:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)": Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Names of specific entities has passed on 18 June 2010: "Many names of specific entitites should be excluded while some should be included. There is no agreement on specific rules for the inclusion of names of specific entities." --Dan Polansky 09:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I have forgotten: Keep both the company of Google and its search engine, until someone proposes an acceptable principle under which these should be excluded; "we don't do names of specific entities" is inacceptable. --Dan Polansky 09:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

token offense

"# Template:sports The meaningless, minimal offense shown by an athlete or team while they are being dominated by an opponent." --Volants 17:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's poorly worded so we need a new definition, so we'll have to write the definition then cite. Plus it seems quite SoP (token + offense). Delete IMO, or find some citations and start from scratch. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. SOP even if attestable. Move to RFD. bd2412 T 00:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved from WT:RFV. DAVilla 06:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete per my comment above. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

kinder-

Same as zoek- above. Not a prefix, just the stem of kind. —CodeCat 10:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

all fired up

= all + fired up. all#Adverb is a mere adjunct, serving as an intensifier. "Really" would be a synonym. DCDuring TALK 15:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete, no controversy here that I can see. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Can't hurt to redirect to fired up; otherwise, delete.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

all decked out

= all + decked out. As above. DCDuring TALK 16:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete, no controversy here that I can see. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Can't hurt to redirect to decked out (or even to deck out). Otherwise, delete.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

all of the time

= all + of + the + time. The NISoP origin of the idiomatic abbreviated form all the time. Many words similar to "all" can substitute, forming terms equally NISoP some of the time, any of the time, much of the time, none of the time. DCDuring TALK 16:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it; the two seem the same to me. They have the same range of meanings, and the optional (deprecated template usage) of is a general property of (deprecated template usage) all. (“All the Single Ladies” might not scan so well if it were “All of the Single Ladies”, but its grammar would remain intact.) How can you tell that (deprecated template usage) all the time is abbreviated from (deprecated template usage) all of the time, and why does that make it idiomatic? —Ruakh_TALK 17:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I think if we delete this, we should delete all the time. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps I should have taken this to the Tea Room. Four OneLook lemmings (AHD Idiom, McGraw-Hill American Idioms, Cambridge American Idioms, and Wordnet) have all the time; none have all of the time. I could see a reason not to include a NISoP noun phrase that functions as a time adverbial. But why one form and not the other? Is it just that "all the time" is nearly 40 times more common than "all of the time" (COCA, a little more so at BNC)?

I think we should look at only uses of "all the" and "all of the" with uncountable nouns ("all the meat"/"all of the meat"), with countable temporal nouns ("all the months"/"all of the months"), and uncountable temporal nouns ("all [possessive noun] life"/"all [possessive noun] life"). But, even in these cases (all of them), there seems to be a relative clause required or some kind of anaphora or deixis. It is only in the case of "time" that whatever implicit anaphora we might imagine has receded into the background. Perhaps that is what makes this idiomatic for our purposes. Is it possibly a not-fully-grammatical form because no explicit reference is required?

The purportedly non-literal senses of "all the time" are "continuously" ("He knew all the time.") and "habitually" (They shop there all the time."). "All of the time" seems to have these meanings as well. One source gives the "literal" sense for "all the time" of "all of the amount of time specified", where the specification is often by a "that"-clause (often omitting "that") or a prepositional phrase. IOW, I am having trouble seeing the difference myself. DCDuring TALK 19:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete both (not that both have been nominated).​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

hellere spørge to gange end at fare vildt én gang

The correct form would be "hellere spørge to gange end fare vild en gang", but a search for this gives no hits. Another variation could be "det er bedre at spørge to gange, end at fare vild en gang", which only gives me 6 hits. The meaning is don't be shy to ask, something like shy bairns get nowt.--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 13:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

very well

RfD-sense: Adjective: "unusually well". This definition is not really different from very + well. Other adverbs can take the role of "very" with no unexpected change of meaning. Thus, it seems clearly NISoP.

RfD-sense: Adverb: "clearly". This does not see distinguishable from the literal meaning. It seems to me that all that is distinct is the construction "to VP very well [nominal phrase or clause]" where the verb is restricted to one of some cognitive activity (eg, perceiving, imagining, knowing). To engage in a cognitive activity "very well" is to do so clearly. But similarly, for an sniper to aim "very well" means to aim accurately. The "goodness" of performance of the action of a verb usually can be better specified by a well-chosen adverb.

The Adverb sense "probably" is also conveyed by (deprecated template usage) well alone, but "well" in this sense cannot be modified by very many adverbs except (deprecated template usage) very. Thus it seems to be a "bound collocation", which might make it sufficiently idiomatic to keep. In addition, it seems that only verb phrases with modal verbs like "can", "may", "could", "would", (etc ?) that are modified by "very well" in this sense.

Finally, there is still a missing sense for the usage: "I can't very well add a definition for an idiom I don't understand." That is, modal + negative, I think. DCDuring TALK 16:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, it looks like you just added the "clearly" adverb sense yourself, redundant to the "" adverb sense, and then RFDed it. Why? I think delete the "clearly" sense (merge any good usex it may have acquired by the time this discussion ends into the other sense).​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, as the sense is in other dictionaries, I think it merits consideration. How an item got here is (or should be) immaterial. I am fairly skeptical about most of the senses of both all very well and very well, but not dead set against them. Some of our problem is our incredibly incomplete coverage of the senses and subsenses of (deprecated template usage) well, especially the adverb. We have 4 senses; AHD has 17. DCDuring TALK 17:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete the "clearly" sense.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The adjective sense nominated is just {{&lit}} (though it doesn't use the template). Should we include that if it's the only adjective sense, since there are adverb senses? (Probably not.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The "can't very well" sense (not in the entry yet but mentioned by DCDuring) seems to me to be the same as the "might very well" sense. we define the latter as "probably" but that's not correct: consider *will/shall very well. The very well is an addition to the might, lessening the improbability introduced by might (thereby strengthening the probability of the main verb); that's the same use in can't very well: it reduces the impossibility introduced by can't (thereby strengthening the possibility of the main verb). They're the same sense, but I'm not sure how to word it: {{non-gloss definition|Used to weaken the effect of certain modal verbs}}?​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

atheist (Redundant sense.)

Listing recently added sense, (re-added after being removed once) that seems identical to others. Sense given is - A person who lacks any religious belief, though not necessarily lacking superstition; an irreligious person -
which to me is identical to-
A person without a belief in, or one who lacks belief in the existence of a god or gods.
There's no difference. Being superstition does not make you believe in God.--Dmol 00:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

See the talk page. A Buddhist is an atheist by the other definitions, but not by this one. --King Mir 05:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Very strong keep, since religions can be atheist, per above. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Atheist primarily means no belief in gods. This does not have any implication for any other belief in principle. Therefore, anytime it DOES imply further beliefs, it is clearly a secondary sense worth listing. —CodeCat 09:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this is the most common use, almost always pejorative. This sense does not have any nuanced concern with the specifics of a person's belief or lack thereof. DCDuring TALK 17:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

How is it pejorative exactly? I don't think any atheist resents being called an atheist? —CodeCat 20:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it was an insult. It is used as a pejorative label by others. I don't think I would necessarily give it the pejorative context label because, as you point out, it is not inherently pejorative. But I think much usage in US public discourse is pejorative. I think surveys in the US say that voters would rather have a gay president than an atheistic one. DCDuring TALK 22:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned up. So, which one of these applies to a Buddhist atheist? DAVilla 04:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

lose one's marbles

Merge this into [[one's marbles]] and redirect thereto.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Apparently also used with "have" and "get", but possibly no other verbs, except synonyms of the three. This would be worthy of usage notice imo. DCDuring TALK 18:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

  Also "miss". DCDuring TALK 18:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

cut it out

AFAICT, there is nothing about "it" in this expression that gives any merit to a separate entry for it apart from cut out, which is still short a half-dozen senses. DCDuring TALK 19:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been a common American idiom since c. 1900 (see e.g. The American Heritage dictionary of idioms which refers the reader to its entry for cut it and not cut out as a source). I would also suggest that cut it out qualifies as an interjection in its common usage, perhaps more so than as a verb, and would qualify for a separate entry on that basis as well. Mike McL 10:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

have a go

Rfd-redundant sense: (intransitive, idiomatic) Shout at or tell off unnecessarily or excessively.

I think this is better: "(intransitive, idiomatic, UK) To attack or criticize." DCDuring TALK 19:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

"Attack" might be worth splitting off, because it can be a physical attack: "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough!" Equinox ◑ 19:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Most dictionaries don't find it worth maintaining distinct senses for physical and other attacks. I don't really care. I do care about the many words that have had their (original) physical senses omitted. Are are our contributors so dephysicalized? DCDuring TALK 20:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

tonsils

Sense: Denoting fullness in the phrase to the tonsils. It doesn't mean "fullness" in that phrase (*"to the fullness"). The phrase means "fully". DCDuring TALK 00:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete or possibly RFV, which would require cleaning up the sense just to make it suitable for RFV. Just delete it IMO, let's not waste two months on citing something we don't even understand. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be the plural of tonsil, used figuratively in one phrase. We should have that phrase, linked to from [[tonsils]] and [[tonsil]], but not have a separate sense of tonsils or tonsil.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added that sense two weeks ago[6] after creating a page for “to the tonsils”. My point was: someone who doesn't understand a sentence with to the tonsils could look it up at tonsils and not necessarily browse down to the "Derived terms" section (where I also added it); so I was listing this sense and forwarding it to the phrase.

As for the definition, I have now amended it to « Top or brim, denoting fullness or completeness as the phrase (deprecated template usage) to the tonsils. » -- if there's an inadequacy, why don't you amend it instead of deleting it? Way to throw the baby out with the bathwater. And please explain that talk about "citing something we don't even understand"? to the tonsils is plain and cited (4 from Google Books, 1 from Wodehouse). Is it up next for the chopping block? 62.147.24.224 19:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If "to the tonsils" were a more obscure metaphor such special treatment might be warranted. The construction this exemplifies has many forms to each of which the argument would apply: "elbows", "gills", "eyeballs", "eyes", "ears", among human parts, such terms as "rafters" in buildings, and "heavens" and "skies" in a larger arena. I don't think that we should be "helping" users looking for this particular application of these terms at the expense of those who are using the entry for other purposes. DCDuring TALK 20:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, now that's one reasoning I can understand; indeed, the similar expressions I listed as synonyms don't get any more than a passing mention in "Derived terms" at their main word either, though I'm not sure it always makes for a more useful dictionary. Also, why didn't you provide this reasoning upfront? The original reason you gave for deletion looked to me like trying to give a dog a bad name and hang him -- anyway I don't care any more; you can hang Fido. 62.147.25.193 10:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Tonto

Defined solely as "Sidekick of the Lone Ranger". I didn't think we included entries like this? Thryduulf (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have reworked the entry and converted the rfd to an RfD sense. As a demonym it would stay, I think. I have added a probably attestable but debatable common noun sense: "sidekick". I am not sure that this really warrants inclusion, but it seems to me to warrant consideration for inclusion. Please tag it if you think it debatable. DCDuring TALK 17:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've not tagged it as such, but the noun sense certainly merits verification. An admittedly quick look on bgc turned up a couple of mentions and no uses. Thryduulf (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I found another sense. Take a look at the cites for both common noun senses. DCDuring TALK 01:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes those all look good. Although you have what looks to be a typo in the final quote for the sidekick sense (s/nor/not/), but without a url to the book it's not immidately easily checkable. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Given its figurative uses, I would also keep the marked definition as the at least once clearly well-understood origin. DAVilla 06:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

But our current practice is simply to put the origin information in etymology, with a WP link, to provide the basic cultural information that people need to understand the connotations that come with the use of the proper noun. DCDuring TALK 14:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

take a grab

Sense: to attempt to snatch or seize. The other Oz-rules football sense may be idiomatic.

Take can be followed by many, many objective complements. This one doesn't seem especially idiomatic.

If, against all that is good and holy, the community decides this is an idiom, the sense given requires a following prepositional phrase headed by "at", I think, based on my review of the cites provided and others and my general experience of mostly US English. DCDuring TALK 16:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The entry says it means to attempt a grab. Delete. But I'm not seeing an "attempt" sense at [[take]]. (Am I missing it?) Other usexes for it can be "take a swipe" and, maybe, "take a stab". And I'm not sure "attempt" is the best definition.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm the page creator. I used the definition to "attempt to snatch or seize" because it seemed to me that if I were "take a grab" at something, it wouldn't make a difference whether or not I actually seized the object at which I took the grab. i.e. in the quotation, "Even in his gallop he would occasionally take a grab at the point of Russell's foot," the horse never actually manages to reach the Russell's foot. That was my interpretation, anyway. Ackatsis 04:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident that the Australian Rules sense is idiomatic. As for the other definition, I originally created it by analogy with "take a stab" (to attempt or try), which is retained even though "stab" has a sense meaning "an attempt." I'll leave the decision up to the community, anyway. Ackatsis 04:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

dark corner

I think this is the kind of figurative use of dark#Adjective and corner#Noun that does not warrant an entry. DCDuring TALK 16:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete. I've added the usex from this entry to [[corner]].​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete, figurative but not idiomatic. Just about any combination of words can be used figuratively (or at least, non-literally). Mglovesfun (talk) 10:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean like velvet night? What does that mean, anyways? DAVilla 06:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleted.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

come down

rfd sense X 2: 1. To descend; 2., To visit, to travel in order to meet. Neither of these senses seems as idiomatic as the other 4. DCDuring TALK 01:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

In the phrases "come down and see me" and "come up and see me", the down and up having nothing to do with direction, they're purely phrasal. It's perhaps worth keeping the first definition as (literally). Note the to decrease sense isn't all that idiomatic, either. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In what sense does a price "come#Verb" when it "comes down". We are clearly in a realm of figurative use, but I am not sure how one could word a figurative sense of "come: that applied. I can't identify the specific sense at MWOnline's entry for come. Is it 2e: "to enter or assume a condition, position, or relation" ? DCDuring TALK 15:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

come down the pike

This is synonymous with and occurs with about the same frequency as come down the road and come down the line at COCA in this figurative sense, an expression of the basic metaphor of time as a road. BTW, pike is US for turnpike. If these or other similar formulations of the metaphor aren't used in other varieties of English, then the expression (and probably the synonyms) should stay). DCDuring TALK 01:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It is also misunderstood as come down the pipe sometimes, and the adjective/participle form is much more common. FWIW. ~ lexicógrafo | háblame ~ 12:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

And "pipeline" as well, especially in business. The idea of a "sales pipeline": lead, qualified prospect, need identification, internal approval, budget inclusion, order placement, shipment, delivery, installation, acceptance, commission check, probably contributes to this kind of alternative construction. It doesn't do much violence to the semantics at least. DCDuring TALK 15:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't speak American Sign Language

Do we need this entry? --Anatoli 01:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• keep for now pending agreement on a phrasebook CFI. Depending on what criteria we agree on I can see this going either way, so I think it would be premature to delete it before we have such a CFI. Thryduulf (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The only issue I have is that it seems rather hard to 'speak' sign language. But I don't know what the alternative would be. —CodeCat 09:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Google hits for "I don't speak American Sign Language" - 2,350 results. Google hits for "I don't know American Sign Language" - 39,700 results. ---> Tooironic 10:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be better as a redirect to something like "I don't know ASL", no matter what criteria we have for phrasebook entries? "I don't know how to sign" comes up at bgc about 50 time, about 10 times more than "I don't know ASL". "I don't speak ASL" doesn't come up at all. If someone with a foreign accent said "I don't know ASL" rather than "I don't sign", wouldn't the implicature be that they do sign using another system.

Hypotheses:

1. American Sign Language (7 syllables) is probably rare in speech relative to "ASL" (3 syllables). DCDuring TALK 14:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
2. "Signing" is not "speaking".
3. "I don't know how to sign" and "I don't sign" are reasonable entries.
4. This entry should be moved to I don't know ASL, possibly retaining the redirect, which, though somewhat misleading, might help a user find a better expression. DCDuring TALK 14:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Strong move (if that makes sense). 05:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

digital audio broadcasting

I think it is not a common noun, but rather a proper noun of a specific technology, and thus requires attributive use. -- Prince Kassad 09:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Proper nouns (and this isn't) don't require attributive use. SemperBlotto 10:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • If it is a common noun (which I doubt), it would be nothing more than digital + audio + broadcasting. -- Prince Kassad 13:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

garbage

Rfd-redundant X 3:

1. Leftover waste or scraps or material deemed useless or disposable.
2. Space debris,
3. (attributive, informal) Worthless.

I have:

1. reworded the offal sense inherited from Webster 1913 as "food waste".
2. added a sense: "something or someone worthless." intended to absorb the attributive sense "worthless" above.
3. added a sense: Any worthless material, which is intended to absorb the first sense above.

The "space debris" sense seems already included in one or more of the other senses and not to be inherent in the word out of context.

My objection to having an attributive sense for one, but not all, of the senses is that it can be taken as implying that all attributive use of the word has the meaning "worthless". At an abattoir, "garbage collection" handles food waste, in a computer it would handle recovery of formerly used and now unused memory, etc. IOW, almost any noun sense has an associated attributive use. DCDuring TALK 17:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

park

Rfd-redundant "An enclosed parcel of land stocked with animals for hunting, which one may have by prescription or royal grant." seems redundant to "A tract of ground kept in its natural state, about or adjacent to a residence, as for the preservation of game, for walking, riding, or the like." Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

They don't seem redundant. The challenged definition says nothing about location or the non-hunting uses. The unchallenged one says nothing about "prescription or royal grant" or that the land is stocked for hunting. The definitions may be dated and not written to our preferences, but neither encompasses the other. DCDuring TALK 11:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

diagram

Rfd-redundant "(mathematics) A graphic representation of an algebraic or geometric relationship" redundant to previous "A plan, drawing, sketch or outline to show how something works, or show the relationships between the parts of a whole".​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete per nom. DCDuring TALK 11:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes - this sense should be deleted. BedfordLibrary 15:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

breast man

SOP from a sense of "man"; a man who likes "foo" is a "foo man" - in this case the breasts of women or chickens. Also nominating tits man, ass man, arse man, butt man, and two senses of leg man. This collocation could, of course, apply to any body part and any food or subdivision thereof. One could be an elbow man, a toe man, a neck man, a steak man, a hot dog man, a potato man, etc. bd2412 T 15:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• I can't see that definition ("foo man") in our entry for (deprecated template usage) man. SemperBlotto 15:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • True, but that just means the sense is missing, not that all of these terms are not SOP. bd2412 T 15:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh it goes further than that, I'm a Formula 1 man myself. Delete all and and some sort to man, and I suppose to woman, gal, lady etc. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

If this is obvious, would anyone care to articulate the principle involved? It can't just involve the idea that any [noun phrase] + "man" is to be read "man who has a preference for [noun phrase]". Is the mere existence of a sense such as the following, from MWOnline, sufficient: "one extremely fond of or devoted to something specified <strictly a vanilla ice cream man>"? — This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talk • contribs) at July 31 2010.

That pretty much sums it up, although I would tweak it a bit and say that it is "one extremely fond of or devoted to a specified type within the category of things to which that type belongs". Someone who is a "vanilla ice cream man" is excluded from being a "chocolate ice cream man" but not from being a "wing man" when it comes to chicken parts, a "shoulder man" when it comes to attraction to body parts, or a "soccer man" when it comes to professional sports. bd2412 T 16:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Has to be a male person (usually an adult male). The feminine equivalent would be woman, quite often gal in informal contexts. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete this and its counterparts, listed below, and add the sense to man if no one has yet (I haven't checked).​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the sense in the language I proposed above. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to achieve a kind of precision without communication to normal folk. The mention of types and categories brought Bertrand Russell's early works to mind.

Is the specification necessary? Any preference is relative to something else, so it is trivially true that one can define a category such that the definition is valid, but that makes it vacuous. Are you saying that this is only used in discourse to contrast with some other stated, assumed, previous, or previously known preference? Or, do you mean to restrict "category" to only natural category (whatever that is when it's at home)? DCDuring TALK 17:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that's part of the definition of the word as it is being used here. If I were to say "some people prefer Mozart, but me, I'm a breast man", that would be nonsensical, since there's nothing about being a breast man that keeps one from preferring Mozart to other composers. Maybe there's a simpler way to define it. bd2412 T 17:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The nonsense in your example remaind in equal measure if one dispenses with "man": "Some people prefer Mozart, but me, I prefer breasts." DCDuring TALK 17:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't work, though, if I said "some people prefer Mozart, but me, I'm a breast". The word "man" has significance in that phrasing, since it carries the meaning of "one who prefers". bd2412 T 22:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your point or even what the subject of the first sentence is. In any event, it is the very nature of discourse that one avoid disjunctiveness, eg, changing the subject from music to, umm, food. It seems to me that disjunctiveness is the source of the "nonsense" in your example. Perhaps you can produce an example whose nonsensicality derives not from disjunctiveness, but from the error in the MWOnine definition above, which seemed adequate to me, though not fully substitutable.

Your definition, as worded, has some defects: 1., it is hard to understand, 2., it fails to indicate that what is referred to in "type" need to be specified in the construction, 3., it fails to indicate that what is referred to in "category" is not to be specified in the construction, and, 4., it is not substitutable, nor is it worded as a functional definition. DCDuring TALK 23:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank God this is a wiki, then, and someone with better definition-writing skills can come along and fix it. bd2412 T 00:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

While I agree somewhat with the reasoning for deletion, I'm not sure the reasoning is as sound as it seems. Consider "pizza man" (man who delivers pizza"; "garbage man/dustman" (man who removes garbage/trash); "yes man" (man who says "yes" sycophantically); "head man" (man who functions as the head of a group). A "breast man" is not someone who delivers, removes, says, functions as, or even simply "prefers" breasts, but is someone prefentially aroused sexually by interaction with female breasts. --EncycloPetey 04:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"Pizza man", "flag man", "guitar man", et al are accommodated by a different sense of man, added just previously. Take a look.

I don't think that sexual preferences are sufficiently different in kind to warrant distinctive treatment on this set of words, when the syntax and semantics of the use of "man" coincide with its use for other kinds of preference. I don't think we would want to distinguish other kinds of preferences either, say, for Linux vs. Windows, vanilla vs chocolate, or paper vs plastic (at grocery checkout in US). DCDuring TALK 10:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes man seems distinctive. I'm not sure that there are enough analogs to warrant a distinctive sense of "man". OTON, there may be other ways in which "man" is used in productive combination with other words that would warrant a different sense.

I wonder whether it would serve someone learning English to redirect them (when they are looking up "breast man" et al) to the entry for "man". It would be nice if, when doing so, we could highlight the applicable sense of "man" instead of having to rely on the learner's motivation and skill in using Wiktionary as a learning resource. 10:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you proposing that just for the entries nominated for deletion here, or for all possible collocations? I can see further complications arising from that. After all, a plastic surgeon who specializes in enlargement of a certain body part might well be known as a "[foo bady part] man"; and there are some collocations which provide similar opportunities for common constructions, such as ice cream man and pizza man. bd2412 T 18:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

In these cases, I think a general sense covers it and a collocation line for "person with a specified preference" might look like"

• (person with specified preference): ladies man?, leg man, breast man, meat man, team man, beer man, meat-and-potatoes man

The examples I took are more or less the top collocations in this sense from COCA. DCDuring TALK 19:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say lady's man is unrelated, as it refers to a man who has a way with ladies, as opposed to one who merely has a preference for them, or a specialty in them. bd2412 T 01:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither that spelling nor ladies' man was high on the list at COCA. I think that we may be on the point of noting a divergence in meaning between the possessive spellings and ladies man. DCDuring TALK 02:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

tits man

See breast man, above. bd2412 T 15:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

butt man

See breast man, above. bd2412 T 15:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

leg man

See breast man, above. bd2412 T 15:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

ass man

See breast man, above. bd2412 T 15:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, if you don't define this, a non-native speaker might interpret it altogether the wrong way. ;) Wnt 04:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

arse man

See breast man, above. bd2412 T 15:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Greenpeace

How is it different from any company name? Encyclo topic. Equinox ◑ 19:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm well I've worked for the non-profit organizations Scope and ChildLine. Delete, no difference. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. DCDuring TALK 19:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be absurd to delete it. Greenpeacer would be accepted, and not Greenpeace ? The meaning of a word should not change anything to its includability (provided that it's actually a word). But these words, just like all other words, must be described from a purely linguistic point of view, the description should not be encyclopedic (definition, etymology, pronunciation, yes, encyclopedic data about the organization, no). Lmaltier 21:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't be absurd to delete it as we've deleted similar things. We could just use the link w:Greenpeace. Let's have faith in our sister projects, eh? I suppose according to the letter of the law, we should move it to RFV and try to cite it per WT:BRAND. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Lmaltier, you think we should have entries for every trade name, product name, brand name, service name, and company name? The mind boggles. Equinox ◑ 23:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's includable according to the first sentence of CFI. Yes, we should have entries for trade names, etc., but with one necessary condition: that they may be considered as words used in the language (e.g. IBM is a word, not IBM Corp., which is a name composed of two words, and there should be a large enough number of attestations not originating from the company itself, in order to show that the word is used in this language).

It's not Wikipedia's mission to study pronunciations, etymologies, anagrams, list of derived words (e.g. Greenpeacer, Greenpeace is the only possible place for this list), etc.

And, frankly, do you really find normal to accept Greenpeacer, and not Greenpeace? Lmaltier 08:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I do very much. Greenpeacer is not a brand name or organisation. Equinox ◑ 11:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the applicability and force of the word "normal" as LMaltier uses it. Is this a reference to WT:CFI, our slogan, WMF principles, or some other set of explicit or implicit norms? Is it an empirical question? Or is it a matter of opinion, a subject for a WT:BP straw poll? DCDuring TALK 11:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I mean logical. Is it logical that a word such as Greenpeacer is accepted, and not a more basic word such as Greenpeace? The issue arises because, despite the general principle adopted by Wiktionary, many people still feel that words with some categories of meanings should not be included, because they are not included in usual English dictionaries. All names should be accepted, provided that they can be considered as single words (using the linguistic sense of word). Lmaltier 15:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

As logical as most real-world human decisions and activities.

We don't get very far by syllogisms alone. At the very least syllogisms need a number of axioms. A large set of axioms is likely to contain contradictions or leave questions undecided. Applying even the logical deductions to real-world situations requires casuistry, which Pascal unjustly scorned. In any event, without knowing the axioms it is impossible to know whether a given proposition is a logical derivation from them. DCDuring TALK 20:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Consider the following:
  • 2002, Jim Nollman, The Beluga Café: My Strange Adventure With Art, Music, and Whales:

    I mean it's certainly less polemical than having some Greenpeace types confront these hunters with Zodiacs and boycotts and insults in the media.

• The author clearly expects us to know what "some Greenpeace types" means, and I'll bet you get a mental picture of these Greenpeace types from reading that sentence. bd2412 T 23:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
• If it's a real word, then yes, we should keep it. The same goes for all other names of organizations or products that you can find the requisite number of citations for. SemperBlotto 10:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

We don't include definition lines of company names (as a strict rule, though I'm not sure I completely agree with that) although we do include words that happen to be company names, e.g. brand names that have the same name as the company, or alternate meanings such as Greek or Roman Gods after which a company is named. If this can be cited as something other than the organization, then it can be kept. If this isn't actually a company but an organization, then consider that we have Girl Scouts etc. DAVilla 05:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep as the name of a specific entity, in particular of an organization. I know of no vote, poll or Beer parlour discussion that would rule that all names of corporations, firms or organizations should be excluded. Nonetheless, there is a passage in CFI that alleges to exclude company names, a passage that does not have any traceable community support. The passage: "Being a company name does not guarantee inclusion. To be included, the use of the company name other than its use as a trademark (i.e., a use as a common word or family name) has to be attested." If some names of organizations should be excluded and some included, the quotation provided by bd2412 above suggests to me that Greenpeace should be included. --Dan Polansky 10:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete per common sense (cf. Equinox, above, 23:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)) and the CFI passage Dan quotes.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

educocide

Term seems to be used by a single person (the author of this entry). SemperBlotto 11:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The term has been definitely used by at least one other independent author (see second quotation, by Antun Mijatović) and referred to by an independent international agency, the ILO (see third quotation).

The after-effects of this 'educocide', caused by the 1951 and 1953 South African Apartheid legislation still inhibit the skills development and employment creation and the type of employment that can be created in the current South Africa. The increased use of the term educocide might establish the recognition of the depth of the damage done to the South African society and the need for attention and action to basic reading, writing and arythmethic.

The term has been definitely used by at least one other independent author (see second quotation, by Antun Mijatović) and referred to by an independent international agency, the ILO (see third quotation).

The after-effects of this 'educocide', caused by the 1951 and 1953 South African Apartheid legislation still inhibit the skills development and employment creation and the type of employment that can be created in the current South Africa. The increased use of the term educocide might establish the recognition of the depth of the damage done to the South African society and the need for attention and action to basic reading, writing and arythmethic. — This comment was unsigned.

Move to RFV (where it should have been from the start). We currently have two independent citations, so it needs a third, and masses of cleanup. Mglovesfun (talk)

Actually, so far we only have one citation: the one from Mijatović. We also have two mentions and one pointer to a keynote address that may or may not have used the term. (And even the Mijatović one is questionable: it's not obvious to me that that English paragraph is durably archived.) —Ruakh_TALK 17:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be an attempt by the inventor of a word to get it into a dictionary. I think that it should be deleted. BedfordLibrary 15:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Nemean Lion

SoP. -- Prince Kassad 15:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Not SoP because it refers to one specific mythical lion (see Nemean Lion) rather than any lion of Nemea. However, it seems like encyclopaedia material to me — though we do have Medusa, Achilles, and the like. Equinox ◑ 15:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete as a proper noun MWE not specifically one of the authorized exceptions to WT:CFI#Names of specific entities. DCDuring TALK 16:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh? What CFI says there is "There is no agreement on specific rules for the inclusion of names of specific entities." So, why would this have to be an exception? --EncycloPetey 16:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

As the most recent authorized change, does that wording alter our reading of (ie, override) WT:CFI#Brand Name and WT:CFI#Company names where there is a conflict? Is a mythical lion an inhabitant of a fictional universe and governed by WT:CFI#Fictional universes? Is it governed by WT:CFI#Wiktionary is not an Encyclopedia? As product and governmental/NGO names are not included in any other text in WT:CFI, can they be included if attestable? Actually, there is no longer any wording that excludes any name of an individual person, it attestable and with some etymological interest or translation. DCDuring TALK 17:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No, that doesn't override the other sections, and "Fictional universes" applies here. Keep as idiomatic; move to RFV for attestation per the fictional-universe criterion if such attestation isn't obviously findable.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've tweaked the definition a bit. It's not an ordinary lion in the myth, but one invlunerable to weapon attacks, which is not a normal property of lions. --EncycloPetey 16:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's a proper noun. And the first sentence of CFI does not exclude proper nouns, when they can be considered as words, which is probably the case, I think (there could as well have not been a space in the noun, this is not any lion of Nemea). The definition does not strike me as too encyclopedic, it just attempts to make clear what lion this name refers to. Lmaltier 17:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether I like it or not, I see no reason to exclude it. Keep until (if) a better argument arises. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not clear to me that this comes under the head of "fictional universe". The 2008 vote on fictional universe contains this text: "Proposal to require that terms originating in fictional universes (such as Star Wars, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Dungeons and Dragons) which have three citations in separate works, but which do not have three citations which are independent of reference to that universe may be included only in appendices of words from that universe, and not in the main dictionary space." The "such as" clause does not seem to include mythological beings by implication. --Dan Polansky 13:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

What's the problem? Keep. DAVilla 05:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me boldly keep, in addition to my comment above. --Dan Polansky 11:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

kept -- Prince Kassad 16:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

-safe

The 2 citations and 2 DTs don't show it as a suffix. (deprecated template usage) Safe seems to combine. DCDuring TALK 16:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep in some form. (deprecated template usage) safe forms a lot of this sort of compound, and we should cover it somehow and somewhere. Maybe [[safe]] should document it, and [[-safe]] should be a redirect? —Ruakh_TALK 17:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

What Ruakh said. Note also that it often combines hyphenlessly.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC

Please take a look at newly added sense 6 of safe#Adjective. Feel free to do with it what you will. DCDuring TALK 18:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Beautiful. Thanks. Redirect.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say keep. I don't see websafe as web + safe, more like web + -safe. Note -proof. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say -proof warrants the same treatment as -safe probably, redirection to proof which may need a similar definition. DCDuring TALK 23:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

-proof

As above. DCDuring TALK 23:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel all that strongly, but I'd keep it. I don't see what definition we can add at proof that would cover it. Not an attestable definition anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

average Joe

Sum of parts: we have (deprecated template usage) joe as "a male; a guy; a fellow", so this is just an average guy or fellow. Forms like "typical Joe" also exist. Equinox ◑ 14:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"average joe" appears in RHU and AHD. "joe" and "joes" are the only male names or synonyms for this sense of "joe" that appears after "average" at COCA, appearing 94 times. "Average Jane" also appears, BTW, though only 3 times. I assume that phonetics has brought this about. It is readily decodable, but not so readily anticipated from an encoding perspective. DCDuring TALK 15:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. Idiomatic, because "average Bill" or "average Frank" would be incorrect. bd2412 T 11:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

But "Bill" and "Frank" are not defined as "a male; a guy; a fellow", and (deprecated template usage) joe is. I don't see your logic. Equinox ◑ 12:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

So? It would be equally incorrect to say "your average Tom, Dick or Harry". Also, to make the finer point, the term is average Joe, not average joe. bd2412 T 19:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it's both. Equinox ◑ 20:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, but his point (I think) was that in average Joe we have Joe, whereas it's joe that means "guy", so this is not SOP. That logic is good IMO, but Joe also means guy.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, google:"average tom dick".​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Gets about 48,000 hits compared to google:"average joe" getting one and a half million. bd2412 T 13:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"Average" selects for "Joe" relative to other names, but "Joe" doesn't select for "average" rather than "ordinary" or "regular", let alone semantically close determiners like "any", "some", "no". I don't think we need follow AHD and RHU, though there is an idiomatic construction here. "Joe" doesn't select for "the", "that", "this" whereas apparent synonyms like "fella/fellow/feller", "guy", and "bloke" do. I think it is the existence of some differential collocation of modifiers of "Joe" compared to purported synonyms that makes people here and at RHU and AHD think of it as an idiom. DCDuring TALK 20:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

English English

Was listed at RFV. As I said there, "This is definitely citeable — see [7], [8], and either [9] or [10] — but I'd consider it SOP". DCDuring also voted to RFD it, and no one seemed to object, so … —Ruakh_TALK 15:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the question is whether this duplication is qualitatively different from the generic colloquial duplication for emphasis or to distinguish a typical X from a non-typical X by saying "not an X, an X X". Ie, "Not English, English English". If "English English" is used as a synonym for "British English" or is distinguished from it or from other varieties of English ("I don't speak Irish English/Scottish English, I speak English English"), then perhaps it merits inclusion. What say all? DCDuring TALK 15:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is commonly used to mean English as it is spoken and used in England and/or Britain, in statements where a distinction is being made with American English, Scottish English, Australian English, etc English. -- ALGRIF talk 12:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the question is whether it is more like "house house" in ("I don't want to raise a family in a carriage house. Why can't we have a house house."), a general construction used in ordinary speech with many nouns, or more like, say, "American English", as used mostly by language students and professionals. DCDuring TALK 15:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that it is the only way to say Standard English as spoken / used in UK (as opposed to Standard English as spoken / used in any other country.). People use this expression to mean this. If we are to be a descriptive dictionary, then this entry should stay. IMHO. -- ALGRIF talk 15:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The term "English English" is fairly standard in linguistics. It's not the kind of reduplication that means "ordinary, canonical X" (like house house in DCDuring's example); it means "English as spoken in England" and is thus a subset of British English (which also includes Welsh English and Scottish English). It may, strictly speaking, be SOP, but no more so than American English and British English are. —Angr 16:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

So, does it need a linguistics tag? I think it does because ordinary folks are more likely to use it in the "house house" or even "tomato tomato" sense. DCDuring TALK 19:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure? I'd tried searching for "real English" to get a sense of what canonical English might be, and then I used that to try to craft searches that would specifically find uses meaning canonical English — searches like "English English" + "slang" and "English English" + "foreigners" and "English English" + "pidgin" — and even in those searches, I still found almost only cites that meant "English as spoken in England". In a few cases the speaker or writer might have meant "canonical English (i.e. that of England)", but in most cases that was clearly not the intent, and even in the cases where such an interpretation is possible, I really had the impression that the correct interpretation is "the English of England (i.e. canonical English)". However, I did find one cite that I do think was using it to mean "canonical English", not "the English of England": [11].
This is not to say that you're wrong — carefully crafted searches introduce selection bias, and interpretation of results introduces other biases, and overall I had a small sample of cites that I found in the middle of slogging through irrelevant hits — but I'd feel more comfortable if you could provide some evidence to support your view.
—Ruakh_TALK 18:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

When I say "I think X", I intend to advance a hypothesis. I would have been happy to accept a challenge rather than to make someone else do the work you have done.

