Wiktionary:Requests for deletion: difference between revisions

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎travel junkie: new section)
Line 3,830: Line 3,830:
: '''Keep''', and create those fork, knife, spoon, etc... Heka is a phrasebook hater. — <font face="Lucida console">[&#32;'''[[User:Opiaterein|R·I·C]]'''&#32;] <small>[[User talk:Opiaterein|opiaterein]]</small></font> — 12:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
: '''Keep''', and create those fork, knife, spoon, etc... Heka is a phrasebook hater. — <font face="Lucida console">[&#32;'''[[User:Opiaterein|R·I·C]]'''&#32;] <small>[[User talk:Opiaterein|opiaterein]]</small></font> — 12:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
::Don't bear false witness against thy neighbor. I'm not a phrasebook hater. I just don't believe that a useful and usable phrasebook can be created simply by everyone adding whatever sentence occurs in his mind. Writing a phrasebook requires a different kind of discipline than writing a dictionary. We cannot expand "every word in every language" to "every sentence in every language". The result would be a mess. --[[User:Hekaheka|Hekaheka]] 05:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
== <s>[[Pelz-]]</s> ==
== <s>[[Pelz-]]</s> ==

Revision as of 05:03, 18 June 2010

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 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/Others
add new | history

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

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 moves, mergers and splits
add new | history | archives

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

Requests for deletion/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

Requests for verification/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

{{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfd-redundant}} • {{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 to be attested by providing quotations of their use



See also:

Scope: This page is for requests for deletion of pages, entries and senses in the main namespace for a reason other than that the term cannot be attested. One of the reasons for posting an entry or a sense here is that it is a sum of parts, such as "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 requests for deletion in other namespaces such as "Category:" or "Template:", for which see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others. It is also not for requests for attestation. Blatantly obvious candidates for deletion should only be tagged with {{delete|Reason for deletion}} and not listed.

Adding a request: To add a request for deletion, place the template {{rfd}} or {{rfd-sense}} to the questioned entry, and then make a new nomination here. The section title should be exactly the wikified entry title such as "[[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 when a decision to delete, keep, or transwiki has been reached, or after the request has expired. Closing a request normally consists of the following actions:

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

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

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

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

Oldest tagged {{rfd}}s



October 2009

silver jubilee

silver (associated with a twenty-fifth anniversary) + jubilee. We should have the table of these things according to the customs in various cultures. DCDuring TALK 17:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

See Appendix:Anniversary associations, ripped from WP. DCDuring TALK 17:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
We lack the sense of silver, though I agree we shouldn't. If the definitions we have are right — which I doubt — that jubilee is a generic anniversary whereas silver jubilee is especially a monarch's, then keep. Otherwise, delete as SOP.​—msh210 18:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
An appendix sounds like a great idea to me, although this isn't exactly bowling me over as unidiomatic. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep: it is only by providing the meaning of "silver jubilee" at "silver" that this becomes a sum of parts. Or does "silver" in this sense combine with anything else but "jubilee"? Also for those who care: silver jubilee at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky 17:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Silver combines with anniversary.​—msh210 04:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep. see also in Wikipedia. Peleg 17:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete  Silver combines with jubilee, anniversary, wedding, feast, etc. Michael Z. 2010-03-15 18:25 z
Agree, then. But in that case, we should give silver another definition there. Peleg 20:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Done.[1] Note that silver wedding (not a wedding) and silver-feast (not just a feast) are idiomatic, while silver jubilee and silver anniversary, etc are sum-of-parts. These all come to English from the German silberhochzeit, silberne hochzeitMichael Z. 2010-03-25 20:43 z

periodic structure

Saved from speedy (not speedily deletable IMO), but IMO deletable: SoP: google books:"periodic sentence".​—msh210 18:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

We have periodic sentence. Should a definition of periodic structure reference that? I find this sense of "periodic" obscure, as apparently do the OneLook dictionaries that have a separate sense of "periodic" that references "periodic sentence". These same dictionaries do not have "periodic structure". DCDuring TALK 19:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
It needs a serious cleanup because the definition seems vague and difficult to me. I can't really comment before that happens. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Here are some building blocks for the definition [2]:
4. PERIODIC structure: When ideas are unequal because one is logically or emotionally more important than others, and when the writer wants to create a climactic feeling of tension followed by resolution, the periodic sentence can be a good choice. Its structure is the opposite of cumulative structure -- phr or SC + MC. Subordinate clauses and/or phrases precede the main clause, which is located at the end, near the period. (In modern American English, periodic sentences are used more sparingly than the three structures above.)
a. "If it had not been a fairly ordinary thing, in one part of the world, to teach young children to pay the pianoforte, it is doubtful that Mozart's music would exist." (Hearne)
b. "With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in." (Abraham Lincoln, "Second Inaugural Address")
c. "In the case of the omniscient point of view, the narrator sees all and knows all." (Boynton, 250)
It seems, as DCD suggests, that periodic structure is more or less synonymous to periodic sentence. If one wants to see a difference one might conclude that a periodic sentence has a periodic structure. Note that we also have a grammar sense to periodic, which says "having a structure characterized by periodic sentences". To sum up, I would say delete to periodic sructure. --Hekaheka 15:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

paternal half brother

And several ones of the same theme, such as paternal cousin, paternal uncle, paternal aunt, paternal grandmother, paternal grandfather and. Sure paternal is enough?
And for maternal: maternal cousin, maternal uncle, maternal aunt, maternal grandmother, maternal grandfather and maternal half sister. Really strong delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding maternal half brother. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
It kinda seems a shame to delete them after seeing how much work the translators have gone through to tackle these terms. (The Chinese family tree in particular is a nightmare.) However I fail to see how any of them can be justified when they are so obviously SoP. Tooironic 22:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
So, reluctant delete. Tooironic 22:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Useful and interesting. Keep. You cannot show how deleting these would improve the project. Deleting does not save storage space and serves no useful purpose. —Stephen 05:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Surely you can't be suggesting that we keep everything, including SoP's? I don't think anyone thought that deletions were to save a few bytes of the virtually unlimited storage space. --Yair rand 05:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
No one has offered any rationale for deleting useful, thoughtful, and well written and formatted entries such as these. We know why we delete garbage, copyvios, threats, and so on, but no good reason for files such as this. As for SoP, it should not be the justification for deleting anything. If an entry is SoP and has nothing else to recommend it, then it should go; but just because it’s SoP, that should not count against it if it has some saving grace, such as being a set term or if it has educational or informational value, or, as in this case, it is contains linguistic that probably cannot reasonably be preserved and made useful and usable in some other way. SoP is only bad when that is all there is. —Stephen 06:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I could not agree with Stephen more. Ƿidsiþ 06:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I understand perfectly, but I kind of think you could justify keeping almost any article that way. I dislike keeping stuff that doesn't meet CFI (and these are a mile short) just to add translations. This is a dictionary, not a translation project. But point duly noted. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
All set phrases should be kept, because there is at least one interesting thing that should be mentioned: the fact that it's a set phrase. This fact cannot be guessed, and it's important to know it when you use the language. A dictionary is also useful when you try to build sentences, not only when you try to understand sentences. And remember that set phrases are not considered as words by typographers, but that, very often, they are considered as words by linguists. Lmaltier 07:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Previous discussions: Talk:maternal_uncle, Wiktionary:Beer_parlour_archive/2007/November#maternal_and_paternal_family_entries. -- Visviva 12:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I shall point out that I wasn't actually aware of these discussions... and indeed there are some fraternal [] and sororal [] entries too. At some point, the reader has to be able to add two words together and understand what they mean. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
These seem to have failed, does anyone want to disagree? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

November 2009




Wiktionary is not a database of fictional species. --Yair rand 18:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel all that strongly. I supposed we should move to WT:RFV to look for attributive use. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Would you delete unicorn or mermaid? The only question is: are they words? I think so. Lmaltier 21:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it is the only question; while that is your personal policy, it is not our overall policy (not even on fr.wikt I might add). Mglovesfun (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
1st sentence of CFI: As an international dictionary, Wiktionary is intended to include “all words in all languages”.. This principle is also applied on fr.wikt. Lmaltier 21:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Including all trademarks, like these? Someone want to find attributive/generic use? Equinox 16:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If no attributive or generic use is found, the entry Pokémon may simply be moved into Appendix:Pokémon/P. --Daniel. 04:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I can vouch for both of these words being fairly common use amongst younger English kids. They usually say things like my Digimon can beat your Digimon and did you just see that Digimon digivolve? While it might not be able to be used attributively, I still think that we should have an Appendix for both of these terms that list all of the species; that way, we can cover both of these terms without having to suffer the loss of them. Razorflame 13:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think this goes for all toy brands. "My Transformer is cooler than yours. I'm getting an Action Man. She has three Barbies." Equinox 14:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
It does. Razorflame 14:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be a huge mistake to try to include every trademark in a dictionary. Equinox 03:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Does Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Brand names apply here? --Yair rand 18:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete  Unicorn and mermaid are not protected names invented in 1996 to sell toys. Unless someone cites these properly according to the relevant bits of WT:NAMES, our guidelines do not allow them to remain. Michael Z. 2010-03-22 16:38 z

They are words, but if kept should be moved to translingual. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Session Bean

session bean

Has been at WT:RFC since 2006. Isn't this for Wikipedia? The discussion at WT:RFC is: --Volants 13:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't seem to be able to decide whether this is capitalised or not (see the section "Stateful Session Beans", for example). Could someone who is familiar with the terminology check and modify the Wiktionary entry as need be, please. — Paul G 09:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't even work out what it means. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
A bean (w:JavaBean) is a sort of OOP object in Java. w:Enterprise JavaBeans ("EJB") is a standard set of these things for building "enterprise" (i.e. large, important) software applications. These EJB beans are split into three categories: Session Bean, Entity Bean (apparently no longer current), and Message-driven Bean. I see no reason why any of these highly specific "branded" items belongs in a dictionary. Equinox 00:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Now moved to session bean in line with usage in the numerous books from multiple authors and publishers. I don't know whether or not they would be valid for attestation. Independence would be the issue. The term's meaning is constrained by the Java standard. Is that too prescriptive for us? DCDuring TALK 03:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!


rfd senses, they don't make sense

  1. Comic good times marked by special events.
  2. A parade group masquerading, especially when overstepping the bounds of decorum; a time of riotous excess.

--Volants 13:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete as nonsense, redundant, wrong etc.
I'm adding (3) The season just before the beginning of the Roman Catholic season of Lent, when New Orleans has its Mardi Gras carnival. Shouldn't that be Carnival as a proper noun? Or is it just a special case of 1. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
This isn't a proper deletion rationale, is it? Send to RFV. Equinox 00:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I think #1 and #2 are poorly worded and redundant, and #3 should be moved to Carnival and then RFV'd as a proper noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
#3 has been moved to Carnival, per Lent, Christmas, Easter et al. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

look back

Tagged but not listed. A candidate for "used literally" AFAICT. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "a candidate for 'used literally'"? DCDuring TALK 16:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Look back for "look behind oneself" wouldn't be seen as deserving an entry on its own, but because of the figurative sense someone added the literal one. Compare, say, second hand, which could be used in a sentence like "My first hand fell off due to leprosy but I still have a second hand to eat with". Equinox 16:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I had favored the literal sense and might still favor under exigent circumstances, but not when the literal meaning is incredibly obvious (this case) nor when the literal meanings are numerous. Delete. DCDuring TALK 16:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete per above. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The sense not tagged ("To reminisce about a past time") seems unidiomatic to me as well: it's "think" + "to the past", like "looking forward to his meeting" and "thinking back to his days as a camper". Not sure, though.​—msh210 17:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Now tagged.​—msh210 17:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  1. We don't have senses of "look" or "back" that are clearly applicable. Until we have them it seems OTT to delete this.
  2. RHU, AHD, and Wordnet; Cambridge, McGraw-Hill, and AH idiom dictionaries all have this.
  3. Should we have don't look back or a sense at look back for that idiom? DCDuring TALK 22:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

To me, the 'obvious' meaning of look back is to look in the opposite direction to that in which one is travelling, i.e., back towards where one has just been, as in "As I walked away, I looked back to see that she had turned around and was talking to someone else." To look back in time is an extension of this sense. Pingku 18:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

call on


  1. (idiomatic) In a classroom, to select a student.

Is redundant to

  1. (idiomatic) To request or ask of somebody; to select for a task.

They don't look the same, but I think they are. If you 'call on' a student, it's always going to be for them to do something isn't it? Plus surely it doesn't have to be a student. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep. In sense 1, a teacher can "call on" a student who has his/her hand up, thereby giving said student permission to ask a question; but I don't think that fits at all with sense 2. (I'm not sure how well-defined the distinction is between the two senses — there definitely seems to be overlap — but I really don't think a single def could cover both.) —RuakhTALK 22:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd be really suprised if the sense is as narrow as "In a classroom, to select a student". So it has to be a student, not only that, but in a classroom. Can I not call at someone at work, or call on someone in a classroom that's not a student? Or call on a student but outside the classroom. Granted, classroom is a meronym for "educational setting", but there is that ambiguity. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
You're right that there are some other situations where this sense of "call on" is applicable — for example, a person holding a press conference chooses which reporter to "call on", allowing said reporter to ask his or her question (see e.g. this b.g.c. hit, found via a search for "called on the reporter") — but I think you're wrong that this sense is redundant with the "request" sense, given that it's just as often a matter of giving permission as of making a request. (I wonder if there's a U.S./U.K. difference here?) —RuakhTALK 19:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good, Ruakh. Keep.​—msh210 19:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with nom's assessment. Ƿidsiþ 12:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The newly added sense doesn't seem to be a phrasal verb. I think there are many adverbials that can fill the "on it" slot, even when clauses, but most especially prepositional phrases headed by "on", "about", "concerning", "re", "over".

There seem to be distinguishable senses:

  1. calling on someone to do something (which seems to be what we have) and
  2. calling on something (in the sense of drawing down a resource, possibly a personal resource)

The challenged sense does not seem to require an infinitive, in contrast to 1 and 3 which do seem to. It seems a stretch to deem sense 2 an elliptical version of one of the others. I don't think too much can be made of a student or audience member having raised their hand or not. In classrooms and certain types someone at the front of the room may have the power to ask a question of an individual. The common element seems to be the ability of someone in the front to invite an individual in the audience to speak. DCDuring TALK 00:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

And isn't there a sense of "call on" that means initiate (?) courting. I think it might lead to "keeping company with", which in turn might lead to dancing. DCDuring TALK 00:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think any of the senses requires an infinitive. Sense #3 ("to request [] ") seems to require, or almost require, an additional complement besides the person called on; that complement is usually either an infinitive or a for-phrase indicating what is being requested, but sometimes it's some other random adverbial. (I've added a citation of each type — infinitive, for, and other; please take a look.) —RuakhTALK 01:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

December 2009


"Source Navigator, an IDE for many different programming languages." It's a specific software product, not a generic noun, and apparently not even "notable" enough to have a Wikipedia article. Equinox 21:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete.RuakhTALK 18:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Unsure, looks like it would pass an RFV. At the very least, move to upper case if it's a proper noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

live blog

A blog that is live. The noun, at least, should be deleted for the same reason live music was. Equinox 00:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete unless someone can explain why not to. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
As both a noun and a verb, this occurs pretty often with the spelling liveblog—which I see also has an entry. Maybe merge the definitions and make live blog an {{alternative spelling of}} liveblog? —Caesura(t) 14:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, keep per WT:COALMINE (which didn't yet exist when this was rfd'ed). Mglovesfun (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Kept per COALMINE. Modified liveblog to an alt.sp. entry.​—msh210 19:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

mais oui

bah non

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. —RuakhTALK 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. —RuakhTALK 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. —RuakhTALK 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)

killing me softly

Is this actually used as an idiom, or it is just a line from a well-known song? At the very least, can it be moved to kill someone softly? I'm not saying it can, I'm just asking. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, should definitely be added as the lemma form (kill someone softly). A quick Google search reveals many idiomatic usages: "All of a sudden, he was killing me softly and I was on the floor dying laughing." / "Within three days of working with the devil's advocate who goes by name of an agent, I realized that he was killing me softly." / "Everyone said that she was killing me softly without me realizing it." / "Like the silence at a funeral. Nothing can be said. But nobody knows him so let the rain fall down. Because they killed him softly." etc. Tooironic 01:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

kill off

Rfd-redundant: To kill off as in a soap opera. Isn't this just the same meaning as #1 but in a fictional setting? If Homer Simpson murders Marge Simpson, that doesn't merit an "idiomatic" second meaning for murder, does it? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Other dictionaries defined "kill off" as "to kill in large numbers" and "to kill totally". The "kill totally" sense works for "killing off", say, a bottle of vodka. The fictional-work sense under discussion seems attestable. Some issues are:
  1. Is it just "kill" and intensifying "off"?
  2. Is there a sense with scope broader than its current wording?
  3. Wording.
-- DCDuring TALK 15:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
AFAICT both senses are the same, I just wanted some more opinions than my own in case I'm wrong. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
But you've opened to door to more. The entry needs improvement and what better time than now? And if not us, who? DCDuring TALK 16:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
More what? Senses? We might be talking at cross purposes here. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
In sense 1, is there one sense? Or two? What is that meaning? Is it "eliminate" in the sense of "make extinct" or just "eliminate"? Is "make extinct" a different sense? I could show that "kill off" in the sense of "make extinct" is the most common meaning. Given the current meaning of "extinct", that meaning does not fit "killing off" a single person (real or fictional). The "eliminate" sense might work for both vodka and Marge Simpson, but it is clearly distinct from the "make extinct" sense. The entries usage case of "killing off" multiple characters muddies the waters.
BTW, Encarta has the second sense, even mentioning soap operas. DCDuring TALK 18:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The "soap opera" sense on Encarta and others is not within the fictional setting; it refers to the writers of the program eliminating the character through a scripted death. So, this is not a question of using the word in the same sense fictitiously. --EncycloPetey 18:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
To "write out of the script". Hmm. But AFAICT it always refers to the character(s) dying in some way. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes. The term could also be applied to Melville's treatment of the character Bulkington in his novel Moby Dick. The character is introduced as if he is going to play a significant role, but never does, and later is "killed off" by the author in an ocean storm. --EncycloPetey 19:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Good example. Keep. In a funny sort of way, I like being wrong in cases like this, because of learnt something. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete  The author didn't “portray” her character, she created him and then made him dead – gave him life and killed him, conclusively; killed him off. If an author made a character rich beyond his dreams, should we add a sense to make meaning “to represent or portray as made,” along with every other transitive verb? Michael Z. 2010-03-22 17:24 z

Delete per MZ.​—msh210 17:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete, per above. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sense deleted.​—msh210 19:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

break in the case

Just one of the meanings of the noun break AFAICT. Not an English "idiom". Mglovesfun (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

By the logic sometimes used, because this could be a "crack" in the "box", but usually isn't, we should keep it. DCDuring TALK 12:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
We are definitely missing senses at break#Noun. I can think of two already. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
That's the most productive aspect of multi-word RfDs: additional figurative senses of component words. DCDuring TALK 12:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
But what's the appropriate definition of break in this phrase? We already have "(by ellipsis) A lucky break" and "(British, weather) a change; the end of a spell of persistent good or bad weather". Is it one of those, perhaps? (The second would then need to be written more generally, of course.) We also of course have the sense "A physical space that opens up in something or between two things". Is it something like that, but worth splitting off because of its metaphoric use? Not sure what break in this case (sorry) means.​—msh210 16:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it is something like the sense I just added at break#Noun before the lucky break sense: An abrupt change in the normal flow of a process. We are, of course, still missing at least a have dozen senses. DCDuring TALK 17:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!


  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 (talkcontribs) has effected the deletion of these senses and kept their translation tables.​—msh210 16:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

go out with

I think this should be merged into go out. (Note that our current defs don't cover something like How long have they been going out?.) —RuakhTALK 14:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree. While go out could be improved, and we maybe should include go out together, I think that go out with, while not always a phrasal verb, has a simple idiomatic meaning which cannot be adequately covered at go out. Compare 1) I'm going out with John. and 2) I'm going out with John tomorrow. We might well consider that with is simply a linking preposition. But a phrasal verb with 2 particles is not separable, so now consider 3) I'm going out tomorrow with John.. So the sense with no romantic attachment implied can separate the with, but the first example implies romantic attachment as an idiomatic sense and hence as a phrasal verb. -- ALGRIF talk 16:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Algrif. Two folks can be "going out with" each other without necessarily "going out" at all. Though in many cases ontogeny recapitulates etymology, with people actually having dates in public before becoming intimate, a "being intimate on a recurring basis" sense seems separable from the path to the state. DCDuring TALK 16:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Considering the difference between the romantic sense (stative?) and the one-time or even repetitive sense. I think it is possible to say "I went out for three years with Alice, but only two with Beth." in the romantic sense. This separates the purportedly inseparable. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 23:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Re: 'Two folks can be "going out with" each other without necessarily "going out" at all.': No, I don't think so. I think "they're going out", in the relevant sense, is exactly synonymous with "they're going out with each other." Neither one absolutely requires "out"-ness. (Do you also see a difference between "they're dating" and "they're dating each other"?) —RuakhTALK 17:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
This is seeming like a matter of attestation of the relevant sense of go out - and not the easiest kind. Keep without prejudice, pending new definitions at go out and possibly their attestation. DCDuring TALK 18:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Unsure, it could be a redirect or an entry. As pointed out, go out can take other prepositions than "with". Mglovesfun (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge per Ruakh. Ƿidsiþ 20:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
What about the sense in "His clothes 'went out with disco."?
We also have go with. It is not hard to find idiom/phrasal verb dictionaries that include all of these and other related multi-word terms such as go together. We seem to include many terms that no other references include with similarly marginal qualification under CFI.

Redirected.​—msh210 19:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

make a fool of oneself

The English idiom (if it really is an idiom) is to make a fool of. My vote is to move to make a fool of, keeping redirect. There is an Italian translation. DCDuring TALK 17:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsure, when the redirect object is oneself I think it changes the meaning. I made a fool of my father/I made a fool of myself. The first suggests intentional, the second suggests unintentional. So we should keep both, I think, but I'm not all that sure. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing that prevents one or the other from being either unintentional of intentional, whatever the relative likelihoods. We are so far removed from properly presenting sophisticated implicature that it doesn't seem a worthwhile consideration for the next year or two. But I would love to see the difference in wording of the two entries with all the implicature presented. Implicature is often context-driven, isn't it, not really lexical. DCDuring TALK 20:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
To clarify, intention is not an explicit part of the definitions. And the implications are only probabilistic, not logical. DCDuring TALK 20:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Move per nom. Is make a fool out of synonymous?​—msh210 16:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
My Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs shows out as optional and offers make a monkey of (with optional out) as a synonym. DCDuring TALK 18:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved. Kept the redirect.​—msh210 19:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


My inclination is to keep this, but we don't have enough uses (only mentions). —RuakhTALK 18:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Why? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Because of Dominic's last comment in the RFV discussion. —RuakhTALK 21:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


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). —RuakhTALK 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? —RuakhTALK 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. —RuakhTALK 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)

Daidiao Pinyin

Delete. "toned pinyin"; sum of parts --- Tooironic 14:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete, AFAICT you're right. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
We need an expert in Chinese grammar or linguistics to tell us if this is an idiomatic term or merely a sum-of-parts--达伟 15:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
To follow on Tooironic: shouldn't be capitalised - it's not a proper noun.--达伟 00:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure hyphens are rarely used in pinyin, and almost certainly not for an adjective-noun construction. And "pinyin" is not capitalized in pinyin Chinese (or English I believe) --达伟 15:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • so, what is your suggestion?

Shengdiao Shuzi

Delete. "(pinyin) tone number"; sum of parts --- Tooironic 14:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, can anyone guess what tone number means from tone + number? Not me, and the English has an entry here. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Nonetheless, it shouldn't be capitalised - it's not a proper noun. Tooironic 00:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure hyphens are rarely used in pinyin, and almost certainly not for an adjective-noun construction. --达伟 15:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • so, what is your suggestion?

Shijieyu yundong

Delete. "(the) Esperanto movement"; sum of parts --- Tooironic 14:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete, AFAICT you're right. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what the rules are, but we should only delete this if we would similarly delete an article for New Culture Movement or May Fourth Movement, etc. Would we delete Esperanto Movemenment/movement in English? --达伟 15:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
We already deleted hippy movement, so I'd say so. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Yep, and the fact that Esperanto movement doesn't have a Wikipedia page is a dead give away too. Tooironic 23:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Wudiao Pinyin

Delete. "toneless pinyin"; sum of parts --- Tooironic 14:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC) ... all created by User:123abc. Perhaps someone should talk to this user about SoPs. --- Tooironic 14:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete, AFAICT you're right. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
We need an expert in Chinese grammar or linguistics to tell us if this is an idiomatic term or merely a sum-of-parts--达伟 15:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
To follow on Tooironic: shouldn't be capitalised - it's not a proper noun.--达伟 00:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure hyphens are rarely used in pinyin, and almost certainly not for an adjective-noun construction. And "pinyin" is not capitalized in pinyin Chinese (or English I believe) --达伟 15:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • so, what is your suggestion?


Rfd-redundant: slang UK intensifier, with usage example "Well wicked"

This seems like the normal degree sense applied to a slang term. Am I missing something? DCDuring TALK 22:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It "feels like" a separate sense to me. "That film was well good" seems ungrammatical in normal English. You'd say it was "very good" or perhaps "well made". When I read "well good", "well wicked" etc. I immediately know it's extreme slang usage. Equinox 02:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, it is fairly redundant to the definition above, but this one needs the context templates {{context|British|informal}} (not really slang), where as "this author is well-known" definitely isn't (British, informal). Mglovesfun (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps wicked needs some tag it doesn't already have. I've read that it has been used in what seems like the same sense in parts of the US, where its usage has radiated from New England, especially eastern Massachusetts. "Well" is an ordinary degree adverb. Much of the pool of such can be used interchangeably. There may well be regional differences in their relative frequency, but we haven't documented them. I can't imagine that we can document (attest) spatial and temporal changes in register of colloquial SoP collocations usefully enough to make such differences a rationale for keeping terms that would not otherwise meet CFI. I think we (en.wikt community) may be coming to the time where we have to challenge some of the more ambitious claims of meaning and distribution that are being made and used to justify inclusion arguments. Either attestation or references rather than assertions would help. DCDuring TALK 17:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I have added three citations. Note the very slangy register (e.g. "Hey dude" in one of them). Equinox 13:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
That the word is used with informal or slang terms doesn't make it slang. I doubt anyone can find any difference in denotation between the word as used in the more formal examples I have inserted and the slangy cites.
The previous usage example with "known" made is seem more like a manner adverb modifying as it did something that probably was not a true adjective, but a past participle used as a part of a passive construction. The inserted citations are all with unambiguously true adjectives, I think. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 16:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
But it doesn't mean the same thing as the other senses. The only one that comes close is "Completely, fully"; but "well good" doesn't mean "completely good" or "fully good", only "very good". Equinox 18:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Based on a comparision of BNC and COCA, it seems that "well" is used with words that express evaluation (cool, strange, stupid, weird, worthy, nice, funny, wicked) or personal emotional state (glad, happy, chuffed, annoyed) in the UK much more than in the US (familiar, content, worthwhile). Both corpora show use with a wide range of other pure adjectives (past, short, shy, clear, wide, open; early, late, old, dead; aware; able, capable) and past participles. Does that constitute a separate sense or does it merely narrow the list of possible synonyms that could substitute in all situations? DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 19:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't see any difference of this usage from the "(degree) To a significant degree" usage. How is "well good" or "well cool" different from "well capable" or "well content"? It's still the same "well" just intensifying other adjectives. If "well cool" or "well wicked" come into common use, maybe they could be idioms. Until then, it's just an author's or speaker's choice of which words to put together. Facts707 09:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, couldn't we just put an entry under "usage notes" for wicked, good, etc. that says in the UK people use "well" in front of them, but elsewhere that is not done, instead really, very, extremely, and any number of other adverbs are used. Facts707 09:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete per DCDuring. Perhaps add a usage note.​—msh210 18:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


Was listed at RFV. The consensus was that it belongs here instead. —RuakhTALK 14:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly sum of parts, but if you consider it to be one word rather than two, wouldn't we have to keep it? Special:PrefixIndex indicates a few more of the same. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah the great dilemma of sum-of-partness of affixed word. For what it's worth, I'm in favor of deleting. Circeus 16:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The definition doesn't seem accurate, which might be a sign that there is more than one reading of this, which might be a CFI-relevant reason to keep it. If one is an adult when one's mother marries a man, is that person thereby one's stepfather in English usage? I think not. I suppose this is really my issue with many definitions of stepfather.
OTOH, the definition focuses so much on the relationship to the mother that the definition seems "idiomatic". Isn't this just "a stepfather from whom a child's (natural only or also adoptive?) mother has divorced"? No OneLook reference has the RfDed term, so if we keep it we should attest it and have a full and satisfactory entry, probably with at least one citation per sense. DCDuring TALK 17:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
FWIW keep, this is stepfather prefixed with ex-. It's sum of parts, but catlike, noteworthy and readable are also sum of parts, but it doesn't matter because they are all one word. So is this, ergo it is not elligible for deletion. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
To choose another example, who would like to see re-lay deleted as sum of parts (re- + lay). Mglovesfun (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete as SoP. Anglophones will look up the parts of a word that has a hyphen in it, whereas they will treat catlike as one word. (I've no data to support this contention.) Do we really want ex-football player (bgc), ex-movie star (bgc), etc.?​—msh210 18:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
As I say, if you treat ex- as a prefix, this wouldn't qualify for deletion. I'd accept cat-like and god-like, but Tetris-like is listed for deletion. So I'll abstain. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Kept, no consensus.​—msh210 19:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

be in possession

To have, to own. Though some "be" + complement expressions are probably idiomatic (eg be had, see Category:English predicates), this does not seem so. (The definition also would require that the headword included "of".) To include expressions of the form "be" + prepositional phrase would make for a lexical treatment of the grammatical on a massive scale. I suppose that might be good if we are building a machine-translation database for fairly dumb software, but it ill serves human language learners. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 19:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This phrase looks peculiar to English; I can't say it this way in Czech. How should I know that this is a valid way of saying "to have", "to own" or "to possess"? Are there other phrases formed on an analogy to "to be in possession" from which the validity of this phrase could be estimated? Like, I see it as straightforward that a car is in my possession or among my possessions, but not that I am in possession of a car. I, a non-native, register "to be in possession" as a peculiarity of English worth learning. I can say "I have a car", "I own a car" and "I possess a car", but I can only say "I am in possession of a car" and not "I am in having of a car" or "I am in owning of a car"; but correct me if I get this wrong.
However, OneLook dictionaries do not have the phrase. --Dan Polansky 23:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Consider simpler entries at in possession (also used alone in sports for a player who has the ball), in possession of Equinox 23:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I think what's peculiar about English is that we use prepositional phrases a lot. Prepositions seem to be a partial substitute for declension of nouns. They carry much of the grammatical burden in English.
The general structure is "in X of Y". The sense of "in" is something like "in a state or condition of". The focus is on the person who is in the state X, with respect to the object of the state, Y. The sense of "of" seems to be the same as the sense of "of" that applies to the agency noun formed from X: "I am the possessor of Y."
For this one, some close analogs are "in custody of", "in control of", "in command of", and "in receipt of". Similar are "in tenancy of", "in contravention of", "in expectation of", "in breach of", "in violation of", "in need of", "in default of", "in agency of", "in service of". Some of these are common and there are probably many more. Almost all of the states or conditions are sometimes legally or otherwise formally meaningful.
Lexically, the meaning seems to be in the particular senses of "in" and "of"
The idiom, if you could call it that might be in the structure "in X of Y", with X ranging over probably fewer than a hundred nouns and Y governed by the X. That seems much more like grammar and context than something lexical, but perhaps someone can come up with a useful way to present this or another way to look at it. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 02:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Move per Equinox. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Move to in possession. As stated, if "be" + prep. phrase is not specially idiomatic, or otherwise of note, then the entry should simply be the prepositional phrase. I suspect there are a lot of "be" entries to be found and moved also. -- ALGRIF talk 15:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Move to in possession. It's used also without be, for example, "debtor in possession" (as a modifier).--达伟 15:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I !vote in support of deletion, but I think the definition of "in" is in need of another sense, whereby the meaning of this could be easily derived from the definitions of its separate components. I am in agreement with DCDuring that this is grammar rather than idiom, but I am in doubt over whether "in X of Y" is really distinct from the general sense "in a state of", where "X of Y" is the object of the preposition and "of Y" simply modifies "X". Perhaps I am just in denial about subjectivity turning Wiktionary into a phrasebook, which may be unavoidable since, by design, nobody is in charge of the wiki. (Not being a linguist, I am in want of a way to explain "in a state of" without using "in" circularly. This is probably the reason for the inadequate choice of "pertaining to" in sense #4.) ~ Ningauble 22:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes. It is a figurative sense of "in". "In" isn't really all that easy to define rigorously even in a physical sense. MWOnline doesn't bother trying to define in terms of other prepositions: they use "non-gloss definitions" beginning "A function word ....". We obviously don't learn the most basic grammatical terms from dictionaries. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 23:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I think this (in "in possession", "in support", "in need", "in denial", "in want of") is the same sense of in as the recently added (by me) "Denoting a state of the subject: He stalked away in anger; John is in a coma". Not 1000% (sic) sure. Thoughts?​—msh210 18:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. That is the second sense (of ten preposition senses) listed at Encarta, not the last. I wonder how to characterize under what circumstance nouns appear without an article or determiner, as in "in possession of" vs. "in the throes of" vs. "in a rage" vs. "in rage" vs. "in the rage (to...)". DCDuring TALK 21:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
It's more general than nouns, too ("I love eating", "I love to eat", "I adore eating" but not "I adore to eat"). Realistically the best we can do is probably to provide a good, broad set of examples or citations. Equinox 21:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Re "how to characterize under what circumstance nouns appear without an article or determiner", does that not depend on countability of the noun?​—msh210 16:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I only meant after "in". Certainly countability is associated with it. I was wondering whether there might be some kind of semantic difference in the sense of "in" for the with-article/determiner and without-article/determiner uses. Perhaps not. "In" doesn't seem to change its sense much among "in rage", "in a rage", "in his rage". DCDuring TALK 18:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete per existence of "state of the subject" sense of in: SOP.​—msh210 19:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

bend the truth

One can "bend", "distort", "stretch", "twist", and "slant" the truth. All of those are possible because the truth is metaphorically straight, but malleable in the hands of the clever. To call "bend the truth" an idiom would certainly be testing the elasticity of any reasonable definition of idiom. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 00:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