My efforts to support my hypothesis have not been very successful. Even searching for "english english" with "black english" doesn't yield what I have posited. I did find some cases of differentiating Tamil/Indian/Hindi English from English English, but the writers were clearly very sophisticated and probably meant English from England. It might be US colloquial, but I wouldn't claim "english english" to be in "widespread use". Nevertheless I do have confidence in the general "not (a) Y X, (an) X X" construction of which this would be an instance. DCDuring TALK 20:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I see. You had written "I think it does [need a linguistics tag] because ordinary folks are […] ", which apparently you meant as "I think that, because ordinary folks are […] , that it needs a linguistics tag", but which I misunderstood as meaning "because ordinary folks are […] , I think it needs a linguistics tag."
I share your confidence in the general "not (a) Y X, (an) X X" construction, I just don't get the impression that most instances of "English English" are uses of said construction.
—Ruakh_TALK 23:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

-smith

"Smith" predates many of the words ending in "smith". Don't we call such formations "compounds"? I think this (and all similar instances) should be redirects to the compound-forming word. Words used in compounds should be marked in some way. How? Also, specifically, how should words that are the "heads" of compounds be marked? A new category? Or should we not make a distinction between such as "black" and "smith". "Black", for example, also appears as a "head" in "bootblack". DCDuring TALK 12:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking delete, I see no evidence that this can be used as a suffix. The fact that the noun (deprecated template usage) smith and the 'suffix' (deprecated template usage) -smith have the same meaning gives it away - in the same way that we don't have an entry for (deprecated template usage) -out despite blackout, breakout (etc.) Mglovesfun (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

blackhat SEO

blackhat + SEO.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

black hat hacker

black hat + hacker.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete this as definite SoP, but I don't think the definition of black hat is correct. I've always thought of it as being like the black sheep of a group, not just in computing.--Dmol 22:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The computing sense is one of a set with (deprecated template usage) gray hat and (deprecated template usage) white hat. Equinox ◑ 22:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

In which case we need another sense, I have added the missing sense.--Dmol 08:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Note, our definition of white hat soft redirects to white hat hacker. I'd rather not get too involved without knowing the terms myself, but the deletion of both looks right to me, per the good analysis above. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I believe (though this may be wrong) that the phrase "black hat" in this contexts comes from Westerns, wherein the bad guys always wore black hats.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

couple with

Redirect to couple#Verb. "Couple" had been missing the long-standing sense of copulate. In that sense a prepositional phrase headed by "with" is as optional as one beginning with, say, "in", "on", "for", or "until". DCDuring TALK 16:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

If deleted, the citations should probably go to Citations:couple or couple#Verb, rather than Citations:couple with. DCDuring TALK 16:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

See this search at bgc for some usage of "couple" without "with". DCDuring TALK 16:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks DCDuring, no arguments from the original page creator. I've got to work on my Google Books-searching skills. I've already shifted the couple with citations to Citations:couple. Ackatsis 00:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

agrarian party

"Any of several political parties, mostly in eastern Europe, that advocate agrarianism." DCDuring TALK 15:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If there's no complaint about the definition, I'd say it's a non-trivial step to get from agrarian party to party that "advocates an equitable distribution of land." None of the definitions at agrarian match.--Prosfilaes 19:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No other OneLook dictionary has this term.

Maybe a rewrite would help a bit. I'm not sure about the mostly qualifier, for example. Was the US Democratic Party in the late 19th century or even the 1930s not an "agrarian party"? I am not sure that the term doesn't mean any party that represents the interests of agriculturalists. I strongly suspect that this is intended to be some kind of catch-all for the various parties that have names that are translated into English as Agrarian Party. If that is what is intended, then perhaps it should be moved to that title.

Or perhaps this should be moved to RfV to see how narrowly or broadly the term is actually used when it is not NISoP. DCDuring TALK 20:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Just any party that's agrarian. Consider an entry at Agrarian Party if there is a really notable, dictionary-worthy political party of that name (per our rules). Equinox ◑ 22:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Labour Party and Conservative party did pass an RFD, whether I like it or not. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Labour Party is like Agrarian Party (with caps). Conservative party passed RFD in error AFAICT (WikiPedant said to keep "all", seemingly not realizing that not all were alike).​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

armchair expert

SOP: armchair#Adjective + expert.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Other, more common collocations with "armchair" in this sense: "general", "quarterback", "traveler", "critic". DCDuring TALK 17:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Not enough of a set phrase to allow inclusion.--Dmol 22:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all three of you. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Delete. ---> Tooironic 22:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was an expert in armchairs. Keep or at the very least amend armchair. What would it be, an expert at a distance? DAVilla 05:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted per majority; sense at armchair can be edited at any time by any user. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

erase

Rfd-redundant: (transitive, paper tape storage, punched card storage) To punch a hole at every punch position.

If we keep this, we should have a sense or two each for blackboards, paper and each information storage medium. The second sense might also be considered included in the first sense. DCDuring TALK 17:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've split the was-second sense into two, with different direct objects, and agree we should delete the one proposed for deletion.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

right on the money

Per the Tearoom discussion, this is merely right (adverb) + on the money. A bit like right on cue which we don't have. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

See WT:TR#right on the money. DCDuring TALK 23:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

short hop

Numerous senses. All are suspect. See hop#Noun, sports sense. DCDuring TALK 02:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

start from scratch

Sum of parts. start + from scratch. ---> Tooironic 06:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete per nom. DCDuring TALK 08:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

DCDuring, what happened to your usual search for alternate collocates? COCA (if I'm reading it right) has 731 hits for "[verb] from scratch", of which 407 (56%) are for "start from scratch"; the corresponding numbers at BNC are 134 and 83 (62%). Isn't this worth a redirect?​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought someone else should have the fun sometimes. DCDuring TALK 23:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Redirect or delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

every nook and cranny

How is this not every + nook and cranny? Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"Every" is overwhelmingly the most common collocation with "nook and cranny" (112/131 at COCA, with a few others having an intervening word (eg, "every little nook and cranny"). It seems worth keeping as a redirect. BTW, should nook or cranny be an alternative form of nook and cranny? It is clearly related and is the preferred form with "no", "any", "some", "a", etc. DCDuring TALK 11:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, redirect.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Redirect or delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• redirected --Felonia 08:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

gank

"(transitive, Internet, slang) To copy, reproduce, reuse, or save an image, idea, or work of another person, often in the context of materials posted on the Internet. Ganking can occur with or without permission." Redundant to earlier sense "to steal"; it merely happens to be used online a lot. Equinox ◑ 21:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Not redundant with "to steal" because of the "can occur with or without permission" part; ordinary theft cannot occur with permission. —208.253.25.162 19:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not completely true; see google:"stole this meme from", or google:"my shameless theft". (But I'm not sure if that means that all of these words are polysemous, or that Internet slang has extended the concept of theft rather than extending individual thieverous words, or what.) —Ruakh_TALK 19:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

aviation incident

Um, aviation + incident? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This sheds some light on aviation accident. We didn't trouble to investigate whether the terms have regulatory meanings assigned by, say, the NTSB. If they are followed, they should not be/have been deleted. Move to RfV. DCDuring TALK 11:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

If something has a definition supplied by the government, that doesn't mean that we should have that definition. Standards of identity we've agreed (and I agree) we should have (and we do), but those are in use on labels, on menus, and/or in advertisements. A term that the National Transportation Safety Board uses in its reports does not necessarily similarly see use, and a citation showing it does would have to be independent of the defining document (so at least not paraphrasing an NTSB report) and clearly in the sense provided (and not merely meaning, in this case, an incident related to aviation). Sure, move it to RFV, but good luck.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It may be that the terms "incident" and "accident" are what have the regulatory definitions. DCDuring TALK 11:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough (I was torn between the two). However I don't think she should keep so-called technical terms listed in specialist dictionaries when they are in fact the sum of their parts. Specialist dictionaries often have these terms to give more detailed information about them, for example in juggling there's the blind catch - it is of course, any catch that's blind. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I've also observed what you have about specialized glossaries. DCDuring TALK 11:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Just because a term is included in a glossary (official, governmental, or otherwise) does not mean it is includable per Wiktionary's criteria. After all, in many cases, the whole purpose of a glossary is to confirm the specific definitions of terms in specialised contexts, not define the meanings of words or phrases on a universal level. Delete this one. ---> Tooironic 22:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

generic top-level domain

I was a bit hesistant, but now I think it's just generic + top-level domain. -- Prince Kassad 18:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say delete. Specialist terminology of the same kind as terms defined in legal documents, but in this case defined by some Internet power. Equinox ◑ 20:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we can stick these (this and the one for country codes) in a glossary/index/appendix/whatever we are going to call such collections. bd2412 T 17:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

How is a gTLD different from a top-level domain? DAVilla 05:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's not a country code. Doesn't seem obvious to me. Definitely a bit technical but that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep it. DAVilla 05:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't have this sense of generic. If it exists, then I guess it's "Not specific to a country or region"? (It doesn't merely mean "Not specific", as gTLDs can be specific to a type of institution, for example.) There are three hits at google groups:"tld is generic", none on Usenet.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

end of quote

SOP.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup, looks uncontroversial, delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep, I think. The meaning is "that's the end of the quotation"; I don't think it's much more SOP than using "quote" to indicate the start of a quotation. —Ruakh_TALK 13:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep. At the very least, it is elliptical, along the lines Ruakh suggests. It makes explicit orally what is indicated by punctuation in written text. An alternative interpretation to that is: "At this point in the text, insert closing quotation marks.". Any reasonable pragmatic reading leads one to construe it as non NISoP.

I personally don't recall hearing the "of". I would expect "end quote" or "unquote". DCDuring TALK 14:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "of": I was struck by that, too, but consulted b.g.c., and found that it is very easily attestable. —Ruakh_TALK 21:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

At COCA: "unquote": 568, "end quote": 234, "end of quote": 12. "Unquote" is not to my taste, but I suppose I have heard it more often than "end quote". 272 or more of the uses of "unquote" are in "quote unquote" or "quote, unquote". COCA has no hits for "begin quote". DCDuring TALK 21:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It's listed as a noun, and just seems to mean "the end of a quote". If the meaning is "that's the end of the quotation" then how can it be a noun? It's a bit like end of story then, though that doesn't always refer to the end of a story, I think end of quote always refers to the end of a quote. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It functions as is directive to someone taking dictation or as a marker of the change in the nature of what is being said from a direct quotation of someone to the current words of the current speaker. It is syntactically a noun (in principle, although I am not sure that its syntax matters in this sense) as are other directives such as the military command "attention". The synonymous directives "end quote" and "close quote" are syntactically imperative sentences, I think, as might be "unquote". Speech directives are usually taken as idiomatic. DCDuring TALK 14:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Then I suppose we should have a noun sense at [[semicolon]]: "A directive to someone taking dictation to insert a semicolon (punctuation mark)"? If not, how is that different?​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

1. In a written report of someone dictating something we would represent it as the words that are spoken. The person dictating would typically say "comma", "paragraph" etc, which would be so written in the written report, possibly set off by punctuation. If the custom were to say "hic paragraph" and "hic break", I think we would need an entry for them. If "hic" preceded every such instruction, I druther we didn't, instead keeping it all at [[hic]].
2. In speech, "end of quote" or its synonyms is of a different nature than what it terminates and what follows it and it marks what precedes and what follows as different in nature. The names of other punctuation marks are also, but more rarely used to place special emphasis on a statement. All such usage seems to follow the conventions of dictating. In a full dictionary each of these might get a sense to indicate such use. If "semicolon" were attestably so used, it would merit an entry. Period/full stop. End of paragraph. (?)
3. MWOnline has a separate sense for such uses of "quote", though they omit the expression under discussion and its synonyms. In a full explication of the simple grammar of such metalanguage, its synonyms "open quote" and "begin quote" and the ways of indicating termination of quotes would also need to be represented. I don't think that you will find anyone marking the termination of a quote by repeating "quote" or saying "quotation mark". That is, "quote" cannot be used in all places where quotation marks are to be inserted, contrary to the implication of the MWOnline entry. End of story. DCDuring TALK 18:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Re item 1, no, I've heard someone dictating who included words like semicolon (and in fact "the capital c court"), intending them to be transcribed as the symbol (and Court resp.). But he may be the exception, for all I know. Re item 2, right, end of quote seems to mean "that was the end of the quotation" in general speech also, but I was responding to the use in dictation only. Both are SOP though, I think.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Many of the expressions we include as idioms are SoP, eg, be that as it may. But, because of how it is used, we included it. The new abbreviation, NISoP, better captures what we try to exclude. Many of our idioms are speech-interpretation directives. DCDuring TALK 19:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Addendum to my "keep" vote: if someone can demonstrate, per WT:CFI, that this phrase refers to the punctuation mark that ends a quotation, then we should have that punctuation-mark sense, and maybe we should remove the existing sense. But I looked around for such a punctuation-mark sense, and couldn't find it; and anyway, I don't see how that would be an argument for deleting the entry. —Ruakh_TALK 18:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete, I agree with Msh210. Ƿidsiþ 07:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

arithmetic

Rfd-redundant: Looks like the attributive use of a noun, also redundant to the definition given in the adjective section. It was previously removed by an IP who was probably right, but I brought it here anyway. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 03:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we tend to RFV these and look for citations showing that it's an adjective. I don't object to deleting it, however. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep. There are two different pronunciations for the word when preceding a noun that correspond to distinct sets of meanings, possibly with some overlap. "An arithmetic class" is a class in arithmetic, with pronunciation as the noun, stressing the antepenult. "An arithmetic progression" is the most common collocation, I think, of the adjective, stressing the penult. There are some cases where it is not obvious to me which pronunciation would be natural. I think we could possibly do a better job in differentiating the definitions or attributive use of the noun (pronunciation 1) and true adjective use (pronunciation 2), but the "mathematics" context tag for the overlapping sense seems to be a reasonable approximation to the usage.

In "general" usage "arithmetic progression" may be the only collocation with that pronunciation. That seems to be the view of Merriam-Webster who don't show "arithmetic" as a true adjective, but have a separate entry for arithmetic progression. I think it can be shown that arithmetic is a true adjective in other uses, meeting the modification-by-too-or-very test (and carefully excluding adjective use of "very"). DCDuring TALK 15:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Arithmetic (stress on met) is used as an adjective in — off the top of my head — "~ progression", "~ series", ~ number theory/-rist/-retician geometry", "~ algebraic number theory/-rist/-retician geometry", and "~ variety". (I suspect cites can be found with very, more, or less.) But that's the adjective. The noun "(modifying another noun) Of, involving or relating to arithmetic", the one nominated, is fully redundant to the first noun sense, "The mathematics of numbers...": delete.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC) 16:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete. This sense is not even pretending to be a separate sense; the noun (deprecated template usage) arithmetic, like most nouns, can be used attributively, and this sense is documenting that fact. If it were in an ===Adjective=== section, then we could argue over whether it is in fact a distinct adjective, and request cites that demonstrate the fact; but it's not, so we can't. (But, as DCDuring says, it's not fair to describe this sense as "redundant to the definition given in the adjective section", given that it's pronounced differently.) —Ruakh_TALK 17:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

We now have only a mathematics sense for one of the not-too-numerous words with mathematical content that have normal-person meanings. Can we also have an ordinary sense? I thought context tags are supposed to indicate usage context, not subject/topic. I don't think that normal people use the penult pronunciation for anything other than arithmetic progression, nor that they use arithmetic as a true adjective.

I suppose that we can assume that no language learner will ever be more confused by the pronunciation difference than by our efforts to explain it. DCDuring TALK 17:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure which sense you're referring to as the "mathematics sense for [a word] with mathematical content that ha[s a] normal-person meaning[]". If you mean the first noun sense, "The mathematics of numbers...", I think that that is the normal-person meaning, and that the math context should simply be removed.
I don't think "normal" people use arithmetic progression either, but may well be wrong. The two adjective senses we have now seem quite correct and distinct from one another. The first, "Of, relating to, or using arithmetic", is pronounced differently from the noun, so probably deserves a separate sense line even if it doesn't meet the usual criteria of being an adjective. (Perhaps that should be a one of them.) It may, though, as I noted above.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Err on the side of keep. While "arithmetic" in the sense of "Of, relating to, or using arithmetic" could be a mere attributive use of the noun, the same-sense-synonym "arithmetical" not so. As an auxiliary check, some OneLook dictionaries do have this adjective sense. I do not think that "arithmetical" in "arithmetical hierarchy" is an adjective while "arithmetic" in "arithmetic hierarchy" is a noun used attributively. --Dan Polansky 13:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

1-800

Adjective. This doesn't seem to be a true adjective. See Wiktionary:English adjectives. The noun section definition needs improvement and the citations moved thereto. DCDuring TALK 19:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

A10

Paper size, adjective. Attributive use. Not a true adjective. See Wiktionary:English adjectives. DCDuring TALK 19:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete all, I suppose.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete or move to RFV (which I suspect would be a waste of time). Mglovesfun (talk) 09:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

A4

Same as A10.

A5

Same as A10.

A6

Same as A10.

A7

Same as A10.

A9

Same as A10.

Action démocratique

Attributive use of noun, AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 20:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Yes, an unnecessary POS/sense. Not even differentiable from the regular noun by a hyphenated spelling, as many attributive usages are. -- Ghost of WikiPedant 20:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

FSBO

Adjective sense. Doesn't look like a true adjective. DCDuring TALK 20:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like user unfamiliarity with the parts of speech, since the definition even says it's an acronym. Equinox ◑ 20:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

diaphragmatic breathing

This term fails the coordination test, a basic syntactic test of whether a noun-noun phrase consititutes a unit. That is, it appears in constructions of the form "X COORDINATOR diaphragmatic breathing" where "X breathing" is a collocation that occurs and COORDINATOR is "and", "or", "not", and possibly others. See Citations:diaphragmatic breathing. DCDuring TALK 03:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Weak delete. This is definitely SOP for some speakers: google books:"breathing is diaphragmatic" shows dozens of uses of (deprecated template usage) diaphragmatic as a normal predicative adjective. But, it also shows several instances of "breathing is diaphragmatic breathing", which makes me suspect that some speakers do think of "diaphragmatic breathing" as a single unit. (That's not definitive — for example, "dead ____" is not a fixed expression for any "____" found in "the only good ____ is a dead ____" — but I think it's suggestive.) —Ruakh_TALK 03:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

third bridge guitar

Hoax, see wikipedia. Matthias Buchmeier 08:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Should be at RFV? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably. Despite [[w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moodswinger]], and despite the AFAICT zero books/Usenet/scholar hits at Google, there are a bunch of Web hits, so maybe someone can find something. There's only one News hit at Google, namely [12], but I have no reason to think it's durably archived.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

When did Google Groups start including so much non-durable crud? How can one go about searching just the usenet pages? DAVilla 05:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It helps to check the "Google Groups" radio box. (Radio box is a redlink currently. That is what it's called, isn't it? Or am I misremembering?) radio button. That gets rid of some, but not all, of the bad hits.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC) 18:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

pipe

Rfd-redundant X 2:

1. To decorate a cake using a pastry bag.
2. To dab away moisture from.

I have tried to create a figurative sense that includes the "dab" sense. I am more confident that the "pastry bag" sense is included in "decorate with piping", which includes textiles and icing. DCDuring TALK 11:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably delete the cake-specific sense but give "decorate with piping" a few diverse examples/citations. Equinox ◑ 12:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

yy

mm

dd

"year, in two-digit, numeric format, as in: dd/mm/yy". Also (deprecated template usage) dd (day) and (deprecated template usage) mm (month). These do not strike me as dictionary material any more than (say) a row of underlines ___ as a placeholder for a signature. Firstly, the length of the placeholder can vary in computer systems, e.g. (deprecated template usage) yyyy for 4-digit year, but any length is possible; secondly, the placeholders themselves can vary, e.g. some systems (.NET) support f for a milliseconds digit, and m is generally minutes while only capital M is months. Equinox ◑ 12:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I'd rather see them deleted. I don't mind a dd/mm/yyyy entry as much, but I suppose that's not a 'word' either. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No it's not a 'word' in any language. Delete all. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Not because of their use in computer systems — computer systems have all sorts of weird such things (for example, Oracle distinguishes between yy, which is a two-digit year defaulting to 19yy on input, and rr, which is a two-digit year defaulting to 1950–2049 on input) — but because of their use in forms that humans fill out, and in cites such as [13] [14]. Ordinary, non-computer-using people are expected to know what these notations mean. —Ruakh_TALK 19:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep all per Ruakh. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

What Raifʻhār said.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 02:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

All pass. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

perusing

Noun sense, marked uncountable. I'm wary of any noun -ing which is uncountable: is it not just the verb? I'm not saying "delete": I'm just saying we probably should, and seeking more knowledgeable/wise editors' input.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete. It's just the -ing verb form known as a gerund. Dictionaries do not count these as nouns meriting definitions. -- Ghost of WikiPedant 00:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete. As with almost all gerunds, there can be a plural. If we want to take that as evidence that it "is" a noun rather than that it functions like a noun sometimes, we can choose to do so, but we will be wasting our time largely duplicating what it is in the entry for the lemma of the verb. "-ing" forms can assume new meanings: consider happening in its 1960s-70s sense. I'm not sure that our entry for, say, [[reading]] is a paragon of excellence in distinguishing gerundial from novel true-noun senses, but there are some senses of reading that seem like true noun senses. I don't see that with this term. I suppose we could RfV it to give such senses a chance to show themselves. If we find one we will be lead lemming. DCDuring TALK 02:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete. The noun form is perusal. Agree with Mr Ghost of WP and Mr. DCD. -- ALGRIF talk 15:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep until there is a discussion and consensus on whether what is sometimes known as gerund should be entered as a noun.

Are you people saying that you accept certain verb forms on noun-phrase positions in sentences?

A sentence fraction: "... he indulged himself with perusing it for the last time." This I would parse as "... he indulged himself with <noun-phrase>", where <noun-phrase> gets expanded to "perusing it for the last time".

The existence on "perusal" has IMHO no bearing on whether "perusing" is used as a noun. "perusal" is IMHO only a non-Germanic quasi-gerund, formed not using the native Germanic "-ing". The quasi-gerund is never used on present-participle positions, but it is used on other gerund-positions.

When "perusing" is defined as "present participle", it does not fit into the sentence "... he indulged himself with perusing it for the last time."

The search google books:"perusings" finds plural occurrences. A quotation with an article: "For those firmly rooted in a trait theory approach to human behavior, we suggest a perusing of the readings listed above."

Re "Dictionaries do not count these as nouns meriting definitions": Admittedly, MWO hosts "perusing" in "peruse", but it also hosts "perusal" in "peruse". And MWO does not have separate pages for inflected forms.

This is IMHO not a subject for RFD.

A precedent: Talk:fucking, containing a long and informative RFD on "fucking" as a noun.

Also Appendix:English_gerund. --Dan Polansky 09:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

We have had numerous discussions, mostly in the course of discussions of individual entries. Our most productive discussions of general principles almost always seem to arise from issues raised at individual entries.

In English all -ing forms of verbs can be used as nouns and can form plurals and can be used attributively to modify nouns. The generic senses are both uncountable (the process or activity referred to by the verb: "much snoring") and countable (instances of the process or activity" "many snorings").

The terms gerund, present participle, gerundial, gerundial noun, gerundive, gerundive noun, and verbal noun should suggest the diversity of views of grammarians. CGEL dispense with such terms for the most part and refer to them as "-ing forms" of verbs.

Some -ing forms eventually develop senses that are not readily viewed as part of the generic senses (eg, building, housing, tailings, booking). These require Noun PoS sections with meaningful definitions. I would argue that only these kinds of meanings warrant Noun PoS sections.

I have never found that terms like "fucking" reflect our clearest thinking about generic matters as the discussions seem to be affected by serious surges of hormones that alter our neural transmitters. See Appendix:English gerund-participles and Wiktionary:English -ing forms.) DCDuring TALK 11:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Right now, "-ing form" is not a valid PoS-heading in Wiktionary. "-ing form" is not a type of position in a sentence, unlike <noun-phrase>; "-ing form" classifies a word form by how it looks (it ends in "ing") and what it is derived from (from a verb), but not by what it does or what role it plays in a sentence. The discussion archived at Talk:fucking showed there was no consensus on deleting noun sections of gerunds or -ing-forms the last time the subject was discussed. You may want to reopen that discussion. I would do it in Beer parlour, as reopening that discussion has consequences that bear on policy. The title could be "Noun sections of gerunds", "Noun sections of -ing-forms" or the like. The discussion at Talk:fucking shows the complexity of the subject, and contains some powerful arguments made by various people. --Dan Polansky 11:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I was not trying to start a controversy about the appropriateness of the "Verb" header for -ing forms. "-ing form" is a way of characterizing the form that distinguishes it from the other forms of English verbs without bringing in the baggage of particular functional roles.

If we want to have noun sections for these, why not also have adjective sections? We could probably have a bot add one sense for each of the verb senses for both of the PoSes and trans tables for each sense. This should provide ample opportunity for demonstration of bot programming and translation skills. I particularly look forward to seeing how someone will present an entry like "building", where there are some actual semantically distinct senses of the noun as well as all the redundant verb senses. We may as well throw in an attributive-use-of-the-noun sense for each the "gerund" senses as well as for each true noun sense. DCDuring TALK 14:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I neglected to mention that each verb sense could generate both a countable and an uncountable noun sense. DCDuring TALK 15:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I will answer your new arguments in Beer parlour if you choose to bring the issue there. A rather comprehensive past discussion is in Talk:fucking. --Dan Polansky 15:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep until/unless we have a way to include plurals of gerunds without treating their singulars as nouns. google books:"perusings" turns up several dozen hits, of which at least half seem to be solid uses. —Ruakh_TALK 10:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

We have such a way. We can call perusings a plural of perusing. We can call it a noun or a verb by arbitrary decision. We already have similar inconsistencies in English in showing hyphenated alternative forms as Adjectives whereas the unhyphenated form is a Noun. DCDuring TALK 11:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep per Ruakh. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The estimable Ruakh's view notwithstanding, I still say delete. Sticking a separate noun POS out there for every present participle would just be clutter. We should be concentrating on substantive definitions, not this sort of stuff. -- Ghost of WikiPedant 15:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

celebrity playlist

Equinox ◑ 13:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah delete. The usage notes aren't usage notes either. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

From reading the term "celebrity playlist" it was not immediately clear to me that this refers to a playlist created by a celebrity. At first, I naively thought this would be a playlist of songs sung by celebrities. But then it did not make all that much sense given that popular singers often are celebrities. The meaning of the term seems non-obvious without having a sentence in which the term occurs, but it could be obvious in every sentence in which it occurs. I don't know. In the phrase "The Beatles playlist" (a rare one), would this be a playlist of songs picked by members of Beatles or would this be a playlist of songs performed by Beatles? Maybe this is just a non-native confusion. In the quotation "Wondering what Paulina Rubio listens to when she's on the road? Check out her celebrity playlist": why does the question not just read "Check our her playlist"? The reader already knows that she is a celebrity, doesn't he? It seems that the quotations expects the reader to either know what "celebrity playlist" is or to find out using the search phrase "celebrity playlist". I for one find the definition clarifying: "A list of songs prepared by a celebrity, for fans with an affinity towards that celebrity's choice of music". --Dan Polansky 08:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

nil

Rfd-sense: sense 3. Seems to be from a programming language, in this case I don't think we want it here, much like those APL entries that were deleted before. -- Prince Kassad 19:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That specific definition is from Lisp (where it denotes false -slash- an empty list), but other languages use it similarly (for example, in Standard ML it denotes an empty list, and in Objective-C it denotes a null object reference); and my old algorithms textbook used it in English sentences in a relatively programming-language–neutral way (see http://books.google.com/books?id=NLngYyWFl_YC&pg=PA206&dq=nil). So it may be better to broaden the def than to delete it. —Ruakh_TALK 19:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Shengdanjie he Xinnian kuaile

This is not a common phrase in Chinese, nobody says this, so it doesn't meet Wiktionary:Phrasebook. Furthermore, writing it in pinyin without tones isn't appropriate; for phrases that actually are common, it should either be written in pinyin with tones, or in characters. But anyway, as it's not a particularly common phrase, there's no use for this entry. Rjanag 04:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete unless attestable. I am sending this to RFV, where it will fail I think. --Dan Polansky 08:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Geddes Axe

RfD-sense: (UK) The implementation of spending cuts by Geddes in the 1920s.

The historical event belongs only in the etymology, IMO. The second sense could use some citations to make sure our definition is correct. DCDuring TALK 11:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this the capitalization used? Not "Geddes axe"? DCDuring TALK 11:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a proper noun, like the Great Depression or the Great Vowel Shift. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I did provide a citation for the second sense on the citations page. This has been left behind after DCDuring moved the page to remove the possesive. By the way, the citation uses the possesive form. The first sense is not entirely purely historical, the term has seen a recent revival to describe the sweeping spending cuts being implemented by the present British coalition government e.g Daily Telegraph article. SpinningSpark 22:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is another citation for the second sense. "Indeed, the very exactations of Henry III to beautify this gloriious edifice brought into the field the parliamentary regime. In those days the nation's representatives wished to apply something curiously like the 'Geddes axe' to his building propensities." New Zealand Evening Post SpinningSpark 22:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It's nice to get three cites in the same sense and the same spelling/capitalization/punctuation (hyphen for attributive use is OK). It helps if it is the most common form. "Geddes Axe" and "Geddes axe" seem the most common forms by far. To make it clear that they writers or scanners are making mistakes, the majority of the usage is of "the Geddes a/Axe". Which is the more common spelling? DCDuring TALK 23:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Original cite (why was this not moved with the entry? - it is bad form to move an entry away from its citations page and then claim it has no cites)

• 1923 — Rupert T. Gould, The Marine Chronometer, p.209, Holland Press 1960.
• The necessity for its maker, if he wishes to remain in business, to produce an efficient machine which shall at the same time be cheap, and therefore must be as simple as possible, has acted as a kind of "Geddes' Axe," sweeping away a number of inessential contrivances...

From the Telegraph article linked above (two different capitalisations in the same article)

• Britain's public sector faces the Geddes axe (9 November 2009)
• In the 1920s, a massive reversal in public spending growth was achieved under a draconian programme of cuts known as the “Geddes Axe” (9 November 2009)
• The cuts that an incoming Conservative government will need to make will be the most severe since the 1920s, when the Geddes Axe was wielded. Daily Telegraph, 28 Apr 2010
• Perhaps the most extraordinary thing about the Geddes Axe was that it seemed to work as a political tool. BBC News 4 March 2010
• Mr Herbert said they would agree to a review of service man-power, "but to an unintelligent Geddes axe, decidedly no!" Glasgow Herald May 29, 1947
• The Geddes Axe, now lodged in the demonology of Leftist history, made a significant contribution to the rebalancing of the public finances in the aftermath of the First World War. Scotland on Sunday 24 April 2010
• Somebody must be at fault, he declared, to allow "courts" or "closes" as they had in the neighbourhood of St. Giles'. "Probably," he added, "you have wielded the Geddes axe instead of Jenny Geddes's steel." The Glasgow Herald Sep 9, 1938

SpinningSpark 21:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

One more to show Americans have heard of it too,

• ...indulging for two years in costly adventures, then bowing knee and neck in abject servility to the Geddes axe... New York Times January 24, 1922

SpinningSpark 21:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about this, it seems encyclopaedic to me. Perhaps compare something like the Beeching cuts which got rid of half the rail lines in Britain in the...I dunno, 60s? Doesn't seem something for a dictionary. Ƿidsiþ 19:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

all again

Rfd-redundant: "So much: Don't want to go? All the better since I lost the tickets" redundant to "intensifier".​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep. It does seem to be an intensifying adverb, but it doesn't have the same gloss (ie, not "wholly" or "exclusively"). The gloss "so much" seems to work when "all" is followed by non-determiner "the" and a comparative. Though "all the" is often followed by comparatives "more", "better", "worse", "harder", there are at least 70 other comparatives the follow at COCA. Of course, some instances are of determiner all, not adverb all, but it seems that all of the comparatives appear sometimes where the "so much" gloss is the best.