While the metaphor or figure of bending the truth is comprehensible for me without further explanation, you cannot normally bend the truth in Czech, although Google search finds some hits of the Czech word-for-word analogue google:"ohýbat pravdu", to my surprise. The question is, how do we document for the foreign-language readers that bending the truth is a common figure in English, when this particular figure is uncommon or nonexistent in their native tongues? --Dan Polansky 11:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Your first clause ought to end the discussion. That is the point. A dictionary entry is to help decode. I do not see how it can help encode. I have not seem much effort to translate truly idiomatic expressions, in any event. Would it help if I started inserting trreqs to assist translators in locating them? DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 11:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, yes, it can help encode (e.g. through the use of categories, synonyms, etc.)! This is why including set phrases is important. Writers do use dictionaries! Lmaltier 14:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Keep. It is not at all intuitive that the "truth" is "straight" and is subject to physical malformation. Consider that there is no comparable expression for what should logically be the opposite phrase: to "straighten a lie" (or to compact, untwist, or level one). bd2412 T 00:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
DCDuring, I don't see how the fact that a lot of similar phrases exists can mean that this is sum of parts. Not all that obvious what this means from the sum of its parts, so I suppose it should be kept, although I don't like it much. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I brought it here because I am looking to understand better the concept of idiom. Are all of the others also idiomatic? stretch the truth, twist the truth, twist someone's words, distort the truth, slant the truth? We should have many opportunities since the lexicon is awash with verbs that have concrete main senses with figurative application to things that are not concrete. Is it only the Old English verbs that make for these being idioms? Help me out, please. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 01:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) I would consider all the listed terms figurative and some peculiar to English, hence idiomatic in one sense of "idiomatic". I cannot stretch the truth or slant the truth in Czech as far as I remember, so knowing that the listed phrases are actually used in English is useful for a non-native speaker in English composition; yes, in the encoding direction (mentalese -> English) as contrasted to decoding (English -> mentalese). Truth is not a physical object; it has to be cast as a physical object such as metal wire before the listed verbs can be applied to it.
Whether these terms should be documented in the mainspace can be discussed; what I am saying is that (a) per being figurative, the terms are not plain and pure sum-of-parts such as "blue car" or "to wash dishes" but at best tricky sum-of-parts if sum-of-parts at all, and (b) that the terms need to be documented somewhere for the FL speaker of English.
In particular, I did not know that "to stretch the truth" means "to exaggerate"; several example sentences would be helpful I think. --Dan Polansky 09:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe that, in the end, these things fit better in a thesaurus, which is a better tool for going from mentalese to words. We can always use principal namespace to collect them. It will take quite a while. I have begun tagging some Verb entries that we have as Category:English predicates if they contain a complement (not an adverb). I estimate we have a thousand or so in Category:English verbs. If we want to get a lot of these from the general population of users, we would need to let them know that we are not at all like other dictionaries. Perhaps we need a "metaphor of the week" ("MOTW") (eg, "Truth is straight but flexible") in addition to WOTD. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 11:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete per DCDuring. A usage note s.v. truth may be in order, something like "Truth, whether referred to by the term truth or otherwise, is metaphorically considered straight, and can be bent; hence such phrases as bend the truth, twist the facts, and twist his words.". Perhaps such a usage note can be added to various of the verbs (bend, etc.) used, too.​—msh210 19:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but I think [[bend]] might actually need an entire additional sense; none of the current senses seems to cover “bend the truth”, “bend the rules”, etc. —RuakhTALK 21:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Before we get too committed to the idea that all metaphors should be included in en.wikt. please examine the quotes I have added to bend the truth and stretch the truth. Pay special attention to the quote from w:Tom Clancy at "bend". By my count he manages seven metaphors in the passage quoted. How many of them should we include? How do we differentiate between those in and those out? DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 20:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Following are some candidate metaphorical uses of "bend" taken from COCA:
bend the rules, bend the law, bend one's knee (submit), bend the facts.
We already have bend someone's ear, bend one's elbow, bend over backwards. In the one's we have both of the "heavy" words are used in the same metaphorical universe. If that is what makes an idiom (vs. mere figurative use of a word), then bend one's knee is an idiom and the others are not. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 23:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Copying the Tom Clancy quote over for reference:
  • 2001, Tom Clancy, The Bear and the Dragon ((Please specify the language of the quote)):
    Lua error in Module:usex/templates at line 41: The parameter "1" is required.
I'm not seeing the problem here. Most of the figurative uses here are similes, X like Y, which I think we have long since agreed do not belong in a dictionary. To say that a man is as strong as an ox, or strong like an ox, is not the same as saying that he is an ox (which is itself only a sense of the word ox). There is simply nothing metaphorical about the behavior of a cloud of steam in a high wind, or a flood following the breakup of an icebound river in springtime. Now, "hard facts", I can see as having an idiomatic element, because it is assigning a physical characteristic to an abstract thing. bd2412 T 23:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
A simile requires an explicit marker. The most common ones are "like" and "as". There are indeed two uses of "like" in the passage. One marks the "dream evaporating like a cloud of steam". The other marks "reality pouring in like a flood". I see nothing else to mark anything as a simile. Accordingly, the remaining non-literal expressions must be metaphors and a mix that made me laugh out loud when reading them:
on the lookout for facts (wandering over the greensward?)
hard facts (not those on paper or carried on puffs of air)
people besotted with a dream (cheap dates if you catch them right after waking)
service to the dream (the dream is my lord) (Note the connection to "bend" as an indication of subservience.)
truth had broken through (some unstated barrier)
All of these are metaphors, whether or not they are reflected in secondary senses of the polysemic component words. The difference between multiword metaphors that should be included and those that are not meritorious is the one that eludes me. We have no effective objective criteria and don't seem to want any. We usually don't even take the trouble to determine whether any professional lexicographers at other reference works think terms are worth inclusion. Thus, in practice, our criteria appear to be utterly subjective. But, since we are all reasonable men and women, representative of the users we are ostensibly serving, that's supposed to be OK. I don't think that there are even enough of us expressing opinions to be a statistically sufficient sample of whatever population we represent.
BTW, similes that we have are cunningly concealed at Category:English similes. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 01:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
On the lookout for facts - facts can be in writing, or can be of a physical thing. I see a dam being built over a river, the construction of the dam is a tangible fact for which I can be on the lookout. Twisting the facts, on the other hand, would be purely idiomatic. If I said someone was twisting the facts, would you visualize that person physically manipulating something? Hard facts I have conceded above, and I think it should have an entry. Similarly, to be besotted by something or to be in service to something are both as easily and generally applicable to abstract ideas as to physical entities. To say the truth had broken through is a bit closer of a case, but not the same because the phrase "to break through" is often used with abstractions. Any emotional experience you can think of can be described as having "broken through". Bending applies to a much smaller universe of abstractions - the truth, the law, the rules, your mind, but note how the meaning is different in each case. If love or anger or purity has "broken through", the meaning of "broken through" remains roughly the same. To bend the truth or the facts, on the the other hand, does not mean the same thing as to bend the law or the rules (or to bend your ear, or your mind). bd2412 T 03:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
"Truth" is not always straight per se, but:
  • True (adjective): Conforming to a specification or standard, esp. being geometrically precise (e.g. straight, square, round, or in alignment). [3]
  • True (verb, transitive): To straighten. To make geometrically precise. [4]
Bending in the physical sense is a specific type of distortion, but I think this sense of "bend" is really just:
  • Bend (verb, transitive): Syn. distort, as applied to non-physical or non-geometrical entities, such as truth, process, or mind.
And likewise for "twist". However, in the current definition of "distort" (etymologically, "to twist apart") sense 3 is over-specific. If the definitions were improved a bit, the meaning of the phrase would be obvious from its constituent parts.~ Ningauble 17:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Dunno, I don't think that if you can substitute one word for another, that makes them all sum of parts. Consider and shit, and crap, and whatnot. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that "bend the truth" and "twist the truth" are exactly synonymous with "distort the truth", with no difference in connotation, but that "stretch the truth" is more specific as to the type of distortion. Physical bending, twisting, and stretching are all distinct types of distortion. ~ Ningauble 04:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
In any event, I have augmented or revised bend, stretch, and distort to reflect the kinds of senses that other dictionaries have, some of which seem to me to be applicable. "Bend", in particular, was missing quite a few senses (c. five), one relevant to the discussion.
The sad fact is that we can rarely rely on en.wikt definitions to resolve our own definitional questions. The good news is that every RfD is likely to reveal opportunities for component-word entry improvement. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 19:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
"True" and "truth" are different things. Would you say that a straight line is the truth? If you make something geometrically precise, have you made it the truth? bd2412 T 20:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that was a bit of a digression. (Reading dictionaries tends to cast my mind adrift on a stream of consciousness.) "True" and "truth" are not the same part of speech, and have different senses. Although one speaks of the "trueness" of an assertion or a doorjamb and may say that they are "true", a true assertion may be called "the truth" but not a true doorjamb. However, calling a true assertion "the truth" is really only a loose way of speaking: it is the thing asserted rather than the assertion that is "the truth". Only an artistic spirit or a Pythagorean would call a doorjamb "the truth", even in this loose sense.
But still, I digress. : ) ~ Ningauble 04:14, 24 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:
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)


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)

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)


The adjective and noun sections are not actually distinct from the verbal -ing form. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 18:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


Keep, it meets our test for being an adjective, it's gradable. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

What was I thinking? or smoking? DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 15:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
You can withdraw that then? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


Delete, not a noun, none of the citations in the article use it as a noun AFAICT either. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep? The "amazing", as a noun, is simply an obscure "that which amazes (someone/thing)" or a collective "things which amaze (people)". Quite clearly fitting the use in the quotes. --HeWhoPonders 09:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No. It's like "the poor", "the rich", "the aged", "the young". Not really a noun. Plus the definition we have says it's an action, not a set of things. Equinox 09:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Right. There's hardly an English -ing-form that can't be used this way. DCDuring TALK 14:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


Sense: "(figuratively, slang) Any very large number, exceeding normal description." This seems to just be an instance of exaggeration, which could be done with any particularly large or small number. --Yair rand 04:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

True, but that's not a reason to delete it, or is it? I don' t object all that much to this entry, but I wouldn't actively want these created either. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete.​—msh210 20:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!


I don't think this is a suffix, the derived terms are compounds of Lua error in Module:compound/templates at line 45: Please enter a language code in the first parameter. rather than words that are suffixed. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

So a big-ass truck is "big" + "ass" + "truck" ? Polarpanda 21:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
No, it's a big-ass + truck; but -ass is not a suffix. You can have a badly-made chair, but that doesn't mean we should have an entry at -made. Equinox 22:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
But "badly made chair" is "badly" + "made" + "chair". "Made" has an independent existence with this sense. Polarpanda 23:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
It isn't a suffix, it is a being used as an intensifier. We should include it as an adverb in the definition of ass but it shouldn't have a suffix page. - [The]DaveRoss 23:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
If it was an adverb, you should be able to use it by itself, like "made". Polarpanda 00:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

wrap around one's little finger

Rfd-redundant: Original sense seems too specialized. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 17:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete/merge with #1. Some citable examples might help to understand the word too. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleted.​—msh210 20:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

January 2010


This entry and the following: velsaynik aysi aysay Velsayn veluydel were all tagged for speedy deletion as nonstandard ficticious spellings. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

New York, New York

Pointless, like having an entry for Toronto, Ontario or Sydney, Australia. --Yair rand 06:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Such entries should be kept only when they can be considered as words (which is probably the case for Washington, D.C.). Lmaltier 06:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete, overly encyclopedic and/or bad entry title. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Move to RfV to see whether it meets CFI. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 11:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep if its special sense can be demonstrated - isn't it from the song of the same name?. Maybe for some Americans it's used in a certain way. Tooironic 19:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Not seeing a special sense in the entry. What did you have in mind? The only meaning I know is the one we have: the city of New York in the state of New York, like Toronto, Ontario. (Note fwiw that the city is actually named New York (in some places given as the City of New York, but, then many cities have such longer names, like the City of University City), not New York City, which is merely what (some) people call it to distinguish it from the state.)​—msh210 17:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Isn't it used more as an interjection, with the implicature of "well, that's New York for you!"? I might just be grasping at straws here though... maybe a native New Yorker can clarify.Tooironic 04:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I've never heard it that way. (I come from New York City.) I can't think of a good way to search for such a sense, but a bad way, google books:"well|hey new york new york", yields no hits in that sense. Even if it is attested, I think it may very well be just the Proper noun (place name), used in an exclamatory manner, rather than really an interjection, assuming it's used the way you, Tooironic, suggest.​—msh210 19:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Besides our definition of New York, New York as New York City entire, there's the United States Postal Service's definition of New York, NY as the areas with 100xx, 101xx, and 102xx ZIP codes, viz roughly Manhattan, including, for example, Roosevelt Island, but excluding, for example, Marble Hill: both of those are in the borough of Manhattan but not on Manhattan Island. I do not think we should have that sense anywhere, though if we start allowing all sorts of place names, then inclusibility of such a sense would follow, I suppose.​—msh210 19:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete  It's just a specific place name, and doesn't meet WT:NAMEMichael Z. 2010-03-25 19:00 z

Deleted.​—msh210 20:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


See #New York, New York above. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Move to RfV to determine whether it meets CFI. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 11:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the correct (sum-of-parts) form is New York NY, or New York, NYMichael Z. 2010-03-23 00:16 z
Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

at the hands of

Request to delete sense #2. IMO the first sense covers the second one adequately. Tooironic 19:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The usage example, if it reflected actual usage, would warrant a different sense. The sense I am aware of would not allow one to win "at the hands of a competitor". One could only lose at the hands of a competitor. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 19:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

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 at 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 turn to stone, then we are missing either a sense of stone or a sense of 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 turn to (become): 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 turn (to), and not worry about 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)


rfd-sense: all#Determiner Completely. You’ve got it all wrong.

This would seem to be a sense of all#Adverb. DCDuring TALK 23:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Delete. Tooironic 04:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


rfd-sense: Somebody who is wealthy. No more than any of other terms like this, the good, the bad, and the ugly. Many adjectives that modify "people" function as fused-head nominals. It is essentially grammatical, not lexical. If we kept track of which adjectives could modify people we could insert a usage note. Or we could have the content in Appendix:English adjectives or Appendix:English nominals or Appendix:English noun phrases. DCDuring TALK 00:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep. It's in several major American dictionaries (RHU, AHD, M-W), and its plural affluents is readily attestable in this sense (though it's nowhere near so common on b.g.c. as a “tributaries” sense that our entry currently lacks). It might warrant {{rare}} or {{context|really|_|weird-sounding}}, though. —RuakhTALK 02:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, so I forgot to check that. Rather than take this to TR, what about the definition? In the world of upscale marketing, a great deal is made of distinctions between those who are wealthy (wealthies?) and those who are merely affluent. Obviously our contributor didn't make the distinction so there might be more than one aspect to the underlying sense. In fact there might be more than one aspect dimension: income, wealth, discretionary income (?), lifestyle (?). DCDuring TALK 18:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
RFV or keep directly if there's no doubt that it would pass an RFV. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Interjection, "absolutely". Seems like a mistranslation of the English to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

  • I hear this all the time. Why do you think it's a mistranslation? Ƿidsiþ 16:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Seems to be just an adverb though. People say 'surely, definitely, maybe, rightly, absolutely' all the time. Maybe this should be and RFD issue. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
    I request to withdraw my RFV, Mglovesfun (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It is not an interjection, just an adverb --Actarus (Prince d'Euphor) 17:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The previous discussion was from Wiktionary:Requests for verification

rfd-redundant: the interjective sense is just the adverb used on its own, like English absolutely, right, sure, great good. This is already covered by the adverb, see also absolutely#Interjection (it doesn't exist). Mglovesfun (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right. None of the French dictionaries I have consulted mention it as an interjection. --Actarus (Prince d'Euphor) 13:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


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. JamesjiaoT 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. Lua error in Module:labels/templates at line 52: Please enter a language code in the first parameter. 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#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)


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. —RuakhTALK 14:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


Two senses seem dubious to me: (i) "Having a physical demand for satiation of basic needs." ("After all that work I am really thirsty."); surely this only refers to the "basic need" of fluid intake and is therefore the same as the sense "Needing to drink"?; (ii) "Having a deeply felt need for psychological attainment": seems like a needlessly specialized duplicate of "Craving for something." Equinox 12:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Entry 3 is covered at 1. Entry 5 is covered at 4. -- ALGRIF talk 14:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


Redundant sense (military cache). Tagged since... I don't know when. 23:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, delete/merge, it's redundant and badly written. Put [[Category:Military]] on the bottom of the page. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted.​—msh210 20:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


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)


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)


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)


Darwin主义 et al

Darwin主义者, Einstein相对论, Esperanto主义者, et al ==

Regardless of whether these are SopS, we should not include all possible combinations of Chinese and English together unless it is a fixed expression, but this is not the case with these entries. Strong delete. Tooironic 19:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A question, are these multi-word entries? If not shouldn't they be at RFV as they might be attestable despite the bizarreness. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
delete. No, they are not. 主义 -ism, 主义者 -ist, even 相对论 (theory of relativity) is not to be used this way in standard Mandarin but 爱因斯坦广义相对论 (Àiyīnsītǎn guǎngyì-xiāngduìlùn), adding 广义 (general or wide sense). 广义相对论 is commonly used with 爱因斯坦 (Einstein), less common just 相对论. --Anatoli 01:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Esperanto主义者 gets six hits, all Wiktionary related so that wouldn't pass an RFV. The others are very rare as well. Delete just for that reason. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I should have mentioned that these are considered Chinglish, each of the entries could be done in proper Mandarin in Hanzi only, without Roman letters. Usage of Roman letters in Chinese is restricted. Foreign names can be written just once in Roman letters for clarity. Anatoli 01:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • By the way, for a full list of these bizarre entries check out Category:Mandarin_nouns, they're right at the top due to incorrect formatting. Someone should try talking to User talk:123abc to get him/her to see some sense. I've tried on multiple occasions but failed. Tooironic 08:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Category:Words_which_mix_scripts
    Yes, User:123abc, I am aware of that category, but those entries are reserved for actual words and not just random combinations of English and Chinese. E.g., AA制, T恤 and 69式 are all fixed terms because you can't change those forms by replacing the English letters with Chinese characters, however Euclid几何, Lenin主义, cookie饼, etc, are not - they should be replaced by entries which are entirely in Chinese. Tooironic 19:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It has long been Wiktionary's policy to require a term or phrase to have at least three attested examples of use, in order to be included on Wiktionary. The original contributor attempted to use Google hits to satisfy this requirement. The problem is that while Google is an excellent language research tool, it often requires an expert to decipher the search results. My initial impression is that the above Google hits are mostly false positives, meaning that they by and large don't constitute valid examples usage by a typical native speaker. Tooironic's point about T恤 is well taken. One way to demonstrate this is to refine the search. For example, if you were to search for the term with the Google news tab, as opposed to the more generic web tab, you would find hits for terms such as T恤, but not for Euclid几何. -- A-cai 13:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
References for Euclid几何:
It seems from a quick google books search that Euclid几何 is clearly attested and idiomatic. Keep Euclid几何 and move the rest to RFV. --Yair rand 05:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok, we seem to be making progress. 123abc, I get the impression that there was something about my response that you did not fully understand. Please let me know if this is the case, and I will attempt to clarify. So, Euclid几何 does seem to have passed one of Wiktionary's criterion for inclusion, attestation. The problem is that the phrase still seems to be a sum of parts entry. These types of entries are not allowed on Wiktionary. It would be the same as if someone tried to create an entry for blue bicycle. Unfortunately, by that logic, Euclidean geometry should not be allowed on Wiktionary either. -- A-cai 12:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

RfV them all. BTW, shouldn’t they be written as Lua error in Module:links/templates at line 68: The script code "unicode" is not valid. &c., even if they are kept?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 12:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the ones that can't possibly pass, but RFV the rest. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an issue for RFV. Keep and RFV if desired. Obviously anyone requesting verification of a term should do a search first to see if there's clearly attestation.​—msh210 17:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)








The Chinglish continues. All of these have commonly used forms which are entirely in Chinese. Again, we should not include all possible combinations of Chinese and English together unless it is a fixed expression, but this is not the case with these entries. Strong delete. Tooironic 19:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Agree. Delete all. And block user if he persists in adding more. SemperBlotto 08:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the fact that these phrases all have equivalents in Chinese script, however I think blocking this person is slightly premature. Maybe Tooironic could try to talk to him in Chinese? I just think we shouldn't take rash actions, before we get to know what his take is on this. JamesjiaoT C 09:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The unattestable ones should of course be deleted. But if they are word and in use, keep or move to RFV. Mixing wo scripts isn't an automatic reason to delete, but my Google searches show that a lot of these are way short of meeting our CFI anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Move to RFV. --Yair rand 05:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Look, I'm getting impatient. They should all be deleted, pure and simple. We don't have entries for chang Wall of China, Niǔ York, karaOK, super shìchǎng or feng水. Why? Because they're ridiculous. There is a reason why none of these words, in these forms, are in any dictionaries. And search engine hits are NOT references, they just show you how prevalent Chinglish is online. I would be more forgiving if all of these entries created by this user were in the correct formatting, but they're not, and the user has made no attempt to rectify this after multiple messages. If something isn't done I'm one hundred percent qingchu that he/she will keep doing this and us Mandarin contributors will be left to pick up the pieces (i.e. clean-up a few hundred pages when we could be doing something useful). Tooironic 10:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an issue for RFV. Keep and RFV if desired. Obviously anyone requesting verification of a term should do a search first to see if there's clearly attestation.​—msh210 17:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


A specific project that calculated digits of pi using computers. Equinox 22:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

espèce de

Bad entry title. espèce + de covers this nicely. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Currently, espèce doesn't cover this case at all. It could, of course, but this entry seems useful to me for the very special sense it defines. Lmaltier 08:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes this definition is always used with de, and you can pluralize it. So it's a question of whether to move to espèce and put (pejorative, used with de). Mglovesfun (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a good entry for Category:French non-constituents. DCDuring TALK 12:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept (no consensus) although I don't think our definition is right. Also categorized as DCDuring suggests. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

February 2010


rfd-sense: Proper noun, 2 senses: One derived from Star Trek, other a name of some conference. The first might be includable if it meets attributive use, eg, from groups. The other would be called spam if it came from a for-profit entity. DCDuring TALK 18:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)



  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)

box on the ear

As the article says, a box (a blow with the fist) on the ear. I'd have thought you could hit just about anything. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, delete.​—msh210 16:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The only problem is that both box and ear have multiple meanings - and this term doesn't mean a cardboard box on an ear of corn. But probably delete. SemperBlotto 22:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
But if I were to wear cuboid object on my auricle, that would also be called a box on the ear? It would be quite easy to add more sum of parts definitions to this with the same logic. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

69式性交 et al.

A/D转换器, CD-ROM扩展结构, CD-ROM播放器, CD-V视盘, CD-i光盘, CD-i扇区, CD-i播放器

More more more more Chinglish. Yay! Isn't this fun? All sum of parts. DELETE. Tooironic 07:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Google hits: CD播放器
Google Books: CD播放器, are they Chinglish books???

This is an issue for RFV. Keep and RFV if desired. Obviously anyone requesting verification of a term should do a search first to see if there's clearly attestation.​—msh210 17:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

CD-i播放机 et al

CD-i数字图像, CD-i数字音频, CD扩展, CD盒, C格式, I型光标, Mac操作系统, CD扩展

Chinglish SoP Part Two. DELETE. Tooironic 07:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an issue for RFV. Keep and RFV if desired. Obviously anyone requesting verification of a term should do a search first to see if there's clearly attestation.​—msh210 17:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Alps山 & Alzheimer病

Redundant. Chinglish. DELETE. (Polite question: How many more weeks will I have to waste my time with monitoring this user's vandalism until something is done about it?) Tooironic 07:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As an expert in being impolite, that was not a polite question. If you're going to be direct, just do it. :p — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 20:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
AFAICT all of these should be at RFV. If I knew more Mandarin I would comment more, but I don't. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an issue for RFV. Keep and RFV if desired. Obviously anyone requesting verification of a term should do a search first to see if there's clearly attestation.​—msh210 17:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that the "Chinglish" character of these terms is not a reason to delete them, but a very strong reason to keep them (when they are actually used). Obviously, they are very special set phrases. Lmaltier 21:23, 9 May 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)


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)

portmanteau word

This term seems like it is the sum of its parts to me. Shouldn't it just be merged into the linguistic sense of portmanteau, the definition of which is currently just "A portmanteau word? SoccerMan2009 05:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep. A portmanteau word is not actually made from a suitcase. SemperBlotto 08:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC) (Three citations added for good luck)
This seems quite comparable to nominative case or flu virus. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
We probably need portmanteau term and portmanteau expression, too. DCDuring TALK 15:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
My impression is — and I may well be wrong — that early uses of portmanteau word meant portmanteau in the suitcase sense, not the word sense. That is, they meant "word which is like a portmanteau (suitcase)". I think it no longer means that, now meaning instead "word which is a portmanteau". Thus, if my suspicions are correct, then this (obsoletely) is not a SoP. We include dated and obsolete terms. Are these then grounds for inclusion of portmanteau word? I suppose so, though I fear a slippery slope.​—msh210 16:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


"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 Codies for Codemasters or 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:BRANDMichael 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)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

I could eat a horse

Readily understood if one knows human nature and the meaning of could. Possibly useful for machines that don't know human nature. Our translators do seem to miss the point, though. (The point is not that one is hungry like a horse (or a wolf).) DCDuring TALK 16:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any point-missing in translations. The point is that one is very hungry: so hungry that one could eat a horse, or so hungry that one is as hungry as a wolf. I'd assume that some languages simply use a different metaphor to describe a bi-ig hunger. Nevertheless, I'm not going to miss this entry. --Hekaheka 20:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, delete per nom.​—msh210 17:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Human nature is to eat w:horse meat; part of the idiomatic structure of this phrase is the fact that most of its speakers consider horse a meat to be eaten only in desperate circumstances, an opinion which is not shared by much of humanity.--Prosfilaes 17:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I always understood it, perhaps erroneously, as deriving from the fact that a horse is big. Any way to determine which etymology is correct? In any event, how does either etymology make this phrase idiomatic?​—msh210 17:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
This phrase does seem to have some merit, but... Hmm. I'll shut up. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I suspect you'd have to look it up in a good reference book. Online references don't give a solid etymology, though they do reveal that other books, like the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, do include it. If it were merely that a horse is big, I would expect it to be more in the vein of less idiomatic phrases like "I could eat a whole pizza all by myself" or even "I could eat a whole cow" that include emphasis on the quantity and something that's usually eaten. Google seems to like "I could eat a scabby horse", which puts emphasis on the edibility, and The concise new Partridge dictionary of slang and unconventional English lists "could eat the hind leg off a donkey" and "could eat a horse and chase the rider/jockey" as variants, which indicates that edibility does matter. The more it means I could eat something as disgusting as horse, the more likely it's being used by someone who eats horse in a sense that's clearly not SoP.--Prosfilaes 18:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I like your analysis, but is there any significant percentage of anglophones who eat horse and use this expression? If not, I don't think this argument for idiomaticity holds water.​—msh210 19:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
An arguments for the quantity of meat rather than its quality's being the referent is the use of a: why not "eat horse"?​—msh210 18:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Seem to be hits for "I could eat a cow", "I could eat a bull", "I could eat an ox", a few for deer, a few for chicken (though some are more than one chicken), some for "house" some for "elephant", none for "giraffe" or "bungalow", a few for "hippopotamus". I conclude there is nothing particularly special about the choice of "horse"; which would imply the phrase isn't too special either. delete Conrad.Irwin 18:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
On Google Books, there's 684 hits for I could eat a horse, as opposed to 209 for I could eat a cow, and negligible counts for the others. That's not a huge lead for horse, but I think some of the references do indicate it's special: "I'll Bet You Could Eat a Horse! Hungry? Naturally! Please don't eat a horse. Anything else is okay." (from Be a Perfect Person in Just Three Days‎) or '"I could eat a horse." "A horse?" Mitsuo asked. "Do Americans eat horses?" "It's an expression, Mitsuo. But I could eat a small pig."' (from Pacific Crossing) or '"I could eat a horse." "That's a vulgar expression, Mary. Please refrain from using it." "A pony then I could eat a pony." Richard laughed with Mary[...]' (from The Heir) or '"I could eat a cow," Nita said, suspecting that in this household it would be wiser not to offer to eat horses.' (From A Wizard Abroad).--Prosfilaes 18:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep. --Yair rand 18:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
It's such a common collocation. I think this could be really good as a Phrasebook entry. Plus the translations are useful too. Keep. Tooironic 19:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
But the existing translations miss the point. It's a metaphor about one's appetite at a time, not one's characteristic tendency to eat voraciously. When we provide entries that are not in many other references we seem to lose the ability to check our work against other sources.
  • I could easily be convinced by three citations that indicated that the metaphor, as used in countries where English is the main language, was about the the specific nature of what was being eaten rather than the quantity. But the citations offered don't quite convince me. The first one illustrates that the choice of food animals of large size might be culturally dependent. The second shows nothing about the nature of horses being the issue rather than the vulgar origin of the expression. The last makes we wonder whether the household had equestrians in it. IOW, restrictions on the use of the word derived from its possible inappropriateness in a specific micro-context is not evidence on the point at issue. DCDuring TALK 23:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
DCDuring, when you say 'readily decodable' it depends how good you are at decoding. I'm sure the first time I heard this as a child I didn't understand it, but I probably just asked my parents. The only reason I'm not saying is the awkwardness of the 'can' issue, 'can' being a defective verb. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
This does get to the all-important point of who are included in the set of target users of en.wikt. College-students and older? What level of English knowledge? What cultural knowledge? As to pragmatic considerations, some folks don't ever seem to get a good perspective on what others might be thinking or trying to accomplish so I'm not sure what we can assume. DCDuring TALK 00:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd say that everybody is included in the set of target users. Even those who don't know any English (I sometimes look at FL Wiktionaries out of curiosity, and would assume that non-English speakers might too) --Rising Sun talk? 10:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Quite unhelpful. Do we include people without access to the internet, to computers? People with no knowledge of English? People whose internet devices don't support Java? The blind? People who don't read IPA? People with knowledge only of pidgin English? People with an English vocabulary of fewer than one thousand words? People don't know how to use dictionaries? People with IQs below 70? DCDuring TALK 10:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep: figurative rather than literal; not clear when used alone without the larger phrase "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse". --Dan Polansky 12:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
A note on translations: I think translators do get the point. They are translating the meaning of the phrase, not the words of the phrase. In Czech, the translation would be "mám hlad jako vlk" or better in the infinitive "mít hlad jako vlk", which is word-for-word in English "to have as big a hunger as wolf has", or, in plain English, "to be very hungry", in the first person "I am very hungry", which is what is meant by "I could eat a horse".
The definition has to read "I am very hungry" instead of "very hungry", though. The phrase belongs to the category for English sentences, where it is indeed located. --Dan Polansky 13:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The entry is of course not even in lemma form.
The translations are not outright wrong, but low in quality. They miss the emphasis on the size of the amount for which one hungers vs. the intensity of hunger or one's behavior. It is inevitable that attempting to pursue phrases rather than word requires more and more care in definition because there is more structure and meaning (and more potential for multiple interpretations). And including phrases that few references have makes the work of quality control all the harder.
I don't even see how a conditional could be deemed figurative. If it can, then we have regressed past compositional metaphor in terms of what we include. Consider "I could kill him", a rather common colloquial collocation. Do we need to include it? Is there any hyperbole that we should not include for the convenience of a mechanical approach to translation, rather than respecting the role of the listener, reader, or translator in constructing meaning based on actual understanding of the language? DCDuring TALK 13:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
can eat a horse sounds wrong, could eat a horse with redirects from the pronoun forms seems by far the best option. I still see merit in this entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)



  • "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)


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


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

Keep. 06:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Why? Mglovesfun (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


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. 06:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


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

Keep. 06:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Why? Mglovesfun (talk) 08:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


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. JamesjiaoT 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 JamesjiaoT C 12:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

get on with it

We already have get on#Verb with a specific sense for the complementary PP with "with". DCDuring TALK 23:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete.​—msh210 17:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete --Rising Sun talk? contributions 13:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete, SoP. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)





{{delete}}d by Razorflame as "completely incorrect". I'm bringing them here instead due to Razorflame's history.​—msh210 19:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I know for a fact that the first one is simply the name of a movie studio located in India. I'll check the others. -- Prince Kassad 19:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
addendum: yep the first one is nothing more than a surname (which various things are named after). The other three do not appear to exist at all. -- Prince Kassad 19:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Please do not question my judgement now. I've learned my lessons from the past. I would only tag these articles if and only if I could not verify them as real words. I looked through my two print Kannada-English Dictionaries (real life books), and through the Kannada Wiktionary, Wikipedia, and several other online sources, and out of seven sources, zero results were turned up. Thanks, Razorflame 21:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


Adding this one to the list now.​—msh210 22:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete all as non-existant, unsourced, completely incorrect entries and request a thorough double-check of all other Kannada entries made by this user. I checked eight different sources (two in print in real-life, two WMF related sources, and four online sources, and all eight sources does not list this word as a Kannada word. Razorflame 08:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


Not a suffix. Covered at eyed; we just need to note that it's often used in combination. (Compare haired.) The entry does have a good list of derived terms that we should keep, but they would do equally well at eyed. Equinox 00:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete/merge for exactly those reasons. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The usage note (or a non-gloss definition) would need most of the sense line of this entry. Merge/redirect (to discourage re-entry of this and speed searches to eyed#Adjective). DCDuring TALK 00:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
keep. We can say browneyed or redeyed, as well as brown-eyed and red-eyed. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 00:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
One could argue that browneyed is brown eye + -ed, just like white hair + -ed, right foot + -ed. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
One could, yes. But not browneye + ed --Rising Sun talk? contributions 00:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
The point is that eyed#Adjective is a pre-existing standalone word that has the sense required to support the derived terms ending in "eyed". We would then say those terms are formed by compounding, not suffixation. Accordingly, we should have, at most, a redirect from -eyed to eyed#Adjective. A prefix or suffix does not have a standalone form. (BTW, a compound does not have to have a hyphen to be a compound.) DCDuring TALK 02:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

faire demi-tour

Sum of parts. faire (do) demi-tour (a half turn). 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)