I'm not sure what the best gloss is when followed by non-determiner "that" and an adverb or adjective. DCDuring TALK 19:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

遊戯王

Japanese for Yu-Gi-Oh! Ultimateria 20:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete or terrifyingly, move to RFV. Who among us would try to cite it per WT:BRAND? Mglovesfun (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

metaevolution

I recommend deleting sense2. I reworked this entry in response to an rfc by Ruakh. I found sense1 in academic literature and it seems legit enough. But the original entry's sense (now sense2) turned out to be a pretty much one-owner proprietary concept peddled by some non-academic who is a pop-schlock "futurist" and "consultant" and whose writing is filled with high-sounding nonsense (see the sample quotation I added for sense2). The wikipedia entry for "metaevolution" was deleted long ago and the term is nowhere to be found in other dictionaries or encyclopediae. Sense2 is also not in any databases of philosophical literature that I searched. I say deep-six sense2. -- Ghost of WikiPedant 17:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete. The chance that one could ever find cites to support such a definition (sense 2) is vanishingly small. Each cite might optimistically support three attributes of the definition and some attributes will be overcited and some hard to cite. The definition has at least six attributes. I think it would need more than a dozen citations, if they could be found and distinguished from sense 1.

I am a fan of evolutionary psychology, sociobiology, epigenetics, and similar lines of thought, but this seems like the product of an obsessive mind. DCDuring TALK 23:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

circuit race

A race on a circuit - SoP. Ultimateria 20:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Def looks fairly specific to w:Road cycle racing, where the term seems most used. DCDuring TALK 20:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

belief system

Not idiomatic: a system (1, 3) of beliefs. Additionally, the definition sounds like it's trying to preach something. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 15:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

perzactly. SoP as per nom. Also agree that there is what 'Pedia would call POV pushing in the definition. Delete -- ALGRIF talk 16:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah the definition is poor anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete per nom. DCDuring TALK 02:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep, but rewrite definition. This is a fixed phrase and there are hits on OneLook. ---> Tooironic 23:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it's a commonly used phrase, but it is still SoP. Belief system = System of beliefs. Compare with solar system, digestive system etc. And compare with betting system = system of betting. -- ALGRIF talk 15:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure about deleting. Encarta has two senses, roughly:

1. an organized system of beliefs.
2. a set of beliefs prevailing in a social grouping.

Dictionary.com's 21st Century Dictionary has:

1. a faith based on a series of beliefs but not formalized into a religion
2. also, a fixed coherent set of beliefs prevalent in a community or society

Encarta's first sense seems NISoP. "Organized system" seems pleonastic, making the definition "system of beliefs", a trivial syntactic transformation of belief system. That transformation allows "system" and "belief" to be modified and coordinated, which would make the phrase not a set phrase, not an idiom, a mere normal construction.

1. Encarta's and Dictionary.com's 2nd senses seem equivalent. That sense may be the first sense, just in a different context, which would make it NISoP, IMHO.
2. Dictionary.com's first sense seems the least SoP. It is compatible with how I have read/heard the expression sometimes. The question is whether the defining hyponym "faith" is supportable in citations in a sense beyond one merely synonymous with "belief". DCDuring TALK 18:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, that a belief system can be anything. If it were limited, then SoP would not be an automatic reaction. But Atheists hold to their belief system. Flat-earthists hold to theirs. Elvis-Is-Alivers hold to theirs, I hold to mine, and so on. So your analysis that (deprecated template usage) faith actually means (deprecated template usage) belief in the above definition is correct. IMHO. -- ALGRIF talk 11:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those times where some lemmings seem to be wrong, at least in that their definitions don't seem to show an idiomaticity. Does the OED have this? DCDuring TALK 11:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It is in the OED's draft additions for March, 2010. Here's the defn: "a set of principles, ideas, or convictions which together form a tenable thesis, working ethos, or presiding ideology; esp. a religion or philosophy viewed in terms if its constituent ideas and beliefs." That is indeed a good descriptive defn, but I'm not satisfied it really adds up to anything more than a "system of belief". I fancy myself to be an inclusionist but, with mixed feelings, still lean toward delete, OED and Encarta notwithstanding. -- Ghost of WikiPedant 16:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Right. I wonder whether it is gaining a special place as an acknowledgment of the religion-like aspects of many secular ideologies. "Ideology" doesn't quite capture the nature of these systems as there is not a small group of ideologues who account for the architecture of the system. It is as if the absence of a suitable specific term for the non-religious, non-ideological phenomenon is drafting this hypernym to serve as the label for a specific subset of "systems of belief". That would be different from OED's take. Does anyone refer to the "belief system" of Christians, Muslims, or Marxists? DCDuring TALK 18:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone refer to the "belief system" of Christians, Muslims, or Marxists? No. "Faith", or "religious beliefs", are the place-holders in these cases. "Belief system" is a place-holder phrase which includes more than just religious beliefs. When a writer talks about the whole set of religious + political + cultural + moral + etc beliefs of a certain group or member of that group, he will use "belief system" as the place-holder for his earlier description. Similar phrases are cultural mores (no entry) religious belief (no entry) political background (no entry) etc etc. Places-holder phrases are useful and will get millions of hits on any search engine, but they are all SoP. Which is precisely why they work as place-holders. -- ALGRIF talk 11:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

We do include items that are SoP. I have looked at a couple of hundred uses at COCA. This seems to be the accepted term for referring to the propositional content of many "isms" and of individuals, societies, etc. I don't think it can be shown to fail the component-coordination and -modification tests. If so, we may consider it to have become a "set phrase", possibly because of its great utility. There were more than a thousand hits at COCA. Even removing all of the the academic ones there were probably 200+ in more ordinary use. DCDuring TALK 12:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete per Algrif's analysis. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep as a common set phrase, one whose meaning is not perfectly clear to me from its parts, although it is nearly sum of parts. Unclarities of meaning: does a belief system need to be written or otherwise fixed a tangible medium? Does it need to be free from contradiction? Does it need to be shared by a group of people? Is belief system such a thing that each person has one? Does a belief system contain at least one non-descreptive statement by definition? Nonetheless, I think the current definition is wrong: "The basis on which beliefs are based. For example a religious belief system is based on faith and dogma whereas a scientific belief system is based on observation and reason". Having some good quotations would be great. A similar entry: value system. I do not know what "political background", referred to above, means; I would have thought it is past political activity of a person. --Dan Polansky 13:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

neuntausendneunhundertneunundneunzig

Why do we need to have this number? -- Prince Kassad 20:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you disputing that it's a word? Equinox ◑ 22:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This goes to the same root as WT:TR#chlorineless, should we keep any word that's attestable, no matter how obvious it is from the sum of its parts. According to CFI, yes we should. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

IMO it should probably depend on the construction of the particular language. The numbers aren't a problem in English because we soon reach the point where there are guiding hyphens (ninety-nine is clearly ninety plus nine); do German numbers eventually split into multiple spaced or hyphenated units, or not? (Even if they don't, we are technically limited only to those numbers that are attestable, i.e. the ones somebody has bothered to write about; but that seems like a cop-out, because the potential "wordness" of the neglected ones isn't any lesser.) Equinox ◑ 23:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"do German numbers eventually split into multiple spaced or hyphenated units, or not?" -- Yes they do, starting with eine Million "one million". Longtrend 00:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

So it means we need all numbers, from one to nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine? -- Prince Kassad 04:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

What a lovely task for a bot. We could do this kind of thing for other languages too. And why let hyphens stop us? We could be up to 10 million entries by New Year. Or we could have one number appendix per language and all the morphemes used to construct numbers. DCDuring TALK 00:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete, if I understand correctly that this isn't a single word, but rather a sequence of words meaning "nine thousand nine hundred nine and ninety" written solid. In English, if something is written solid, it's almost certainly a word worth an entry, but obviously that's not true of every language/orthography. —Ruakh_TALK 00:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This really seems to be a case where a phrase is written solid in German (I can't think of any other example but numerals). In German, words usually have exactly one main stress but my intuition is that numerals such as the one in question have more than one main stress (neuntausendneunhundertneunundneunzig). But alternatively, they could also be analyzed as dvandvas which would suggest they are indeed words. This raises the question what is considered a word on Wiktionary. As I pointed out here, even the most regularly-formed and unidiomatic compounds are considered words in German rather than phrases (e.g. a possible, however not lexicalized word is Eiertisch "egg table", which is clearly a word as can be seen from its interfix -er-), so spelling is a bad criterion IMO. Longtrend 09:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd keep any word no matter how uninteresting or unuseful, as long as it meets CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, me too — for some values of "word". —Ruakh_TALK 17:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No German dictionary I know of includes spelled-out numbers greater than 20, because they are simply compound words built from elementary numbers according to well-known rules. Why should Wiktionary want to handle this differently? Only to say that we are the only dictionary with more than one million German entries? Delete --Zeitlupe 08:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete per Zeitlupe. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep unless and until some principles or a set of examples and counterexamples are presented based on which we could decide which solid-written German terms to include and exclude. This concerns not only German but also Finnish and other languages with long compound terms written solid. We need no entry for "nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine", as it contains spaces. Some other German terms that could be considered sum-of-parts: Kopfschmerz ("headache"), Abkürzungsverzeichnis (Verzeichnis of Abkürzungen), Akkordeonspieler (Spieler on Akkordeon), Freizeitzentrum (leisure center), Bedeutungsverallgemeinerung (generalization of meaning), Beschleunigungsmesser (accelerometer) etc. Some of these can be found in Category:German compound words. And there is the conspicuous Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz.

There is a principle nowhere stated and not adhered to that policy making should be done through BP rather than through RFD; RFD should be for cases that are driven by CFI, seem not too controversial, or have clear precedents. I like this principle. The issue of "neuntausendneunhundertneunundneunzig" is not all that trivial, has not a list of precedents, has multi-lingual consequences and goes beyond current CFI. So this issue should IMHO be debated in Beer parlour, not on a single-word basis but rather as the complete subject of what to do with solid-written terms in languages with long solid-written compounds. --Dan Polansky 08:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Per Dan Polansky on all points (i.e. keep) except that I still think spelling (i.e. whether a word contains spaces or not) should not be a criterion for inclusion at all. Longtrend 11:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It already says in WT:CFI, under the heading "Idiomaticity": An expression is “idiomatic” if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components.. This applies not only to English, but also to all other languages, and can be applied to this case too. -- Prince Kassad 11:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Re Longtrend: If the space-containment should not be a criterion at all in English, then think of whether you would include "headache" (“headache”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.), "toothache" and the like. And also see WT:COALMINE, which is based on the distinction between a solid-written form and a space-containing form. I admit that space-containment works differently for English and for German.

Re Prince Kassad: The definition stated in CFI is wrong in that it does not specify what is meant by "components". See my point with "headache". --Dan Polansky 11:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Something to keep in mind as well is language learners. How easy can they peel apart the constituents of a compound word that is written without spaces? The Finnish hyväntekeväisyysjärjestö for example is made out of hyvä-tekevä-inen-yys-järki-stö (I think), and a native speaking should be able to pick that apart easily. But not every language learner can figure that out, it certainly took me a while and a lot of knowledge of Finnish grammar! —CodeCat 13:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, in the case where consonants are omitted and added (like in yours), it may not be obvious. But in this case, it is obvious. You just need to add neun + tausend + neun + hundert + neunundneunzig. This is something even a non-native speaker can figure out. -- Prince Kassad 14:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

True, but numbers are usually the more systematically constructed compounds. The problem with compounds is usually how the compounds are hierarchially linked to one another. It might be trivial to someone who knows the constituent parts (i.e. a native speaker who already knows lots of words). But someone who doesn't know many words in that language will see such a word as an opaque 'block', and will not be able to know where to 'put the dashes' in the word, so to say. No matter how obvious it may be to a more experienced speaker. Hauptbahnhof may be trivial for a German, but not to someone who's never seen the words Haupt or Bahnhof (or even Bahn or Hof). —CodeCat 16:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't get what the big controversy is about. It's a word. Keep it. ---> Tooironic 22:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

tell

Rfd-redundant: poker sense of noun. I believe that, whether or not the noun sense originated among poker or other card players, it is now used more widely, as in the psychology of lying and bluffing or, more generally, body language. DCDuring TALK 19:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Clearly the same thing. Perhaps a usage note or expanding the first def would help.--Dmol 22:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete, per both of you. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Snuffleupagus

A Sesame Street character. Equinox ◑ 21:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Move to RFV to seek attestation meeting the WT:CFI #Fictional universes.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't claim that I really want this entry, but it does seem, based on the quotations therein, that the name meets the CFI; see the bottom of Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Fictional universes. —Ruakh_TALK 20:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Fictional character entries, when cited, generally define how it's used in an attributive sense and leave the original character in the etymology. This needs a new definition, and possibly further cites (Do the existing cites count as usage "out of context in an attributive sense"?). --Yair rand (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think enough of them do. And if there's not a specific attributive sense, then I don't see how we can move the character into the etymology. —Ruakh_TALK 17:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep: Well known Sesame Street Character, plenty of citations and quotations for usage. WritersCramp 23:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Seems to me too that CFI has been met. Keep. — Robin 04:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

98 Oldsmobile

Year + car. Content is encyclopaedic. Equinox ◑ 16:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete, Oldsmobile needs to be split by POS - I doubt that the poker definitions are proper nouns. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a model, not a year. But SOP anyway. Delete.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

no hard feelings

Rfd-redundant: As question. As an elliptical declarative ("[There are] no hard feelings [between/among] [us/you]."), this has a pragmatic role. The question adds no lexicon-worthy meaning AFAICT. I suppose that somehow this would have fit under the apparently stillborn phrasebook criteria. DCDuring TALK 13:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete as redundant per nomination.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

quadrillion

A figurative sense has just been deleted, after it failed RFD-sense. I have overlookedfailed to notice the RFD process, hence I am reopening it. It is archived at Talk:quadrillion. The sense sent for RFD was "(figuratively, slang) Any very large number, exceeding normal description". This sense was properly cited. The sense meets CFI, as far as I can tell. Then on what principle has the sense been deleted? I vote keep, as it meets CFI. --Dan Polansky 12:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. As many quantities have such meanings in some context, we could have a list of synonyms for the sense that would consist of, say, all CFI-meeting numbers over twenty. Consider: "He had like twenty people in the car". DCDuring TALK 10:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

  The example with "like twenty" does not prove the intended conclusion: in the example, it is the "like twenty" that is approximate, not "twenty".

  I very much doubt that every attestable cardinal number (or numeral) over twenty and less than, say, one million, has this sort of hyperbolic meaning. This sort of meaning would be typically found only with round numerals, and several other ones, but not too many.

  And again, what is the exclusion principle that you are using? Maybe you are using a principle along the lines of "If a group of senses is regularly attached to a group of terms, these senses should be excluded". Or maybe you are using another principle, like "Attestable hyperbolic senses should be excluded". Whichever principle you are using, it seems to be absent in CFI. --Dan Polansky 12:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete (again), we don't normally keep every figurative meaning of every word. Plus, CFI says "all words in all languages", not "all meanings of all words in all languages", so na! Mglovesfun (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say that we do not keep every attestable non-sum-of-parts figurative meaning of every word?

Your reference to CFI seems made in joke. CFI includes nothing that justifies this proposed deletion of a figurative sense.

Surely you do not claim that all figurative senses should be excluded: see Pages that link to "Template:figuratively". So it seems that you say that some figurative senses should be excluded. This principle is not in CFI, but maybe you want to push this principle (one that does not say which figurative senses should be excluded) through this RFD.

What about "elephant"--Anything huge and ponderous? If the reader knows what elephant is, he has a fair chance of guessing that "elephant" is used figuratively to refer to anything huge and ponderous, right? And yet, this figurative sense is not excluded. --Dan Polansky 15:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep; the sense is adequately attested, so I see no reason for deletion. --EncycloPetey 03:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep: agree with EncycloPetey WritersCramp 21:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I added the citations, so obviously I'm voting Keep again. I think if it's used in a figurative sense, and can be attested as such, then Wiktionary should include it. Ackatsis 08:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Do we want a separate sense for hundred, too, because of cites like [15] — and, then, for probably every other large, round number? But "slippery slope" isn't a criterion for exclusion. However, not being a separate sense is. This is just the usual sense, used with hyperbole. (Incidentally, the 1999 Lewis cite in the entry isn't even using hyperbole AFAICT, so doesn't belong on this 'sense'.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

So what is your exclusion principle? Is it "All hyperbolic senses should be excluded no matter whether attestable and non-sum-of-parts"? What about proposing the principle for addition to CFI?

What is wrong with having attestable hyperbolic senses for large numbers included when they are attestable? Surely not that Wiktionary gets overflooded with them, right?

On yet another note, a user of "quadrillion" in the hyperbolic sense does not need to know which number is denoted by the term in order to use it hyperbolically. In this case, the sense stored in the sender's mind and in the receiver's mind is really "a very large number" rather than "<hyperbole>thousand trillion</hyperbole>". This argument, used by me here only to augment the other arguments, does not apply to "hundred". --Dan Polansky 17:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

To tackle your last point first, you're right, I think. Such a user might not even know what number quadrillion really is, and be using it like zillion. Is that sufficient to include it, though? To tackle your first: I'm way too tired right now to formulate a good one. (Some would argue that's inherent in me, and not a function of tiredness.) But I'm fairly sure we don't want all 'senses' that are merely hyperbolic uses of other senses. That would include a "nearly complete" sense for complete, a "nearly empty" sense for empty, etc.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that I found a talk page from 2006 by accident with Connel Mackenzie saying that CFI was "permanently broken" and I think he had this right. Do we want to be the sort of website that prioritizes a faulty document over its best editors? Furthermore, if you want to play that game (I choose the word game deliberately) it's not idiomatic, and since all Wiktionary terms need to be idiomatic (first paragraph) it should be deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the hyperbolic sense of term "quadrillion" is worth keeping. I have given a stronger criterion for keeping, going beyong CFI: the user of the term in the hyperbolic sense does not need to know to which number the word refers.

As regards the "CFI game", I have supported making exceptions to CFI, but each exception should be marked as such. If someone is arguing outside of CFI, he should clearly say so, and he should formulate a tentative principle that can be incorporated into CFI in future. CFI is not permanently broken; it is in an acceptably good shape. CFI, at least in part, tracks past consensus, there where it is supported by a vote.

As regards "idiomatic", let us have a look at CFI: 'An expression is “idiomatic” if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components.' So is "quadrillion" idiomatic using this definition? Yes, it is: its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components, as it has no separate components. The only problem with CFI's definition of "idiomatic" that I can see is that there is no definition of "separate components". Those "separate components" are probably typographic words, at least for English entries. This ambiguity is not a reason to despair about CFI. The meaning of "separate components" is fixed for English through the precedent of many past RFD requests. The common practice provides disambiguation there where the codification remains silent. --Dan Polansky 10:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Ƿidsiþ 09:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

only

Rfd-redundant: Adjective: Singular; part of a relatively small number. "Singular" is redundant to "Alone in a category" and "the best". "Part of a relatively small number" is redundant to "Few". I am not even sure that "few" is a good sense of "only". DCDuring TALK 00:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't even make sense to me, how can something be singular AND part of a very small number, unless the number is one. Make something comprehensible out of it, or delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

peak

Rfd-redundant: "(math) For sine waves, the point at which the value of y is at its maximum." seems redundant to: "(math) A local maximum of a function." or improved wording thereof. DCDuring TALK 02:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm no mathematician (despite w:Martin Gardner) but if these aren't the same, someone tell me why not. Ergo if this is kept, it needs an rfc to get a clearer definition. Likely delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Definitely redundant, I'd say. Delete the sense. --Hekaheka 04:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Germanic Europe

It looks decidedly NISoP and encyclopedic. It is undercited, but appears to be a serial nonce hypernymic coinage for various books. If it meets RfD, then it should go to RfV for each of the three senses given or the senses should be merged and then it should be RfDed/RfVed again. DCDuring TALK 18:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Germanic Europe means two things, basically. Either those areas historically populated by Germanic people, or those areas where a Germanic language is currently spoken. I'm quite sure I've seen this term in various sources, just can't remember which. In any case, weak delete but make sure that the definition of Germanic is clear enough to account for this usage. —CodeCat 19:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The interest seems mainly encyclopedic. Delete per Codecat, if you know what Europe means and Germanic has the correct definitions, this becomes sum of parts. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, delete.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

beetle

rfd-sense: "Nickname of two models of car made by Volkswagen." This should be Beetle, though since it's a mark of car I'd prefer just to delete it. I mean, it's not just a nickname, there is a VW Beetle. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

So, you know this meaning, but you want to keep it for yourself? And you don't want to provide translations (the French equivalent is coccinelle)? It's a nickname. But moving it to Beetle might be justified, I'm not sure. Lmaltier 21:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Zoloft

Registered trademark for a medication. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Brand names of pharmaceuticals seem to be a rather common way of refering to them, perhaps more common than using the generic name, which is sertraline in this case. I would tend to keep based on this consideration alone, but I don't really know, hence no boldface on "keep".

The relevant section of CFI is probably in this vote: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-07/Brand_names_of_products. The text that can be found in CFI differts slightly from what the vote says, it seems. The vote does not indicate a particular edit to CFI that should be done. The vote mentions four requirements or criteria. It seems that it should not be too difficult to find quotations meeting the criteria, but then I am not sure I understand all the criteria. I am rather unhappy with the criteria, as I do not quite understand how they should be applied, in spite of the examples given in the vote.

Some other dictionaries, as a check: “Zoloft”, in OneLook Dictionary Search..

One approach to this nomination is sending it to RFV for attestation, if that is proper for brand names. That does not solve for me the problem that, rather than starting to studying the criteria and their meaning, I would probably out of a combination of laziness and exhaustion give up on Zoloft, Paxil, Ritalin, Rohypnol, and Tylenol, to cite examples. Does anyone have a link to a brand name of a pharmaceutical that has survived a RFV and has model attestations? --Dan Polansky 08:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Some attestations, and let us see how they meet the criteria by the judgment of those editors who claim to understand them:

• C1: "Instead, after a second consulatin in July, a prescription for Zoloft was arranged."[16]
• C2: "Studies show that Zoloft is effective among those over age 60, and there are no recommendations for a lower does in senior citizens."[17]
• C3: "Shane went on to take a short ride on Zoloft that day and every other day he came to the ranch."[18]
• C4: "Had it not ceased, a friend pointed out, I could have simply taken Zoloft to treat my obsessive-compulsiveness."[19]
• C5: "Actually, St. John's wort is fast becoming a Zoloft competitor, and is being studied as such at Duke University."[20]

--Dan Polansky 08:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Mawworm

the proper entry is mawworm (w/out the UC M). --Jerome Potts 04:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, delete or (second best) rfv. Most common nouns can be attested with an initial capital because it was pretty standard to do so at one point. If there is eventually no consensus to delete, it should be rfv'd to show that the capitalization is justified. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Strange - the OED lists it as capitalized, and most of the citations given are also capitalized (some with hyphens). SemperBlotto 10:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep. The proper name Mawworm is a character in the play The Hypocrite by Isaac Bickerstaff (aka Jonathon Swift) and is presumably the reason for the capitalisation for the meaning "hypocrite". The intestinal parasite mawworm is more usually spelled maw worm or at least maw-worm so imho mawworm should be listed as an alternative spelling of maw worm (and of Mawworm as meaning #2), not the other way around. SpinningSpark 14:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

So how does that justify a keep? There are lots of fictional characters we don't have entries for. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know - I don't really understand the rules of Wiktionary. It does however justify the capitalisation, so if kept, should be capitalised (for the hypocrite meaning). SpinningSpark 19:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Although this article from Punbch attests the word in that use (and mawwormism too). SpinningSpark 19:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It does justify it (in the sense of "hypocrite"), exactly the same as with Don Juan, Casanova or other characters-turned-nouns. Ƿidsiþ 13:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

foreign-debt

Can't any two word noun be hyphenated? ---> Tooironic 04:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No because some of these have failed RFV. They're created automatically by a script that User:Msh210 uses in his vector. I don't object to them, but I certainly wouldn't create one either. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

nonverbal communication

If domestic animal wasn't worth keeping as a SoP, this ain't either. --Hekaheka 18:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This refers to specific things such as body language, facial expressions, etc. This is not immediately obvious from its parts. Keep. ---> Tooironic 22:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Check (deprecated template usage) non-verbal and try to figure out what "nonverbal communication means"! --Hekaheka 11:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete unless someone convincingly shows which forms of non-verbal communication are not part of this term, i.e. proving it isn't merely SoP. Equinox ◑ 02:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep, because it's a set phrase. How do you guess that this is the phrase to be used for expressing this idea, and that other ways of expressing it would be less understandable, because not standard? This makes it a real word, in the linguistic sense of word. Lmaltier 05:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

What evidence can you present for your assertion that it is a set phrase? By my reckoning tt is not. It does not meet the non-coordination test. See this Google Books search, which has many instances of coordination of "nonverbal" while it modifies "communication".

The balance of your argument seems to be equivalent to the translation target argument. As I look at all the unmet {{trreq}}s, I see the point. I do recall getting chastised for inserting too many trreqs because it overwhelmed the translators with "low priority" requests. My sentiments correspond.

If we are to keep such NISoP entries we need some way of informing whatever monolingual English users we may still have that the term being retained for translation has no special sense for decoding. It would be very helpful if this could be made clear in every place in Wiktonary where the MWE appeared without a gloss: Categories, Derived and Related terms, Synonyms, Wikisaurus, as a definiens, when linked or appearing as a gloss for a non-English entry, etc. Would the best way be to have a different font, color, bold, italics, guillemets? DCDuring TALK 10:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete, oddly enough you guess it from nonverbal + communication. Clever, eh? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of hits on OneLook. And we do keep SoPs if they are set phrases, e.g. specific phenomena. ---> Tooironic 22:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I don't know. Is sending digital images over the internet to another person a case of non-verbal communication? I don't think so. But it is an instance of communication that is non-verbal in the sense of not based on words or not using words as a means of transmission. The same seems true of using flags or morse code, but that is a bit equivocal, as it is words that are being send. From what I understand, non-verbal communication refers only to facial, postural, gestural, and vocal signs that one person sees and hears when facing and hearing another person. OTOH, this narrowing of meaning can already be part of "non-verbal". On yet another note, the examples given by DCDuring of "nonverbal and verbal communication" do not refute the hypothesis that "nonverbal" collocates exclusively or mainly with "communication". But as a matter of fact "nonverbal" also collocates with "behavior", and "learning", as in "nonverbal learning disorder" and "nonverbal learning disability". --Dan Polansky 08:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a field of study, and there is no other name for this field of study, I think, this is the standard name. This is sufficient to make it a set phrase. And, of course, Dan Polansky is right, sending an image or a message over the Internet is not called non-verbal communication. Lmaltier 05:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'm pretty sure that neither of you have read non-verbal. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, I would argue for its inclusion because we do include arguably SoP constructions which also happen to be set phrases and fields of study, e.g. translation studies, women's studies, etc. ---> Tooironic 23:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

drone strike

It means "a strike by a drone", see User talk:Mglovesfun#drone strike for further information. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I too support delete. ---> Tooironic 22:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Note, while listening to Channel 4 News here in the UK today they spoke of drone attacks. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep: plenty of examples of usage in news reports. WritersCramp 23:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC

Usage is irrelevant to RfDs. The issue is whether it is idiomatic. See WT:CFI please. DCDuring TALK 02:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Please look up idiotmatic WritersCramp 21:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

idiotmatic? We don't have an entry for it. Did you mean idiomatic? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

My point is proven -:) WritersCramp 13:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Trust me, it isn't. I think people would like you to talk about the entry drone strike rather than making accusations towards others' intelligence. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete per nom.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Abstain for now since few things concern me. E.g. requestor mentioned "drone attack" and I'm wondering now whether someone would object to the existence of such an entry, too. I.e. would an entry such as this "drone attack - attack carried out by remotely controlled aircraft, but not attack of a male bee or wasp" be subjected to deletion for reasons of idiomaticity. I am strongly compelled to believe that this issue might help clear up the correspondent clause of CFI. --Biblbroks 14:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

qyamancha

Note: all referenced discussions have been archived to Talk:qyamancha. See there for background. —Ruakh_TALK 23:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I marked this RFV failed and pseudo-deleted accordingly (by moving it sans redirect to Citations:qyamancha, and formatting it as a citations page), and no one objected in the RFV discussion itself, but Doremítzwr (talk • contribs) left a comment at my talk-page disagreeing, and I now see that he left a comment at Vahagn Petrosyan (talk • contribs)'s talk-page as well, and to judge by Vahagn's reply, Vahagn also disagrees with the pseudo-deletion.

I think I acted correctly — the citations given don't seem to be "durably archived" to me, and I couldn't find any durably archived cites myself. (The only Google Books hit is a mention with attribution to Wikipedia; Google Groups turns up no Usenet hits; and Google Scholar and Google News Archive both turn up blanks.) However, Doremítzwr believes that the citations are durably archived, so I'd like input from third parties, if possible.

(This may actually be better as a BP discussion, or as a new RFV discussion, but since (1) we're only discussing one entry at the moment and (2) the previous RFV discussion failed to garner comments, I thought I'd bring it here first.)

—Ruakh_TALK 23:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is how can a one word title convey meaning? If there was a very famous painting called Wiktionary, what definition would that justify for the word? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure about the album, but the paintings do depict the instrument. (If you follow the links in Citations:qyamancha, you can see pictures of them.) That's not perfect — for example, none of the titles use an article, even though I'm almost positive that in a sentence one would say "a qyamancha" rather than simply "qyamancha" — but it's not the worst thing ever. —Ruakh_TALK 02:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete. I am not perfectly sure, but the reasoning that you have shown in RFV (see Talk:qyamancha) seems valid to me, so this word should be deleted as having failed RFV. --Dan Polansky 09:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

AB Yogurt

If this is a proper noun, it must be a brand name. If it isn't, it's bad capitalization, and sum of parts. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Does not seem to be a trademark. Is most often written AB-yogurt. Perhaps we could use something at (deprecated template usage) AB, if the abbreviation is used on its own. Equinox ◑ 20:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Was bold and just moved it to AB-yogurt. Mutante 14:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

word

Rfd-redundant: "A distinct unit of language which is approved by some authority." The previous sense is "A distinct unit of language (sounds in speech or written letters) with a particular meaning, composed of one or more morphemes, and also of one or more phonemes that determine its sound pattern." Do we really need both of these senses? They seem to be simply different ideas of what the same word is. I don't think the dispute over whether something becomes part of a language due to usage or due to being approved by an authority should split the senses. --Yair rand (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I assume this sense is to cover alot of people who say "irregardless", "alot" or "ain't" ain't words, irregardless of how common they are. Keep. — lexicógrafo | háblame — 22:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, I'd spotted this before and didn't rfd it myself. I don't see how this is better covered by usage notes. The fact is there is no strict definition of what a word is. We have our CFI of what we accept, which isn't the same as Oxford, Merriam-Webster, Larousse (etc.). I'm not sure what the second definition achieves. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no strict definition of what anything is, and we don't split senses wherever the dispute over what falls into the class is relatively clear. --Yair rand (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you've undermimed your own argument a bit there. If that's the case, why bother having more than one definition for any word? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody thinks that "mouse" the input device is part of the same class as "mouse" the rodent. There isn't a dispute over what a mouse is, with one side saying that something must be an input device to be a real mouse and that the animals aren't "real" mice. They are completely separate elements of the language. We wouldn't split the input device sense just because some people think that mice must have a certain amount of buttons to actually be mice. Dispute over what can be described with a certain word is irrelevant. --Yair rand (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The two citations for the second sense don't comport with the first sense. That seems to me to make a prima facie case to keep the sense. DCDuring TALK 00:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Despite what Yair rand says, this isn't a matter of a "dispute" about what the word means; it means both. I think a statement like "His e-mail was 232 words long — and 17 of them weren't real words. That's one non-word in every 14 words" is perfectly coherent. Incidentally, so is a statement like "There were two mice in her room. The one in the cage on the floor was a lot fuzzier, and more adorable, than the one attached to her computer", which (for the nonce) treats the two senses of (deprecated template usage) mouse as though they were one. —Ruakh_TALK 01:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Your example doesn't exactly match up to the definitions of word given. "His e-mail was 232 words long — and 17 of them weren't real words." has the last use of "word" refer to whether it is part of a/the language ("a unit of language"). Whether the speaker thinks that something becomes part of the language via being approved by an authority or by being commonly used is not relevant. I'm not sure the first use fits into to either definition. Perhaps the entry should have one definition as "a unit of language" and a separate definition refer to something formed by a series of letters/sounds without break. --Yair rand (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a matter for RFC, not for RFD. It's not clear what "approved by some authority" means; it's quite likely that, like most prescriptivists, the statement's utterer is accidentally setting himself up as an authority, as an arbiter of wordness. (He thinks there's some external, objective measure. He is mistaken.) The senses are separate and shouldn't be merged, but the definitions could definitely be improved. —Ruakh_TALK 02:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This cannot be a valid definition of "word". We have about 400 languages in Wiktionary. I bet at least 200 of them have no authority to determine which combinations of sounds are "words" in that language. Ergo, according to the definition these languages have no words at all! If anything, this is a definition of the term "correct word" or "standard language word", and as such, it does not belong in the entry for "word". Delete --Hekaheka 19:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It definitely belongs in the entry for "word" if that's how word is being used.

• I've been umming and ahing about this one for about a week, but I think I'm leaning to delete. Much as I love Ruakh's admirable and ingenious example sentence, I think it hinges on the fact that the second "word" is qualified by (deprecated template usage) real. When someone says "that's not a word", they mean exactly "that's not a distinct unit of language"; in other words, in my view, the term always conveys a judgment about assumed place in some authoritative or personal lexicon and I think it would be OTT to start distinguishing between them. (Note that a separate meaning of (deprecated template usage) word is "string of characters separated by a space", which has certain technical uses, and a distinction could be engineered between that and the use we've been discussing; but I don't think that is what's at issue here.) Ƿidsiþ 12:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Leaning more towards delete, per Template:Latinx. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense to me. Someone who says that '"ain't" is not a word' is not saying that it's not a distinct unit of language; they know that "ain't" is a common collection of sounds with a normal meaning. They're saying that "ain't" is not valid within the constraints of their lingual rules. The prescriptive view means something completely different from the descriptive view. (I'd also argue that (a) just because a phrase is only really usable with one sense of a word doesn't mean that's not a distinct sense, and (b) "X!'vtltb is not a word; it's a unpronounceable random collection of letters! Call them the Vbrskn; at least that has vowels." implies no standard lexicon.--Prosfilaes 02:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but I think that both people use word to mean "distinct basic meaningful unit of language"; different people have different ideas of what those units are, whether based on authority or just their own opinions, but we can't write a separate description for all of them. Ƿidsiþ 09:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• keep; as per my comments above--Prosfilaes 02:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

piece of clothing

This sure looks SOP to me. -- Ghost of WikiPedant 04:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, see also Special:PrefixIndex/piece of. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment. To a non-native, a piece of clothing could be a fragment of an item of clothing. Natives are familiar with the "piece of" construction as a way of creating countable terms for mass terms, I guess. The sense of "piece" with regards to which this would be a sum-of-parts: "A single item belonging to a class of similar items: as, for example, a piece of machinery, a piece of software".