Oxford English Dictionary

How is this here? --Rising Sun talk? 00:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably logophile nepotism. Delete, I think. Of course OED is worth having but the expansion can link to Wikipedia. Equinox 13:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it's worth an RFV, where I think it may well pass. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the fact that we prefix it with the definite article (in the assumption that it is such a well-known text that everyone knows about it perhaps?) is a good indication it should be kept - similar to the Bible, the Mahabharata, the Decameron, the I Ching, the Qur’an, the Domesday Book, the Book of Mormon, etc. Of course you do get entries like Ivanhoe, but I think this is kept because of its secondary meaning. Tooironic 23:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Inclined to say keep (for the same reason), but it is somewhat SOP - Oxford English Dictionary. bd2412 T 03:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • A proper noun and a trademark of a copyrighted commercial product. CFI (remember that?) would require that it be shown to have attributive use. Move to RfV. DCDuring TALK 09:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Kept and sent to RFV.​—msh210 18:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary

On a similar note, Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. This managed to pass RFD in 2006, seemingly only because the SOED is, like us, a dictionary. --Rising Sun talk? 15:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how a proper noun can be "SoP". It seems to be a name of a product as any book title would be. That it is a copyrighted work makes the fact of its being such particularly obvious. There is no exception to CFI for dictionaries. This would have to meet the attributive use test. Move to RfV (where it will fail) or delete. DCDuring TALK 09:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, delete (or RfV, if you can first add at least one citation that is attributive, with a widely understood meaning); “SOP” or “idiomatic” applies differently to specific proper namesMichael Z. 2010-05-26 03:19 z

Kept and sent to RFV.​—msh210 18:16, 16 June 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)

se regarder

Sum of parts, se (oneself) + regarder (to look at). Mglovesfun (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

DeleteInternoob (Disc.Cont.) 23:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be a mistake to delete that entry. Because there are two meanings that are idomatic:
1. se regarder can be translated by to face each other, for instance in the expression deux murs qui se regardent : two walls facing each other.
2. We musn't forget that the reflexive forms can stand, in French, for the passive forms. That way, se regarder would be translated by to be looked at; e.g. : la mort ne peut se regarder en face -- Death cannot be faced up to (literaly "cannot be looked in the face"...)
So : keep.
--Actarus (Prince d'Euphor) 20:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


So what are we looking for? "like spiderman" citations? Polarpanda 23:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Move to RFV. Needs attributive cites. ("A Spider-Man" sounds somewhat possible.) --Yair rand 23:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Kept and sent to RFV.​—msh210 18:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


He's a fictional character. --Daniel. 16:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Move to RFV. --Yair rand 23:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Move both to RFV. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep Spidey at least: how does this not meet WT:CFI? It's a word, a slangy nickname, not a proprietary name or the name of a fictional character. Equinox 23:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
keep Spidey as a slang nickname, most likely coined (or at least popularised) outside the Spiderman universe. At least, as long as we're keeping an entry for Hoff. This sparks me to create an entry for Hef --Rising Sun talk? 00:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete. RFV if you really think it's in use independently of Spider-Man, but then at least start us off with a citation. Michael Z. 2010-03-06 19:08 z

Kept and sent to RFV.​—msh210 18:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


English proper noun: "German Chancellor between 1928 and 1945". --Yair rand 20:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete. It's not a specific sense: the interesting thing in a language dictionary is that it's a surname. By its very nature, a surname is shared by many people (this is very different from towns which happen to share the same name, each town is a different sense, and these senses may have different linguistic properties). People with this surname can be found in Wikipedia (the link to Wikipedia is needed as a bridge to this encyclopedic point of view). Lmaltier 20:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Unless we make an exception when there are derived words (here Hitlerism, Hitlerian)? But the sense as a surname seems to be sufficient to accommodate these derived words (of course, in any case, the reference to Adolph is required in pages dedicated to these derived words). Lmaltier 20:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Jefferson gets an RFV, I think this should too. Polarpanda 20:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
We already have Hitler#Noun. The question is whether there is attributive use not actually referring to the individual (ie, the "Hitler years" referring to 1920s-1945) or to the common noun sense we have, eg, a "Hitler mustache", "Hitler hair/hairdo/haircut", "Hitler salute". Move to RfV DCDuring TALK 23:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Moved to RFV, where I think it will pass. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I assume you mean "Move to RFV", because I don't see it there anywhere. Either way, why would we move it to RFV? There already is a attributive sense, and senses specifically referring to the person don't meet CFI regardless of citations. --Yair rand 05:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, please and thank you: strike the specific sense. Michael Z. 2010-03-23 03:00 z

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. JamesjiaoT 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. JamesjiaoT C 02:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


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)

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, passer (to go through) + 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 (talkcontribs) 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 Lua error in Module:compound/templates at line 63: The |lang= parameter is not used by this template. Place the language code in parameter 1 instead., 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)

homosexual act

Seems like an act of a homosexual nature to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox 12:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
move to RfV to confirm that the US legal definition is actually detectably in use OR we need to show that the definition given (taken from USC) is equivalent to an SoP definition. DCDuring TALK 16:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
That's probably a better idea, we did the same for US American. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
It reminded me of the USDA food definitions. DCDuring TALK 18:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


Sum of parts/bad entry title, see Wiktionary:About French. None of the meanings seem to be idiomatic, either, just Lua error in Module:compound/templates at line 63: The |lang= parameter is not used by this template. Place the language code in parameter 1 instead.. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

  • merge/redirect, these intransitive senses are not equivalent to passives. Polarpanda

sich vergrößern

See s'écouler above. Should be under vergrößern with a {{reflexive}} template. -- Prince Kassad 20:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Just on the same topic, I have been creating Dutch reflexive verbs in separate entries (such as zich vergissen). Zich, of course, is cognate with the German sich. Are there any written guidelines on how to treat reflexive verbs? JamesjiaoT C 06:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Anything at WT:ANL? It seems to be a 'per language' thing. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
vergrößern already has this definition, so we can safely delete or redirect this - I can't see it being created in another language, so the redirect seems safe. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


"(fictional character) One of a set of big-snouted creatures in Tove Jansson's Moomin books, and in subsequent cartoons and films." Either delete or move to an appendix. --Yair rand 00:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I love the Moomins, but I find it hard to imagine they are used outside of that universe and without direct reference to it. Delete. Equinox 00:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
It may as well get an RFV like all the others. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep outside CFI. About time to revise the CFI clause about fictional universes? The entry of this space-free term can have a pronunciation and a set of translations, which are lexicographical classes of information. --Dan Polansky 12:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I take this back. The CFI section about fictional universes seems well thought-out, reasonably justified and voted upon. So unfortunately, delete unless the CFI criteria can be met. But the entry could be moved to an appendix, per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2008-01/Appendices for fictional terms. --Dan Polansky 12:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted with the RFV-like "do not re-create without citations" summary.​—msh210 18:24, 16 June 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 at 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)

corpus vile

Latin: shouldn't this be in the etymology for the English word if it's just a pure sum-of-parts term. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

night out

Just a night out, right? Or is that right out? I think it would be right to take it out, outright. Or is there something else to write out? --Rising Sun talk? 22:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

See also day out, which someone has glossed as idiomatic. I doubt that anybody would talk about having an "hour out" or a "day in", but they could certainly have a "night in". I don't know how I feel about it yet. Equinox 22:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I think both have some implied knowledge, a night out is usually gonna refer to a bar or a nightclub, not walking the dog or visiting your parents. Is that enough to keep it, probably yes. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
See also evening out, which should be evened out and is also a noun in a similar vein. And to continue the puns, the definiton for night out would need a rewrite by someone who can outwrite Gobbler. --Rising Sun talk? 22:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
nightout as a single word is definitely citable, which would therefore make night out valid too. --Rising Sun talk? 00:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I updated night out with: "Spending the evening out of one's home. The phrase typically implies going to a restaurant, going to watch entertainment, or other types of urban nightlife." If that sounds palatable, I'd be happy to do "evening out" as well. Note that we have "on the town" so we don't need "night on the town". Facts707 09:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Adding the time "starting from about 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. and lasting until approximately 11:00 pm or later. " doesn't look like dictionary material here. the time we spend on a night out depends on many things, and varies with culture, season, temperature, how much we've drunk at home etc.! It's a bit similar to defining breakfast as a meal we eat between 6:00 and 11:00 am [I've had my breakfast after noon many times, and still call it breakfast) --Rising Sun talk? contributions 22:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I think we have to consider what the phrase generally implies to the large majority of English speaking people. Most people have breakfast in the morning, but sure you can have it any time of day. I think night out typically means an evening out (OK, I just added this too) for most people in English speaking countries. Sure, if you speak English and live in Spain you might party from 11 p.m. til 5 a.m., but that's the exception rather than the rule. Facts707 22:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Having said that, maybe we need two senses as in breakfast (1: first meal of the day, usually in the morning, and 2: food usually eaten at breakfast such as eggs, etc. that could be eaten at other times). Facts707 22:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010


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. JamesjiaoT 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? ---
      • Could you let me know what is wrong of the formatting of -bùdié?
The point above is a good one. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

subsurface runoff

"Subsurface runoff is precipitatoin that soaks into the ground, precipitation can also run over the ground and flow into streams, rivers, lakes, and eventually the ocean." Sum of parts, right? subsurface + runoff. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Written by someone trying to figure out what it means. Should be something like precipitation that contributes to subterranean flow. Nevertheless, SoP, unless it's some Geology term. Pingku 18:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Was speedily deleted. Striking.​—msh210 18:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

seised in fee

Should be 'to seise in fee' shouldn't it? Would this be considered SoP? JamesjiaoT 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. 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. JamesjiaoT 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)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

no nevermind

Just a no before nevermind (consequence). Hence, "no consequence". Not idiomatic. Facts707 08:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

But it's listed as a noun with a plural. However I'm not sure if those citations are adequate. But if they are, surely it should be kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
This is an RfD, not an RfV. The citations should be moved to nevermind or Citations:nevermind is this is deleted. DCDuring TALK 18:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
no neverminds should be deleted as well (just no + neverminds). neverminds should stay. Facts707 11:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I didn't realize we had 'nevermind' as a noun - ergo delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • "Pay her no nevermind, Miss Simmons" is not explained by no + nevermind (or by this page). Polarpanda 12:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
That is explained by the "attention" sense of nevermind, recently added. DCDuring TALK 18:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Not so fast. nevermind#Noun has an RfV tag. We need to show that it exists apart from this phrase (which I think it does). DCDuring TALK 12:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is almost always used in a negative construction, but that would include "not any nevermind" and "never (paid) any nevermind". I think "nevermind" should mean "attention, heed" ("I never paid him no nevermind.") and "concern, affair" ("That's no nevermind of yours."). I'm not sure about "consequence", which is the RfVed sense. DCDuring TALK 12:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
That has since passed.​—msh210 16:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Redirect and salvage/merge. Salvage the citations at least. Redirect to nevermind. 2 of the three senses seem to be (almost ?) always used in the negative, but not necessarily as "no nevermind". DCDuring TALK 18:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Quotations moved to Citations:nevermind. DCDuring TALK 18:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete.​—msh210 19:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Redirected.​—msh210 16:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


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

Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!


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)

Silicon this and that

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

--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)

write a test

Template:rfv-archived this is a case of collocation, not of verifying if a term exists. Suggest this as your typical verb-noun collocation. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 22:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Delete SoP. --Yair rand 22:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Definitely delete sense 1. But possibly keep sense 2, which is not current in UK English and may be a set phrase in some countries. Ƿidsiþ 09:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Well that sense really should be at RFV, and since it's failed it should go. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
That's only due to no one's having done the work, not due to the absence of citations. google books:"write a test in" yields [5], [6], [7], and [8] just among the first twenty hits. Another with full text visible (to me) is [9].​—msh210 17:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how this relates to write an exam, write exams, write the finals, write a survey, write a questionnaire, etc. Michael Z. 2010-04-08 17:12 z


The Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race, an annual sled dog race held in Alaska, USA. Seems to be way out of Wiktionary's scope --Rising Sun talk? contributions 20:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Delete, can we skip the RFV please this time? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
We can absolutely not. This is commonly used in AmE with no context. See e.g. [10], [11], [12]. I'm not sure what criterion applies to it, though.​—msh210 17:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep, as it is what the town is known for. But perhaps a better solution is changing the def to something like, "A town in Alaska, famous for its annual dog sled race".--Dmol 22:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
See the cites I linked to above. The race itself is called "the Iditarod", colloquially. I suspect most Books hits, at least in fiction, for "Iditarod" will actually be for "the Iditarod", meaning the race. (I haven't checked, though.)​—msh210 16:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


A web browser, nothing more. Also nominating Firefox and others in Category:Web browsers --Rising Sun talk? contributions 21:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

delete. --Vahagn Petrosyan 22:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Send to RFV. These need to pass WT:BRAND. --Yair rand 22:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Delete  Just a proper name. Don't move it to RFV unless someone intends to cite it to pass BRAND. Michael Z. 2010-03-18 17:34 z

Delete It simply doesn't enjoy the same popularity of the likes of Firefox and it fails WT:CFI#Brand names's first point: must be independent of any parties with economic interest in the product, including the manufacturer, distributors, retailers, marketers, and advertisers, their parent companies, subsidiaries, and affiliates, at time of authorship JamesjiaoTC 11:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted with the RFV-style "do not re-enter without citations" summary.​—msh210 18:46, 16 June 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 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" [13]. 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 Princess Leia hairstyle or Princess Leia braids, and would not support an entry for Princess Leia. --EncycloPetey 02:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Must you encourage them? Michael Z. 2010-03-23 03:06 z

exploitative competition

Not sure whether this is RfV or RfD. It is uncited and either encyclopedic or SoP. DCDuring TALK 01:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Move to RFV or keep directly. It didn't say what I thought it would, so... Mglovesfun (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

downloadable content

Content that's downloadable. Glossed as video games, obviously that's not true as any content that's downloadable can be called downloadable content. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete. DCDuring TALK 10:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Moreover, any content that's downloadable is called downloadable content, if not as often as game-related content is. Delete.​—msh210 16:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete. SoP. ---> Tooironic 21:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is what it's called. No one talks about purchasable content or undownloadable content, but this by contrast is the ususal English term. It is often abbreviated to DLC. It is calling out for good translations. See also w:downloadable content. Ƿidsiþ 12:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I appreciate your effort in rewriting it, but it's still SoP to me, just SoP with a new wording. Sorry. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Being sum of parts has nothing to do with being idiomatic, as I've tried to explain thousands of times. Lots of idiomatic phrases are sum of parts (fried egg, Egyptian pyramid -- the second one of those isn't even idiomatic IMO). If you have looked downloadable content up you'll see that it's used absolutely as a set term, and some quick checks show that it's numerically more common that phrases like "content that|which can be downloaded" or "extra content". Its being seen as a single noun is strongly suggested by the existence of the initialism DLC and by the Wikipedia article on the subject. It may not be difficult to work out what it means, but that doesn't stop it being a noun used extensively in newspapers and magazines which we need to translate and give all the other usual info about. Ƿidsiþ 07:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
        • What nonsense. An idiom is a set phrase which a) cannot be deduced from its parts and b) has an extended meaning beyond its literal components. This is not the case with this entry. Thus, delete. ---> Tooironic 03:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
          • What makes you think so? I quote the OED: "A form of expression, grammatical construction, phrase, etc., peculiar to a language; a peculiarity of phraseology approved by the usage of a language, and often having a signification other than its grammatical or logical one." "Downloadable content" is absolutely the expression "peculiar to English" and "approved by usage" – it is the one and only natural way of describing this stuff. Ƿidsiþ 07:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
            • Not idiomatic either. I bet uploadable content is easily attestable. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
              • It may be easily attestable, but it isn't a common phrase in the way that DLC is. "uploadable content" only gets 2,600 google hits, whereas "downloadable content" has over 1.5 million. Ƿidsiþ 12:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I favour a keep. It's a set phrase that doesn't just refer to any 'content' that is downloadable. It has a much narrower signification. In general, Downloadable quite often refers to free programs or add-ons that you can find on the Internet, but not in this case. JamesjiaoTC 11:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Delete  So it's a cliché phrase that we can attribute to convention or lack of creativity in video-game writing. But no special meaning in the context of video games, and doesn't imply this context outside of it. Not idiomatic. If there's anything notable here, it's only that meaning-free meaning of content as used by computer coders to mean “everything else,” and nothing inherent in this phrase. Michael Z. 2010-04-15 20:30 z

But "cliche phrases that we attribute to convention" are exactly what dictionaries should record. I am running out of ways to explain this, because I just don't understand how anyone who has looked at the usage of this phrase can think it should be deleted. There is a specific concept in videogames which is discussed ad infinitum in the relevant magazines and message boards, and that concept has one and one name only: downloadable content, or DLC for short. To me that makes it absolutely idiomatic English. There is endless evidence of its use as a set phrase: [14], [15]... oh do your own searches. I bet you 500 quid this is straight in the OED when the current revisions reach D. Oh, and also note that the phrase is used piecemeal in other languages. Ƿidsiþ 13:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted.​—msh210 18:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

se laver

Per the se verbs above, sum of part, se (oneself) + laver (to wash). 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.
RuakhTALK 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. —RuakhTALK 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. :-)   —RuakhTALK 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)