Constrast this to "piece of cake" which seems to refer to a particular slice of a cake rather than to one cake. So "piece of cake" and "piece of furniture" are disanalogous. A chair is a piece of furniture, but a leg of chair is not a piece of furniture, I guess.

If this gets deleted, it would be nice to add a usage note to "clothing" that says that a countable item of clothing is usually a "piece of clothing" rather than an "item of clothing", given this is really the case. --Dan Polansky 09:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually item of clothing is common, an article of clothing somewhat common (but less so). Even so, I take your point. On a related note, there are a lot of non-English translations we could have here, like French vêtement which currently displays piece of clothing. But I never like that to be a factor. I'll take a closer look at piece. Piece of furniture seems to be the same principle. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

A usage note in [[clothing]] to the effect of 'Countable items of clothing are referred to as "piece of clothing", "item of clothing", and, less commonly, "article of clothing"' would be in order. When similar usage notes are added to "furniture" and other relevant cases of mass terms, the "piece of ..." entries could be deleted or entered only as a redirect. This would avoid piece of software, bottle of milk, etc. Another alternative would be entering the terms using a template as "countable form of ...", but this would be rather untraditional and unusual I think. --Dan Polansky 10:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

1. We have adequate-to-good ways of handling only a few types of "constructions" as entries. In this class of cases, the choice of "discretizer" probably can be looked at as falling into a few classes, like: "containerizers", "unitizers", and others. We could try to create an Appendix for the construction.
2. Neither Appendix:English nouns nor Appendix:English uncountable nouns addresses this issue with a table and an in-depth discussion. Nor is w:Mass noun sufficient. There is not even a good set of illustrations in CGEL AFAICT. But I find it hard to believe that in all wikidom we couldn't find a table that is at least a start on what we would need to illustrate the issue.
3. Until we create an adequate explanation of the phenomenon, I don't think we can systematically create all the redirects, usage examples, or tables that would be the most helpful for users.
4. Many of our veteran contributors could do the research to get a good start on Appendix:English uncountable nouns. Similarly for a "construction" appendix. (See also snowclone) The "construction" appendix approach seems to me to be useful both as a supplement and as a possible exemplar for more such "construction" appendices.

-- DCDuring TALK 12:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, all of the simple solutions: "keep", "delete", "only in", or "redirect" are either inadequate long-term solutions or unavailable at present. Further, I don't think that improvements to the entry alone, such as usage examples or notes suffice. "Only in" requires a target. "Delete" might be the worst of all, leaving us without the grain of sand that might lead to the pearl of a good solution. "Redirect" doesn't allow categorization, which might help us collect instances of constructions/snowclones.

Keep pending a long-term solution, such as "only in" Appendix:English quantizing constructions. DCDuring TALK 14:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we should keep this. I remember an earlier discussion about piece of furniture and item of furniture, which ended in keeping the first and deleting the second as far less common/redundant/SoP. --Hekaheka 17:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

-omics

From RFV:

Rfv-sense: economics sense, derived from -nomics. I haven't seen an attestable example of a formation that is not actually from -nomics, including the sole example given Reaganomics. Only if one does not allow a deletion operation in suffixation is that a good example. Are there morphological authorities who would not allow deletion of this type in suffixation. DCDuring TALK 15:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe (deprecated template usage) Bushomics meets CFI as an alternative form of (deprecated template usage) Bushonomics, though not with much room to spare: [21] [22] [23] [24]. Likewise (deprecated template usage) Carteromics for (deprecated template usage) Carternomics: [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]. Neither one is exactly "common". —Ruakh_TALK 19:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Groups only? Why wouldn't they be rare misspellings? (Seriously.) They would seem to be considered misspellings in edited works. That would seem to make them less desirable to use in almost all registers in writing. DCDuring TALK 20:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I further note that Bushnomics and Carternomics would both seem to be attestable alternative spellings from edited works. DCDuring TALK 20:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

—Ruakh_TALK 13:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I don't know; it depends on whether the candidate derived terms are classed as misspellings. The entry -nomics seems worth undeleting. A syn-ring would be -omics, -nomics and -onomics. From the three, -onomics would be probably the most common one: compare "Bushonomics", "Bushnomics" and *"Bushomics". To construe a suffix for a set of blends is a bit tricky anyway; we had a similar case with "-burger" I think: "-burger" is a suffix implied in blending of "hamburger" with, say, cheese; and so "-onomics" is a suffix implied in blending of "economics" with, say, "Bush". --Dan Polansky 13:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

1. In the case of -burger the first instances of use can, for purposes of historical derivation be considered blends. Once burger came to be a freestanding word among a sufficient number of speakers, arguably, all formation could be considered compounding, historically speaking. Had it not become freestanding, it would be a suffix.

   Viewed synchronically from the present, all uses of "burger" except those very few which are not combined with a key differentiating ingredient (eg, hamburger) would seem to be as compounds of burger.

   This case differs because of the alteration by deletion of the affix.

2. There is a related question of how to handle the addition of the purported interfix -o-. I think we do well to just treat it as one in etymologies.
3. Suffix alteration in the affixation process, such as this "n"-deletion seems to require us to have at least a redirect to the suffix we deem to be core one.
4. In contrast, base alteration in any affixation process is best explained briefly in an Etymology section (eg, "stem of", "alteration of"}, without requiring a new entry for the morphological component, IMO.

This leads me to believe that this should not be merely deleted. It could be a redirect for now. With more evidence of productivity, even of numerous nonces, inclusion would be justified, though not within CFI as we generally have applied it to affixes. DCDuring TALK 13:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

houer

rfd-sense: obsolete spelling of (deprecated template usage) hover. I'd call this a typographical variant where u and v are visually the same. Note we make this distinction in Wiktionary:About Latin, where v is use for /w/ and u is used for /u/. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The u and v aren't visually the same; the v is used initially and the u elsewhere. In any case, this is true for all words with u and v, and the spelling can be predicted from the modern spelling, so keeping them around is unnecessary.--Prosfilaes 12:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct, basically. Doesn't just apply to English either. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have mixed feelings about these...it was a typographical variant at the time, but now they are seen as different letters, which makes it awkward. I mean, they're prima facie easily attestable. It's worth noting also that the OED has, since it began updates for the new edition a few years ago, starting regarding these as separate spelling forms and listing them accordingly under the "Spellings" header of its entries. Ƿidsiþ 12:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Another way to think about it is, "will someone want to look it up?" I'd say the answer's yes. Consider the fact that some forms looked very different from how they look now. One I enetred recently was yuie. Took me quite a few seconds to work that one out when I came across it in a book, and it seems like something Wiktionary can help with. Ƿidsiþ 12:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Seems quite similar to the long s debate to me. Basically for the reasons that both of you have outlined. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• • • No, it's different exactly because of what I said above. S and long-s are not now considered to be different letters; U and V are. Ƿidsiþ 17:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • One of my concerns is that 8% of the words in /usr/share/dict/words need alternate forms because of this. Shakespeare used some 32,000 words in his works, and it's estimated he knew around 67,000. Are we ever going to achieve something that would require adding 2,500 words for Shakesepare's corpus alone, assuming all early texts of Shakespeare spelled the words consistently? That's not even starting on the fact this extends to all medieval European languages. Wouldn't it be better to offer a search extension or script that took a word and offered all variants of the u/v with pages?--Prosfilaes 18:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

    You're right of course, but that doesn't seem a good reason to delete it. There are lots of aims we'll never practically achieve but we try anyway. My solution in these cases is that I consider it not very useful to add these words (unless I find them particularly awkward, like the example above), but nor would I want to delete them if someone else adds them. Ƿidsiþ 07:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

    Any aim we'll never achieve in a practical manner is pointless. And pursuing one way discourages others; we could set up that search extension or script and file things like [[yuie]] under yvie, which would achieve a much higher rate of figuring out words with old-school u/v.--Prosfilaes 23:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

(deprecated template usage) wiues (obsolete wives) should be treated the same as this. Equinox ◑ 16:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Tagged (by coincidence actually, I only came here to post that I'd tagged it and found your comment). Mglovesfun (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

...and I should note that Shakespeare's play is officially titled The Tragedie of Romeo and Ivliet on the title page of that play in the First Folio edition. So we'll need an entry for Ivliet since people will want to look it up, right? Note also that this is not the only weird variant of that name in the First Folio. --EncycloPetey 00:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If they meet CFI, then yes, we will. Ƿidsiþ 08:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I still maintain the difference is typographical norms, not spelling. So I still prefer the delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

economic blockade

Blockade of an economic nature. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep: So, Mglovesfun is now wiki-stalking me through my the entries that I have added to Wiktionary. I find it not only disturbing but sad that an editor like Mglovesfun has been given the power to not only nominate an entry for deletion, but to actually delete an entry! Very sad indeed! WritersCramp 15:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be commenting on me to avoid commenting on the entry. BTW looking at your history, it's not just me, it's every Wiktionary editor. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You are the one nominating, so support your nomination, as of now I see nothing. WritersCramp 15:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I repeat, do you have any comment? Your tactic simply seems to discredit the nominator instead of affirming that the entry meets CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep: I changed the definition (please correct it if needed). I find this definition useful and, if defining a phrase is useful, then creating the page for the phrase, with this definition, is also useful. Lmaltier 19:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete, I just don't see it as a set phrase. Ƿidsiþ 20:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete. No hits on OneLook. Doesn't even have its own Wikipedia page. And its meaning does not go beyond the sum of parts as far as I can tell. By the way, WritersCramp, please refrain from making personal attacks on a user such as Mglovesfun who has contributed so much to this project. If someone nominates an entry for deletion there is no need to take it personally - no one owns anything on Wiktionary and every entry is up for modification and, sometimes, deletion. If you feel so passionate about it, try to argue for its inclusion according to criteria set out in the CFI. Cheers. ---> Tooironic 23:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I get Google hits: About 682,000 results (0.38 seconds) and Google Scholar hits: Results 1 - 10 of about 5,400. (0.10 sec) and Google Books hits: About 71,400 results (0.39 seconds), seems like your OneLook is a red herring to me. WritersCramp 23:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you feel that the definition is useful, or not? I am convinced that it would be useful to some readers. Lmaltier 06:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I assume this is a nomination under the sum-of-parts head. Let us have a look at the parts:

• economic - pertaining to an economy (I have ruled out the other senses)
• blockade - The isolation of something, especially a port, in order to prevent commerce and traffic in or out.
• economic blockade, pre Lmaltier by WritersCramp - The use by a State of measures whose primary effect is to harm the economy of another State.
• economic blockade by Lmaltier - The use by a State of measures whose primary objective is to harm the economy of another State by blocking international trade involving the State.

Some questions:

• Is there some non-economic blockade?
• If blockade is there in order to prevent commerce and traffic (which is what the definition of "blockade" says), how can a blockade be non-economic?
• Does "economic blockade" always involve blocking of ports?
• What are several examples of economic blockades?

--Dan Polansky 08:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment to comment: economic blockade does not necessarily involve physical blocking of the harbours. South Africa and Cuba are examples of countries that have been targets of an economic blockade, but the traffic to and from their ports was not restricted by naval or other force, at least not throughout the duration of the blockade. The countries participating in the blockade used other means to discourage trade with the blocked countries, such as punishing companies that do trade with them. And of course the harbours of landlocked countries cannot be blocked! On the other hand, no one has claimed that economic blockade would be synonymous to blocking the harbours. All in all, the entry appears quite SoP-ish to me. --Hekaheka 17:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

What happened when South Africa was a target of an economic blockade; what did the economic blockade consist in? --Dan Polansky 12:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

One can have political, cultural, fuel, commercial, financial, banking, etc. blockades. There are enough instances of "economic and X blockade" to show it is not a set phrase. Delete. DCDuring TALK 02:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

What is a "cultural blockade" and with respect to which sense of "blockade" is it sum-of-parts? Is "cultural blockade" something like "a cultural isolation of something, especially a port, in order to prevent commerce and traffic in or out"? (I know the last question sounds a bit stupid, but it is what you get from the assumption that "cultural blockade" is a blockade that is cultural using the current definition of "blockade".) --Dan Polansky 12:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Encyclopaedia material. Equinox ◑ 00:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Switching from "comment" to "keep". When I am thinking it over, it becomes quite clear that I want to keep this entry. I would really want to know what the heck is an "economic blockade" and what the heck is a "cultural blockade". If and when the entry "blockade" provides clear answers to these questions, then "economic blockade" and "cultural blockade" can be deleted. But given the current state of the entry "blockade", it is the entries for "economic blockade" and "cultural blockade" that should help me to find the answer to the ultimate dictionary question: what the heck does it mean. --Dan Polansky 12:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not take a run at improving the definition? Or at inserting {{rfdef}}? This is a wiki, after all. DCDuring TALK 13:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

DCDuring you are the one that wants the definition deleted, yet you are requesting another editor to improve the definition...it is admins like you that are ruining Wiktionary and stopping it from reaching its full potential as the greatest dictionary in the world! WritersCramp 14:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Sense added. Argument thereby rendered moot. DCDuring TALK 13:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not know what "economic blockade" and "cultural blockade" are, so I cannot add the definition. It seems that it is your business to explain clearly what "economic blockade" and "cultural blockade" are, and show that they are really sum-of-parts, given that you voted for "delete". You have now added the definition "Any form of formal isolation of something, especially with the force of law or arms" to "blockade". So is "cultural blockade" a "cultural form of formal isolation of something, especially with the force of law or arms"? Or is it "a form of cultural formal isolation of something, especially with the force of law or arms?" Or is it "cultural formal isolation of something, especially with the force of law or arms?" I cannot say that wholly understand the phrases, or that I could give an instance of "cultural blockade". --Dan Polansky 13:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the mysteries of polysemy. It is so hard to define terms to everyone's satisfaction. Tea? Talk:blockade?

In any event many of your issues seem quite beyond the scope of a dictionary. I'm not sure that there are any lexicographic resources that can help. Google can help. And isn't it fortunate that we have as resource our sister project, w:Wikipedia, which has w:Blockade (disambiguation), the articles one is led to thereto, search for mention of the concept, and mechanisms for requesting whatever encyclopedic subjects they do not yet have? DCDuring TALK 15:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Delete First definition was an SoP, second is too lengthy, bordering on encyclopedic. TeleComNasSprVen 21:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Three keeps versus six deletes. I'd class this as a fail; may as well let the debate carry on for a week, if anyone wants to comment. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

zymogen granule

"A granule of zymogen in any of several pancreatic and gastric cells." I suspect that a granule of zymogen anywhere would be a zymogen granule, and that anything offered by this entry above a sum-of-parts is encyclopaedic. Equinox ◑ 18:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, where they are seems incidental. Unless someone can produce citations showing that granules of zymogen outside of the pancreatic/gastric cells are not call zymogen granules, delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments, please? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to mean a granule (grain) of zymogen, but, rather, some sort of body (I don't know if that's the right word) containing zymogen. So unless we're missing some biology sense of granule such that this is simply zymogen + that sense of granule, this is (defined wrong as we have it now and, when defined right,) not SOP.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't dispute that. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

See [[w:user talk:Jfdwolff#zymogen granule]] (presumably later to be archived to [[w:user talk:Jfdwolff/Archive 34]] or [[...35]]).​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Schengen Agreement

A particular agreement. Not a toponym, a given name, a demonym, a taxon, a brand, a company name. Not used figuratively in English AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 02:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The only interest would be that of translators: which of the synonyms of "agreement" to use in English and in other languages. This information is readily available through Wikipedia though, and I think Wiktionary can do without. We do not seem to have a lot of other agreements listed, Warsaw Pact being a notable exception. Another aspect: is the word "Schengen" alone used to refer to the agreement in English (as it is at least in Finnish)? If it is, we might want to mention that in the entry for Schengen. --Hekaheka 04:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep until principles or rules for inclusion and exlusion of specific entities are clarified. This case is currently unregulated; this RFD is an extra-CFI one. With the exception of geographic entities, there is no agreement on specific rules for the inclusion of names of specific entities. Maybe DCDuring would like to propose a candidate regulation, and send it for a vote?

Compare Pythagorean theorem: not a toponym, a given name, a demonym, a taxon, a brand, a company name; so what? --Dan Polansky 11:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Those (plus surname) are the sole precedents AFAICT for inclusion of proper nouns. As we have no rules, precedents would seem to be our sole guide. I believe that each new class of items to be included (discussed on RfD for the first time) should at the very least be brought to BP if not subjected to a vote in accordance with our general effort to maintain some kind of consensus and a modest degree of consistency. DCDuring TALK 19:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

For a larger context of readers of this RFD, you are a noted deletionist who has for long supported the attributive-use rule (which blocked inclusion of many names of specific entities), and who would want to see all proper names excluded from Wiktionary. Now to the subject matter.

There is a considerable precedent of including various names of specific entities, including some names of stars. A discussion in Beer parlor would be okay, but in its absence my default is to keep. --Dan Polansky 09:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Well known international treaty. We have others like Geneva Convention and Warsaw Convention--Dmol 05:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

"Well-known international treaty" not a CFI consideration. Have the others cleared an RfD discussion? DCDuring TALK 19:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Pythagorean theorem

Same as above. DCDuring TALK 19:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep unless a Beer parlour discussion shows otherwise. This term seems particularly inclusion-worthy, more so than "Geneva Convention" and "Warsaw Convention". --Dan Polansky 09:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Geneva Convention

Same as above. DCDuring TALK 19:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep in the abscence of an exclusion principle and CFI regulation. No exclusion principle, not even a tentative one, has been proposed by the nominator, other than a broad wish to exclude as many proper names as possible. --Dan Polansky 09:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Warsaw Convention

Same as above. DCDuring TALK 19:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep in the abscence of an exclusion principle and CFI regulation. No exclusion principle, not even a tentative one, has been proposed by the nominator, other than a broad wish to exclude as many proper names as possible. --Dan Polansky 09:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Long-term wide-spread use. Not guessable from its parts.--Dmol 09:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Very weak keep to all four, since CFI doesn't exclude them. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

attested language

Any language that's attested. Good encyclopedic stuff, bad dictionary stuff. Unattested language should get the same treatment, if it existed. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Nominated as sum-of-parts I guess. Where is the proof? A first sketchy proof would consist in listing the definition of "attested language", and the definitions of "attested" and "language" with respect to which this is sum of parts. I suspect that the term is not wholly sum-of-partish, but I am not sure. The only thing I know is that would like to see a specific definition of "attested language" rather than having to guess from the part terms. Like, would the language's being spoken but not recorded count toward attestation? The definition answers in the affirmative.

Unspecific hand waving like "Good encyclopedic stuff, bad dictionary stuff" is better avoided; if the reason for nomination is "sum of parts", this should be stated, I think. --Dan Polansky 09:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes sum of parts? Dunno what you mean by proof. What would constitute proof, a scientific experiment? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete in the absence of any evidence (rather than mere assertion) that this is a set phrase. Coordination tests and modifier tests would suffice. DCDuring TALK 16:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

complex system

Defined as SOP. —Ruakh_TALK 01:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Current definition is unusable. Wikipedia's article says "A complex system is a system composed of interconnected parts that as a whole exhibit one or more properties ... not obvious from the properties of the individual parts", which may be of encyclopaedic interest but doesn't seem interesting to us. Delete. Equinox ◑ 23:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like the contributor accidentally hit save while writing the definition, therefore leaving it unfinished! Delete (or even speedy delete) or come up with a definition that's in comprehensible English. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete OneLook coverage is either definitionless or encyclopedic. Suggestively, if not conclusively, stress is on "system", not "complex" in normal speech. I could imagine the opposite only in a context-specific effort to establish a contrast, as when making a nonce definition in a scholarly work. DCDuring TALK 15:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Already been at rfv with previous consensus to delete. TeleComNasSprVen 21:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Keep the entry, rewrite the definition. The current definition "specific kind of system, which a certain complexity" seems wrong. The current definition really seem sum-of-partish, but I suspect there is a definition that is not. The argument that Wikipedia's definition is encyclopedic is unconvincing to me: definitions are dictionary material. Possibly, a "complex system" does not need to be particularly complex in that it may consist of only a few parts and a few couplings between the parts; it may show complex behavior instead. This would require some research. Unfortunately, we have no quotations in the entry. --Dan Polansky 10:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

-ability

Originally nominated at RFV, consensus was that it should be here. Though, I'm still not sure why. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think RFV was a better place for this, because the issue is whether any terms have been coined using -ability as a suffix (rather than taking an -able and sticking -ity on it). What is the rationale for deletion? Equinox ◑ 23:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, I moved it here per other people's comments. I was happier with rfv. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Some OneLook coverage “-ability”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. DCDuring TALK 14:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think the consensus was that this wasn't going to be cited, but it might be worth keeping in spite of CFI. Which I oppose. Well, in this case I oppose it. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Equinox says "the issue is whether any terms have been coined using -ability as a suffix (rather than taking an -able and sticking -ity on it)", but doesn't bother to justify that statement. (Perhaps it's intended simply as a statement of personal opinion — in which case I suppose it's a valid one — but somehow it doesn't come off that way to me.) Mglovesfun implies that the CFI require this to be "cited" in some specific way, but it obviously falls under the "clearly widespread use" clause. If you want me to cite it, I can easily do so, using one cite from google books:"probability", one from google books:"readability", and one from google books:"commensurability".

Perhaps a consensus will form here along the lines of Equinox's assertion; if so, this may then become suitable for RFV. In the meantime, it doesn't make sense to list this at RFV. It's not fair to our citers to ask them to cite something when there's no agreement about what kinds of citations are acceptable.

—Ruakh_TALK 19:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The nominator of this entry is Mglovesfun, with his introducing statement "Aren't all the derived terms suffixed with -able then with -ity? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)" (see RFV). So what is the entry charged with? Per what principle, even an implied one, should the entry be deleted? I do not know. I can only guess a principle of the sort "If a suffix appears to be a result of concatenation of two suffixes, it should be excluded". I know of no precedent of application of this principle, nor is this principle expressly stated in CFI. In order to vote delete, I would have to tentatively accept this principle without having investigated its implications and consequences. Hence I err on the side of keep. --Dan Polansky 09:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Semi-relevant comment: I'm glad I nominated this as it's gonna be good stuff to have on the entry's talk page when this debate is closed. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I did once consider adding the Italian equivalent (deprecated template usage) -abilità, but decided that it was just (deprecated template usage) -abile + (deprecated template usage) -ità. I am still of the same mind. SemperBlotto 08:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

What makes sense for the Italian may not make sense for the English. It may be a general characteristic of (deprecated template usage) -ità that a preceding (deprecated template usage) -e is dropped, but it's certainly not a general characteristic of (deprecated template usage) -ity that a preceding (deprecated template usage) -i- is inserted. We don't have (deprecated template usage) taciturn → *(deprecated template usage) taciturinity, nor (deprecated template usage) mediocre → *(deprecated template usage) mediocirity. —Ruakh_TALK 12:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The etymology is certainly wrong, since there is not a suffix -abilitas in Latin. Latin adds (deprecated template usage) -itās to an adjective ending in (deprecated template usage) -ābilis. --EncycloPetey 04:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

WordNet

A specific software product (and, I would argue, therefore a "brand name"). Passed a lukewarm RFV in 2007; see Talk:WordNet. Equinox ◑ 23:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't WordNet as much a word as Wikipedia (from a linguistic point of view)? I would keep it. It's useful to be able to get information about brand names (especially pronunciation, but also, sometimes, etymology, translations, etc.) We should apply normal rules to brand names, except that I would add a requirement for a minimum number of independent attestations from sources other than the company owning the brand name. Lmaltier 21:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably delete, though I never really know where I stand with brand names. In a sense, they're words, but they're generally just made up to promote a product. A bit different from words that go back to Ancient Greek. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep unless this can be deleted via RFV as failing the requirements regulating brand names. The regulation of brand names is specified in this vote. Avoid deleting via RFD. --Dan Polansky 09:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

teaching materials

SoP--Felonia 14:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete, it's actually quite a set phrase in the UK, but easily decodable from the sum of its parts (materials for teaching). Same goes for learning materials, which we don't have. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps it was created just to house the translations? Delete. Equinox ◑ 14:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep...as MG says, it's quite a set phrase round these parts. Ƿidsiþ 14:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Shouldn't the entry be at teaching material? ---> Tooironic 10:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not used much in the singular, but I'd bet it's attestable. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete per Mg.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

xinxueguanbing

Another 123abc entry. (read: sum of parts) -- Prince Kassad 18:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute, this is solid-written, so it cannot be sum of parts. Compare English headache. I do not know whether it fails some other requirements like something about toneless Pinyin, but it is not sum of parts. --Dan Polansky 09:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, he shouldn't block me in a range block (91.106.0.0). A range block can also affect a lot of other users also. 91.104.37.64 11:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Chinese does not use the space character in its orthography. By your logic, all Chinese sentences would be eligible for inclusion. -- Prince Kassad 18:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyhow, you shouldn't do range block (91.106.0.0). A range block can affect many users. 91.104.17.51

It is not sum of parts, but it should not be as a toneless pinyin entry - the correct entry title is 心血管病. ---> Tooironic 22:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Wiki has no rules to ban Pinyin entries. You shouldn't use yourself's rules to ban Pinyin. 91.104.17.51 08:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Wiki has no rules to ban Pinyin entries." We're working on it :o). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

CD player

CD + player, sense 8. -- Prince Kassad 18:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favor of deletion. Actually if kept, put in Category:English non-idiomatic translation targets. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• Definitely keep. This is a set phrase which refers to a specific thing. Ƿidsiþ 20:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep, per Widsith. How would uninformed readers know that it's sense 8 of player rather than one of the other eight? Longtrend 20:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete; it may be a set phrase, but it's pure SOP. Besides the fact sense 8 of player is "An electronic device that plays various audio and video media, such as CD player", I don't see any way that a reasonably intelligent reader could interpret any other sense of player as being appropriate--except for sense 9, and CD player can be CD + player, sense 9. (Check out CD player software on Google, for examples.)--Prosfilaes 03:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It can definitely be sense 9 of player also, and I'd say to delete it as now defined ("An electronic device that plays compact discs"), except that I suspect that our definition is wrong, as a CD player, at least AFAICT, is something that plays audio CDs only, as opposed to, e.g., CD-ROMs.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually yes. Many CD players play MP3 CDs, which are in essence CD-ROMs with MP3 files on them, so they do play CD-ROMs. -- Prince Kassad 18:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That seems right; "CD player" implies "audio CD player", regardless of whether player of an audio CD or a CD with MP3 files. A CD player does not play CDs with video files, right? --Dan Polansky 19:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I would say that CD in many contexts implies audio CD. Like Billboard‎, Apr 11, 2009 "The rapid erosion in CD sales shows no sign of letting up."[30] I think that's a lack in CD, to miss the specific meaning of a compact disc holding audio data in a Red Book compliant manner.--Prosfilaes 19:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, cf. 2008, Mark J. P. Wolf, The video game explosion: a history from PONG to Playstation and beyond, p. 119;

In 1989 NEC released a CD player for the console that gave it the ability to read data from compact discs. While the CD player could be used to play standard audio discs, it had been designed especially for video game use.

-- Prince Kassad 19:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep; refers to an electronic device that is designed to read CDs, and does not usually refer to a person who plays them. If I play a CD, that does not make me a CD player. --EncycloPetey 00:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't always refer to an electronic device; it sometimes refers to a computer program. And it's debatable, if I were asked to be the CD player at a party, I don't think I would have problem understanding the request.--Prosfilaes 02:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

And I would understand if someone asked me to be a smoke detector. That does not invalidate our entry for (deprecated template usage) smoke detector. Your proposal is hypothetical and (at best) rare; people who play music at parties are called disc jockeys, not CD players. --EncycloPetey 02:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have understood this command. -- Prince Kassad 10:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

faute de mieux

RFD French part. Perhaps just faute de + mieux, but I may be wrong. --Felonia 09:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

keep. I'm French, and it is obvious to me that it's as much a set phrase as the English one. It's not fully necessary to include it to understand it when you read it, but it's necessary to include it to know that this is the precise phrase you must use when you want to express this idea. Lmaltier 17:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That's good to know. Thanks for the input. --Felonia 21:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No idea. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikinews

Seeing as [[Wiktionary]] has been deleted. --Felonia 17:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe this should be RFV'd per WT:BRAND. —Ruakh_TALK 17:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, RFV.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be for RFV, but this is going to require demanding attestation work, involving wrestling with 7 requirements. I would just keep it in RFD, and postponse RFV indefinitely. Felonia is Wonderfool. --Dan Polansky 14:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia

Also, same deal as with Wikinews --Felonia 17:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe this should be RFV'd per WT:BRAND. —Ruakh_TALK 17:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, RFV.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be for RFV, but this is going to require demanding attestation work, involcing wrestling with 7 requirements. I would just keep it in RFD, and postponse RFV indefinitely. Felonia is Wonderfool. --Dan Polansky 14:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I need sunblock lotion

nobody says sunblock lotion, it is very unnatural. --Felonia 14:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)--Felonia 14:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, funny how Daniel. talks perfect English outside NS:0 but yes, this isn't "English". Delete, or perhaps rename to I need sunblock. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Move to I need sunblock. --Yair rand (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for "perfect English", I'm flattered. Now move this entry to I need sunblock per Yair and Martin, the guys who are native speakers. --Daniel. 22:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's a regional thing; in Australia we usually say sunscreen or suncream. ---> Tooironic 22:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

For me it's sunscreen usually. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 03:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

In the U.S., sunblock is much more protection than sunscreen. People use sunscreen if they want to be protected while still getting a tan, but sunblock implies no tanning.

Delete or move; 261 Google hits is ridicuously low for a supposedly common phrase. --Dan Polansky 14:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

get your coat love, you've pulled

I don't think we should have pickup lines in Wiktionary --Felonia 14:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Though, it's not really sum of parts. I'd actually keep it, even I'm a bit surprised to hear myself say that. Well, see myself type that. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

do you come here often, can I buy you a drink, did it hurt when you fell from heaven, nice legs, what time do they open, is that a ladder in your stockings or the stairway to heaven are among my most favouritest other lines. To be considered. --Felonia 21:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

"is that XXX in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?" where XXX can be replaced with a million variations, i just would not know which one to pick Mutante 22:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

How would you say in German: Is that a Currywurst in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me? --Felonia 07:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep; looks non-SoP, so what is the problem? Felonia is Wonderfool. --Dan Polansky 14:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Then Rising Sun, also Wonderfool, created the entry that he now wants to delete. Equinox ◑ 15:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this was (of course) before Felonia got an indefinite block. Perhaps it's a joke on his part, create the entry as Rising Sun, then nominate it for deletion as Felonia. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

where is a hotel

doesn't sound very natural --Felonia 14:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

delete if anything, it should be where is the hotel or I'm looking for a hotel. -- Prince Kassad 14:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete or move. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep or move to "can you direct me to a hotel" or similar. --Yair rand (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe are there any hotels around here? --Felonia 22:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't we just need (deprecated template usage) where is - it can be followed by the noun of your choice. SemperBlotto 08:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggested same approach for "I need" but we seem to need I need a condom, I need a doctor, I need chopsticks, I need an interpreter, I need a dictionary, I need a pencil, I need your help, I need an umbrella, I need toilet paper, I need a pen, I need soap, I need water, I need shampoo, I need petrol, I need aspirin, I need shelter, I need privacy, I need money, I need food, I need clothes, I need toothpaste, I need a towel, I need a toothbrush, I need a map, I need a lawyer, I need a guide, I need a drink, I need a bath, I need a postcard, I need a razor, I need a compass, I need a Bible, I need a taxi, I need a diaper, I need a battery, I need internet access, I need Internet access, I need writing paper, I need sunblock lotion, I need a postage stamp, I need a sanitary napkin. I lost that battle, as well as the battle against "I don't speak X" -entries, but I truly hope that we do the sensible thing and don't start a new line of "where is" -entries. --Hekaheka 15:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I would hope we're still fighting that battle. DAVilla 13:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that we can just consider the phrasebook as an opportunity for some of our contributors to engage in trivial translation drills. The appropriateness and usability of the phrases is then not a concern. And we can easily dramatically boost our entry count without having to think or work hard. DCDuring TALK 18:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep for now or move. 2,300,000 Google hits for the phrase is fairly okay for a phrasebook entry. Also, let Felonia who is Wonderfool not determine out RFD agenda. --Dan Polansky 14:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep. This is the kind of awkward, unnatural, found-only-in-a-phrasebook expression that helps native speakers more rapidly identify non-native speakers. DCDuring TALK 14:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Sarcasm is the best communication policy :p. What is the native phrase to which you would move it? Sure, I am just an ignorant non-native who goes by Google numbers as a cheap heuristic. If "can you direct me to a hotel" with its 17,900 Google hits and 33 Google Books hits sounds much more native, then the heuristic is really broken for phrasebook. --Dan Polansky 14:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting. My first reaction was to agree with WF and DCDuring that this doesn't sound very natural — I would ask something like "Where is there a hotel near here?" or "Are there any hotels in the area?" — but some of the Google hits look like genuine native speakers genuinely asking where an indefinite hotel is. —Ruakh_TALK 17:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

In any event, "where is 'X' | 'an X' | 'the X'?" are general forms for asking location questions. The "Where is a hotel?" form invites non-informative answers like "In the downtown areas of every city and major town." or requires the helpful respondent to ask clarifying questions.

For an encounter with a stranger in a language not one's own extra politeness is advisable. (A high level of politeness is also an indicator that the speaker is not local.) Here are a few ways of saying this kind of thing that seem natural to me (All should be introduced by "Excuse me." or "Can you help me?".):

"I'm looking for the X Hotel. Do you know how to get there?"

"I'm looking for a good|cheap|convenient hotel/motel near X. What would you recommend?"

"Where could I find a good|cheap hotel near X?"

"Do you know where I could find a good|cheap hotel near X?"

"Do you know of a good|cheap hotel near X?"

"Do you know where I could get a room for the night?"

"Where is a hotel?" doesn't give enough explicit information to the hearer, though it does convey implicit information: that the speaker is not a native English speaker and doesn't even have a good phrasebook. I bought NTC's Dictionary of Everyday American English Expressions (US$13.95 list price) at an early stage of the discussion of our still-born phrasebook. It has some 7,000 expressions in 774 situationally defined categories. I'd be much more accepting of phrasebook entries if the advocates troubled to break out their phrasebooks (or get some if they don't yet have any). DCDuring TALK 18:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't sound English. How about where can I find a hotel? Equinox ◑ 15:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Yair rand (talk) 05:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we need a policy, asap. I just noticed that we also have I lost my bag, I lost my backpack, I lost my handbag, I lost my glasses, I lost my keys, I lost my wallet. What about I lost my mind? It gets 485,000 Google hits, and is obviously a common phrase, if that's the criterion. Some of the things that get lost in Google more frequently than a bacpack include house (23,5M), hope (2M), control (1.5M), home (1.3M), ticket (1M), job (730k), wits (677k), money (675k), cat (196k), notebook (105k), passport (103k), credit card (100k), pen (92k), calculator (80k), cellphone (70k)... It's also interesting that I lost my wife gets 21.5 M hits but I lost my husband only yields 105k! Does this mean that men care 200 times more of their wives than vice versa? --Hekaheka 13:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If the currently discussed and proposed policy would be in force (occurrence in three independent phrasebooks, Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-10/Phrasebook CFI), it would keep the phrase:

• where is a hotel - [31][32][33][34]

--Dan Polansky 07:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose we could have either many variants on the same page or many variants as full entries. This particular expression might warrant a new register tag, perhaps "basic only" or "basic", suggesting that is only minimally adequate. To me it seems barely one step above pidgin. DCDuring TALK 18:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

moved to where can I find a hotel -- Prince Kassad 21:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

systemic consistency

Doesn't seem to actually mean anything. SemperBlotto 21:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep, as per Google Books, looks like direct translation from German Systemkonsistenz Google Books Google DE Mutante 22:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Definition is garbage mind you. Can we get a comprehensible definition for it, then reopen the RFD if necessary. Add {{rfdef}} or speedy and wait for a definition. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

to-

The Modern English section only. This is not a formative suffix in modern English. --EncycloPetey 00:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

True. Outside of quirky constructions made analogously to today (like toweek [=this week], tomonth, toyear, etc.) it is dead. But does dead mean it warrants no entry? Consider entries for for-, with- and twi-, which are also no longer productive. Entries are given for them, as people still need to know what they mean when they encounter them. Leasnam 00:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If it was productive in Middle English or in Old English, then that language is where the prefix belongs. They can be linked from the etymology section of the composed words, which makes them easy to find. --EncycloPetey 00:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, with respect to words containing the prefix be-, all were made in Old or Middle English. Same for words containing the suffix -ric (--same principle). Neither affix is productive today. I think it's still helpful for those who would like to know how it got that way, especially when the original construction has become opaque in the modern language. Leasnam 00:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

But surely that doesn't mean we should misrepresent the information to our users by calling these modern English prefixes? Why can't they be listed under Middle or Old English and then linked from the etymology of the word that contains the prefix? --EncycloPetey 01:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems useful to document non-formative affixes; they can be marked as non-formative if that is the problem. Recently, I have extended with RT section the affix "-ator", a suffix that does not seem formative (or "productive"?) either. For "-ator", it took me some time to find the terms that have the apparent suffix. I find the RT list rather valuable: it tells me how usual the non-formative suffix is. On the subject of whether non-formative or non-productive affixes should be documented, there is the discussion Wiktionary:Beer_parlour_archive/2007/August#no_longer_productive, during which the currently-rather-unused template {{no longer productive}} was created, as well as the almost empty Category:No longer productive. --Dan Polansky 06:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

But -ator is not a suffix, even in Latin. The Latin suffix is (deprecated template usage) -tor (feminine (deprecated template usage) -trīx). The -a- is a harmonizing particle that often is not present; it appears primarily when the root word is a first-conjugation verb. --EncycloPetey 04:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I am a non-native, but native English speaker SemperBlotto sees -ator and -atory as suffixes. You could quite possibly be technically or scientifically right in claiming that "-ator" and "-atory" are not suffixes in English. The thing is, how do we document observable regularities that natives use to compactly store the English vocabulary in their minds? Native English speakers in general do not know the etymologies of English words, yet they have to perform some naive morphological analysis of the vocabulary in their mind, or else they would go crazy, right? The pseudo-affixes "-ator" and "-atory" make it possible to share at least in part this native knowhow with non-natives. If it turns out that these affixes wanna-be are really only pseudo-things, they can be tagged as such. I see no point in deleting the entries altogether. --Dan Polansky 06:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Some kind of evidence of productivity would be nice for a full entry. For cases with no evidence of such productivity perhaps an abbreviated entry analogous to "common misspelling" would be in order: "reinterpretation/reconstruction/misconstruction of" endings of Latin loanwords: "-at-" + "-or" or "-a-" + "-tor". DCDuring TALK 16:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me be a little bit more skeptical about EncycloPetey's exposition. Is it then true that "sero-" is not a combining form, because it is a combination of "ser-" + "-o-"? What about the pair benz- and benzo-, aden- and adeno-, brom- and bromo-, actin- and actino-, aer- and aero-? Should Tibeto- be deleted, because it is Tibet + -o-? Put differently, should more than a half of Category:English prefixes be deleted? --Dan Polansky 18:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Quinlon's Affixes site has numerous soft "redirects", as from -tor to -or and from -or to -our. Partiridge did the same in his appendices on affixes in Origins. Concentrating our efforts on the core or the most common form of an suffix seems advisable. Whether we use hard redirects or soft redirects is less important than having a presentation that economizes on user neurons by providing the most reusable, comprehensible framework, so that users have a fighting chance of remembering what they learn from our entries. DCDuring TALK 20:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• If, like me, you don't consider Middle English to be a separate language from modern English, this discussion is a bit pointless and annoying. But anyway, wherever you draw the line between the two, I think the prefix was still in use in the early modern period. The word (deprecated template usage) tostick, for example, was not formed before 1596, according to the OED. Ƿidsiþ 07:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I would be inclined to keep this and categorize it among Category:English unproductive suffixes. That category would be useful to users if it meant not "currently" productive rather than not productive at any time in the last 540-710 years. Well, actually, it is the complement, Category:English productive suffixes, that would have the most utility to users if it means "currently" productive. Does anyone have any thoughts on criteria for "currently productive"? I had naively thought any evidence of productivity over the last one hundred years would be sufficient, but now doubt that such a simple criterion is adequate. DCDuring TALK 01:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it might work well to see productivity classified as non-productive for those affixes (like -ure) which were never productive in English; affixes that were once productive and now are not (--{{no longer productive}} works well for these), and productive (or possibly zero classification) for the lave. Leasnam 04:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

As for how to define currently, that is difficult, as this depends heavily on the availability of new words coming into the language with which to combine. I would say within the the past 500 years or so is fair. Leasnam 04:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

What you say about a three-level classification sounds quite useful. But making the threshold for "currently" productive 500 years (if I understand you correctly) would seem to violate most people's understanding of "currently". I don't think users would view a suffix that was last productive in the 19th century as "currently" productive. For many, "current" means "this decade", "this month", or even "tomorrow". DCDuring TALK 15:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, I can understand that. Decade, month and tomorrow leaves a very small window, though, for such a slow process (i.e. word formation, including acceptance). Ok, what if we use new formations within the last 100 years or so (allowing ample cushion)? My only concern is that we may undercut some productive affixes, which certainly possess life and vigour, that haven't had any opportunities for new formation because they are already fully utilised, and the productivity feasibility for them is maxed out. Leasnam 18:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Can we define, or perhaps re-define what productive means? For instance, instead of being based on the number of actual creations within the last x-number of years, can we base it on whether such creations are still *possible*, whether they have the potential of entering into new formations? For example, the prefix to- is not able to enter into any new, real formations. It is dead. However, the prefix be- still has the potential of producing new formations, even though no new formations have been created in several hundreds of years. Therefore, it is still a living prefix (i.e. it has life/force potential). Thoughts? Leasnam 18:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Word Formation in English contains the suggestion that in a given contemporary corpus, the existence of multiple hapax legomena using an affix is better evidence of productivity than recent fully attested words. DCDuring TALK 20:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

So, the number/count of derived terms (containing the affix) as opposed to the frequency or number of instances those terms are used? If so, then I would agree with that. For instance, I think an entry for -lock in Modern English would be pointless, as it exists in only one word: wedlock. Leasnam 21:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, no. Hapax legomena wouldn't meet our attestation standard. It would be the very fact that a few writers could expect their unique nonce coinages to be understood that would be the most convincing evidence. DCDuring TALK 21:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe that in the Early Modern era this was still the case. Many still associated words prefixed with to- to mean "something done severely". This is suported by the formation of topinch (= to pinch severely) from to pinch. Leasnam 15:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Move to RFV, if three attestable coinages post 1470 can be cited and we have one, apparently) then keep it. This is what happened for Catalano-. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

To clarify — do you mean that if there are three such coinages for to-#Etymology 1, then we keep to-#Etymology 1, and likewise for to-#Etymology 2? Or do you mean three such coinages overall? —Ruakh_TALK 21:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Six citations; rfv-sense x2. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

topinch is a second for Etymology_1. I have just added it. It was coined post-Shakespeare. Leasnam 21:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, and I expect it should pass, but if it should fail, please do not delete either Etymology, but rather move to Middle English. That much we can all agree on yes? Leasnam 21:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

For Etymology_2, any of the words listed under Derived terms, excepting tofore was created in Modern English (my dictionary source, however, does not provide an exact date). There are 4 of them (to-be, to-bread, to-come, to-do). Leasnam 22:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

But these all (except possibly to-bread) look like formations by verb-to-noun conversion of to#Article + verb, not like prefixations. DCDuring TALK 02:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That is precisely the origin of the prefix under Etymology_2, preposition/particle (the particle is merely a specific deployment of the preposition) + word morphed to prefix. When word=verb, it is used to signify a supine or verbal noun (cf. -ing). As a result, 'to-do' ≠ 'to do' (e.g. "There was much to-do" (a lot of fuss and commotion) vs. "There was much to do" (a lot to get done)). Leasnam 15:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

For Etymology_1, I have the following words: tomourn, toknit, tobuy, tospill, towrench, and toput. I stopped here as this should be enough. Although I cannot connect a specific date of coinage to these, I was able to cross-check with a Middle English dictionary and verified that none of these words, nor words similar in construction to these, are found therein. I can only deduce that these were formed in Early Modern English. If someone who can could please verify the dates of one or two of these it would be very appreciated. Leasnam 23:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

These look suspiciously like scannos or formations by compounding involving to#Article and/or conversion. DCDuring TALK 02:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Googling them on Google Books is probably not the best method of finding these words for that reason. My source for these is Coleridge, A dictionary of the first, or oldest words in the English language. OED is a good start for tracking the dates. Although these words are not in use today, except perhaps dialectally, they do evince and attest to the prefix's productive force in the Early Modern period. I say keep for both. Leasnam 14:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Here we have 3 Modern creations for Etymology_1: tostick (mentioned above), Milton's to-ruffled in Comus, and Spenser's to-worne in The Faerie Queene. I have verified that neither toruffle (torufflen) nor towear (toweren, towerien) existed in Middle English.... Due to later editions made by those unfamiliar with the prefix, you may see these rendered as all-to-ruffled, all-to ruffled, etc. but consensus is that it is the prefix to- in combination with all, as seen in similar formations involving all + prefix (e.g. al-forwaked, al bi-weped, etc.). Leasnam 19:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

mammale

This isn't given for "mammal" in any dictionary I own or have examined. It also does not match scientific usage, where "Mammalia" is used as the plural. --EncycloPetey 16:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: Its inflected forms ought to be deleted as well. --EncycloPetey 16:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Should be RFV? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No; it's an adjective with a substantive meaning, and the inflection is wrong. If you can find citations to support gender-specific usage, then the noun's lemma page would be supported, but the inflection will still be wrong and the form pages will still have to be deleted. This is an I-stem inflection. --EncycloPetey 16:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

My source was Latin Wikipedia. e.g. w:la:Ovis aries has "Ovis aries est mammale quadrupes ruminans ..." SemperBlotto 16:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That's substantive use of an adjective. It's not a noun in Latin. --EncycloPetey 16:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that Latin Wikipedia is not a good source any more than any other Wikipedia. Your example sentence demonstrates why. It translates "Sheep ram is of/with breasts (going on) four feet ruminating ..." (1) It uses the scientific name Ovis aries, which makes no sense in Latin proper, since ovis is a feminine noun meaning "sheep" and aries is a masculine noun meaning "ram". The combination is strictly found in taxonomic "New Latin" which we classify as Translingual. (2) It uses a string of predicate adjectives and a participle, the first of which is neuter and therefore does not match the gender of the subject, unless it is being used as a substantive, but the grammar is equivocal. The other adjective and participle have a single nominative form for all genders and so are of no help in parsing the grammar.

The w:la:Mammalia is helpful here, as it points out that Linnaean taxonomy first adopted the term in 1758, but used as the plural adjectival form mammaliorum. So, any support for the noun would have to come from citations of the last 250 years. --EncycloPetey 16:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I knew someone when

I think phrases like "I knew him when he was just a mailman" aren't idioms, they just have the literal meanings of the words. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You have put up a straw man to argue against. The citations do not have a single instance of the "when" being followed by a clause in the non-idiomatic fashion. OTOH it is quite possible that the idiomatic expression is not heard in the UK.

Though it might be possible to argue that this is a "mere" ellipsis, with "when" functioning anaphorically or deictically, and is therefore always understood as such without being idiomatic, the same argument could be made for many idioms, including those currently in Category:English ellipses. Even this argument does not hold for some uses of the term. The expression can be used without reference to any specific event or period whether mentioned or inferable from context, just some time in the past when speaker and "someone" were both alive and speaker was aware. DCDuring TALK 12:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

To quote (or at worst paraphrase you) "explain how this meets CFI". The citations are varied, undoubtedly, but in the end just refer to knowing some in the past. Seems we need a third opinon here, c'mon wade in. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

For it to be SoP, the first requirement would be that (deprecated template usage) when have the sense of "then" in contemporary English in phrases other than this one. In fact, it ought to to have a sense of "long ago" or "before {someone) became famous/successful/powerful/rich". If it has that sense in any one other attestable expression (three cites) or two different expressions, then we should add (deprecated template usage) when. I am unwilling to spend time citing it when I have only heard and read this sense of "when" in this context. Perhaps "back when." or "remember|remembers|remembering|remembered X when." can be found.

In any event, this dictionary does not have the relevant sense of "when". DCDuring TALK 23:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

use-mention distinction

Seems like a typical context-specific bit of NISoPitude. Put in Wiktionary:Glossary or Appendix:Glossary, which can house the WP link. DCDuring TALK 18:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but Wikipedia seems to consider this as a set phrase, one of the two possible ways to express the idea (the second one being words-as-words distinction). What does NISoPitude mean? There is no entry for this word. Lmaltier 18:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-Idiomatic Sum of Parts + -itude. --Bequw → τ 20:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Thank you. Lmaltier 20:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Now via NISOP at Wiktionary:Glossary#NThanks for mentioning the gap. DCDuring TALK 22:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware that WP is a prescriptive authority on any matters of language, let alone on this particular question. Tell me more. DCDuring TALK 22:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, delete.​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)14:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Do you seriously claim that you know what "use-mention distinction" refers to only from "use", "mention" and "distinction"? In the sentence "I need a hammer", I am mentioning a hammer, whereas in the process of hitting nails, I am using the hammer: is this the use-mention distiction? (Rhetorical question.) Well, obvious not, given the definition.

Occurrences in books that would call for a dictionary lookup:[35][36][37]. A quotation that suggests that its authors deems it necessary to explain to his readers what the allegedly sum-of-partish "use-mention distinction" is: [38]. --Dan Polansky 08:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The argument you repeat above applies to any words used to represent any complex concept. But complex concepts per se belong in an encyclopedia, something like, say, Wikipedia. A dictionary is not aimed at explaining concepts. It is aimed at explaining the words used to explain concepts. In this particular case, the SoP gloss "distinction between use and mention", which follows from the grammar of the phrase provides a wonderfully concise definition. It suggests that the meat of the concept requires understanding the "distinction" between "use#Noun" and "mention#Noun".

The core issue is whether a dictionary is about words or concepts. A thesaurus, not a dictionary, is the kind of reference that maps between the two. Thesauri have structures that are distinct from those of dictionaries. And encyclopedias have yet another structure. That computer and communications technology has allowed us to transcend the size limitations of print references does not imply that it has overcome the human cognitive limitations that have made these kinds of references distinct in the world of print.

The effort to lexicalize everything distracts us from the consequences our inability to attract enough editors to write or rewrite all the missing senses and obsoletely, archaicly, and datedly worded worded senses of English words in Wiktionary. I would submit that writing definitions for individual words is harder than writing definitions for SoP terms, but that it is the irreducible core responsibility of a dictionary. I am reasonably sure that most who have had the experience writing definitions for entries in their own native language's Wiktionary would agree: The hardest words to define well and completely are the most common and grammaticized ones.

It is to be expected that we are most solicitous of the multi-word entries that bear on our own work and interests and ignore the fact that we cannot recruit users to add all the concept entries that would apply in the worlds of bond traders, roofers, seamstresses, auto mechanics, soldiers, and paper manufacturers. DCDuring TALK 11:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Using arcane terms in need of deciphering such as "NISoPitude" ("sum-of-partness"? the former has 10 keystrokes, the latter has 15 keystrokes) is a conscious or unconscious attempt to make the discussion less accessible to outsiders. --Dan Polansky 08:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"NISOPitude" is no more arcane than the substance of the discussion, ie, NISOPitude. "Sum-of-partness" fails to convey the "non-idiomatic" element. Perhaps one would have thought that in this context the NI was understood. Actually it was found necessary to invent NISOP to make a distinction that some insisted on. The "NI" is a necessary part of the word to convey the meaning. Of course, it would not be necessary if "NISOP" were written "NI SOP". NISOPitude is just a bit of neologistic jargon, attempting to relieve the repetitive tedium of these discussions for a simple monolingual contributor. DCDuring TALK 11:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"Sum-of-partsness" will not suffice because calling these cases "sum of parts" in the past brought up the objection that all multi-word terms are a sum of parts, but only some are idiomatic. Equinox ◑ 12:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Responding to DCDuring: I will ignore most of what you have written above, as it only makes me angry and wanting to throw in some strong words that I would be sorry about later on. I will try to focus on the essentials instead.

1. A dictionary is about words and concepts: concepts are meanings of words. A dictionary is aimed at explaining concepts, for instance the concept of bird.

2. What is the allegation that you are making in the "NISOPitude": is "use-mention distinction" non-idiomatic, or is it sum-of-parts, or is it both? Which is it, if any? I claim and think to have demonstrated above that "use-mention distinction" is not sum of parts, and it meets CFI: it is attestable and idiomatic in the sense of non-sum-of-parts. --Dan Polansky 13:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Re "...all multi-word terms are a sum of parts": Not at all. The multi-word term "black hole" is not a (semantic) sum of parts. Furthermore, CFI does not know two notions, one "non-idiomatic", the other one "sum of parts"; the way CFI defines "idiomatic", "idiomatic" is synonymous to "non-sum-of-parts". --Dan Polansky 13:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

learn by heart

Probably sum of parts - learn + by heart. See also sing by heart, read by heart, play by heart, know by heart, etc. ---> Tooironic 23:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

McGraw-Hill's Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs has know something by heart (most common example of this construction per COCA @ 377/616) and learn something by heart (2nd @ 71), but not recite something by heart (3rd @ 32).

We could have:

1. entries for each of the attestable verb-variants of this construction.
2. redirects from each to by heart.
3. an appendix for the "[VP] by heart" construction linked to from by heart and {{only in}} for each of the verb-variants.

Other possibilities exist, such as having a full entry at the most common instance or all the instances that any dictionary has with redirects from any other verb-variants.

What do others think? DCDuring TALK 00:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Door number 2.​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Redirect would be fine (door #2). A usage note in "by heart" to the effect of 'Frequently used in the phrases "learn by heart", "sing by heart", "read by heart", "play by heart", "know by heart"' would be nice. Or else there could be an example sentence per phrase or collocation, but this seems too much text only for the purpose of highlighting the common links to verbs. --Dan Polansky 08:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Get by heart is common too. Equinox ◑ 12:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete, straightforward enough tbh. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

What does "get by heart" mean, honestly? --Dan Polansky 08:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Same as "learn by heart". Try a search for "get it by heart" in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 10:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

punch

Rfd-redundant: "To accelerate" usex: "punch it!".

This seems to be a very specific instance of a newly added sense. DCDuring TALK 00:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

More explanation, please. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

church hop

"To change churches one attends frequently." I'd have thought you could hop lots of things, not just churches. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that churchhop (compare barhop) will turn out to be attestable. DCDuring TALK 15:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

up-gazes

Plural use not found in this form - only "upgazes". Facts707 17:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Should be at RFV. Doesn't qualify for speedy deletion IMO. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

up gazes

Plural use not found in this form - only "upgazes". Facts707 17:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Should be at RFV. Doesn't qualify for speedy deletion IMO. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

pavement

rfd-sense: "The material with which a surface is paved." The citation suggests they were throwing pavement, that is sense #1. To me, it would be like for (deprecated template usage) porridge having a sense "the materials from which porridge is made" with a citation that backs up the primary sense. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If you interpret chunk here as sense 1 ("A part of something that has been separated."), then it goes your way, but as sense 2 ("A representative of a substance at large, often large and irregular.") it would require a separate sense. However, I'm not finding any pavement in Google Books that really justifies the second sense, however much my gut initially liked it.--Prosfilaes 10:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I did find a citation that might work, in referring to picking up pavement, instead of chunks or pieces, but it's slightly ungrammatical (and definitely inelegant) any way you cut it. I added it to the sense. (I do think that's the difference between pavement and porridge here; a scoop of porridge is still porridge, but a scoop of pavement is not a footpath.)--Prosfilaes 10:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

In the US, I think research will confirm that pavement is mostly uncountable and refers to both paved surfaces and any material used to pave them or the result of breaking up a paved surface. COCA had no spoken or news use of the plural of pavement. The only plural use there was in fiction, almost exclusively books. I wonder whether the plural use is mostly by UK-born writers. I think that paving would prove more common for the material-used sense, however.

Judging from Google news results for plurals, countable use of pavement is much more common (even absolutely) in the UK. MWOnline, Encarta, WNW, RHU, and AHD all have the "material" sense. The UK-based OneLook dictionaries seem to miss this, even when claiming to cover US English (eg, Cambridge American).

One can find at least three varieties of usage of uncountable "pavement" in the US, exemplified by collocations such as "miles of p.", "chunks of p.", and "tons of p.", in order of my estimate of frequency of the varieties. I think the "material" sense needs to clearly indicate the "result of breaking up a paved surface" sense as it seems much more common that the raw-material sense. The "setting" of the cementitious elements of paving or of asphalt seem to be enough of a transformation to make these seem somewhat distinct. DCDuring TALK 12:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not overwhelmingly convinced, but I don't mind being outvoted. Especially if it means the entry gets improved during the discussion. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't we have 'the materials from which X is made' for a lot of nouns, then? What about building, house, wall. "[P]rotesters hurled Molotov cocktails and chunks of pavement" seems to justify "A paved footpath at the side of a road." and "it is possible to pick up pavement " seems to justify "Paved exterior surface, as with a road or sidewalk.". The reason I didn't tag it with RFV as I'm confident that it is attestable, just that such attestations will also support one of the other three definitions we already have. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we can use those three in the "chunks of (ruined) building/house/wall", but not for the "materials used to make". But I don't think that these are very frequently used as mass nouns. Almost any normally countable noun any be rendered uncountable by preceding it with "much", "little", "tons of", "acres of". But "pavement", at least in the US, is commonly uncountable. DCDuring TALK 19:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

See Google Books: "chunk of bridge". Mglovesfun (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

ațâța

Hi!

Wernescu continues to add already existing words using different diacritics. The word aţâţa already exists .

--Robbie SWE 18:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no apparent consensus on this, is there? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

delete aţâţa -- Prince Kassad 18:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This is one of our famous 'Unicode' differences. To the naked eye, or when hand written, these are essentially the same. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree Mglovesfun, but this does not solve the problem at hand. It has been brought to Wernescu's attention that he adds already existing articles using different diacritics (read his talk page; Krun gives a good example). Where and when will it end? Are we going to allow ațâța, aţâţa, ațîța, aţîţa, atâţa etc.? In the Romanian Wiktionary only aţâţa exists, not Wernescu's variant. --Robbie SWE 11:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No, Mglovesfun, I see them as different. ațâța has commas beneath (is that what they're called?), not connected to the t's, whereas aţâţa has cedillas, connected. Just BTW.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

But they're as different as the open-tailed g and the close-tailed g. Latin-2 was created with the idea that both Turkish and Romanian could use the same s,t with cedilla below, but the Romanians insisted on having separate letters with commas below, for what I believe to be purely political reasons. I've got a copy of Abecedar, published by Editura Didactică Şi Pedagogică (1996), and either this was created by incompetents--and it doesn't look it--or the forms are in free variation in Romanian, because in this book designed for children learning to write, both forms appear in printing, with the cedilla form predominating. (Only the comma form appears in handwriting.)--Prosfilaes 02:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

-resistant

-resistance

Not suffixes. Nadando 04:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete, same reasons. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete. (deprecated template usage) -controlled was given a redirect, so perhaps this should, too, but I don't personally think it's necessary. Equinox ◑ 16:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You're pretty much right; the search mechanism is good enough to find resistant from -resistant. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete An advantage of the redirect approach is that it slightly discourages someone from re-adding the entry while taking them more quickly than search to the page that should have the right information. Specifying a PoS section (or Etymology where the first Etymology section is not the right one) in the redirect increases the chances that the relevant definition or usage note would appear on the landing screen.

Are we happy with what the user looking for the hyphenated combining form finds at [[resistant]] and [[resistance]]]? DCDuring TALK 11:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

delete Not suffixes. --Actarus ^{(Prince d'Euphor)} 13:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

hanjaeo

We do not allow Korean in Latin script. -- Prince Kassad 19:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually thought we did, if for no other reason that we have quite a few, try Category:Korean nouns. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete. —Ruakh_TALK 00:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

WT:AKO doesn't help much. It talks about romanization, but not whether these romanizations meets CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

True, but it does mention various templates that should be used, such as {{ko-inline}} and {{ko-noun}}, and gives examples of what they look like. These templates all linkify hangul and hanja but not romanizations. I take that as a pretty clear indication that only hangul and hanja are presumed to merit entries. —Ruakh_TALK 22:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Mostly-irrelevant comment: I'm gonna add to some of the Wiktionary:About pages that we don't accept transliterations as entries. This should prevent this sort of thing from happening. Or more precisely when it does happen, we can speedy delete the entries. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

-sized

Not a suffix; elephant-sized is elephant + - + sized. In cases like this, the hyphen is recommended, but not obligatory. That shows it's not a suffix. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete, like (deprecated template usage) -resistant. Not a suffix, just a compound-element. Equinox ◑ 00:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete, I agree, not a suffix. --Actarus ^{(Prince d'Euphor)} 13:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

intravaginal ejaculation

Sum of parts? SemperBlotto 22:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Onanism predates English, so we can't even call this a retronym. (I have to admit, a "fried egg"–type rationalization could be made here, that it specifically refers to male penile ejaculation, even though we could readily imagine a world where people debated whether female ejaculations are sometimes/always/never intravaginal vs. sometimes/always/never clitoral. But even having made that rationalization, I don't find it convincing.) —Ruakh_TALK 22:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete, definition is poor, but I expect a good definition would be ejaculation which is intravaginal, so delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Also note IELT and intravaginal ejaculation latency time... — Beobach972 01:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep. "Intravaginal ejaculation" is a medical term that describes a specific type of ejaculation: the only type causing natural procreation. I revised the definitions to better reflect that fact. It is used in medical texts on fertility, delayed or premature ejaculation, erectile dysfunction, relationship problems, and many more. Also, this term is an antonym for onanism; it specifically describes what Onan refused to do despite his obligation. Please consider changes before deleting the page. 96.25.92.119 05:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This term would pass both the Fried Egg Test and the Prior Knowledge Test on List of idioms that survived RFD due to its technical meaning in medicine. 96.25.92.119 06:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete I don't see how it passes the Fried Egg test or the Prior Knowledge test; it means no more and no less than intravaginal ejaculation, even in medicine.--Prosfilaes 06:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Prosfilaes, I couldn't put it better myself. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

We should mention intravaginal ejaculation latency time too, is that ok? I have no idea. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep intravaginal ejaculation latency time, which is apprently a set term well-used in the literature. I'm less certain about intravaginal ejaculation, but probably keep that too since it seems to be a phrase used in medicine (and nowhere else..). Ƿidsiþ 14:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

busted

Three senses:

1. Caught in the act of doing something one shouldn't do. (adjective)
2. Caught and arrested for committing a crime. (adjective)
3. Indicates that the person addressed has been caught in the act, whether by the speaker or a third party. (interjection)

All of these seem to be verb forms of (deprecated template usage) to bust. There are a couple of other meanings that I don't know - where in the world (no really) do people say busted to mean (deprecated template usage) broke? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Dude, not a Johnny Cash fan? "I went to my brother to ask for a loan, I was busted...I hate to beg like a dog for a bone, but I'm busted. My brother said, ‘There ain't a thing I can do...my wife and my kids are all down with the flu...and I was just thinkin of callin on you, I'm busted.’ " Genius song. Ƿidsiþ 14:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Move to RfV. Whether it is a verb or adjective depends on the grammar of the word in context, and not upon the relationship in the meaning. Consider this quote from b.g.c:

The government is trying to recoup monies they think are owed to them because the busted individual has made money and not shared what they should with Uncle Sam.

The word busted is here used in a noun phrase as a modifier between the noun and its article. It thus qualifies as adjectival usage. I agree, however, that the interjection probably does not merit a separate sense. Almost any adjective can be shouted. --EncycloPetey 14:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The adjective sense of "caught in the act of doing something wrong" is readily cited as an adjective. I would claim it to be in widespread use in the US. The phrase "You are so busted" is a particularly common form. "So" is used in the sense of "very". I don't think that most other senses of "busted" would meet adjective tests. DCDuring TALK 15:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Though, adverbs can qualify verbs as well as adjectives. I don't really buy it. Not that easily, anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

intravaginal ejaculation latency time

Sum of its parts, look at the medical definition of (deprecated template usage) latency. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep set term. Ƿidsiþ 14:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Easy to say. Evidence? DCDuring TALK 15:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the fact that it gets initialised to IELT seems a good indicator. Ƿidsiþ 15:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, we wouldn't want the full form of every initialism, would we? How about be back in a bit and be back later versus bbiab and bbl. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

For me there is a clear difference. IELT abbreviates a noun phrase referring to a single specific medical concept. Your examples abbreviate conversational phrases and therefore don't refer to any specific thing at all. Ƿidsiþ 17:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Weak keep per Ƿidsiþ. This exact phrase gets a hundred b.g.c. hits. (And a few hundred Scholar hits, though I'm not sure if that's meaningful.) Pace Mglovesfun, I don't think that PIV insertion is instantly recognizable as the stimulus to which intravaginal ejaculation is the response. That said, there are also plenty of instances of just "ejaculation latency time", or even just "ejaculation latency". When someone uses this phrase expecting their audience to understand it, is it because they expect their audience to be familiar with this exact phrase, or is it because their audience to have relevant extralinguistic knowledge that makes this phrase intelligible? —Ruakh_TALK 22:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Been meaning to say weak delete, we do have the meaning of all four words, but it's not that obvious from the sum of its parts. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Male ejaculation or female ejaculation? Keep. DAVilla 15:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Is that a rhetorical question? As I was wondering about the same thing. It doesn't say, and it could indeed be either. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually it couldn't, it only refers to male ejaculation. Ƿidsiþ 09:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

post count

"The number of messages written by an individual on an internet forum or message board." Okay, it could be the number of posts that make up a fence, but it isn't. What makes this more dictionary-worthy than post history or whatever else forum people talk about? P.S. It was created by a Wonderfool. Equinox ◑ 23:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. I was of a mind to RfD it myself. DCDuring TALK 00:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't this pass per WT:COALMINE? We have postcount, with a slightly different definition, dunno if they're the same. -- Prince Kassad 00:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe RfV postcount? It's not in widespread use in all contexts. Does it need an "Internet" context? Is it in widespread use there? I couldn't say it is - or isn't. DCDuring TALK 00:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete as it is, not possible to use WT:COALMINE unless the definitions are the same. "to officially meet WT:CFI when significantly more common than a single word spelling that already meets CFI". It can't be a significantly more common spelling whilst not meaning the same thing. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I think they do mean the same thing, but use different wording. -- Prince Kassad 22:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

wrench

Rfd-redundant: "Sad feeling when leaving something or someone loved" seems very particular, better handled as something like "A sudden emotional change." DCDuring TALK 15:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. Remove. SemperBlotto 15:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Reword yes, s'pose it should be at RFC as it can't be redundant to a definition we don't have yet. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree; delete; it's a subset of emotional upheaval. Equinox ◑ 00:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

archaic

Rfd-redundant: "(of words) No longer in ordinary use, though still used occasionally to give a sense of antiquity."