Best of

At the very least, this shouldn't be capitalized, or if so, why? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Well, best of has a different meaning. Something like "a majority of games in a series such as to find an overall winner". ("Best of three?") SemperBlotto 16:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The OED's run-in entry for the colloquial music sense is headed “best-of,” and has quotations with The best of Beachcomber [title], ‘Best Ofs’, ‘best-of’, ‘Best of’ and best-ofs (quotation marks sic). The varied capitalization is a contextual style when the term is used in a title, or when title use is alluded to. The sense should probably be moved to best of, and the entry deletedMichael Z. 2010-03-25 18:45 z

I think the French is invariable - "les best of" --Rising Sun talk? contributions 21:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually I think the defs are great, but definitely shouldn't be capitalised. Thus merge with best of. ---> Tooironic 22:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Seems similar to 'world cup' - specific world cups are capitalized (Football World Cup) but not the noun just on its own. Best of the Beatles is gonna be capitalized as a proper noun. That's my take. See also Arms above. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


  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 ??? 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) JamesjiaoTC 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!) JamesjiaoTC 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#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 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)

April 2010


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)

patentieren lassen

sum of parts -- Prince Kassad 19:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Improve patentieren and lassen. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 22:33, 2 April 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)


Company name. Equinox 15:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It's claiming to be an uncountable common noun, which is clearly bollocks. I'm in favor of direct deletion, let's not worry about WT:BRAND (unless some actively wants to cite it; entries don't cite themselves). Mglovesfun (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes - In the UK, this is a part of a racecourse. Most people don't realize that it is also a company name. I would keep it. SemperBlotto 17:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep per SemperBlotto.--Dmol 21:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Really? If that's true, I'd keep it, yes. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Yep, but can somebody provide the citations for this sense? Equinox 17:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I suppose that by "somebody", you mean me - OK, but give me a little time. SemperBlotto 17:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC) - three cites added - that wasn't too difficult, was it.
None of them really shows me that it's a generic term and not merely a mention of the company: "Tattersalls, adjacent to the County Stand, has no seating..." could just as well be "Sony, halfway down the high street, sells televisions", and so on. But if you're familiar with the races and sure about this, I won't kick up a fuss! Equinox 17:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

aerial photography

Just found this while deleting aerial photograph. It has a Wikipedia article, but so does George W. Bush. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

weak keep. One might assume this means "a photograph taken of the sky" --Rising Sun talk? contributions 11:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I am not commenting on whether to keep this entry. I had never heard of this term and my first reaction when I saw it was photographs taken of objects in the sky. JamesjiaoTC 01:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because someone has never heard of a term is not justification to delete it. This term has been around for more years than I care to count. It was a subject that I studied in getting my BS in Film and Television/Still Photography. The act of aerial photography has been around as long as there were airplanes, rockets, hot-air or lighter than air gas ballons and the still camera. Please do not remove something that has been instrumental in fighting battles to preserve world peace as well as documenting such simple things as corn mazes and crop circles. Ignorance is not the way to make these decisions. 07:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)lmullette

Heh. If anything, Jamesjiao's comment goes to keeping this entry, not deleting it: he said he couldn't make out what the term meant from its parts; see also [[WT:CFI#Idiomaticity]]. In any event, we don't much care about how important a word's referent is: as Mglovesfun notes, George W. Bush is important, but we don't have an entry on his full name.​—msh210 17:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

alpha blogger

Sum of parts: alpha (primary, leading) + blogger. Not much in Books to support it as a common idiom. Equinox 17:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably SoP but I don't know the term, so I can't comment further. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted by opiaterein. Striking.​—msh210 18:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


NISOP. Equinox 00:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the OED has an entry for this, and it's usually pretty good at keeping out the unidiomatic. Also, the noun (which we don't have) also has a feminine form, fausse-naïve.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 01:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd keep it, the two words are borrowings from French, although we have English definitions for both of them. I'd both never heard of it and didn't know what it meant. Keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
What does NISOP mean? --Rising Sun talk? contributions 10:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Not idiomatic, sum of parts. Took me a while to figure it out, too. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Not seeing the above arguments to keep as convincing in light of the CFI. Delete per nom.​—msh210 17:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
What are the parts, and how do I derived this meaning from them? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
This is an English entry that's been nominated, and its two parts — faux and naïf — have English adjective entries. The meaning of the whole is the simple sum of the parts' meanings. What's unclear?​—msh210 16:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted by opiaterein. Striking.​—msh210 18:57, 16 June 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, langue espagnole, 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)


“(informal) Xena: Warrior Princess, a television series which aired from 1995 to 2001.” Let's not start a catalogue of TV series. Michael Z. 2010-04-06 20:14 z

I'd have deleted it on sight. JamesjiaoTC 01:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I've changed it from the TV series (which had no chance of passing) to its main character. Xena is common enough to represent a tough woman. Searches such as "tough as Xena", "looks like Xena" etc, show some usage. "What would Xena do" is even a bumper sticker. Keep as modified.--Dmol 06:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
"tough as Xena", "looks like Xena", "What would Xena do"? Fictional characters do not meet CFI, regardless of how well known. If a term was derived from a fictional character, the term may be kept, like in the case of Darth Vader. Do you think that "a Xena" meaning "a tough kick-ass woman" is in common usage? --Yair rand 06:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what I think.--Dmol 08:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Dmol, your sample quotations are direct references to the character. Can you provide a citation showing that Xena means “a tough woman?” Michael Z. 2010-04-07 15:29 z
Add that definition, if attestable, and delete this one. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, sending that one to RFV; let's still delete this one. Michael Z. 2010-04-07 17:52 z
RE Yair rand: Not true. CFI says clearly "A name should be included if it is used attributively, with a widely understood meaning." So, if the name of the show's main character can be shown to have attributive use with a widely understood meaning, then the entry meets CFI requirements. I've added two supporting quotes already. --EncycloPetey 07:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, but interpretations of “with a widely understood meaning” vary wildly. Obviously that qualifier is important, otherwise the rule would just end with “used attributively.” I believe this requires a distinct meaning from the referent, as in “a tough, confident woman” and not “the main character in ....” I would also prefer “widely understood” to be taken as having meaning completely independent of the referent, i.e., people know what a xena is even if they've never seen or heard of Xena: Warrior Princess. Otherwise, calling me a Xena is just a pop-culture reference to a TV show, not the use of an established word. Michael Z. 2010-04-10 23:29 z
Unfortunately, language itself seldom makes those distinctions, especially where new coinages derive from those cultural references. I suspect that if we were living in 1610 instead of 2010, we'd be arguing whether or not Shakespeare's cultural influence meritted inclusion. --EncycloPetey 23:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I dunno. OED's first attested Romeo appears 170 years after the Bard's tale. Landau (2001:211–13) identifies how language does make those distinctions. He calls such specific references “allusive words,” that “have not developed a separate generic sense.” He says that, although they are very common, they are not understood by readers who have no knowledge of the source, they tend to have different meanings for different people, and don't last long in the lexicon. He gives the examples of Watergate and Teapot Dome (a 1922 US scandal whose name used to appear in dictionaries). Michael Z. 2010-04-11 02:28 z
Delete, it's in the etymology for Xena#Noun, which is where it should stay. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Specific individuals X–Z

We're not a Who's Who or a universal dramatis personae. US presidents and the person of Nikolai Gogol/Гоголь have been deleted. Do the following folks' names have any English wordness? Michael Z. 2010-04-07 18:33 z

Redefine as given names/last names/cognomens or whatever applies. --Vahagn Petrosyan 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Odd. I would have wanted to keep Gogol, at least, because authors' names are often used to represent the corpus of their work, or to refer to a specific work by that author. Of the following, I have a personal preference to keep all the Classical names, but Xerxes is the only one I can support keeping on the basis of CFI. It's a Biblical name (both Persian kings), and so appears in a well-known work, and one that is frequently translated into other languages. I'm for keeping names like that, whether from myth, religion, or fairy tales that have lasted in the language for a very long time. The name Zorro might qualify in this way, but it hasn't been around as long, so I could see either side. --EncycloPetey 18:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
You mean using the author's name as a book citation? Every book, academic paper, or other publication can be cited by its author's name, or by just the title, author–year, author–title, title–year, ISBN, or some other conventional identifier. Likewise, any person's name can be used to refer to what they made, or said, or wrote. These are functions of names. But wouldn't including individual people's names on this basis lead to us becoming a who's who of authors or a catalogue of creative works? That's not what the dictionary is for. It would bury the tools of the languages under a tide of people and things. Michael Z. 2010-04-08 17:18 z
No, I don't mean that. Nice diatribe, but you've misunderstood. Also, please note that your arguments run counter to the practice of modern dictionaries like the AHD, which does include biographical entries. They do it to an extreme I wouldn't care for us to follow, but I do feel that single-name elements can and should be clarified in a dictionary, at least to a degree that would allow a person to then locate an appropriate encyclopedia article about that individual. --EncycloPetey 19:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
AHD and many other popular dictionaries are meant to partially replace the need an expensive, bookshelf-sized household encyclopedia. Our readers already have the biggest encyclopedia at no cost, and they could keep it in their pocket. So we should make use of Wikipedia by linking, rather than emulate encyclopedic print dictionaries, or their aspects that come from the marketing department, by trying to inadequately replace bits of the encyclopedia. Let's look to “pure” dictionaries, like the OED.
I absolutely agree with your last. We should have an entry for the name Xerxes, and it should link to the w: Xerxes disambiguation page, which will always have a list of every biblical, historical, musical, cinematic, and video-game Xerxes worth mentioning. But I don't think the lexical definition of any term includes “died 212 BC” or “created in 1919 by pulp writer Johnston McCulley.” Michael Z. 2010-04-08 20:19 z
I see, and will we be making lists of "pure" and "impure" dictionaries, so that we know which are OK and which are not? Will I need to place a big yellow star / red letter A / sackcloth and ashes on my copy of the AHD? --EncycloPetey 20:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Godwin's Law! Everybody drinks. Michael Z. 2010-04-08 23:17 z
Keep all. Most have useful translation sections. Improve others. SemperBlotto 07:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I can add your and my names to the dictionary with useful translation sections. How does this relate to our CFI? Michael Z. 2010-04-08 17:18 z
Well, for starters, no one is likely to come across names of any Wiktionarians outside of Wiktionary, so those names would fail on the criterion of "likely to come across them". Names of Wiktionarians are also not attested, but the names below are easily attested in many, many citations. Semper skipped the obvious criteria, and went directly to pointing out additional utility of the entries. --EncycloPetey 19:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to remove entries for names. I am trying to delete the so-called “definitions” which identify specific persons.
My name appears in my high-school yearbook, my phone directory, the credits for a few web-based works I contributed to, and in the front a publication I wrote. So someone is likely to come across it. If someone refers to these or writes about me, then it may be attested – perhaps I should see if it already is. You're saying that any person who's name is used three times in print should appear as a “sense” in the dictionary? Wikipedia has notability criteria for persons, and that's where articles about them appear. A dictionary should only include names. Michael Z. 2010-04-08 20:19 z
You seem to be fascinated with the idea of setting up straw men for me to knock down. Instead of doing that, why not try to understand my position, rather than some imagined position no one has? --EncycloPetey 20:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to identify some principal under which we can include senses for individual persons. I don't think there is one. “Having useful translations,” or some kind of notability criteria aren't productive, because they would open up a free-for-all. Michael Z. 2010-04-08 23:23 z
Keep all. Let's do a more productive work on creations, not deletions. --Anatoli 19:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
You can definitely translated names of films, books, TV series. Plus line one, all words in all languages. Why not Ghost, the film? Or Waterloo, the name of a song. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
That's why we have WT:BRAND. You can find the answer to your question there. --EncycloPetey 20:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I believe physical objects fall under BRAND. Titles of creative works themselves aren't copyrighted, and I don't think BRAND applies to them. But while proper names are formed from words, they themselves are not words in the language. Michael Z. 2010-04-08 23:23 z
One quotation for you, Mzajac:
  • 1882, John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive:
    But it is no part of the signification of the word John, that the father of the person so called bore the same name; nor even of the word Dartmouth, to be situated at the mouth of the Dart.
Single-word proper names are words. --Dan Polansky 11:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
(Please remember that we are not concerned with words as defined in phonology, orthography, or grammar, but of semantics, and more specifically as lexicological units, lexemes.)
But of course we have an entry for the proper name (“word”) John (“A male given name very popular since the Middle Ages”). But what's your point? Mill doesn't say that Wiktionary should have a definition line for each of ten thousand persons named John. Michael Z. 2010-04-09 16:03 z
(<) Mzajac, you keep repeating that proper names are not words. My point is that you should stop repeating that. Some proper names are words. You want to exclude proper names from Wiktionary, and many language dictionaries agree with you in excluding proper names. They exclude proper names altogether: they have no entries for "Peter" and "London". I want Wiktionary to include some proper names, and so do other Wiktionarians. Repeating the falsity that all proper names are non-words is needless and unconvincing. --Dan Polansky 17:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Now you're just mixing things up. Wiktionary absolutely should have entries for proper nouns like Peter and London, with these words defined. But it should not have have so-called “definitions” that represent specific persons and places like Peter (I, the Czar of Russia), or London (Ontario, pop. 450,000), and certainly not entries for proper names like Peter I of Russia and London, EnglandMichael Z. 2010-04-10 05:51 z

Hmmm....I thought that we had already figured out how to deal with names. Every name is a word, and most words qualify for inclusion in Wiktionary. However, we define words, not describe their referents. In some cases, a specific referent is important enough to be briefly noted in the definition. However, generally, any personal name will not have more than one definition (i.e. "a given name"). Note that Mzajac is not arguing that these entries should be deleted, but rather some of their definitions. The entries should be kept, and their definitions pared down to what is appropriate. This allows for translations to be added. There may be some merit to having info about authors, but, if so, this would go somewhere besides the main namespace, perhaps in appendices. EP, you would do well to remember that AHD, and many other dictionaries, are stand-alone entities, whereas we are part of a collective group of reference materials. If the 'pedia has an article on an author, we would do well to utilize it and not duplicate, not in the interest of purity or some other nonsense, but in the interest of focus. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep all, provided they are attestable; none are sum of parts. Wiktionary should include in single-word entries attestable senses for specific entities. --Dan Polansky 11:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete all encyclopedic senses. At the top of each page insert a template (such as {{slim-wikipedia}}) to provide a link to Wikipedia disambiguation page, from where the user may find whatever encyclopedic content WP chooses to offer. At the WP page, make sure there is a project link back to en.wikt. DCDuring TALK 11:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep the Ancient Greek persons. Xenophanes isn't a "given name" of anybody except the philosopher, no English person is named so. --Makaokalani 14:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
    Xenophanes is just a name, like John or Matt. The fact that we only know one Xenophanes does not qualitatively alter the type of word it is. It does make that particular referent a bit special, and I agree that we should note the guy. However, please think about the broader ramificiations. Xenophon is similar, but we know of a few of them. We know a bunch of Alexanders. We need a consistent policy so we don't have to set goofy, arbitrary lines in the sand. By giving a lexical definition ("a given name"), we have a policy which works for all names, regardless of their popularity. By defining referents, we have a big mess. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This may be a good time to review the relevant point from WT:NOT. We should relate our decisions and preferences to a Wiktionary principle whose essence hasn't changed since 2002. Michael Z. 2010-04-09 16:45 z

  1. Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia, a genealogy database, or an atlas; that is, it is not an in-depth collection of factual information, or of data about places and people. Encyclopedic information should be placed in our sister project, Wikipedia. Wiktionary entries are about words. A Wiktionary entry should focus on matters of language and wordsmithing: spelling, pronunciation, etymology, translation, concept, usage, quotations, and links to related words.

I see no relevance of the quoted unvoted-on non-policy WT:NOT to the discussed subject.

An identification of a specific entity on its sense line (London—The capital city of the United Kingdom and of England, situated near the mouth of the River Thames in southeast England) is per se not encyclopedic. Most dictionaries that contain "London" at all also contain some dedicated sense lines for specific cities. I have hyperlinks to at least two such dictionaries (see London at OneLook Dictionary Search and MWO:London).