From RFV:

Rfv-sense: "(of words) No longer in ordinary use, though still used occasionally to give a sense of antiquity." Having a hard time seeing how to verify this as distinct from sense 1 ("of or characterized by antiquity"). I suppose we would need something like a use of "archaic vocabulary" to refer not to obsolete words but specifically to a preexisting body of words regarded as archaisms. Or something that would specifically avoid referring to a modern usage of a little-known obsolete term as "archaic", reserving that term for archaisms already established in speech. Alternatively, perhaps this could be converted to a usage note on the ways the term is documented in various dictionaries? -- Visviva 20:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The challenged definition is quite similar to one of the senses given in each of MWOnline, RHU, AHD, Collins Pocket, Encarta, etc. DCDuring TALK 22:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems comparable to #Irish above. It exists but it could take dozens of hours to wade through all the other uses of archaic to fin it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Move to RFD. If someone had presented cites like Visviva describes, this would obviously be a keep, but as it is, I think it's an {{rfd-redundant}}. (More precisely: I think its use in reference to words is in clearly widespread use, the question is merely whether we want to treat that separately from the more general sense.) —Ruakh_TALK 20:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

—Ruakh_TALK 22:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, keep per DCDuring's comment above. —Ruakh_TALK 22:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Backasswardly, I have provided citations that show how editors and translators (mostly) use "archaic" in reference to the language of the authors of the works they are editing and translating. I personally can't quite follow Visviva's comment. Whether our existing definition is the best, I don't know, but there does seem to be a distinct literary use of the term. DCDuring TALK 23:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

As I understand Visviva's comment, his point is that any word describable by sense 2 is also describable by sense 1, so the only citations that would specifically support sense 2 as a distinct sense are citations that explicitly distinguish "archaic" words from (say) "obsolete" words (even though "obsolete" words are also describable by sense 1). However, nothing in WT:CFI demands that we have citations that specifically support sense 2 as a distinct sense, so I didn't feel justified in removing the sense as "RFV failed" on that basis. (And I would strenuously oppose adding such a requirement to the CFI. One reason to list two senses separately is that they're clearly distinguishable by citations, but there are plenty of other potential subjective reasons. We might almost as well demand that each occurrence of the sense-label Template:slang be justified by three cites where an old person says, "I don't know what that means. Talk like a normal person, young man.") —Ruakh_TALK 00:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

axe murderer

RFD-sense: "Template:figurative Any incredibly dangerous person."

From RFV:

"any incredibly dangerous person." I can imagine something like "he's not exactly an axe murderer", but is that not the literal sense really? Equinox ◑ 21:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought this up somewhere. Seems like there's some lexical value in this term, I wasn't so sure what to do with it --Rising Sun talk? contributions 11:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Any citations that show this sense only in a negative, as in Equinox's example don't constitute attestation evidence. We need examples expressed in positive form. A canonical-from sentence is best, if one can be found. DCDuring TALK 16:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Funny how you wouldn't suggest that someone is a "knife murderer" or a "gun murderer". I think "axe murderer" refers not only to someone who uses an axe to kill (which is a particularly conspicuous and unwieldy weapon, suggesting a killer who uses it to have a rather insane disregard for the practical consequences of using one), but someone we just think is crazy enough to use an axe to kill. bd2412 T 17:28, 23 Mays 2010 (UTC)

Absent positive evidence of the sort suggested by DCDuring, it seems like this belongs in a usage note or qualifying phrase. This term clearly is used in a different way than other "X murderer" compounds, but the difference in usage doesn't seem to extend to a difference in sense: "not exactly an axe murderer" or "some kind of crazy axe murderer" doesn't really suggest a meaning other than sense 1. -- Visviva 18:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, it's interesting that the difference BD2412 describes extends to the verb axe-murder. Where google books:"axe murdered" gets a plethora of relevant hits, google books:"knife murdered" seems to yield only chance collocations. Since the nonhyphenated verb is also attestable, we might reasonably question whether "axe murderer" is axe murder+-er rather than axe + murderer. -- Visviva 18:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That would make it an agent noun. bd2412 T 01:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

As I'm sure y'all are aware, it's easy to find rather … generic? metaphorical? symbolic? uses of (deprecated template usage) axe murderer; for example:

• http://books.google.com/books?id=NLBGwpZif9AC&pg=PA147&dq=axe-murderers:

  Fred was a little suspicious at first, but the man did ring the doorbell, so Fred figured he wasn't some crazy maniac, as axe murderers don't usually ring the doorbell, rather they just break in and sneak up on you while you are in the bath.

• http://books.google.com/books?id=besCAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA13&dq=axe-murderer:

  There were openings for 300 men, and we have been told that we look like an axe murderer, an important advantage in a prison movie such as Hard Rain.

• http://books.google.com/books?id=BrZU29RvLx0C&pg=PA155&dq=axe-murderers:

  First it's teddy bears, tomorrow it's dogs and cats (although the latter is more of a service than a problem), then before you know it, we've got an insane group of axe murderers on our hands.

Notice that in the first of those, assuming Fred understands syllogisms, it seems that {crazy maniacs} ⊆ {axe murderers}.
No one has demonstrated that (deprecated template usage) axe murderer is being used to mean "any incredibly dangerous person", plain and simple, without reference to the literal sense; but the sense is tagged Template:figuratively, so it doesn't seem that anyone was claiming that it is.
I say keep, or move to RFD.
—Ruakh_TALK 10:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

My vote is keep.

—Ruakh_TALK 22:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Once more, backasswardly, arguing the RfV: Only the first citation supports a figurative sense. The second is a simile involving the literal meaning. The third is hyperbolic, but literal, IMHO, judging from the context. DCDuring TALK 23:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

What on Earth can it mean for someone to look like a literal axe murderer? (What does a person look like who's used an axe to murder someone?) And what is the progression from killing cats and dogs to, specifically, literally killing people with an axe? As I said in my RFV comment, these are all "rather … generic? metaphorical? symbolic? uses". —Ruakh_TALK 23:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Simile: X is like Y, Y is Y. Not some kind of double simile: X is like Y(fig), Y{fig) is like Y.
2. There are two progressions: from teddy-bear slaughter to pet slaughter and from pet slaughter to axe murder. The intentional humor in the DVD review arises in part from the specious, hyperbolic reasoning. It seems to me that humor is almost as bad as poetry when it comes to citations.

If all the numerous cases are like these latter two, I don't think that this phrase passes muster. If the uses are like cite 1, it would. "Axe murderer" is selected as a concrete, literal, dramatic image in writing. But only metaphorical use would seem to count, because only in such cases can we be sure that the literal meaning is not what is being used. ("The fullback is like a tank" doesn't imply that "tank" means any other than the military vehicle. "The fullback is a tank", not possibly being literally true if tank has only that military meaning, implies a different meaning.) DCDuring TALK 02:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your analysis of "is like" actually applies to "looks like" (which is what the quote has); but even if it does, we have a serious problem if we say that every self-explanatory metaphor used once in a well-known work requires a sense line, whereas an opaque simile that everyone uses twenty times a day requires no coverage. (And your analysis of the third cite is only "hyperbolic" if you think that axe murderers are an extreme version of regular murderers, in which case, shouldn't that be documented? Say, on a sense line labeled Template:figurative?) —Ruakh_TALK 18:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No very strong feelings here, but I think it's figurative rather than idiomatic. So CFI would say this should go, as it's "not idiomatic". Mglovesfun (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite share your reading of the CFI. Everyone seems to be agreeing that (deprecated template usage) axe murderer is idiomatic; at least, no one has proposed that we delete the whole entry. So I think this sense automatically counts as idiomatic: it's a figurative use of an already-idiomatic term. The question is whether it should receive separate treatment in the form of a special figurative sense line; we'd have that question even if we were talking about a hypothetical single word (deprecated template usage) axmurderer. —Ruakh_TALK 22:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep (unless the other sense later fails RFD). Mglovesfun (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I propose that we delete the whole entry unless it can be shown that there is figurative use. I don't think that there has been such a showing. I also suspect that the term "axe murderer" predates "axe-murder#Verb", so that it means axe + murderer. Accordingly, I will be RfVing the first sense. DCDuring TALK 18:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Bible

RFD-sense: "(deprecated template usage) Biblical"

From RFV:

Rfv-sense. (disputed usage) Biblical. Seems like the noun used attributively. Also, what is disputed about it? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say that when it is used in the phrase "Bible verse" it is the noun being used attributively, but when it is being used in the phrase "Bible times" it is not. If anyone can guess why I think this I would love to know. - [The]DaveRoss 19:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey! I just went and asked Kreskin. I figured, if anyone knows why, he will. He said you differentiating them because in "Bible verse" it's a verse of the Bible text, whereas in "Bible times" its the times of the Bible story, i.e. the referent of the Bible text. Isn't he amazing?​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Move to RFD. The phrase "Bible times" is in clearly widespread use, so if TheDaveRoss feels that said phrase demonstrates adjectival use, then we can't really resolve this via attestation. (I mean, perhaps we could, if someone produced cites along the lines of "very Bible times" "when times were Bible", but it's been more than three months and no one has done so yet, so we probably can't rely on that.) —Ruakh_TALK 23:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this one.

—Ruakh_TALK 22:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

But MG was challenging exactly its adjectivity. No one produced citations that it meets adjective tests as in Wiktionary:English adjectives in three months. I know such tests aren't policy, but on what other basis are we to decide? DCDuring TALK 23:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, per Ruakh and DCD and erm, myself, are there three cites where this is an adjective, such as "totally Bible" or "very Bible"? This looks like a regular RFV fail to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the phrase "Bible times" is in clearly widespread use; TheDaveRoss contends that that phrase is using this as an adjective; and neither WT:CFI, nor any commenters, disputed that contention. —Ruakh_TALK 00:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah right, well I dispute it. Evidence would be a fine thing. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

But how is the attributive-use only challenge addressed by the "Bible times" usage? PoS tests are grammatical. Obviously it is grammatically attributive use.

I dispute the relevance of any semantic distinction about the referent in the two cases, however much classroom fun it may be. The semantic question of how one interprets compounds like Bible verse "verse of the Bible" or Bible times ("times referred to in the Bible") is distinct. DCDuring TALK 01:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

As Ruakh noted in the RFD discussion on archaic (later to be archived), m.m., the rules don't require cites that can't be interpreted as citing another sense. That said, I think this is just the noun, and say to delete. Just my feeling, I guess. (My Kreskin comment was trying to explain why the phrases sound different, not to explain that/why they are.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Some complicating factors:

• There is an attestable adjective "Bible"; but it seems to be quite rare, and it doesn't mean "Biblical", but rather something like "Bible-oriented". (See e.g. [39][40][41].) So if we delete this sense, we'll still have an adjective section, it just won't cover the overwhelming majority of instances of "Bible <noun>".
• Even when "Bible" does mean "Biblical" (as in "Bible times"), it's not always in attributive position: google books:"times of the Bible" is well attested, for example.
• Often (usually?), when a noun has a corresponding adjective that's closely related to it, the noun isn't used when the adjective could be used instead. No one talks about *"in these tough economy times" or *"the America President" (even though "the U.S. President" is fine). It's all well and good that we know which nouns have this limitation and which don't, and which registers and so on, but how are our readers supposed to?

All told, should we keep this sense in some form? If so, should it be under the ===Adjective=== POS header? I just don't know.

—Ruakh_TALK 17:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

How about adding the other adjective sense and a usage note (s.v. "Adjective") along the lines of "However, many uses of (deprecated template usage) Bible before a noun are merely attributive uses of the proper noun, as in (deprecated template usage) Bible times and (deprecated template usage) Bible story."?​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: attributive use of noun vs competing adjective: The implications of an effort to note this properly are staggering. Doesn't it mean that each sense of each noun would need to be tested for its potential to be used attributively? Is attestable use enough or should frequency of use in controlled corpora be taken into account? DCDuring TALK 03:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Attestable use is definitely not enough. It wouldn't surprise me if *(deprecated template usage) tough economy times alone is attestable (it has two Usenet cites, and a few Google News Archive cites that are conceivably durably archived), but we'd do our readers a bizarre disservice if we noted that (deprecated template usage) economy is used attributively. No, I think this is only worth mentioning in cases where a noun is either particularly often used attributively, or particularly surprisingly used attributively, or particularly dialectally used attributively, or whatnot, as well as possibly (conversely) in cases where a noun is unexpectedly not used attributively. Obviously most dictionaries don't bother with this at all, but it's not like we'd be the first: the World English Dictionary at Dictionary.com (i.e. Collins 10th) has a special subsense for (deprecated template usage) Bible "as modifier", and the OED Online entry has a whole top-level section devoted to its "Comb., chiefly attrib." uses. (The former treats it as a noun, even so; and the latter doesn't seem to assign it any part of speech whatsoever, though I may be missing something. Oh, and I should note that the latter's "comb." section serves a similar role to that of our derived terms, so is only partly analogous to having a separate sense for attributive use.) —Ruakh_TALK 03:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete; this is attributive use of the noun, and doesn't quite carry the meaning "Biblical". I didn't find convincing citations sufficient to make me believe otherwise. However, there should be a separate entry for Bible times, which is a set phrase used with modeifiers, as in "earliest Bible times". --EncycloPetey 02:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

-lessness

From RFV:

Not a suffix AFAICT. Just a word ending in -less then suffixed with -ness. Why not -ingly for jokingly or mockingly? Anyway, are there any words ending in -lessness where the -less form does not exist? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Weak keep (unless there are such words, of course, in which case regular keep). IMHO this is not as clear a case as -ality or -osity (where the form is not obviously predictable from the parts), but still, the lack of *-lessity or *-lesshood suggests to me that this might be worth including. Or at least, I think we need something. With words that collocate this way — for example, verbs that use specific prepositions to construe their objects — we indicate that on the definition line or in example sentences (or both); but neither approach seems to work for suffixes. Maybe a usage note at [[-less]]? Or maybe [[-less#Derived terms]] should also include words where (deprecated template usage) -less isn't the last suffix (e.g. by listing "reckless, -ness, -ly" rather than just "reckless")?—Ruakh_TALK 17:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I think a usage note at (deprecated template usage) -less would cover it. Equinox ◑ 18:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Move to RFD. After more than three months, no one has presented any examples of (deprecated template usage) -lessless (deprecated template usage) -lessness words, so I don't think we're going to resolve this here. —Ruakh_TALK 23:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Weak keep, as I said above.

—Ruakh_TALK 22:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hard-redirect to [[-less]] and cover at the latter.​—msh210℠ (talk) 05:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete or I suppose a redirect is ok if we explain in [[-less]]. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Redirect + usage note sounds fine to me as well. —Ruakh_TALK 22:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: There's a usage note at [[-less]] now (thanks mainly to DCDuring).​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

mistakes were made

From RFV:

Matching the definition given, above and beyond the mere sentence on its own. Equinox ◑ 00:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It approaches idiomacity, in that equivalent statements (e.g. "mistakes occurred", "errors were made") would seem not to convey quite the same sentiment. See, e.g.:

• 2009, Suzanne Brockmann, Into the Fire‎, p. 162:

"I'm assuming we're talking now about the Hollywood assignment," she said, "where . . . mistakes were made?"

Cheers! bd2412 T 19:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be just a well-documented instance of the common rhetorical practice of politely or self-servingly avoiding a clear statement of responsibility by the passive transformation. It's wired in our brains, not part of the learned lexicon, although its pragmatic use must be learned. That pragmatic use is also not a lexical phenomenon. DCDuring TALK 19:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Move to RFD. (My vote, BTW, will probably be keep.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep.

—Ruakh_TALK 22:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete. This looks more like an entry for WikiQuote. The "idiomaticity" you are claiming comes out of the context and tone of speech, not the phrase itself. The most you could argue would be that the passive construction implies a shirking of responsibility but that is a syntactical - not a lexical - feature. And, on the contrary, "mistakes occurred" and "errors were made" would convey pretty much the same information IMO. One could also say, "mistakes were made... lines were crossed... lives were changed..." etc. ---> Tooironic 20:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete, SoP, also not cited in the RFV debate. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

How about Appendix:English catchphrases and {{only in}}? These are not on all fours with true idioms, but have some cultural significance. Or, do we need these to provide translation practice? Otherwise, delete. DCDuring TALK 23:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Now cited. Show me someone who thinks the 1999 and ante-2009 cites could be replaced with "mistakes occurred" or "errors were made", and I'll show you someone who's been living under a rock the past forty years. —Ruakh_TALK 23:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

In particular, note that:

• The only point of "mistakes were made" in the 1999 cite is to highlight that it's not an apology. It wouldn't make sense to say "mistakes occurred" instead, because although "mistakes occurred" is not an apology either, it isn't an idiom meaning "this is a non-apology".
• In the ante-2009 cite, immediately after coincidentally mentioning a mistake that Columbus had made (i.e., not ending up where he thought he was), the author changes the subject by using the phrase "mistakes were made", coyly alluding to all the evils Columbus perpetrated. The alternative phrasing "errors were made" would have made no sense, because that would have applied equally to what she had just finished discussing. That is, the author is implicitly (and unconsciously) distinguishing between (on the one hand) a mistake and (on the other) a "mistakes were made" event.

—Ruakh_TALK 23:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how an allusion makes something idiomatic. Is it just we happy few deletionists, we band of brothers, who believe that this way madness lies? DCDuring TALK 23:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think all allusions are necessarily idioms, but if you can't properly understand the phrase without understanding the allusion, then it's not actually SOP. Tell me — would you understand the 1999 and ante-2009 cites in the entry if they used "errors took place" instead of "mistakes were made"? Setting aside the obvious fact that the authors would never do such a thing — that just makes it a "set phrase", and not everyone agrees that set phrases merit inclusion — I honestly don't think readers would even catch what the authors were trying to say. —Ruakh_TALK 23:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I do believe Tooironic's comment above that the point is made by almost any synonymous passive-voice construction. The specific allusive catchphrase form exerts some force in reducing frequency of the synonyms. Other allusive phrases that we have typically are not SoP, eg, emperor's new clothes omits the highly salient fact that the clothes were the null suit. DCDuring TALK 00:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear: are you saying that you would understand the 1999 and ante-2009 cites if they used (say) "errors took place"? (Sorry, just — I find that so shocking and implausible that I really want to make sure I'm understanding you. I almost want to ask and make sure that you did actually read those cites, but that seems rude.) —Ruakh_TALK 00:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I've reread them a few times now in light of your assertions. I still don't view this as very different from a good time was had by all or questions will be asked, except for the dwindling popular memory of the allusion, revived by use of the term in a recent book title. All of these are somewhat formulaic, but readily decodable. They are certainly not opaque. The use of the passive voice conveys some meaning and the fact that one might have heard the expression before conveys some triteness, but does that make these set phrases? If every catchphrase is to be an entry, let me suggest that we come up with some explicit criteria and have a vote on that point to avoid wasting time on these discussions. It's not ridiculous to have catchphrases and allusions, but it does take us farther from the lemmings we've thought of as our peers and more into the realm of the late William Safire and other more topical word commentators. DCDuring TALK 02:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete; I agree with those who see not idiomaticity here. The meaning is clear from the sum of parts. Yes, it's a common collocation, but so is "I have a bad feeling about this." The fact that a particular combination of words can be found together doesn't make it dictionary worthy. Yes, I read the quotes, and they are quotes referring to other quotes. That makes them allusive, not idiomatic. --EncycloPetey 02:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep. It is indeed true, to use the felicitous turn of phrase above, that "it approaches idiomaticity." The usage of this expression imparts a certain tone, a flavour, which creates an enriched meaning over and above the SoP. This term tends to express a sense of mournfulness or regret for especially consequential errors, for lost opportunities and an irrecoverable past. It also often tends to convey a note of ashamedness, an apologetic tone, or a confessional quality. I do disagree, however, with the {{politics}} context and with the limited sense of the current gloss defn (this term is bigger than that). -- The inclusionist Ghost of WikiPedant 02:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

All good writing adds something to the bare meaning of the component words. I don't think that connotation belongs in dictionaries, unless it is at the core of an utterance (eg, interjections). DCDuring TALK 23:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete per EP.​—msh210℠ (talk) 05:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

An exemplar of awareness of the meaning of the passive voice, from Slashdot:

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday November 10, @10:38PM from the tonight-on-security-theater dept.

Jeremiah Cornelius writes "Two days before toner cartridges threatened western civilization, Britain's Home Office minister Baroness Neville-Jones was en route to a Washington summit when she was found to have an over-sized aerosol can in her bag. While being questioned by airport security staff for transporting a container with more than 100ml of liquid, the Baroness seemingly took offense at being lectured on the importance of security procedure: 'Of course I know how important it is,' she said, 'I'm the Security Minister.' The Baroness is also former head of the British Joint Intelligence Committee, and was traveling at the time to discuss the war on terror with US security chiefs. According to a Home Office spokesman, trained in the use of the passive voice, 'Liquids were inadvertently left in a bag. The item was removed and the Minister fully complied with subsequent checks.'" [emphasis added] DCDuring TALK 23:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete. It is a quotation. Equinox ◑ 00:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete, I think. Ƿidsiþ 08:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep, for the reasons Ruakh outlines. — Beobach972 21:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Further comment: I don't really understand Ruakh's comment about how this is different from errors were made, in the 2009 quote or any other. "Mistakes were made" is definitely more common, but surely any extra-semantic connotations this has come from the passive voice, and all similar statements which use the passive voice have the same connotations? Am I missing something special about this particular wording? Ƿidsiþ 09:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the citations added just show this to be SoP. It would be a bit like me saying 'the glass is broken' without me saying 'I broke the glass'. Doesn't mean the glass is broken is an English idiom. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not speaking of connotations, but of denotations. (Note: In this regard I am not agreeing with BD2412 or with Ghost of WikiPedant, and not endorsing the phrase's idiomaticity in the various cites they added. They may well be right — I don't know — but I'm talking of something quite different, something I'm much more sure of.) In the 1999 and ante-2009 cites this phrase can't be replaced with any other non-apology, because the speakers aren't actually non-apologizing; rather, the 1999 cite is saying "this guy should be apologizing, but isn't" (what would "an errors-occurred explanation" be? I'm not sure, since there is no such thing, but if it existed it would presumably have to involve the words "errors" and "occurred", whereas "a mistakes-were-made explanation" apparently doesn't require "mistakes", "made", or the passive voice), and the ante-2009 cite is alluding, tongue in cheek, to the evils Columbus perpetrated (what would "And of course, as they say, errors occurred" mean? I'm not sure, because "they" don't "say" that, but presumably it would mean that someone messed up, rather than that someone did evil things). I think EncycloPetey — despite denying this — comes closest to presenting a decent alternative explanation: he contends that these denotations are not "idiomatic" but rather "allusive". If such a distinction existed, he would surely be right, but I don't think idioms and allusions are mutually exclusive, and it seems to me that this is both. *shrug* But clearly most of y'all disagree, so I don't know why I'm wasting my breath. —Ruakh_TALK 00:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added another example to the article, from 1997:

• 1997, Congressional Quarterly weekly report: volume 55:

  Witnesses admitted wrongdoing. With no caveats, no "I can't recalls" — not even a "mistakes were made" — three Buddhist nuns from a California temple confessed on live television Sept. 4 that their organization had illegally reimbursed followers for donations to the Democratic National Committee [...]

— Beobach972 00:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That would seem to be mention, not a use. Not that it is advanced in the same manner as '"I can't recall"', which is decidedly not idiomatic.

If it is decided that this is idiomatic, there are many formulaic phrases that would need to be included as well: "I can't recall.", "I refuse to answer on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me.", "You bet your bippy.", "Not on your life." and others. DCDuring TALK 01:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Dunno about those first three, but I think (deprecated template usage) Not on your life. should indeed have an entry. I take it you think otherwise? —Ruakh_TALK 02:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't always check my examples very carefully. That one might well be idiomatic. The terms most accessible in (my) memory are often idiomatic if not just cliches. DCDuring TALK 22:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

But what about this quote from the Washington Monthly message boards: ‘Uhh, Steve, you wrote this post in an "errors were made" style without noting WHO lost control of the stimulus proposals.’ Isn't this the same thing? Ƿidsiþ 21:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is . . . and it sounds incredibly "wrong" to me. Does it sound natural to you? —Ruakh_TALK 22:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't sound unnatural, in all honesty. But OK, I retract my delete vote and will abstain. Perhaps the commonness of this particular collocation makes it interesting enough to have around. Ƿidsiþ 22:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "errors were made": I would point to this reference and these to the Ottoman Empire being "the ill man of Europe". — Beobach 23:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Err on the side of keep. The following snippets picked from the citations signal to me that something non-trivial is going on with the phrase: (a) "And of course, as they say, mistakes were made"; (b) "Let's just say that mistakes were made"; (c) "a mistakes-were-made explanation". I think non-apology apology would deserve a clear definition, maybe like "a statement that uses apology-like phrasing but also contains clear signs that a sincere apology is not intended", or of the sort; I do not really know what "non-apology apology" is. --Dan Polansky 19:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It may be barely attestable as an idiom but, whether or not it is, it seems worth some level of inclusion. At the very least inclusion in some Appendix:English catchphrases, pointed to by {{only in}}. This has the disadvantage of not allowing translations. It might be worth thinking of current catchphrases as good candidates for the phrasebook. Ruakh's diligent efforts have found some citations that seem to support idiomaticity without being mentions. DCDuring TALK 22:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If someone's counting votes (as he shouldn't primarily be, instead focusing on arguments) then he should first strike my "delete" vote. It still does seem to me that it should be deleted, but all these wise editors disagree with me, so count me as abstaining.​—msh210℠ (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Mongolic language

Even if it weren't sum of parts, it is a plural-only term. -- Prince Kassad 23:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Right. Trickier than it first appears. This passed rfd earlier when msh210 tagged it and didn't list it, so I listed it asking 'why is this here' and after nobody replied, I closed the debate. We also have Romance language which I voted to keep, but in fairness I think I was wrong. Romance language is essentially sum of parts as long as you have the proper meaning of Romance. So... delete and make sure Mongolic covers it. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete. But how is it a "plural-only" term? There appears to be hits for "is a Mongolic language" on Google. ---> Tooironic 07:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I err on the side of keep. I do not think that the scope of "Mongolic language" is immediately clear from the definition of "Mongolic", other than the definition "Mongolic"--"Of or relating the group of Mongolic languages", which in its turn relies on "Mongolic language". In fact, the current definition "Any of a group thirteen of languages spoken in Central Asia" seems a stopgap one, as I cannot determine based on what characteristics the languages belong to that group. --Dan Polansky 08:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This is because Mongolic was missing a sense, which I have now added. -- Prince Kassad 09:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You have added "Mongolic"--"A major language family spoken primarily in Mongolia and surroundings". Can you add any quotations that support this definition? Should "Mongolic language" be construed as the noun "Mongolic" attributively modifying the noun "language"? That seems improbable, to me anyway. Rather, it seems that if "Mongolic" can be attested as a noun, this is back-formed from "Mongolic language". I have no evidence to support this hypothesis, though. --Dan Polansky 09:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It is rather easy actually. Cf. 1999, Roger Blench, Archaeology and Language II: Archaeological Data and Linguistic Hypotheses, Volume 2, p. 203:

Similarly, there are indications that Mongolic and Turkic can be identified with the ethnic categories of Donghu and Xiongnu, respectively, […]

...or, if you want something else, see 2000, Barbara Unterbeck, Gender in grammar and cognition, p. 700:

Apart from their significance as manifestations of class and gender in the languages of North Asia, the class suffixes in Mongolic and Tungusic have also many other consequences to the understanding of the diachrony of these languages.

-- Prince Kassad 10:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Per Tooironic, not plural-only. Delete as SOP.​—msh210℠ (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What is the definition of "Mongolic" with respect to which this is SOP? --Dan Polansky 09:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Adjective, "of or related to Mongolic (a language family)" (which refers back to the proper-noun sense, "A particular language family"). Or possibly the sense here is just the proper-noun sense itself (in attributive use)? Not sure how to distinguish them when the word is modifying a noun.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

spectrum of autism

Sum of parts. How is this different from autistic spectrum? ---> Tooironic 07:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a chance that autism spectrum and, possibly, autistic spectrum are set phrases. I'd be very surprised if this could be shown to be a set phrase. It is certainly SoP, based on a common metaphorical sense of spectrum#Noun, poorly rendered in sense 2, which quasi-mathematically defines it as both infinite and bounded. DCDuring TALK 18:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It fails the coordination test with respect to "autism" in the phrases "spectrum of autism and pervasive developmental disorders", "spectrum of autism and related conditions", and "spectrum of autism and atypical autistic disorders". "Spectrum" is also subject to modification with words such as "broad", "complete", "entire", "full" (common modifiers of "spectrum") and replaceable with "range". DCDuring TALK 19:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete, [[spectrum]] [[of]] [[autism]] would be a suitable definition for it. Further details would be encyclopedic, not part of the definition. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

short-handed goal

SoP, we lack the sense at short-handed, but it's just (deprecated template usage) short-handed + (deprecated template usage) goal. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I just added a {{context|team sports}} sense to short-handed. Does that make this term officially SoP? -- Ghost of WikiPedant 02:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete this SOP. I'm not sure, incidentally, that those are distinct senses of short-handed, but whatever.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say they're different enough to merit two different entries. Short-handed while doing a project means not enough people involved, in ice hockey it means one or more player is in the penalty box. I wouldn't say four is 'not enough people involved' against five (or is it six and seven?). Mglovesfun (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

waking

Rfd-redundant. Tagged but not listed. Delete/merge, these aren't different definition. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

waiting

Tagged but not listed: "The act of staying or remaining in expectation". Mglovesfun (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

-speaking

Not a suffix. Like (deprecated template usage) -opening in "a door-opening device". Equinox ◑ 12:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to [[speaking]] (q.v.), I suppose. (And, in that case, remove from the latter the link to this entry.) If you like, see also quasirelevant old discussion.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, redirect to avoid the entry being re-created. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

same

Rfd-redundant: The sense "Used to express the unity of an object or person which has various different descriptions or qualities" seems redundant to "Not different or other; not another or others; not different as regards self; selfsame; numerically identical". The latter (#1 in the entry) has recently been created by me out of the sense "identical", based on the preexisting example sentences.

The senses with example sentences, for immediate context:

1. Not different or other; not another or others; not different as regards self; selfsame; numerically identical.

   Are you the same person who phoned me yesterday?

   I realised I was the same age as my grandfather had been when he joined the air force.

   Even if the twins are identical, they are still not the same person, unlike Mark Twain and Samuel Clemens.

   Peter and Anna went to the same high school: the high school to which Peter went is the high school to which Anna went.

2. Similar, alike.

   You have the same hair I do!

3. {{rfd-redundant}} Used to express the unity of an object or person which has various different descriptions or qualities.

   Round here it can be cloudy and sunny even in the same day.

   We were all going in the same direction.

The sense #1 is formulated basically on the model of Webster 1913.

My estimate of redundancy is based not only on the wording of definitions but also on the example sentences. --Dan Polansky 13:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sense 2 ("same hair") is redundant. The difference between 1 and 3 seems to be whether the word is applied to two things or only one (rainy and sunny in the same day — the same as what?). Equinox ◑ 14:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the sense 2 is redundant; it is the sense 3 that I think redundant. I can go to the same (selfsame) school as you do, or work on the same wiki project, but I cannot have the selfsame hair. The hair is only qualitatively same but not numerically; each atom of my hair is absent in your hair, no matter how similar our hair can be. When I get a haircut, you can keep your long hair. My hair and your hair are two distinct objects. --Dan Polansky 15:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, but what Equinox said about senses 1 and 3 seems correct. The question IMO then is whether that means that we should list them as separate senses. Certainly the list of words that can be substituted for same differs between sense 1 and sense 3: "the person who phoned", "the age my grandfather had been", but not "cloudy and sunny in the day" nor "going in the direction". That said, I still don't know. Anyone with ideas? (See also [[talk:coprime]], but this case seems to me to be more two-sense-worthy than that.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

An example sentence that would better fit the formulation of the sense 3 would be this: The person who wrote On Denoting is the same person as the one who wrote The Problems of Philosophy. Here were have two specifications or definite descriptions that identify the same person. Nonetheless, I think this example sentence fits well to the sense 1. --Dan Polansky 16:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

So perhaps if sense 3 is kept it should be reworded? The Russell sentence seems to apply to sense 1, as Dan notes. Sense 3 can be something like "one"  :-) .​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I see what you mean, in the reply you gave above your immediately preceding reply. We could have more senses that are only one sense semantically, if the senses differ significantly in the grammar of their use. This would mean that the third and fourth example sentences (Identical twins, Peter and Anna) that I have added to sense 1 would be moved to sense 3. And you're right: the term "one" replaces nicely "the same" in We were all going in the same direction, although it works not so great for the Peter and Anna sentence. I am not sure having distinct sense lines is the best option, but it is at least a plausible one. --Dan Polansky 16:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think there are three senses here, just not everso well defined or usex-ed. Everyone agrees 2 is separate (I think), but defining it as "similar" seems way off to me and misses the point; I would say "having identical characteristics or attributes" which makes a better connection with the primary senses. Of the other two, one is about stating an identity between two (or more) things ("The Romans considered Zeus to be the same god as their Jupiter", "I left school at the same age you did"), and a second thing or clause has to be mentioned; whereas the second is about expressing the individual identity of a single thing ("Zeus and Jupiter are the same god", "we both left school at the same age"), a usage which didn't appear until some four centuries later. Ƿidsiþ 16:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

  I tend to agree with you about sense 2: "similar" stands in contrast to "same". When I say that two things have the same color, they do not need to have absolutely the same color, but to say that their color is similar is much weaker. But the formulation "having identical characteristics or attributes" seem to apply poorly to colors, unless you construe colors as having characteristics or attributes, which you can do: a color has hue, saturation and intensity. When two things have the same shape, is it that the shapes are having identical characteristics or attributes? Sameness of colors and shapes seems tricky to me. --Dan Polansky 17:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

  I think "same color" uses sense 1 of same: identical. (It may be an exaggeration of "identical'.) It's not sense 2, which is saying thatthe two things are actually different objects but match one another somehow: "you and I have the same hair", "I have the same briefcase as he". The colors are identical (or close to it), whereas the briefcases are copies churned out by the same designer and the hair is merely done identically.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

  "Same color" uses identical for sure, but in which sense of "identical"? Are you saying that "the two apples have the same color" uses the sense of numerically identical AKA selfsame? I guess it makes some sense, at least grammatically: the color is in singular. OTOH, in "they have a different color", there is also color in singular. --Dan Polansky 18:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

  Yes.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

  I think one or both of you are missing the point (well, my point anyway). "Same colour" could be either sense depending on what the sentence does. "This apple is the same colour as that one" is sense one (above), whereas "These two apples have the same colour" is sense 3. The issue is that in sense 1 x is the same AS or WHICH or WITH y, whereas in sense 3 x and y are simply the same one thing. They seem similar but the underlying sense is different and the second was a much later development in English. Ƿidsiþ 19:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

  I was merely commenting on the impossibility of its being of sense 2. I certainly don't doubt you on the etymology, but am still not sure it warrants a separate sense, though I think so, as I noted at 16:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC), above.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

  See also [[talk:coprime]].​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

  (Unindent): Thanks, there are the two separate senses for coprime, exemplified by (a) 24 and 35 are coprime, and (b) 24 is coprime to 35. I do not think I would have kept two senses only because of two separate grammars. In any case, the analogy with coprime seems very fitting. As regards "same", the duplication of senses because of different grammar will need to occur for both major senses: numerically same, qualitatively same. What about "in love": "A and B are in love" while "A is in love with B"; well, yes, in love has two senses. And "A and B are equal" while "A is equal to B"; "A and B are similar" while "A is similar to B"; "A and B are equivalent" while "A is equivalent to B"; "A and B are identical" while "A is identical to B" (duplication for at least two senses); "A and B are analogous" while "A is analogous to B"; similarly for "homologous", "indistinguishable", "coextensive", maybe "congruous" and "incongruous"; basically all sorts of adjectives referring to symmetric dyadic relations. Hm. --Dan Polansky 18:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

  One more note: It seems better to me to place this sort of grammar information to a usage note than to senses. The grammatical sugar is basically this: "A and B are <monadic adjective>" usually means "A is <monadic adjective> and B is <monadic adjective>", while "A and B are <dyadic adjective>" often means "A is <dyadic adjective> to or with B". I have checked dictionaries at OneLook, and most of them do not split senses by this grammatical distinction.

  One more find (there are probably many): related. --Dan Polansky 18:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

  The point I thought I made is that this "grammatical" difference is a historical difference (this is not the case with "coprime" or "related"). That may not seem important to you, but it represents a very different way of thinking about the concept, and if we had more citations that would be clear. Ƿidsiþ 14:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  It is not clear to me that the historical development of "the same" you are referring to has brought a new sense rather than a new sort of syntactic sugar for dyadic adjectives. If such a historical development cannot so easily be traced for adjectives like "related", "similar", or "analogous" (I do not know whether it can or cannot), it is probably because their grammar has been modeled on the grammar of "the same". --Dan Polansky 16:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

status candidate

This term failed RFV. As I am the one who closed the RFV-discussion, however, I felt it would be more proper for me to list the term here than to delete it myself. — Beobach972 21:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

don't shoot the messenger

Sum of parts - don't + shoot the messenger. ---> Tooironic 21:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought we included sum-of-parts proverbs. And also, isn't "shoot the messenger" an allusion to this proverb? —Ruakh_TALK 22:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

What is the original etymology I wonder? If this form came first I can see why we would keep it, but otherwise, no, we don't keep sum-of-parts proverbs AFAIK. ---> Tooironic 22:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep, at least until I see some strong evidence to delete it. Shoot the messenger seems me dubious of the two. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete. "not"/"'nt" "[shoot] the messenger" appears 15 times in COCA vs 84 hits of "[shoot] the messenger" without an immediately adjoining negative. The number of non-idiomatic uses of "[shoot] the messenger" seems small. DCDuring TALK 15:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yet, this is a proverb, shoot the messenger is a verb. That seems to me to bypass any potential redundancy. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

it wasn't meant to be

Sum of parts -- it + wasn't + meant to be. ---> Tooironic 21:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete, not a proverb, just quite common. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete, Wonderfool, and we had enough trouble with (deprecated template usage) meant to be! Equinox ◑ 23:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete, this entry isn't meant to be!... --Actarus ^{(Prince d'Euphor)} 13:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Weak Delete. Not a proverb, but a platitude; it is something said to make the listener feel a bit better. There's no wisdom in it, and in fact the words are relatively unimportant. It's more a solidarity thing - an expression of sympathy. So don't worry, just let it go - anyhow, there had to be a limit to how far you could stretch the concept of 'proverb'. Pingku 14:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Phrasebook? DCDuring TALK 15:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Failed. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

it's not my problem

Sum of parts - it's + not + my + problem. ---> Tooironic 21:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete, not a proverb, just quite common. Also nobody says the "it's". Mglovesfun (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete. If anything, should be at (deprecated template usage) not one's problem. Equinox ◑ 23:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete, sum of parts, obviously. --Actarus ^{(Prince d'Euphor)} 13:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep, probably as not one's problem/not my problem. It looks like a perfect candidate for the oft-reviled phrasebook. Much more functional than the "I need a/an X" entries. DCDuring TALK 15:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

verda stelo

While the symbol of Esperanto is a green star, that doesn't make it dictionary material, does it? Means (deprecated template usage) verda + (deprecated template usage) stelo to mean green star. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there a proper noun form? ---> Tooironic 01:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If there is, I'd say it's acceptable. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "la Verda Stelo" is a proper noun specifically referring to the symbol of Esperanto (a green five-pointed star). — Robin 19:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

zero-based indexing

"The method of indexing a vector or any data structure implemented using a vector (commonly a string or a multidimensional array) with non-negative integers; i.e. starting with 0." This is a programmers' term. (deprecated template usage) indexing is the general term for the numbering of elements of a set (usually an array), so this is simply indexing with a basis of zero. Although it's of encyclopaedic interest — because many programming languages count from zero instead of the intuitive 1 — it's NISoP and not dictionary material. Equinox ◑ 01:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

ones-based indexing

Per (deprecated template usage) zero-based indexing above: NISoP. Equinox ◑ 01:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Watchtower

The proper name of a newspaper. We don't include these terms. -- Prince Kassad 21:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Needs to meet WT:BRAND I suppose. Equinox ◑ 14:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete, seem to think Morning Star failed a year ago. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I woulnd't use this to refer to any magazine of its kind. So Delete. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 06:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Move to RfV, where it should be obliged to meet WT:BRAND. It is possible that it would. It has been the prototypical proselytizing religious publication in parts of the US. I find incomprehensible why such a matter is not treated as a matter of fact, not vote. DCDuring TALK 15:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

three hundred

Keep. This is the only correct, non-circumlocuted, way of expressing 300: for instance, three hundreds wouldn't work, neither would hundred three nor hundred threes even though $100\times 3=300$. Even if it were not idiomatic, it would still definitely be useful as a Phrasebook entry, and as an anchor for a whole bunch of Translations.   AugPi 15:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete, purely because another entry (what was it? two thousand I think) failed RFD a few months ago. Actually against my personal feelings, as I voted keep for that one. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Addendum, clearly wasn't two thousands that was deleted, as it's a blue link! Mglovesfun (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

keep and add Category:English non-idiomatic translation targets. Quite useful for many languages including Russian. -- Prince Kassad 15:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This class of rule-driven entry seems to be a good fit with the kind of contributions we actually get. The language-specific appendices on number phrases that would be more useful IMHO seem to be beyond the interest or capability of our contributors. We can provide countless hours of semi-gainful translation practice for contributors by having these entries, however unlikely it may be that anyone would look up any individual entry. DCDuring TALK 16:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete as SOP, replace with {{only in|{{in appendix}}}} if we have one. Re nominator's phrasebook argument: no: this is not a touristy phrase, it's just a numeral. (Wow, Firefox's spellchecker doesn't mind touristy.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Umm, yeah... I'll take back the "Phrasebook" part...   AugPi 17:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Though note that it wasn't me who posted an RFD tag on the three hundred article: that happened about a year ago, but apparently no discussion about it was opened on this page: so I would be the "discussion opener," not the "nominator."   AugPi 17:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

There was already a RFD discussion (now archived at Talk:three hundred), closed as deleted by Mglovesfun on 1 March 2010 (UTC). But the voting resulted at 6 keeps vs. 10 deletes = 10/16 = 62.5% for deletion. The RFD was added on 23 November 2009 by Doremítzwr[42].--Dan Polansky 17:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep outside CFI per translation target: there are several languages that do not tend to form long closed compounds and yet have this term as a solid-written word. --Dan Polansky 17:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

If it is decided to delete this, I propose we create 300 and simply move the translations there. As it is, our entries (for eg 10) list ====Alternative forms==== (eg X, the Roman numeral); we could easily also list "translations of the English word ten" / "translations of the English phrase" (or "term") "three hundred". Example. Alternatively, we could have a ====Translations==== header, and beneath it have a link to the Appendix: "For translations of the English term "three hundred", see Wiktionary:Appendix Such-and-such". If "three hundred" is deleted, these options could supplement msh210's idea about putting a soft redirect at "three hundred"; if it is kept, we could link to "three hundred" from "300". — Beobach 18:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I lean keep, by the way. — Beobach 18:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: this entry already failed rfd: Talk:three hundred. -- Prince Kassad 18:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok, it was this entry which failed RFD. Who restored it would be the best question. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It was Volants (talk • contribs) (Wonderfool) who restored it with no explanation. Though, I nearly didn't delete this for no consensus the first time round. On reflection, 10 for deletion, 6 against does seem a big enough majority to merit deletion. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

So delete it speedily.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It should have never been deleted in the first place. 62.5% is not consensus, or certainly not in WT:Votes. --Dan Polansky 21:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we'll have serious problems if we start applying WT:VOTE standards to every discussion we ever have. —Ruakh_TALK 21:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any serious problems. In RFD, it simply means that there is a pro-keeping bias, in that a term is deleted only if there is consensus for its deletion. An alternative policy would be that a term is kept in RFD only if there is consensus for keeping, but I have not seen this policy stated or actually used. There is no quorum, so the consensus can still consist in three people voting delete. --Dan Polansky 21:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't simply mean a pro-keeping bias; it means a pro-keeping bias that is as strong as WT:VOTE's bias toward the status quo. I know that you are a strong inclusivist, so that sort of barrier to deletion may not seem like a big deal to you, but you have to keep in mind the Law of Unintended Consequences. As it gets harder to delete things via WT:RFD, people become more likely to use other approaches, such as speedy-deleting, or such as listing at WT:RFV, waiting a month, then declaring the word failed and deleting it. (Very few words get cited within a month, and an already-RFV-failed term has the extra burden that you have to present valid citations upfront, and do so knowing that the term is likely to be RFD'd as soon as you're done.) We already see some behavior of this sort, where a sense gets listed at RFV with the claim that it needs three citations to support its specific wording, or to support some specific distinction from another sense. (This claim is nonsense, or at least, it combines nonsensically with RFV's presumption of deletion; but more than one editor has tried it. Usually in good faith, I think, but the result is pernicious all the same.) —Ruakh_TALK 00:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I admit that the pro-keeping bias of RFD suits my tendency to support inclusion in RFD. Nonetheless, I should not single-handedly decide the policy that governs RFD anyway. One alternative to 2/3-majoritarian voting in RFD would be to lower the percentage threshold for consensus for deletion in RFD to something else above 50%. I do not think Mglovesfun should be introducing such a lowering through a new precedent in RFD. This would require a 70%-vote, I think, given it would be a meta-vote or vote about voting. Even the threshold 2/3 is hanging in the air, sort of, with people sometimes mentioning 70%.

The adverse effects of the current practice in RFD such as people sending more things to RFV seem fairly harmless: in RFV, one can say "widespread use" for widespread terms or do the attesting job for less clear terms. And I am not sure these RFV-happy behaviors are the consequence of the 2/3 threshold as opposed to, say, 60%; some deletionists keep saying "we don't do names of specific entities" long after a vote has shown otherwise. I am far from sure that lowering the threshold would in any way modify these RFV-happy behaviors.

Speedy deletions would not really do the intended deleting work for entries that at least one admin has eager interest in keeping: the admin can undelete the entry, and then send for regular RFD. --Dan Polansky 09:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

RFD is not a vote, and although, in closing RFDs, I try to do so in accordance with a consensus of commenters, I would not refrain from going against even a majority where I think that the commenters on one side are basing their comments on policy/BCP and the commenters on the other side are not, especially if I don't feel care the issue (or am closing against my own opinion).​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I cannot agree. RFD should be based on consensus rather than a judgment call of the closing admin. Current policy should not override votes given in RFD, or else policy application turns inflexible. I especially wholly disagree with an admin closing a nomination as "RFD failed" when a plain majority of voters voted for "keep", regardless how unreasonable their arguments have sounded to the closing admin. --Dan Polansky 17:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, there's such as thing as bad consensus. I onced joked I'd send more stuff to RFD, but you guys keep getting it wrong. Regarding a need for a majority in order to delete, I support that, as I think it limits the 'tyrany of the majority' tendencies we sometimes experiences. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not a problem with a solution: there is such a thing as a bad unilateral decision and a bad judgment call. Any decision can be bad, regadless of the mechanism that is used to make the decision. I prefer to give the arbitrary power to a group of voters than to a closing admin, especially given that any of the admins can be the closing one.--Dan Polansky 22:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

NB I have copied the translations to 300. Some are bluelinks, and if we delete three hundred, we may wish to delete eg þrjú hundruð as well (but surely not eg триста, as it is one-word). — Beobach 22:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

So if three hundred is deleted, what about four hundred, five hundred, six hundred,... two thousand, ten thousand, hundred thousand, etc.?   AugPi 22:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem (well, a problem) with this sort of 'voting' system we have at RFD. Three hundred and four hundred could pass an RFD, while five hundred and six hundred might fail. Not that I have a solution, or even a hint of one, but it is a sort of problem. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. --Yair rand (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I find it not-so-clever to discuss each cardinal number separately. We should either keep or delete all entries titled X hundred, X thousand and so on. Somebody suggested an appendix as a solution. I wrote as a draft this appendix. If you like the approach, additional appendices could be written for other sets of numbers. Obviously many languages are missing at this stage. If this is a bad idea, it's easy to get rid of. --Hekaheka 17:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely, the only question that we should ask is - "Is the entry of any use to our users?". I think that it might be - so should probably be kept. SemperBlotto 22:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• I propose a solution to Mglovesfun about numbers without any special linguistic interest: requiring three independent citations (with the number written in full) when creating the page, and requiring a manual creation for such pages. This would prevent the automatic creation of billions of entries. Lmaltier 08:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

  Huh? Unauthorized automatic creation of billions of entries is already disallowed by the bot policy. --Yair rand (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

  But authorized creation of billions of entries is encouraged by the bot policy. -- Prince Kassad 15:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Lmaltier sure, but why propose it to me? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

There was a decision a long time ago to go ahead and keep certain large round figures like this for purpose of example and translation. I think that attitude is better than trying to decide each on grounds of attestation or some other rule that may not be applied as uniformly e.g. to 600 as to 300 and 900 or what have you. Of course attestation is still useful for certain numbers like 720. DAVilla 07:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Frisian

Rfd-redundant: (Netherlands) the West Frisian language. Redundant to the sense right below, "an alternate name for the West Frisian language". -- Prince Kassad 18:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Easy delete, I'd have jut deleted it on sight. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 06:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Failed. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

herbei-

This is not a German prefix. -- Prince Kassad 19:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

How so? Do you also say that hervor- is not a German prefix? Is it because it is her- + bei-? --Dan Polansky 22:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, all derived terms are simple compounds using the word herbei. This is evidenced by the fact it's possible to split up the derived term into its constituent compound parts and it will retain its original meaning, i. e. herbeiführen may be alternately written as herbei führen. The same applies to hervor- as well. -- Prince Kassad 22:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW best definition ever. fr:herbei- says this is a particle, whatever that is. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I see. But there are not going to be many German prefixes left: most can be declared prepositions or particles. Consider, for example, ab-, auf-, an-, and aus-.

One consequence of denying prefixhood to these is that most German verbs with separable prefixes (the term "separable prefix" is contradictory per your exposition) are going to be compounds (Komposita), which seems really strange to me.

Which of the prefixes in Category:German prefixes do you consider prefixes worth keeping? (BTW, I don't consider kardio- a prefix but a combining form. See also de:Kategorie:Präfix (Deutsch).) ---Dan Polansky 22:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

On another note, google:"herbei führen" gives 38,100 results hits while google:"herbeiführen" 1,510,000 results. The former seems to be a rare form that does not really prove anything. If herbei- is not a prefix per the existence of herbei, I do not see how auf- is a prefix given the existence of auf. --Dan Polansky 22:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Separable prefixes are already treated as independent words in Dutch (as adverbs to be precise), and the words that have them are listed as compounds. It doesn't seem like such a strange idea to me. —CodeCat 22:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

A consequence of this treatment is that there are very few prefixes left in Dutch, at least native ones; those that are left would be mostly Latin-based or Ancient Greek-based. See Category:Dutch prefixes. I wonder whether this treatment matches Dutch linguistic works. --Dan Polansky 23:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You cannot split up the word aufhören, for example, while conveying the same meaning. "auf hören" does not make any sense. Therefore, these are true prefixes, like ab-, an-, aus-, be-, ent-, ein-, ver-, zer-, etc. -- Prince Kassad 23:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, "aufhören" is a separable verb, as in "Hören Sie mal auf". Why can't I argue that "aufhören" is a compound made from "auf" and "hören"? Yes, I cannot meaningfully write "auf hören", but that alone does not prove prefixhood of "auf-" if prepositions are allowed for compounding.

What about the following: herab-, heran-, heraus-, herein-, herum-, herunter-? --Dan Polansky 23:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

And "herbeiführen" behaves as a separable verb: "Dadurch, daß wir gewisse Dinge tun, führen wir andere herbei" (Example found in Google books.) --Dan Polansky 23:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You can combine the last batch of suffixes with *any* verb you want. You can create words like heruntergießen, herabschauen and hereinsprühen. This makes them anything but prefixes. -- Prince Kassad 23:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The readiness for combination of a candidate prefix has nothing to do with prefixhood, if you ask me; it does not detract from prefixhood. --Dan Polansky 23:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

German allows for an arbitrary amount of adjectives, adverbs and prepositions to be combined with verbs to form new compound verbs. Compare for example schnellöschen, which is composed of schnell + löschen and means "to speedy delete". It certainly does not turn schnell into a prefix. -- Prince Kassad 21:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

(<) The term schnellöschen is a rare form whose infinitive is not even attestable in Google books, so I wonder why you pick this as an example. Furthermore, schnell is an adjective rather than a preposition, which makes all the difference: I would argue that prefixes often correspond to prepositions and certain adverbs. You still have to explain that "auf-" is a prefix, given with how many verbs it combines, and given the existence of the preposition "auf". I argue that "herbeiführen" is morphologically analogous to "aufhören". --Dan Polansky 09:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm quoting here a response made by User:Atelaes in response to the deletion of Wander- a few pages above:

If part of a compound is simply a word, which means the same thing in the compound as it does alone, then we should not have an affix entry for it. Ancient Greek is chock full of this phenomenon. We should only have affix entries when the part of a compound does not have a standalone counterpart, or means something different when its used as a compound. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 13:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

auf- is a prefix simply because its meaning is not identical to the standalone word auf. You cannot write "auf hören", it makes no sense. -- Prince Kassad 14:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but for the record — I don't think you're interpreting Atelaes' statement the way that he intended it. —Ruakh_TALK 21:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(<<) de:W:Zusammengesetzte Wörter#Typisierung nach den beteiligten_Wortarten (compound words#classification by the part of speech of constituents) does not list any of the terms derived from herab-, heran-, heraus-, herein-, herum-, herunter- as compounds. OTOH, it says that „Fast alle Wortarten können miteinander kombiniert werden“ in a quotation, meaning that almost all parts of speech can be combined.

On another note, it is unclear that "herbei" is really a separate word. If "herbei" always occurs as part of a separable verb, then it may look as a separate word whenever the separable verb is in the separated position, but it is unclear that this alone suffices for the separateness of "herbei". I admit that "herbei führen" can be found in some old German works in Google books.

The terms herbei-, herab-, heran-, heraus-, herein-, herum-, and herunter- are listed in http://www.welt-im-web.de/?N%26uuml%3Btzliches_in_Dateiform:Deutsche_Vorsilben, although the website is no academical reliable resource.

Unfortunately, I do not know of external reliable authorities to check with, or else I would post some links. --Dan Polansky 09:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

One more link: http://www.dwds.de/?kompakt=1&qu=herbei-.

For a list of terms derived from "herbei" or "herbei-", such as herbeizaubern or herbeireden, see also de:herbei.

As an aside, I do not boldly vote for anything in this thread. I do not claim to understand what a prefix is. --Dan Polansky 14:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I am also not an expert, but IMO "herbei" is not a prefix, but part of a compound, because it is a separate word (according to the Duden), which functions as an adverb. It is true that it is rarely used standalone, but this is true for all adverbs. A standalone usage would be the interjection "Herbei!" to call people to come to you. As for the general definition of prefixes, I would use the term prefix only for something that does not also exist as a separate word with exactly the same meaning. Therfore "ent-" (englisch: de-) would be a prefix, but "auf" and "ab" not, because they exist as adverbs with the same meaning (don't confuse them with the prepositions "auf" and "ab" that have a different meaning). --Zeitlupe 09:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

RPattz

If we don't include Robert Pattinson, why include this? Also it's a proper noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

JBiebs

See above talk:RPattz when archived. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

RATM

See above talk:RPattz when archived. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep; Robert Pattinson etc. would be entries describing a particular person (or band), while these are semi-obscure, semi-slangy terms used to refer to those particular people or band and therefore within the scope of a dictionary. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 20:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Compare Led Zep, iTouch, Apop and Codies. Equinox ◑ 23:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Under our existing practice there is no basis for deleting such abbreviations AFAICT. We have many abbreviations of non-includable terms, both NISoP terms and proper names. I would favor rules that would exclude these and similar terms while still being more inclusive of abbreviations than of the abbrevienda. DCDuring TALK 20:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete, although DCD is correct that we have no basis in policy for deleting these. I think we need a policy covering nicknames of specific persons. I'd want to keep the Old Pretender and the Bard (if they existed), but I don't see that there's any value in keeping recently coined nicknames for "celebrities". --EncycloPetey 21:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Fwiw, we do have [[Sweet Swan of Avon]].​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I say process these under the standard for brand names. Find three CFI-worthy citations in print, spanning three yeas, that do not also mention the unabbreviated form, or provide genre cues. If they can not be found, delete. bd2412 T 19:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

diepvroor

This form does not exist. Neither does "vroor diep". Diepvriezen is an incomplete verb. It has an infinitive and two participles, but no finite forms (yet?)

There are very few google hits, most have been induced by wiktionary or by bad machine translations

Compounds of strong verbs can be this way. That also goes for verbs that denote sportsactivities Jcwf 22:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete. They are indeed incorrect. The conjugation table should also be removed. —CodeCat 22:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Mewbot created these forms. Google Book hits support this view point (that is, less than three valid citations). I see no harm in speedy deletion, since bot created. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the reason I added the infinitive form is that I encountered the verb in AC Baantjer's De Cock series. I cannot remember which form it's in in the book. It's either in the past simple or the infinitive form. Delete the verb forms if the native speakers have reached consensus on it. . Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 01:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted both. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

per nom

SoP. Not sure about attestability, but that's secondary it's SoP. See nom. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

delete per nom. -- Prince Kassad 21:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Note I listed this here because the default deletion summary for RFV is "Failed RFV; do not re-enter without valid citations" while for RFD it's "Failed RFD or RFDO; do not re-enter". If this failed RFV and were reentered with valid citations, I'd just nominate it here as SoP.

BTW (not relevant to this entry) quite a few of Category:WMF jargon may be unattestable. I'm considering nominating a few of them at RFV. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. — Beobach 01:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Nah, perma-non-per nom per nom.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Replace with {{only in}} pointing to WT:GLOSS. DCDuring TALK 15:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted, replaced with soft redirect to WT:GLOSS. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

ferrer un poisson

How is this idiomatic? It doesn't mean anything else other than its literal SoP meaning. I suggest adding a new sense at ferrer (to hook (a fish)) and deleting this entry. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 08:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

delete. I agree. This is not a set phrase, un poisson is used only to make clear what sense of ferrer the definition refers to. Lmaltier 08:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete, SoP. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted by Jamesjiao (talk • contribs). Mglovesfun (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

nutbag

Rfd-redundant: need to combine three senses into one, I think. They are "an eccentric or odd person", "someone who is insane", and "a person who is obsessed with something".​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

currency code

A code of a currency. SoP. -- Prince Kassad 19:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No, not any code, a specific code defined by ISO. Lmaltier 19:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Says who? -- Prince Kassad 20:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Says the ISO. See ISO 4217 Currency Code List. Keep, as there are usually other unofficial codes in use.--Dmol 21:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely non ISO codes for currencies are also called currency codes. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

But "ISO" is usually implicit, this is why the page is useful. Lmaltier 06:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep ISO-specific definition, delete any generic definitions that come along. DAVilla 07:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

AFN

Except maybe for the common ones like USD and EUR, I think these fall under the same rule as language codes and should only appear in an appendix. -- Prince Kassad 19:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you're calling common. I suspect most can be found in use in regional periodicals. I know NIS can. As for the nominee (AFN), keep and RFV if desired (after checking for cites first, natch).​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep this, and any others that get nominated. (It's verified by looking at the ISO 4217 Currency Code List). But there is no reason to have a separate appendix, nor should we just list the common ones. Common to who?.--Dmol 21:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

A standards body mandating a term does not automatically make it language, as discussed before with the "standard" (but not even attestable!) units like yottasecond. However, in the case of these currency codes, I'm sure they are all very attestable indeed. Send to RFV for citations to prove it? Equinox ◑ 21:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd have thought that a standards document's tabular listing of a code constitutes a mention not a use. OTOH, I would expect almost all of these to be in use in a few languages and thus be as Translingual as all of the attested-in-no-language taxonomic names that we include unchallenged. I don't know what kind of attestation would be sufficient to protect us from becoming mere claques for unused standards. DCDuring TALK 15:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

127.0.0.1

I don't think we want entries on specific IPs just as we don't want entries on www.example.com or %SystemRoot%. -- Prince Kassad 22:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete, this isn't a definition of 127.0.0.1, it just explains what is it. w:localhost covers this nicely. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete as defined. See Reserved IP addresses. The current entry ("localhost in IPv4") feels rather like having an entry (deprecated template usage) 6.1 defined as "version number of Microsoft Windows 7". Equinox ◑ 22:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep but change the definition. The phrase 'there's no place like 127.0.0.1' has become pretty commonplace, and in that phrase the IP address stands simply for home. —CodeCat 23:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If this is only used as a quip or T-shirt slogan, then the entry should be there's no place like 127.0.0.1. I doubt that 127.0.0.1 is used in general-purpose running text to mean anything, let alone home (which is not really what it means in a technical sense). Equinox ◑ 23:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

True, but the fact that there are millions of hits for that phrase should mean something. It's certainly in widespread use. —CodeCat 23:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, this is new to me. Such a sentence could be considered to 'convey meaning' per WT:CFI#Attestation. Striking my 'vote' until I can think a bit more. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

conocer de antemano

I consider this sum of parts. --SixTwo 15:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It certainly looks idiomatic to me. Especially the use of de. —CodeCat 15:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No real opinion, but antemano has de antemano as a head word. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

What is common practice when a single English word has a translation into another language that is sum-of-parts? — lexicógrafa | háblame — 15:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would do in the translation section * Spanish: {{l|es|conocer}} {{l|es|de}} {{l|es|anteman}} rather than * Spanish: {{t|es|conocer de antemano}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, delete and split link for translation. DAVilla 18:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

exploitative competition

From RFV:

Kept at RFD and sent hither.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

google books:"exploitative competition" gets a few thousand hits. Most or all are in this sense. Not all of them support the notion that it's a constituent — sometimes "exploitative" is modified by an adverb (e.g. "exclusively exploitative competition"), or "competition" is modified by another adjective in parallel with "exploitative" (e.g. "intraspecific, exploitative competition") — but those are issues for RFD rather than RFV, no? —Ruakh_TALK 16:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

To my understanding, it was kept at RFD and sent hither to look for cites that demonstrate the existence of an idiomatic phrase. You've mentioned tests, Ruakh, showing that a cite is no good for that (modification of exploitative by an adverb, another adjective in parallel); is there any test showing that a cite is good?​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, a good cite is just one that isn't bad. A bad cite of an adjective-noun compound would have modification or coordination of the components. Neither is necessarily fatal, but might require time-consuming careful analysis and be subject to challenge. In this case, it would probably help if the cite came from the context and perhaps contrasted exploitative with other kinds of competition, but with both types of competition being expressed in full. To put it more positively, the quote should unambiguously highlight the exact term as a unit in the context, register, and grammar of the inflection line and the sense line. DCDuring TALK 20:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, I studied this in Ecology last year. It's certainly a specific type of competition, contrasted against "interference competition."

1994 Christopher S. Lobban & Paul James Harrison, Seaweed ecology and physiology, Cambridge University Press, p99

Exploitative competition involves a scramble for a limiting resource (e.g., space, light, nutrients) without direct antagonism between organisms. Interference competition results from interactions between organisms that may not relate directly (if at all) to any limiting resource... If interference competition is taking place, however, exploitative competition must also be potentially possible.

Ackatsis 10:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Move to RFD. I've added the relevant sense to [[exploitative]] and cited it outside the specific collocation "exploitative competition". Incidentally, (deprecated template usage) exploitatively is also citeable in a corresponding sense — see e.g. google books:"compete exploitatively" — but if we define that adverb in some basic way ("in an exploitative manner" or somesuch) than it's moot. (BTW, I'm not particularly advocating deletion; I just think the previous RFD discussion was meaningless, since the participants don't seem to have examined citations and usage or anything. If we keep the entry, then we can simplify our definition of (deprecated template usage) exploitative by referring to it.) —Ruakh_TALK 15:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Weak delete or redirect to [[exploitative]], I think.

—Ruakh_TALK 16:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Technical term, whether or not it's a sum of however separable parts. Keep. DAVilla 18:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

How can you tell that it's a "technical term"? Obviously it's composed of two technical terms, but what makes it itself one? (Could you give an example of a sequence of technical terms that is not itself a technical term, and explain the difference? I'm not necessarily looking for objective criteria — though of course that would be ideal — just for something that makes clear what you mean by the phrase "technical term", and perhaps that makes clear why you think all "technical terms", in the sense that you mean it, should be kept regardless of SOP-ness.) —Ruakh_TALK 19:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Shit, I didn't realize exploitative was a technical term. I should have read the quoted text more carefully. No, you're right to delete this one, although I still think it makes sense to keep exceptional collocations like active volcano. DAVilla 07:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there an articulable reason why we should keep active volcano but not this, or is it just "gut feel"? (I mean, (deprecated template usage) active is incredibly well attested. google books:"volcanoes were active" gets hundreds and hundreds of hits; google books:"Etna was active" gets twenty-some, and so on.) —Ruakh_TALK 16:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

out hit the ball twice

From RFV:

Noun. Surely this is both an adverb, and SoP (although that's an rfd issue). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Definitely sum of parts (and someone's making a dog's breakfast of the base entry). SemperBlotto 11:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain the rationale for your comment "making a dog's breakfast of the base entry"? That's a pretty strong criticism to have no explanation. Facts707 11:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The first citation seems more in the nature of a mention than a use. In any event, it offers little to suggest how the term might be actually used on a cricket field by an umpire. Google news might be a better source. From that source, I have learned that this call has been made only 20 times since 1906 in first-class cricket, which suggests that both terms are likely "rare".

The 2003 citation does not support "noun" as I read it. Substituting the definition into the citation yields "The striker is [a ruling ...]", This doesn't seem a sensible reading. It seems to me that this is an adjectival phrase headed by "out". That would make "hit the ball twice" an adverb in this usage. But in the cases where "hit the ball twice" is used without "out" it seems to me to be an ellipsis for "out hit the ball twice" and thus also an adjective. DCDuring TALK 11:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Since you're a New Yorker, it's comparable to a baseball entry for out caught - describing the baseball being caugh on the fly by a fielder. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

That's what I inferred from the citations: adjective. This is just a question of English grammar, isn't it? Cricket umpires do speak English, don't they? The semantics doesn't override the grammar. DCDuring TALK 14:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, we do have struck out and strike out, but possibly only because those terms are also used as metaphors for other common events. Facts707 11:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

We also have foul out as both a noun and a verb for both baseball and basketball. Facts707 12:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I could cite "a foul out", "the foul out", and "foul outs", all of which scream "noun". Can anyone cite either of these in parallel constructions? In baseball, both "foul" and "out" are used as adverb and noun, foul can be used as verb, and out can be used as adjective (predicate only). I read "foul out" as a combination of two nouns. But, as for comparable expressions for compound terms involving "out", baseball umpires and sports announcers don't say *"He is 'fouled out'" or *"He is 'out fouled'". DCDuring TALK 14:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Move to RFD and delete. There were no b.g.c. hits that could be construed as common nouns IMHO, but the entry now has all four that could be construed as proper nouns — and I think they make quite clear that the "out" and the "hit the ball twice" are two separate parts. —Ruakh_TALK 19:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete. —Ruakh_TALK 19:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sum of parts, I was going to speedy delete it when it was created, but since Facts and I were in disagreement about hit the ball twice it would have looked like an abuse of administrative power. But anyway, delete, can't think of any possible defence for this. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I can understand that out caught is more or less grammatical. Although the past participle, acting as an adjective, would normally precede the noun, it's not unheard of to follow it. But I'm not sure I've ever heard of this for a compound noun. Why isn't it called a "hit-the-ball-twice out"? DAVilla 18:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not a noun. Or a proper noun. The logic the creator used "it's a rule in a rule book, so it's a proper noun". Mglovesfun (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The order of (deprecated template usage) out and its adjunct modifiers would seem to be a matter of the grammar of (deprecated template usage) out (cricket) and not a justification for including all of the instances of this grammar. DCDuring TALK 19:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, out caught, out bowled, out caught and bowled, out hit wicket. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's an adjective? That's mighty a strange framework grammatical. Keep all. DAVilla 07:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. The closest thing I can imagine in baseball would be base on balls - which is SoP but also is a common term in baseball and wouldn't be understandable to someone with an understanding of the component words but without an understanding of baseball. I wondering if we should have base on balls and if so, does this shed any light on this rather confusing entry? Facts707 00:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't see how base on balls would be SoP even for an ardent baseball fan (such as myself, before MLB coverage was cancelled in the UK). Still, we wouldn't list base on balls as a proper noun because it appears in a rule book. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

As an example, my Scrabble rule book has the rule EQUIPMENT (let's call it equipment). Under what I see as Fact's logic, he could enter equipment as "proper noun: a rule in Scrabble […] ". Mglovesfun (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

ennoia

In the RFV discussion, I wrote this:

Move to RFD. The current definition is this:

1. Template:chiefly Used in technical writing to transcribe the Ancient Greek term :Template:polytonic, meaning broadly “conception” or “notion”, though often denoting one of a range of nuances of meaning.

which is clearly supported by the citations (at Citations:ennoia), most of which are mentions of the Ancient Greek word or quoting/paraphrasing Ancient Greek works that use the word. So the only question is: do want such an entry?