I would like to see a hyperlink to a dictionary that has "London" as "a place name", failing to include specific entities. I know of no such a dictionary. --Dan Polansky 17:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

  1. The relevance of all pages that have been used without challenge for longer than most current contributors have been here is that they provide a stable core to enterprise. Very few policy and guideline pages have been voted on, but they have provided guidance. As I understand it, WT:NOT was an effort to make it clear that Wiktionary was not to become a short-attention-span encyclopedia.
  2. Why would WMF have established a separate project duplicative of WP when it has such a strong aversion to the forking of projects?
  3. I do not understand how we can avoid having either multiple senses for placenames (Cairo large city on the Nile river in Eqypt" and "small city near the confluence of the Ohio and Mississoppi Rivers in Illinois") or a proliferation of placenames of a multi-part form (Cairo, Egypt; Cairo, Illinois). I do not understand whether there would be any notability limits on placenames. I do not understand what determines what the right content would be for all the placenames that would seem to be includable under the gazetteer concept of defining toponyms with reference to each of the individuals sharing the toponym.
  4. Until someone troubles to address these questions satisfactorily, the discussion of toponyms is quite idle. There are relatively simple ways of drawing bright lines between included and excluded terms which I commend to the attention of all:
    1. No proper noun words
    2. Proper noun words only to the extent that they have a sense that is not solely a reference to an individual referent.
    3. Proper noun words qua words (eg, attestable), but no specific individual referents.
    4. Proper nouns that meet notability criteria that we decide and maintains.
    5. Proper nouns that meet notability criteria that someone else (eg, WP, Google Earth, ISO, UN, the Post offices of the various nations) decides and maintains.
    6. Proper nouns referring to individuals in specific classes (eg, nations, subdivisions of nations, groupings of nations, organizations of the preceding, vernacular place names, natural features, geographic regions), each class having its own criteria.
Our consensus with respect to toponyms seems to be shifting from 2 to 3, reflecting the desire to provide etymologies and translations and transliterations for them. Going beyond toponymic words qua words to include senses relating to individual referents requires a dramatic change in our concepts of inclusion before we even get to specific criteria for inclusion for all or any of the classes of toponyms that might be included. That no advocate has taken the trouble to do even this superficial analysis itself condemns the proposals for any kind of toponym inclusion. DCDuring TALK 19:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
What you are saying about where our consensus is shifting is false.
WT:NOT is not a policy.
Just send these things which you think have a consensual support to a vote, and let us see. --Dan Polansky 09:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
WT:CFI#Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia is a policy. So is WT:About given names and surnames#Encyclopedic content. Okay?
WT:NOT is also linked from the CFI, so it carries some weight. It is a long-lived and fairly stable page, which is an indicator of consensus.WT:NOT deserves to be made a policy think tank. Michael Z. 2010-04-11 03:01 z
(Uh, the given names and surnames page is not a policy. It's a policy think tank that I put together a few weeks ago hoping someone would flesh it out a bit and it could become a policy. The "policy think tank" status doesn't require consensus at all, or I made a mistake putting that label on the page.) --Yair rand 03:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I must have overlooked the memo. Anyway, 1. 2 looks good at first glance. Remember that the given name–surname pattern is not universal. Michael Z. 2010-04-11 07:51 z
Delete all. I don't know why we have all these proper nouns anyway, they're all much better defined in Wikipedia and if something isn't in Wiktionary you get a list with the term as defined in Wikipedia along with other variations. Why do we need Harrisburg, Tower of London, or even London (England) itself? Not for the translations of London, which all seem to be "London". We have Seattle, but not Tacoma or Redmond. We're not Wikipedia, so let's not act like a second rate Wikipedia. Facts707 13:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Re 'Not for the translations of London, which all seem to be "London".': You should do some fact-checking in the London entry. The capital of U.K. is rendered as "Londýn" in Czech, as "Londres" in French, as "Londinium" in Latin, as "Λονδίνο" in Greek, and as "Londra" in Italian. --Dan Polansky 17:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)





Two Persian and one Armenian kings.

Should the first two carry a biblical label?
Yes, becuase the average Engish speaker is unlikely to encounter the name outside of that context or an historical context (for which there might need to also be a tag). Its context of use is therefore restricted. --EncycloPetey 20:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hm. Historical labels a term or sense that is obsolete, but still used for its historical referent, or perhaps to add historical flavour. But it's not as if we have developed a new term replacing the name Xerxes, or as if Xerxes the Second had become obsolete in favour of the modern Zerxo 2000. The sense line doesn't define the name Xerxes, but indicates a particular person. Our diachronic labels like historical can't be applied the same way. Michael Z. 2010-04-08 20:30 z
I didn't say an (historical) context label; I said an historical context label. I didn't specify the particular context. --EncycloPetey 20:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Then what particular context could resolve this? Michael Z. 2010-04-08 23:09 z
If you think the CFI allows us to include Xerxes of Armenia, then doesn't it also require “definitions” for w: Xerxes of Commagene, w: Xerxes (Klaus Lunde) the electropop musician, w: XerxesDZB soccer team, w: Xerxes (Dune) from Brian Herbert's Legends of Dune, XERXES the computer from the game w: System Shock 2, Xerxes from w: Little Zizou, Xerxes Break from w: Pandora Hearts, and anything else listed in w: XerxesMichael Z. 2010-04-08 19:54 z
A biblical label is silly. There is nothing specifically biblical about the Xerxes'. As I see it, we should only have one definition. Whereas Wikipedia is defining the people, we're defining the name. We should have one definition which might read, "a given name of Persian origin, notably held by two Persian kings." We should also have a link to w:Xerxes, so readers can find out about the people, if they want. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The combined definition for both Biblical kings works for me so long as they're actually spelled the same in the Hebrew/Greek sources. That isn't always the case. Different spellings in different sources means different etymologies. --EncycloPetey 20:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I guess I fail to see how that's relevant. They're spelled the same in English. If we were going to single out any language and ask about similar spelling, it would be Old Persian, not Hebrew or Greek. However, English speakers use the same name, with the same spelling, to refer to both kings, and that should suffice for the English entry. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
If they have different etymologies, then there will be two Proper noun sections under separate Ety 1 and Ety2 headers, so a unified definition line would not be physically possible. --EncycloPetey 20:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, yes. Good point. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, so far we do put a biblical label on names of people in the Bible, so I don't see why we wouldn't put this on the Xerxes. Or is biblical for names only used in a biblical context? Regarding separate etymology sections, that's only needed if the names are unrelated. A single etymology can include notes about exceptions or differences for particular senses. Michael Z. 2010-04-08 23:15 z
Huh? Why would a single etymology section be used when there are two completely different etymologies? We're still talking hypothetically, but in this instance the issue concerns two definitions. If those two definitions derive from separate word origins, then there is not an exception to be discussed, there is an entirely separate etymology to be discussed. Adn when the two definitions in question are "this Persian king" or "that Persian king", it becomes ridiculuous to try to explain that clearly in the etymology section itself; you end up essentially repeating the definitions in the etymology just to get them to match up with the appropriate referent. The situation gets even worse if one of the two names has alternative forms (which is not at all unusual for Biblical names), or if the two individual names have different sets of alternative forms. Hopefully, we won't have to worry about any of that, but it is a very real possibility. --EncycloPetey 15:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Um, I thought I wrote that a single etymology section could be used when there are not two completely different etymologies. Can you point out which Xerxes's name is unrelated to which? Or is this all academic? Michael Z. 2010-04-09 16:06 z
Since no one more competent than I has done the check, I'll do it now... Yes, in fact there are two entirely separate etymologies with different Ancient Greek origins, different Greek translations, and presumably different Persian sources, but I don't have the resources to check the Persian. The king of Persia in the book of Esther is Xerxes in the NIV (Ahasuerus in the Authorised Version; gen. form Ἀρταξέρξου (Artaxérxou) in the Septuagint). But in Daniel 9:1, the "father" of Darius is a different Xerxes (NIV; the AV has Ahasuerus), and the Septuagint has gen. form Ἀσσουήρου (Assouḗrou). Note also that neither one of these is the king known as Xerxes II. --EncycloPetey 19:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
So which English Xerxes in Wiktionary comes from which etymology? Michael Z. 2010-04-10 05:38 z
That's debated historiclly among Bible scholars. The passage in Daniel refers to "Darius son of Xerxes", although Darius was actually the father of Xerxes I and Wikipedia lists Darius' father as Hystaspes. If this is assumed to be an error of reversed relationship in the Daniel text, then the Xerxes in Daniel is Xerxes I. The Xerxes in Esther has traditionally been assumed to be Xerxes I, but this is not at all certain. The Greek spelling in the Septuagint implies that this Xerxes is the king known to archaeologists as Artaxerxes I, rather than Xerxes I or II. --EncycloPetey 05:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the patient explanation. So Xerxes I and II may be the same person, or are they known from other sources? Maybe this requires separate definitions for the biblical and archaeological Xerxes, allowing that they may or may not be the same. Michael Z. 2010-04-10 23:21 z
Xerxes II is definitely a different person and is not either of the Biblical kings known by that name. Xerxes I (the Great) is the king currently famous for his (wildly historically inaccurate) portrayal in the move 300 (based ever-so-loosely on one of the most significant military campaigns in history). By contrast, Xerxes II reigned only 45 days before being assassinated, leaving him little time to accomplish anything. --EncycloPetey 03:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)



Has a generic sense, I think. Added this sense ("A daring and mysterious avenger") with three citations. Equinox 19:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. The good citations lead me to believe it means something more specific, like “an avenger with a secret identity, who appears at dramatic moments to save the day and vex his evil enemy, and disappears again.” Is it an encyclopedic reference that only has meaning if you've seen or read Zorro? At least it doesn't require a horse and mask. Michael Z. 2010-04-08 19:45 z


It might be explained in a usage note, Wikipedia link, or in the definition ( A surname,notably of...) Transliterations like Zhukov are a headache. How can an English word be a Russian surname? --Makaokalani 14:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
So what is the criteria for notability sufficient to be mentioned so? How do we mention the person or place if there are six of them, or 26, or 106? They're already listed at w: Zhukov (disambiguation) (27 notable Zhukovs) or w: Paris (disambiguation) (100+), and Wiktionary is WT:NOT paper, so we can just link there.
Yeah, names themselves aren't exactly normal words that belong to a language. That's why onomastics and lexicography are separate disciplines. Maybe the spellings of names belong to languages: we can attest Zhukov as an English form of this name in English publications, and in telephone directories, passports, and legal documents. Michael Z. 2010-04-10 01:08 z


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)


"A fictional time machine and spacecraft" (the specific one in Doctor Who and nowhere else). Generic sense (a structure with interior apparently larger than exterior) was broken out and moved to Tardis a while ago. Equinox 15:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep and send to RFV, unless you think the quotes I've added are sufficient to satisfy CFI. If, not RFV and I'll add more; there are plenty I've not included. TARDIS is one of about two or three Doctor Who derived words that really do have lexical value outside the programme's fictional universe. There is a whole generation of young Brits who see an authentic police box from the 60's or 70's and think "It's a TARDIS." The sci-fi icon has actually supplanted recognition of the generic object it was originally modelled upon. --EncycloPetey 01:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep, why not just use {{alternative capitalization of}}? Why delete this, but keep Tardis? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why the figurative sense was moved to Tardis and the specific TV object kept at TARDIS, as I didn't do it. I'd be happy with an alternate-caps entry; I'm just saying we should have the "big room" sense but not the "specific TV time machine" one. Equinox 11:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry yes, move that to the etymology. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Why? Have you looked at the quotations, which do mention something capable of travel but do not mention the TV programme nor the bigger-on-the-inside aspect? --EncycloPetey 15:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
2000 is talking about a specific episode of the programme ("The Master" is one of the villains); 2001 is talking about the making of the prop for the thing in the programme. Perhaps the others are okay, but I am suspicious because they all seem to be dealing with "the Tardis" (requiring knowledge of the programme and the specific thing) and never "a Tardis". I wonder whether anyone has grown up knowing what "Tardis" is and not being aware of Doctor Who. Perhaps something like Batarang (weapon used only by Batman but often referenced in a pop-culturey manner in other texts) is comparable. Equinox 15:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Did I claim that every single quote met the criterion? No. Some quotes were added to show the variability of capitalization, rather than simply to bolster inclusion. Quotes are quotes. We don't leave out quotes just because don't satisfy our minimum inclusion requirements. Additional quotations outside that scope are informative in other ways. I say again: "looked at the quotations, which do mention something capable of travel but do not mention the TV programme nor the bigger-on-the-inside aspect". I did not say to look at all quotes I added. The requisite three quotes are there.
And yes, if you like, I can add more quotes about "a Tardis", even dating back to 1965 from the programme itself. The particular TARDIS possessed by the show's main character is usually referred to as "the TARDIS" throughout the series and in accompanying publications, but it's apparent from 1965 onwards that it is not a unique object even within the context of the programme. There are many other such ships. It's a bit like "the Sea", which means a different sea depending on where you are, except that in this case, 99% of the references are to the specific ship operated by the Doctor. Most people (even those who know) refer to his ship as the TARDIS, while referring to the others as "the Master's TARDIS", "the Rani's TARDIS", "the Monk's TARDIS", "Drax's TARDIS", etc. With "the" it's a particular timeship, but the word itself is not so limited in all situations. --EncycloPetey 16:09, 10 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
  • 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. —RuakhTALK 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 angleMichael Z. 2010-04-12 15:40 z

Also obtuse-angled, obtuse angled. See also Citations:obtuseMichael 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".) —RuakhTALK 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 angleMichael 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 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
  • 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. —RuakhTALK 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 serviceMichael 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)
  • 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 angleMichael Z. 2010-04-13 17:13 z

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)
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.[16]

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

all over the place

Preposition. 2 senses so far. I have been under the impression that we have been trying to avoid the tendentious use of the Preposition L3 header for prepositions that have no "objects". The available choices for header for the senses involved would seem to be Adverb (already present at the entry) or Prepositional phrase. DCDuring TALK 10:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

PP looks right. all appears to modify over. Is the idiomatic sense simply hyperbole? Pingku 14:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Though all is often a degree adverb, I think all over is well treated as both an adverb and a preposition. Further, *"over the place" does not seem to me to have an idiomatic meaning, whereas "all over the place" does (as some other dictionaries suggest. DCDuring TALK 15:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
It's an adverbial phrase that answers the question "where?", so it ought to be combined under Adverb. --EncycloPetey 14:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I prefer the new Prep phrase header for some cases, but this one seems to merit the separate Adjective and Adverb headers. The Preposition header may have been intended to be the Prep phrase header. DCDuring TALK 15:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, it can be a predicate and is gradable so it can be considered an adjective too, especially in usage such as "His answers were all over the place.", in which the "where-ness" is usually strictly figurative. DCDuring TALK 15:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I added "prepositional phrase" after the definition in the "Preposition" section. I don't think we need to say "Prepositional phrase" in the section header, since we don't say (AFAIK) "Adjectival phrase" or "Adverbial phrase" when phrases are used in those contexts. Facts707 18:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Comparative adverb? eg: He fired more all over the place than she did. Facts707 18:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Superlative adverb? eg: Fred fired the most all over the place of anyone there.. Although I haven't any examples of this in Google Books. Did find one adjectival usage of this though.Facts707 18:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  1. I don't see how this can ever be a pure preposition. It does not seem to be able to take an "object". It is a complete prepositional phrase in itself. The one header that seems to me to be outright wrong is "Preposition".
  2. We have recently voted to allow the L3 header "Prepositional phrase". It is intended to be an alternative to Adjective and Adverb where there is no difference in senses (or inflection, ie, comparability) between the adjectival and adverbial uses of the phrase. If we have the headers "Adjective" and "Adverb", we should not have the header "Prepositional phrase".
  3. I haven't found comparative or superlative use of the adverb. Even the comparative use of the adjective seems a bit strained to me, though it seems to be attestable. I can't find attestable use of the superlative for adjectival use. DCDuring TALK 20:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree after reading your explanation. It does have its own object. I now agree that the header "Prepositional phrase" is most appropriate. Facts707 18:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Would be nice to have Template:en-prepositional phrase, Template:en-noun phrase, Template:en-phrasal verb. Facts707 18:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
In the interim, no harm and some good comes from {{infl|en}prepositional phrase|head=[[all over]] [[the]] [[place]]}}. This categorizes it properly, links to entries for the "subidiom" all over and the other constituents, and does not show the vacuous and rare comparative and superlative "forms". The desirability of last point is arguable, of course, but few minds are likely to be set back by not seeing the "forms". DCDuring TALK 21:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Also {{en-noun|sg=[[hot]] [[stuff]]|-}} handles nouns. We have just been adding Category:English phrasal verbs to the entry and using {{en-verb}} with "inf=" for phrasal verbs so that they appear directly in Category:English verbs. DCDuring TALK 21:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm convinced. I updated the entry as per your recommendation. all over the shop and all over the board seem to have done it that way as well. Feel free to change any others I may have done incorrectly. Thanks for the info, Facts707 10:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

hit the ball twice

Cricket: Describing the method of getting out in which the batsman deliberately hits the ball with his bat a second time for a reason other than to protect his wicket --Rising Sun talk? contributions 21:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  • A precise definition of one of the ways of being given out in cricket - what is your objection? SemperBlotto 21:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I too see no problem with this. Certainly not SoP as it's only hitting the ball twice for other reasons than to protect his wicket (whatever a wicket is. I've read THHGTTG and still have no idea, except that it apparently has three pillars and a crossbeam atop).—an ignorant American 22:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Now I see this is listed as an adjective, not a verb. A verb definition would appear unidiomatic to me. There was an objection at Talk:hit the ball twice. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 08:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd say it's an adverb - he was out hit the ball twice. Hence keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, but blech, what an ugly adjective. Can't the cricketeers just say "he was out because he hit the ball twice" or "he was out for hitting the ball twice."? Facts707 12:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Kept and tagged for cleanup. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Striking.​—msh210 18:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

hit wicket

cricket: Describing the method of getting out in which the batsman hits his own wicket while attempting to play the ball. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 21:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  • A precise definition of one of the ways of being given out in cricket - what is your objection? SemperBlotto 21:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep per my comments on #hit_the_ball_twice.​—msh210 22:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep, it doesn't refer to anything hitting the wicket (such as erm, the ball) but the batsman hitting his own wicket. However it doesn't have to be while attempting to play the ball, he could decide to leave the ball, fall over and hit his own wicket. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
See Citations:hit wicket for adverbial use. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


"to apply Marmite...". Some old crap from 2004 - only one thing on Google groups barely worth citing Marmiting is an exact science,being perfectly judged by the amount on knife from scooping out the jar. - here. If deleted, maybe worth referencing as among the oldest pieces of crap to fall between the cracks. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 11:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

S'pose it should be at RFV. It seems to be the present participle of Marmite. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Most of the forms of the postulated Marmite#Verb seem unattestable or at least hard to attest, especially the infinitive (bare or not) and 3rd person singular. DCDuring TALK 20:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Kept and sent to RFV.​—msh210 16:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

make a stink

make a + stink? Seems more of a collocation than idiom. Compare make a fuss, make a complaint --Rising Sun talk? contributions 11:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Seems like an idiom to me, I think "stink" only has this sense with "make" and "kick up" Polarpanda 19:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
And cause a stink. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep Other dictionaries have raise a stink and make a stink (AHD, McGrawHill Amer Idioms, Wordnet). Out of 68 uses of "[verb] a stink" at COCA, 58 were for "make" (36) and "raise" (22). Surprisingly to me, there was only one for "cause". DCDuring TALK 23:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete It's not necessarily clear whether the speaker means "make a bad smell (fart?)" or "make a complaint". However, raise a stink seems to clearly indicate the complaint, so it narrows the range of stink sufficiently to warrant an entry - although I don't think it is truly idiomatic because it does mean a combination of some meaning of both words. Facts707 12:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
    That argument would seem to say that we should have an entry for "make a stink" (because the meaning is unexpected) and not for "raise a stink", because it is compositional. DCDuring TALK 14:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep, make and stink have so many definitions between them and very few are relevant in the context of this phrase. - [The]DaveRoss 18:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Kept.​—msh210 19:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

raring to go

raring + to + go. One can be raring to + any verb, --Rising Sun talk? contributions 11:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I hate to use that dirty word, but it's quite a set phrase. You can be raring to any verb, but I'd bet this is massively more common than anything else. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Compare "raring to go" (2.8 m) vs "raring to get" (1.1m), "raring to have" (.1m), "raring to be" (0.2m), [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=r10&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&q=%22raring+to+fuck%22&cts=1271163776298&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= "raring to fuck" (16000, with SafeSearch removed).