I don't feel very comfortable with this entry, but I'm not sure if it should be deleted, or if there's some way to improve it, or if I should suck it up. :-P

—Ruakh_TALK 19:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Once you've stripped away the citations that are merely mentions of the Ancient Greek word, I still find enough citations that use it as an English word; the 2006 by John Lamb Lash, the 1992 in The Journal of Narrative Technique, and the 1987 ones.--Prosfilaes 23:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree — the 2006 cite is "using" it only in free indirect speech, and it italicizes it and immediately translates it to English, and the 1992 cite makes as if to coin the word, rather than to use a word that the author believes to exist (and even so the author proceeds to italicize the word in all occurrences) — but if you think you can add and cite a bona fide English sense, be my guest. I'll be happy to change this to an {{rfd-sense}}. —Ruakh_TALK 00:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why this is a problem for people. Italicized only means it's borrowed, but it's still used in running English text which is what CFI requires. Although both of the quotations introduce the term in the ways you point out, they go on to use it with this same meaning. DAVilla 18:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

And yet, that's not how we define it. —Ruakh_TALK 18:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

râtisser

There is no such verb in French. The flexions erroneously created are:

• râtissa
• râtissai
• râtissaient
• râtissais
• râtissait
• râtissâmes
• râtissas
• râtissasse
• râtissassent
• râtissasses
• râtissassiez
• râtissassions
• râtissât
• râtissâtes
• râtisse
• râtissent
• râtissera
• râtisserai
• râtisseraient
• râtisserais
• râtisserait
• râtisseras
• râtissèrent
• râtisserez
• râtisserions
• râtisseriez
• râtisserons
• râtisseront
• râtisses
• râtissez
• râtissiez
• râtissions
• râtissons

Urhixidur 20:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Should perhaps be at RFV, though if it's attestable only as a rare misspelling it should be here. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It can be considered as a misspelling or as a rare alternative spelling (the origin is râteau, which explains this spelling). On Google Books : ratisser : 24600, râtisser: 289. On Google: ratisser : 93600, râtisser: 5230. Lmaltier 15:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Rare misspelling = delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a rare misspelling, a misspelling (as listed in Wiktionnaire) or a rare alternative spelling. Keep. DAVilla 18:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

card

1. A list of scheduled events or of performers or contestants.

   What’s on the card for tonight?

2. rfd-redundant Template:cricket A tabular presentation of the key statistics of an innings or match: batsmen’s scores and how they were dismissed, extras, total score and bowling figures.
3. rfd-redundant Template:horse racing A listing of the runners and riders, together with colours and recent form, for all the races on a particular day at a particular racecourse.

The cricket and horse racing senses seem to me to be included in the first sense above. DCDuring TALK 02:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, they are covered already. Delete as redundant.--Dmol 03:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I would keep them both - detailed information that is not available on Wikipedia. SemperBlotto 08:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

But in fairness, SB, we are not Wikipedia. Not sure of your logic here.--Dmol 08:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I've always viewed Appendix space as a good home for marginally worthy information of a semi-encyclopedic type. I could imagine a multi-column listing of sport, alternative names, content for various types of sports data tables and references to WP and Commons links. It will seem so quaint to the younger generation of cell-phone-video sports-highlight recorders.

Also, we may need to extend the above sense or define a new sense to clarify the potential use of a card to record details of past events. For baseball, see box score and line score and w:Box score (baseball) and w:Baseball scorekeeping. DCDuring TALK 10:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

w:Cricket scoring has helpful links, including one to Notcher's News, but curiously not to w:Cricket statistics. (Apparently "notcher" is how obsessive cricket scorers refer to themselves. I don't know the corresponding term for baseball obsessives.) DCDuring TALK 10:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

3 seems redundant to 1, but I don't see how 2 is. AFAICT from its wording, 2 is a list of events that have occurred rather than a schedule of planned events.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, but in golf card has the same meaning (a record of all the hole scores). Mglovesfun (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

So we should keep and generalize 2 then, no?​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

pommy bastard

Sum of parts. Noun (attributively) + noun. What about pommy dickhead, pommy idiot, Aussie bastard, Scottish bastard, etc. No setness at all. Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see the numbers. I think that "pommy" selects for "bastard" far more than might be expected from the relative frequency of the individual words. I notice a very high mutual information score for "whinging/whingeing" and "pom" at BNC, "pom" outscored by no other nouns. Just as Homer had his formulaic phrases, so do modern speakers. DCDuring TALK 16:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I further find it suggestive that Urban Dictionary not only has "whinging pom/pommy" and "pommy bastard", but also "whinging pommy bastard". The logic of including frequent collocations as entries would clearly need to be accompanied by the inclusion of political-correctness-type criteria in our CFI, were we to take it seriously again, unless we would like to accept such entries or engage in endless and nasty case-by-case discussions of such entries or rely on arbitrary speedy deletion decisions. DCDuring TALK 17:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep it! It is useful to have the reference. — This unsigned comment was added by 38.104.157.234 (talk) at 4 December 2010.

Meaning what? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

We should consider keeping collocations like this, easily the most common that includes the word pommy. DAVilla 07:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

with compliments

Defined as "euphemism for free". compliment/compliments had lacked the sense. No OneLook dictionary has this. It is not a set phrase, often accepting pre- and post-modifiers of "compliments" ("with our compliments", "with the compliments of Citibank"). It might have been worthy of a phrasebook if we had one. DCDuring TALK 19:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Not convinced either way. Not convinced this is sum of parts, also not convinced it means "for free". I always thought it meant "with our good wishes" in which case it is SoP. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"Compliments of ___" definitely means free, doesn't it? Equinox ◑ 19:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I think so.

I think there are would be some phrasebook entries using "compliments" that would be useful if only we had a phrasebook rationale. DCDuring TALK 20:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"With compliments" or "compliments of" means that it is free, being paid for by whomever ____ is. It still is paid for, but not by you. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 20:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Victoria's Secret

"A retail marketer of women's clothing and beauty products". Let's not start listing well-known high street vendors. What's next La Senza? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, but it seems crying out for an {{rfphoto}}. Ƿidsiþ 15:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Move to RfV. I think it might be shown to meet WT:BRAND. It is obvious that all modern mass media in the US assume that their audience knows what it is, what kind of merchandise and pictures are in the catalog, etc. That is the kind of cultural knowledge that we often use as justifying inclusion. DCDuring TALK 16:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Move to RFV and keep only if citations are found that match the brand rules. Equinox ◑ 22:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

blow one's chances

NISoP. See (deprecated template usage) blow. DCDuring TALK 18:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete. I agree with DC. -- Ghost of WikiPedant 19:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete, I too agree. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 22:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete. ---> Tooironic 07:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

time-span segmentation

The copyright violation has been corrected (see WT:RFC#August 2007), but the entry remains sum-of-parts, at least as currently defined. Is there a more nuanced, non-SoP definition to be had, or should this be deleted? — Beobach 22:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Newport

Rfd-sense: Many other places of the same name. IMHO a pointless definition - either list all possible meanings, or just leave it out. -- Prince Kassad 17:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this should be detailed. I don't know how many cities are called Newport, but I know that the list is limited. It would be interesting to provide the etymology for each of them (very probably, the general etymology is new + port, but some of these towns may have been given this name after another Newport). Translations might differ according to the city (e.g. in Welsh, but I don't know). And gentilics might differ, too. Lmaltier 20:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Rather keep the summary sense line, with the possibility to tweak it. The last vote on the subject (Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Placenames with linguistic information 2) says this: 'If the name is shared by several places, some of the places bearing the name can have a dedicated sense line, while other ones can be covered under a summary sense line such as "Any of a number of cities in Anglophone countries".' --Dan Polansky 08:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing forbids one line per sense (i.e. one line per town). It's necessary to accommodate different translations, different gentilics, different pronunciations, citations about different towns, etc. If towns are grouped, readers are left uncertain about what to think about these points. Lmaltier 22:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep and list first as "a place name". Note it can be combined with other words in the cities Newport Beach, Newport News, etc. DAVilla 07:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

about to

idiomatic, only with bare infinitive Indicates something that will happen very soon; indicates that something is imminent.

He's standing at the edge, and I think he's about to jump.

This entry is for a non-constituent that is NISoP. See (deprecated template usage) about and (deprecated template usage) to. Is there any evidence that someone can learn the grammar of a language by looking up lexicalized non-idiomatic non-grammatical units? DCDuring TALK 18:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what I think about this one. Possible relations: "he's ready to jump", "he's near to jumping" (I don't consider these two very defensible as entries), "he's going to jump" (confusable with someone actually travelling in order to reach a jumping-spot), and (deprecated template usage) about time. Equinox ◑ 19:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Lemming check: We are the only OneLook reference with this entry. Others have either a sense of about#Adjective, which we should and now do have, or "be about to (do something)", which some differentiate from "not be about to (do something).

Also, I am not in a position to opine on the utility of this as a translation target, which is why I asked the question above. Sometimes I wonder about the utility of our entries for grammatical words like prepositions, determiners, etc. They are hard to construct and hard to read for normal folks, even when not wrong in some way. DCDuring TALK 20:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure; we obviously need to cover this meaning either here or at about. If anything, I think this does function as a single unit, and therefore is includable. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the theory, but I just came to this page wanting to check what "about to" is exactly about. If it had not existed the next natural thing to do would have been to go to the enry "about", where the same information would have been readily available. What about a redirect to "about#Adjective" ? --Hekaheka 22:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It's the preposition about ("around, close to, near") + a verbal noun (infinitive). He's about to jump = He's near jumping/close to jumping. Simple preposition + particle to me, at least from the standpoint of the origin of the construction. Leasnam 22:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, I think. But other dictionaries seem to insist on presenting it as "be about to" or define the preposition non-substitutably as "engaged in" (which implies a following -ing form). I erred in placing the sense in the adjective PoS. The Websters 1913 wording helped me miss the sense in the preposition section.

As Hekaheka recommends, a redirect (but to about#Preposition) should suffice. I have inserted two usexes in the appropriate sense. DCDuring TALK 00:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The context of "before a to infinitive" seems like a really bad way to isolate a single word. Anyway, you can use be about to by itself, without any verb following. Keep or move to be about to. DAVilla 16:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

command-line interpreter

Something that interprets a command line. Anything further is an encyclopaedic red herring. Equinox ◑ 20:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not something that interprets "the text prompt presented to the user in a command line interface". Either command line needs a new definition, or your statement is wrong.--Prosfilaes 00:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The former, I suppose. The command line can be the text a user types at the prompt. Equinox ◑ 00:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Could it be that the multiple meanings of interpreter make it difficult to parse as sum-of-parts? See, for example, parts interpreter. ---> Tooironic 07:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Not here. I'm not sure how to define it, command line or command line interface (and I'm definitely uncomfortable with the definition for the last), but interpreter in this context is obviously the definition tagged computing.--Prosfilaes 22:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. The command line interpreter is interactive, which the definition at interpreter does not clarify. Apparently it's also called a command-line processor. DAVilla 06:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

donkey keeper

Also donkey-keeper. Evidently created as a convenient translation target, but too transparent to be useful in English. Equinox ◑ 20:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ya, delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I've modified all of the translations to link to [[donkey]]-[[keeper]], and to mention each other in their See also sections. — Beobach 20:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of the following dynamic link for the "See also"s instead: entries with "donkey keeper"? It's not a pretty but it requires less maintenance. It should be possible to improve the appearance with JS. DCDuring TALK 11:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The little arrow can be done away with by use of <span class="plainlinks">. The color of the link can be made blue by using a link to [[special:search/donkey keeper]] instead, which I think will work once the entry is gone.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Add that after the links to the specific currently-existing entries. :) — Beobach 05:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete. ---> Tooironic 07:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, delete. I hope it doesn't occur to anyone to write a phrasebook-entry for "I need a donkey keeper". We might end up keeping it ;-) --Hekaheka 22:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I want to say delete as well, but does tennis player apply here? DAVilla 16:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

In order for tennis player to apply, donkey keeper would have to refer only to someone who kept donkeys occupationally, and not anyone who was keeping a donkey at the time of the reference...? Which is plausible. Hm... I was going to make a reference to software developer as a counterpoint, a term we wouldn't keep, but software development is a blue link with a PR/marketing-textbook definition. — Beobach 05:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

comply with

I don't think this acts as a single unit, it's merely with verb comply followed immediately by with. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete. We don't include "agree with", "collaborate with", "dance with", etc. ---> Tooironic 07:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete, not a phrasal verb. DAVilla 16:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted.​—msh210℠ (talk) 07:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

time-of-flight mass spectrometry

This is a scientific technique that has it's own Wikipedia page. It doesn't seem like the kind of phrase that belongs in a dictionary. — This comment was unsigned.

Looks OK to me. SemperBlotto 11:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, not looking too SoP to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking up the meanings of the individual parts, I come up with:

1. The measurement of the wavelength of the radiation of the communion wafer administered to a staircase+'s inevitable progression into the future.
2. The measurement of the wavelength of quantities of matter by their flying+'s duration.

... but not even the second of those is time-of-flight mass spectrometry. For one thing, neither suggests separating ions or using magnetic fields. — Beobach 22:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Another keep for this technical term. DAVilla 06:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

north wind

Sum of parts. -- Prince Kassad 15:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 21:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

As much as I don't like saying it, the meaning isn't that transparent to an English speaker. Is a wind that comes from the north, or that is traveling north? Perhaps this could be handled as a usage note at wind to avoid having west-south-west wind et al. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's not. That's why there is a definition in north that specifically caters to this problem. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 00:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, beautiful. Delete.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. This relentless determination to break all our entries down to the smallest possible units is totally counter-productive. The north wind is a single specific concept in cultures across the world; it is personified, it is conceived of as one thing. And on a point of historical information, it's not necessary formed from (deprecated template usage) north + (deprecated template usage) wind in the way that getting rid of this entry would imply. The north is probably adverbial; this probably came into English as a single phrase and (like Dutch (deprecated template usage) noordwind, German (deprecated template usage) Nordwind) is attested at the earliest possible stage of the language. Even the definition is not obvious; and this is hardly a "meteorological" term as the (deprecated template usage) north entry implies. Ƿidsiþ 18:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. The definition of "north" used in the SOP allegation is this: "Of wind, from the north". See also Talk:free variable. Adding to "red" the definition "Of a dwarf star, small and relatively cool one of the main sequence" does not make "red dwarf" a semantic sum of parts. --Dan Polansky 21:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Widsith and Dan are quite right.-- Ghost of WikiPedant 21:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per WT:COALMINE. —Ruakh_TALK 21:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete The logic of directions applied to various geographic, geological, meteorological, and navigational entities should not require lexical treatment at each point of the compass rose (4, 8, 16?) for each collocating noun (eg, "drift", "face", "wind", "current", "heading", "course", "bearing"). This seems like yet another example of something better covered by a construction-grammar appendix linked to from the various nouns and the compass point names rather than each individual collocation. Such an appendix would allow for discussion of the means of communicating more precise compass directions ("3 degree, 50 minutes, 35 seconds west of North") and other modes of communicating direction. DCDuring TALK 22:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per WT:COALMINE if nothing else. (Northwind had one citation already; I've given it two more.) — Beobach 09:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  Also keep per Ƿidsiþ. — Beobach 23:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep per COALMINE.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Even if this is no more than sum-of-parts, I would keep it for no reason other than it's by far the most common collocation for north in this sense. We tend to go either way on these, usually deleting but with some big exceptions. Anyways, Widsith has some very good contributing evidence to this case. DAVilla 16:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. Are we going to create entries for south wind, east wind and west wind too? ---> Tooironic 22:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

reverse 911 call

I don't understand this deletion [43]. Can comeone explain? Should we delete also reverse 911 calls??--Diuturno 17:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe it was deleted due to some personal information that was added to the entry. I've now restored the last pre-vandalism version. —Ruakh_TALK 18:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

everywhere

Preposition (both senses):

1. In or to all locations under discussion.

   He delivers the mail everywhere on this street.

   We went everywhere at the school - we talked to all the teachers in their classrooms.

2. Template:colloquial In or to a few or more locations.

   We went to Europe last year and went everywhere: Berlin, Paris, London, and Madrid.

   When I shop for shoes, I like to look everywhere.

   I've looked everywhere in the house and still can't find my glasses.

All the usexes look adverbial to me. DCDuring TALK 20:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

They look adverbial to me too. Combining two prepositions into one (e.g., "everywhere on", "everywhere at", "everywhere in"...) looks suspect to me... The fourth usex in particular couldn't possibly be a preposition.   AugPi 20:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This looks a new-fangled zero preposition, suitable for a supplementary category, not a PoS header. I had the same problem with nowhere. DCDuring TALK 21:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Changed back from ===Preposition=== to ===Adverb===. —Ruakh_TALK 13:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

part

Sole preposition sense:

1. (often as “part (something), part (something else)”) partially composed of
   • 1919, Henry Seidel Canby, Ph. D., Making of America Project: New Books Reviewed, page 711:

     “ We cannot make a plodding and sensible community—a Holland or a Pennsylvania—out of a national personality which, whether by harsh circumstance or native tendency, is now part genius, part fanatic, and part hard-headed materialist.”

I think is is more readily interpreted as an adjective. DCDuring TALK 22:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds more adverbial to me. Can be defined as partially. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 23:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Based on the usexes they provide, most dictionaries call it an adjective when it is part of a predicate NP and an adverb only when it modifies a true adjective. But "partly" and "partially" both seem like acceptable synonyms in US English at least. DCDuring TALK 18:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Or noun. Essentially short for "one part genius, one (not necessarily equal in size) part fanatic, one (possibly different in size again) part hard-headed materialist", like a recipe for a cocktail.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think of hypothesized ellipses as cheating, suitable only for such more speculative realms as etymology. DCDuring TALK 18:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't really mean it's short/elliptical for what I wrote. Hence "essentially". I meant only that part can be understood here as a noun as in a recipe for a cocktail: "part genius, part fanatic" is like "this cocktail is one part Kahlúa, one part rum". I don't know, though: I can't imagine anyone using that construction with any other unit of measure (contrast "three acres corn, one acre soybeans" with *"three acres corn, acre soybeans").​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

(deprecated template usage) all and fractions do the same thing: "he's half man, half ape"; "he's all ape"; "he's one-third man, two-thirds ape". I agree with Jamesjiao that it's adverbial, though I'm not sure if it's an adverb per se, or just an adverbial noun (as msh210 says). I'm leaning toward the latter. —Ruakh_TALK 20:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Almost all OneLook dictionaries have the adverb sense usually illustrating it with an expression using an adjective: "It is part red". RHU, MWO, AHD, WNW, and Encarta have the adjective sense illustrating it with a noun: "He is part owner". The PoS label seems hard to assign and limit and yet people speak such expressions without hesitation or objection from others. For us to add the possibility of "preposition" seems to be a needless and unjustified addition to the mix. DCDuring TALK 22:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm crazy, but I see (deprecated template usage) part as an adjective qualifying "genius" (in that example), so the sense to me is "a partial genius" and not "partially a genius". Consider that "part-man" often has a hyphen and can itself be a noun phrase in a sentence: "The part-man, part-genius, has done it again!" Ƿidsiþ 09:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

-bot

Not a suffix, just (deprecated template usage) bot as the final part of several compound words. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

do you accept Canadian dollars

Zero hits on Google Books. I don't think we want this kind of stuff for every currency in the world, just the major ones (US dollar, Euro, Japanese Yen). -- Prince Kassad 15:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Besides, it's redundant to How do you pronounce the word "no"?. —Ruakh_TALK 16:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hell, some of us Canadians don't even accept Canadian dollars (especially now that the US$ are getting so cheap!). -- Ghost of WikiPedant 21:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, delete.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the relevant criterion is this exceptional rule in [[Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Idiomaticity]]:

Phrasebook entries are very common expressions that are considered useful to non-native speakers.

This is not a "very common expression", and furthermore, it's hard to think of too many situations where a non-native speaker would find it useful. French Canadians visiting northern New England, I guess? Whoever created this seems to have been operating under the belief that we had a rule like this one:

Phrasebook entries are either very common expressions that are considered useful to non-native speakers, or else English expressions whose translations are likely to be useful to English speakers.

—Ruakh_TALK 18:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete - and probably many more similar entries. SemperBlotto 08:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete. --Dan Polansky 09:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete I guess. Must be common to even warrant consideration. DAVilla 16:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably delete. Phrasebook phrases need to be common ones, don't they? Equinox ◑ 18:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted.​—msh210℠ (talk) 07:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

at the end of the road

Means [[at]] [[the]] [[end of the road]]. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Right. Redirect.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete or redirect. DCDuring TALK 07:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Redirect or delete. DAVilla 16:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 17:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm prefer ever so slightly the redirect. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Redirect. — Beobach 06:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

beat the crap out of

Definitely sum of parts, though I'm not sure what entry we should have, maybe the crap to go with the fuck and the devil (so to speak). We also have beat the shit out of, and you can change the initial verb; kick to the crap out of; kick the shit out of. Probably many other examples, I'll happily do a Google Book search to see what the numbers are. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain why you think it's sum of parts? ---> Tooironic 04:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Because one of the senses of crap#Noun is shit. That is relevant because crap is a euphemism. The plausible construction of a phrase involving "crap" that cannot be managed with a literal sense, would be interpreted with the euphemistic sense. If someone can't interpret it metaphorically we have beat the shit out of. We could have entries for every non-euphemistic word that can fit into the "shit" slot, such as "stuffing", "tar", "daylights", "hell", "Jesus", "fuck", etc. (and relevant synonyms, especially euphemisms. Or we could have an appendix for the construction "to V the NP out of" and explain what can fill the V and NP slots. Note that it is an NP not just a N and there are all kinds of subtleties as to which adjuncts can modify the various nouns. For example, "living" doesn't work so well with "stuffing" and "tar", but reasonably well with the rest and excellently with "daylights". Treating each possibility lexically is absurd, though I'm sure that there are many lurking newbies who would volunteer to give their best efforts to making new entries of this type. DCDuring TALK 07:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. The SOP allegation is hard to understand for me: the allegation seems to rely on the existence of "beat the shit out of". In any case, this is non-literal language, and cannot be decoded by a non-native speaker by reading the component words of the phrase. Also, this idiom is very common by Google hits. At worst, this should be a redirect to "beat the shit out of".--Dan Polansky 09:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You probably should have read my nomination in full then. It goes way beyond those two, as DCDuring says you can beat many things:

• beat the crap out of, 8640
• beat the shit out of, 17 700
• beat the fuck out of, 419
• kick the crap out of, 1060
• kick the shit out of, 4650
• kick the fuck out of, 62

Mglovesfun (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

So what? How do the searches in Google books prove that this is a semantic sum of parts? Sum of which parts? Which of the six listed search terms would you keep, if any? --Dan Polansky 13:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

None of them. Maybe to non-natives speakers it's quite difficult, but for a native speaker this is way off idiomatic. I haven't decided what the parts are (that is, how to express it in Wiktionary terms). BTW I'd rather keep the entries than have this redirect to beat the shit out of. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not sum of parts, but I don't think it's the job of a dictionary to explain the metaphors involved. Maybe it is? Not sure. The earliest form seems to have been "beat the stuffing out of" someone (as though they were a scarecrow or doll); then "beat the shit out of" developed as a more expressive and vulgar version. Then apparently the "the shit" bit was taken as simply intensive, leading to non-literal variants like "beat the fuck out of", although they are still less common. I would delete it personally, as this seems beyond the remit of a dictionary. Ƿidsiþ 16:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's a formula: "X the Y out of" where X is a verb and Y is a noun, usually a vulgar word. Remember X one's Y off? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Just for the heck of it, I tried google:"crapped the shit out of", and whaddaya know, it gets over a dozen relevant hits. —Ruakh_TALK 00:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"crapped the shit out of" seems unattestable: google books:"crapped the shit out of" and google groups:"crapped the shit out of". The hits given above by MG are from Google books; on the Google web, some of the above six phrases are very common.

The formula "V the NP out of" does not allow any free combination. So far, only two verbs have been attested on the V position. Another thing is, many non-SOP terms follow the formula "<adjective> <noun>": fitting into a formula alone does not make then exclusion-worthy. --Dan Polansky 18:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

So what? There are hardly any two nouns and verb that combine without some semantic limitations. DCDuring TALK 22:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Quick Books searches show ample hits for slap, punch, and thrash, and even two for eat ([44], [45], plus [46] on Usenet).​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Now added to Appendix:Snowclones. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 19:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. DCDuring TALK 22:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Appendix:Snowclones is a good place for this. WP, quoting Language Log, defines a snowclone in part as a "quoted or misquoted phrase or sentence that can be used in an entirely open array of different variants"; "X the Y out of" can be used in an open array of variants, but it isn't quoting or misquoting anything. All of the other items on the list would be meant or understood as allusions to the given original quotations; "beat the shit out of" is not an allusion to "kick the shit out of" nor vice versa. I'll have to think for a while to figure out where this does belong... — Beobach 08:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

NB that this entry previously existed at X the Y out of, and was moved to this form because it was the most common form: Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Archives/2007/06#X_the_Y_out_of. — Beobach 08:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

north

This sense:

2. Template:meteorology Of wind, from the north.

seems wrong to me. We frequently describe winds by their source direction, but it doesn't "feel" to me like that's a property of all the various possible source directions ("north", "north-northeast", "land", "sea", "desert", etc.). —Ruakh_TALK 16:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think it's OK, except for the meteorology tag. Historically though you're right. In OE, the word was just an adverb. It appeared either alone as an inflected adverb, or as a stem-form in compounds. So (deprecated template usage) north wind as a set term is attested much earlier than other more obviously adjectival uses (although there are plenty of them). Another way of looking at it, though: this could be kind of interpreted now as almost an attributive noun – "wind of the north", just like "wind of the desert" and your other examples. Ƿidsiþ 16:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

does one

doesn't one

has one

SOP: does + one. Replace with {{only in|{{in appendix|English tag questions}}}}.​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed, these belong a well-written grammatical appendix on question tags --Elemmemm 22:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Three old discussions are at [[Wiktionary:Tea room/Archive 2009/July#doesn't one]], [[Wiktionary:Tea room/Archive 2006#doesn't one?]], and [[Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Archives/2006/02#does one? and similar entries]], which latter was closed with, if anything, a consensus to delete (but mention at [[do]]).​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Note that we can collect and keep translations of tag questions (and presumably any other pertinent information) at innit and, if we add the sense(!), at right. — Beobach 22:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Remove all skeletons from my closet. DAVilla 08:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I like the appendix idea, not only for simplicity and neatness, but also because I think it's the most user-friendly solution. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clear. Sure, I wasn't opposed to that idea. DAVilla 17:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• The appendix already exists. See Appendix:English tag questions -- ALGRIF talk 20:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Appendicized.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

by leaps and bounds

Looks curiously like [[by]] [[leaps and bounds]]. Furthermore, unless I'm horribly wrong, this is much less common than in leaps and bounds. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge. Furthermore, I think you're horribly wrong. Maybe it's a U.S.-vs.-U.K. thing? —Ruakh_TALK 15:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe so. I've not even heard the shorter. Redirect or even merger would be premature in my view. DAVilla 06:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Redirect, and my Stateside experience matches Ruakh's.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Redirect. Ditto. DCDuring TALK 22:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Redirect. (Says the one who created leaps and bounds :P) ---> Tooironic 11:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. A scan of wikisource shows a preponderance there of the "by" construction. Also, a possible qualitative difference - "in leaps and bounds" seems mainly to describe a way of moving. As well, I think both existing entries are missing a sense of change happening in large discrete bursts (as opposed to rapid, continuous change).

I note that leaps and bounds is defined as adverb. Simple deletion as proposed effectively means parsing "by leaps and bounds" as "by <adverb>" (to become again an adverb). If not an abverb, is "leaps and bounds" idiomatic? Pingku 13:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

As by leaps and bounds is occasionally used after forms of "be" in this sense ("The improvement is by leaps and bounds"), I have made the PoS Prepositional phrase. I have added (deprecated template usage) leaps and bounds. That "by leaps and bounds is in the US (COCA) by far the most common collocation is a good reason to make it a redirect. The great variety (and reasonable frequency) of other collocations is an excellent reason to make leaps and bounds the sole real entry. The UK-US difference in relative frequency of the "in" and "by" collocations is the sole valid rationale for keeping both in leaps and bounds and by leaps and bounds as entries. This could also be handled by a usage note at leaps and bounds#Noun, with the two redirects. (BTW, the "in" form is not dramatically more frequent than the "by" form at BNC. DCDuring TALK 17:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

dude

Per Wiktionary:Requests for verification#dude, this is apparently not an entry for the definition of dude as a camel's penis, but for the claim that some people think that's what it means. We do not include claims in this dictionary, only definitions of actual use. Otherwise nearly every "only in dictionaries" term could be moved to the main dictionary space. DAVilla 17:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. If a "camel's penis" sense were citeable, then it would warrant an etymology section, or at least a usage note, explaining that said sense started as a hoax; or if this belief were exceedingly common, we might want to explicitly address it in some fashion; but even then, this wouldn't warrant a definition line. —Ruakh_TALK 18:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Good point about dictionary-only terms.--Prosfilaes 19:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Replace with a usage note or something similar. It has been verified that some people do think that "dude" means "a camel's penis", and I think that we ought to mention this somewhere. The definition line is, I agree, not the right place though. If I believed in trivia sections then this would fit there, but as I don't I'm not going to recommend creating one! My reasoning is that this is not completely dissimilar to folk etymologies, which we list as such in order to educate our readers that they are not true, and I see no reason to not educate our readers similarly regarding this. Thryduulf (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not just rely on this and the RfV discussion to supplement the existing discussion on Talk:dude? It would join mention of of penises of two other animals as well. Delete. DCDuring TALK 21:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Just delete. SemperBlotto 08:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Brass Monkey

rfd-sense: Template:Australia An Australian lager beer.

Presumably needs to meet WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 03:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

global market

"The international business market and sales opportunities." Same sort of thing as Asian market, upscale market, etc. Should be a sense at (deprecated template usage) market if not already. Equinox ◑ 16:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Sum of parts. Can be re-expressed as "international market", "world market", "foreign market", etc. Delete. ---> Tooironic 21:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I need a bath

This is way too ambiguous. What kind of bath does the speaker need? Does he need a bath tub? Does he need something to wash himself? Does he need a bathroom? There's absolutely no way to guess from this phrase, which makes it unsuitable for a phrasebook. -- Prince Kassad 10:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think, according to usage, most of the time this is going to refer to needing to take a bath. However I think we probably need to research some Google Book hits - for a start, how many are there, and how many refer to taking a bath (washing oneself in a bath tub). I think anything less than 200 for the latter and it could be consider too rare to be "extremely common". Mglovesfun (talk) 11:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The form "you need a bath" is more common, unsurprisingly. Maybe we should give that a phrasebook entry? --Mat200 11:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Surely I need a shower would be more common and useful anyway... ---> Tooironic 20:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

good health

Rfd sense: a state of living without illness, both mental and physical; healthy. --Mat200 14:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to challenge the entry as a whole. The second definition seems to be completely redundant to the first one. -- Prince Kassad 15:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Are toasts an appropriate sense as an ordinary entry? For the phrasebook? to the Queen? Our country...may she always be in the right, but right or wrong, our country!? to the bride and groom? DCDuring TALK 15:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Delete all current senses.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Get rid of the noun senses (they're SoP) but keep the interjection sense, though I would imagine it should be tagged as dated perhaps. ---> Tooironic 20:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

construction site

SoP.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I created this deliberately to see if it would be deleted or not. Let the debate begin. ---> Tooironic 22:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

A debate with no agreed-upon principles. Oh boy. Only Macmillan has it among OneLook dictionaries. Free Dictionary has it as a translation target. Clearly NISoP for decoding. DCDuring TALK 22:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This would be useful for translators. In the languages that I know "construction site" isn't always simply a straightforward translation of "construction" + "site", e.g. Swedish (deprecated template usage) byggplats, German (deprecated template usage) Baustelle, Italian (deprecated template usage) cantiere, Finnish (deprecated template usage) rakennustyömaa. --Hekaheka 05:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Once again, we don't include entries for that reason. If we include construction site because it translates as rakennustyömaa, we include all sorts of noun phrases that translate into German words, and arbitrary phrases that translate into agglutinative languages' phrases. Even neglecting agglutinative languages and German compound nouns, we don't want to include there exists in one's possession just because it translates into (deprecated template usage) יש, etc., etc.​—msh210℠ (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Of the thinkable ways of composing a term meaning "construction site" (building site, erection site, construction place, building place, erection place..) this appears to be by far the most popular. A set phrase? --Hekaheka 07:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

At COCA it appears to meet coordination and modifier tests that would suggest it is indeed a set phrase. (See WT:English set phrases.) Keep DCDuring TALK 11:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete per WT:CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Even if that were a valid reason to keep, note the 600,000 (first-page estimate) Web hits for "a construction or demolition|building site" and the forty-odd Books hits for that and "a demolition and|or construction site". I haven't checked for other terms in coordination.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep at least as a translation target (non-CFI consideration), based on the Italian cantiere and Czech staveniště neither of which is a compounds word. The translations into long-compound-forming languages are not so convincing for the purpose (because arguing with these languages would possibly justify too many translation targets), but also useful. The set phrase consideration is also of merit. There is also a slight scent of idiomacity: a construction site is a place where construction is still ongoing rather than a site at which a building is located, right? --Dan Polansky 12:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

  Invalid rationale. Make it a BP discussion and a vote. DCDuring TALK 14:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

  You seem to assume that a rationale must be already in CFI in order to be valid. I do not share this assumption. You yourself have argued with "set phrase", which I applaud, but a "set phrase" inclusion criterion is not specified in CFI. You have voted for deletion of some terms that are not sum of parts, outside of CFI. --Dan Polansky 18:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

quadral number

Not necessary in this context; we don't have singular number for example (see also Wiktionary:RFD/O#Template:quadral). TeleComNasSprVen 07:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. --Hekaheka 11:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Correct, we don't have dual number, we have dual. Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

seal

Rfd-redundant:

1. Something which will be visibly damaged if a covering or container is opened, and which may or may not bear an official design.

   The result was declared invalid, as the seal on the meter had been broken.

2. Security against unauthorized tampering.

   The spot-check found three containers with broken seals.

I think an adequate definition for the one surviving sense would be:

1. Something which will be visibly damaged if a covering or container is opened.

-- DCDuring TALK 14:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

gunfire

rfd-sense: "The report, or loud sound that shooting a gun creates." This was originally listed at RFV but the consensus was to move it here. Also, it does appear to be attestable. Rationale: the gunfire and the perception of gunfire aren't separate senses, no more than "heard a dog" or "smelt" a dog would justify the senses of dog "the sounds caused by dogs" or "the odor of a dog". Mglovesfun (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

At RFV, DCDuring and I said to delete it. I, and presumably he (this was today), still say so. Lexicografía also seemed to be saying as much.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, delete. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 18:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

radio drama

Sum of parts - a drama broadcast by radio. SemperBlotto 09:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"a form of audio storytelling", that's a really bad definition. Anyway, delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep: It's an art form (genre) and not limited to radio. --Wiki-Updater 2.0 09:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Evidence? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)