--Rising Sun talk? contributions 13:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep At COCA 55 of the 78 occurrences of "raring to" were with "go". No other verb had more than 2 occurrences. Cambridge Dictonary of American Idioms includes it. DCDuring TALK 16:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Redirect to raring.​—msh210 16:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
That would be OK as long as there was a usage example containing the collocation/idiom (not deletable without reopening this RfD, if that were practical). DCDuring TALK 20:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
There's a usex "raring to go" s.v. raring, and it's unlikely to be removed, as it's 9as noted) the most common phrase with raring.​—msh210 15:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Common phrase, but does not seem idiomatic at all. Nevermind, maybe you're right. -- 06:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to raring (simply means "eager"). If the user even gets that far before "raring" pops up in the search box and he just goes right to raring. Facts707 12:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Redirected.​—msh210 19:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Reta Vortaro

Using my favorite 'non-native learner comes to Wiktionary about a foreign language' scenario, this page would fare better in Wikipedia or an Esperanto appendix. It is a brand name and does not meet WT:CFI, after all. 04:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I would go for delete, though technically it's not a brand name, but a website name. We do include commercial brand names, e.g. Toblerone, Zumba, etc. Some citations might make it more convincing though. (BTW shouldn't this be in WT:RFV?) ---> Tooironic 09:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I didn't understand that a distinction is to be made between a product, brand, or organization that is in the realm of private ownership and explicit profit-making and those not. We do seem to make exceptions for sovereigns and their geographic instrumentalities and for cute and cuddly entities and sacred cows. A website that uses a name that is not registered as a trade or business name (if that is indeed the case here) seems as likely as not to be serving a promotional purpose, in this case, for the Esperanto industry (there being no associated population of native speakers of the language). We do not (or should not) include other language references, AFAICT, except for their attestable abbreviations (eg, OED. See WT:RFD#Oxford English Dictionary.
  • Move to RfV for attestation as a brand name. DCDuring TALK 12:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted by opiaterein. Striking.​—msh210 19:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


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 hamburg steak (?), hamburger (1884), cheeseburger (1928), burger (1937). I believe the other derived terms are subsequent. cheeseburger would seem to be a blend. As 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 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 burger? Equinox 17:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I have edited hamburger, cheeseburger, and 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)

lower the boom on

Should redirect to lower the boom, per the talk page. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Redirected by opiaterein. Striking.​—msh210 19:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


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

cubic centiliter

Zero occurrences in Google Books, COCA, or BNC. Michael Z. 2010-04-24 18:47 z

Sadly, it's attestable. As the entry notes, this is a stupid construction; what the hell is "l³" meant to mean? Cubic isn't just redundant, it's senseless. I doubt that NISOP applies here, so if, as I predict, we keep this, let's slap a proscriptive usage note on it.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 09:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Oops; I would swear that I checked my spelling when I google-booked this. Michael Z. 2010-04-29 20:40 z
I added some warnings to the entry, but I still think that we should delete this one. Using this "unit" is such a blatant error that the speaker themself does not know what he/she means. How can we be sure that it actually means "one centiliter"? --Hekaheka 09:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
"How can we be sure that it actually means "one centiliter"?" Good point. I don't have an answer for that. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if I agree that this is necessarily erroneous. "Cubic meter" means "meter cubed", but "cubic object" means "object in the shape of a cube". So "cubic centiliter" doesn't make sense as a unit, but it may make sense as a simultaneous description of size and shape. (That said, for the few hits I can find, I have a vague sense that they actually mean "cubic centimeter", i.e. "milliliter", and if so then they are indeed erroneous.) —RuakhTALK 01:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete. In most of the cases the contexts suggests that the writer intended either cubic centimeter or milliliter. A formula verbalized in the context implies what the correct unit should be. Thus, we seem to have a rather rare faithful replication of a thinko. In the cases where there is a reference to a container, the usage would seem to be NISoP. DCDuring TALK 14:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I must be a topology nerd. I saw this nomination and thought of a nine-dimensional unit.​—msh210 15:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
hypercube anyone? -- ALGRIF talk 16:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Strong delete It's just a few people putting two words together that don't make sense together. It's not for us to guess what they were thinking. Why not pound weight or tall high? Facts707 12:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't speak Bulgarian

Formation of similar sentences can be seen at translations of I don't speak English. If we allow others (=other than English) then some arbitrary criteria will have to be made for which languages we can duplicate it into. (my vote is for delete in case that's not clear) — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 01:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey look, if you scroll up a bit, this is a hot topic :D #I don't speak Middle French[ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 01:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't speak Anglo-Saxon

I don't speak Arabic

I don't speak Armenian

I don't speak Belarusian

I don't speak Chinese

I don't speak Czech

I don't speak Danish

I don't speak Dutch

I don't speak Esperanto

I don't speak Finnish

I don't speak French

I don't speak Galician

I don't speak Georgian

I don't speak German

I don't speak Greek

I don't speak Hebrew

I don't speak Hindi

I don't speak Hungarian

I don't speak Icelandic

I don't speak Irish

I don't speak Italian

I don't speak Japanese

I don't speak Korean

I don't speak Latin

I don't speak Macedonian

I don't speak Mandarin

I don't speak Norwegian

I don't speak Occitan

I don't speak Old English

I don't speak Old French

I don't speak Polish

I don't speak Portuguese

I don't speak Russian

I don't speak Serbo-Croatian

I don't speak Sogdian

I don't speak Spanish

I don't speak Supyire

I don't speak Swahili

I don't speak Swedish

I don't speak Thai

I don't speak Turkish

I don't speak Ukrainian

I don't speak Vietnamese

...While we're at it, I think we should kill Daniel.. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 02:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I oppose any threats to my life; and still abstain the maintenance of such entries. They are so well organized, kept in one place, that I consider them easy to delete at once. Although, at the "hot topic", I presented suggestions to generally handle phrasebook entries, which if applied would probably keep most of these instances. --Daniel. 03:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I would keep phrases for modern and common languages. I don't think we need all versions of all languages and dialects, like Middle French, Old English, simply because there won't be much use for them. I have created the FL phrases for Russian (я не говорю по-русски), German (ich spreche kein Deutsch), Arabic (Template:Arab) and French (je ne parle pas français), planning to do for Mandarin and Japanese, perhaps others. Maybe we could keep the number of languages low, for which we have contributors and are likely to have phrasebooks? --Anatoli 12:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we need more than one. Someone can find I don't speak English and see how the phrase is constructed - then look up the name of the language they want to use and make the appropriate substitutions. I *might* not have as big a deal with having the others, if we could get ONE of them done first. People here don't seem to have the ability to focus on or support one little project... it always has to be something huge that they can never do themselves. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 13:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree with Opiaterein, especially the last observation. We may need some big projects, but successful demonstration subprojects can win support for the big ones. Also, as Anatoli points out, there is rather little need for a phrasebook for ancestral and extinct languages. DCDuring TALK 14:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Delete for every one of them, with the possible exception of I don't speak English. Add phrase I don't speak. The nuances can be treated in the entries for translations of "I don't speak". --Hekaheka 14:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favor of deletion. However, the best reason I can come up with to keep them is the 'no harm done' principle. They're not misleading, damaging or harmful, they're just of very very little use. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Hm.. If "no harm" is sufficient to pass CFI, there'll be no limit. --Hekaheka 14:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. That's why I'm in favor of deletion. Let's spend our energy on I don't speak. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
The problem I have with I don't speak is that direct translations won't demonstrate the grammar of the "X language" part, which is why I prefer I don't speak English. It gives you all that... and we have one thing to focus on, and then maybe later we can add the myriads of others. But we need to learn to finish one project before expanding it to unnecessary degrees. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 16:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't speak English is already translated into 62 languages. This, when compared to English terms that can't be found in a Swadesh list, especially water, is usually a good number; so I think the criterion of simply displaying grammar of each language is reasonably fulfilled. Other translations will be added eventually. --Daniel. 16:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
"Eventually" in this case is not good enough for me. There are still tons of trreqs, and a lot of the ones I put in (for fun) were removed. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 17:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
"Eventually" is not only an excuse for arbitrarily labelling I don't speak English as a finished project; that adverb conveys the fact that all Wiktionary entries have space for improvement as long as someone wants to constructively edit them. Unless you want to suggest some concrete limit to qualify a project as successfully completed - which you actually suggested: we need to learn to finish one project before expanding it to unnecessary degrees, referring to the focus on the English version, before the possible creation and maintenance of various I-don't-speak-that-language entries. Then you mentioned the trreqs, but I don't see how they are counted on that decision. Any user could add trreqs for Woiwurrung, Haitian Vodoun Culture Language, Papiamentu, etc. at I don't speak English, without compromising the quality of that entry, since I don't consider a complete translation box as an achievable goal for now. --Daniel. 18:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Strong keep. I think it would be very useful, probably one of the most useful parts of the phrasebook, for any user to be able to simply look up "I don't speak language X" and be able to see how to say it in that language. What French phrase would be more useful than "je ne parle pas français", what Portuguese phrase would be more useful than "eu não falo português"? I'm strongly in favor of keeping these just for that, and if anyone wants to add translations in other languages too, there is no harm in it, even it's not that useful. What would be the point of the phrasebook if we didn't even include such clearly basic phrases? --Yair rand 17:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
redirect/delete Given that the translation is only really useful in one language, I'd redirect all these (except English) to Appendix:I don't speak. I suspect that if you know how to say "I don't speak English, and I don't speak X" in X, then you can work out how to say "I don't speak Y". Conrad.Irwin 17:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't delete nor redirect them, but I like the appendix suggestion. Then I made a start on Appendix:I don't speak. --Daniel. 18:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
One very positive thing about having separate entries for each language is that the most common phrase in the language, like "je ne parle pas français" can be linked directly to I don't speak French and the user can look up how to say this phrase in other languages if they have this communication problem. Another thing (a weak argument but needs to be addressed if we make the phrasebook generic, working for all languages) that applies to Russian and some other languages - the pattern for "I don't speak ..." + language is NOT always straightforward.
  • 1) If a language name is based on an adjective, then it's по- + -ски/-цки: по-английски, по-немецки, по-чешски, etc.
    2) if it is a noun, then the pattern is different, it's на + language name in prepositional case, e.g. на иврите (Ivrit-Hebrew), на санскрите (Sanskrit), на латыни (Latin), some language names are not declinable: - на эсперанто (Esperanto), на путунхуа (Putonghua-Mandarin), на суахили (Swahili), etc. If you don't think it's important, please copy all missing translations before deleting. --Anatoli 00:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
But some languages don't base this on a adjective or a noun. Latin, for instance, uses an adverb to express the identity language, as in "I don't speak Greekly". In that situation, if we lack the adverb entry (as we often do, and how would you go looking it anyway?) then a user cannot determine how to construct the phrase. --EncycloPetey 06:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that was my point too. In Russian, it's also adverbs (the first case), not a direct object and an indirect object in the second. These type of adjectives are usually restricted to languages or the way things are done, like French à la. --Anatoli 00:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • No, but in that case – as in billions of others – you need to know some of the language's grammar to be able to construct your sentence. Which is perfectly reasonable, a dictionary isn't there to build every sentence for you. Ƿidsiþ 05:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep  The whole point of a phrasebook is to help people not sound like morons in a foreign language, as you would if you compounded я не говорою по- (ja ne hovórju po-, I don't speak) + українська (ukrajíns’ka, Ukrainian (language)), because the result means something like “I don't speak by a Ukrainian woman.” You can't just toss together words from an inflected language, and the average anglophone isn't even equipped to understand why. And if you're going to learn just one phrase in a language, is there a better one than this? (Maybe “I am worth more to you alive than dead.”)

And the question of whether Middle French belongs should be discussed in the more general context of the phrasebook project, not here. Michael Z. 2010-04-29 20:33 z

Thanks for understanding (I would use "українка" for "Ukrainian woman" but that's not important). Perhaps, we just choose, which languages are worth keeping in the phrasebook? --Anatoli 00:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I would too. Well, по-українська = “Ukrainian (adj.),” “Ukrainian female”, or whatever else it might refer to. But I think it could be fun to learn how to order beers or get my face slapped in Middle French, Common Slavonic, or Proto-Indo-European. Michael Z. 2010-04-30 04:54 z
  • 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?
    But such an appendix would have about 200 language-specific phrases, each with about 200 translations. We could make an appendix for each translation, but then that would be an entry. Michael Z. 2010-05-15 07:08 z
    Redirect only: I agree with unsigned. This appendix is sufficient: Appendix:I_don't_speak Jiiimbooh 21:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


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)

in pain

SoP (definition is "experiencing pain"); cf. in joy, in sadness, in misery, etc.​—msh210 19:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, definitely delete. ---> Tooironic 23:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete, notwithstanding the polysemy of the constituents, oft advanced as automatically warranting inclusion. DCDuring TALK 00:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Ironically msh210 you've picked three examples that don't work very well. However in should have a sense "currently experiencing", per in agony. However then in love would be SoP. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Re whether my examples (in joy, in sadness, in misery) work, see e.g. google:"off in sadness". Re a new sense of in, we have it: 10. Denoting a state of the subject. He stalked away in anger. John is in a coma.​—msh210 14:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
A PP headed by in in this sense could adjectivally modify a noun in any function, not just subject, and adverbially modify an adjective, adverb, verb, or a whole sentence. The definition seems to limited. DCDuring TALK 16:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Subject here can mean not the subject of the sentence but the subject of the PP (i.e., not the grammar sense of subject but the "main topic of a discussion" sense). (As the author of this definition line, I can assure you that that was, indeed, the intent.) Feel free to better the definition line, of course, but it does apply to in pain, no?​—msh210 16:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Generalizing "subject" doesn't save the wording of the sense unless adjectives, adverbs, verbs and sentences fall under that term. I agree that there should be a definition that applies to "in pain" and would hope (against experience) that I could rely on Wiktionary to have it. Maybe we can't do long entries (as that for "in") well and therefore need SOP entries like "in pain" that are minimally tainted with idiomaticity so as to provide coverage. I certainly lack the chops to tackle an entry section like in#Preposition, distinguishing and attesting all the senses. I find I can't always read the entries of MWOnline (or RHU or AHD), let alone OED, for such words and keep track of all the distinctions made. DCDuring TALK 17:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • It can't be used with all emotions/feelings (as MSH's examples show), but there are several. In love, in pain, in debt, in doubt, in hope, in sickness and in health.... Unfortunately most of these are difficult to translate and rather idiomatic. We could cover it with a sense at in (the OED has "Of condition or state, physical, mental, or moral"), and we should have that, but maybe it would be useful to have entries for some of the collocations too. Ƿidsiþ 09:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Weak keep delete waffle. I'm not sure what to do here. The trick is that the sense of "in" just can't be thrown onto any stative noun. If someone came up to me and said, "I'm in sadness," I'd....well, I don't know what I'd do, but it isn't proper English. Quite frankly, I don't think that any of msh210's examples really work. At the same time, there are a few of them that can take it: love, debt, remission, mourning, agony. I guess, to me, it's about numbers. If there are maybe twenty nouns which can take this sense and still sound like real English, then I'd be ok with having collocation entries for all of them. If there are 2,000, then I'd just say add a sense to "in." But.....in love and in pain are just such common collocations, I might say leave them anyway. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with this. Also, I've just noticed that the OED notes that the construction can sometimes be used with concrete nouns, and it gives some examples like "in flower", "in tears"...again rather idiomatic constructions, yet not uncommon. Ƿidsiþ 12:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, the nouns can be modified in various ways, eg "in so much pain" "in any pain", that are frequent, at least in writings and numerous ("harrowing", "godawful", "gut-wrenching").
Is this really justified as a Phrasebook entry? Are we meeting the needs of any users when we refuse to provide some filtering of the mass of collocations of English words? If frequency is a criterion, would anyone trouble to operationalize it? Is this of any interest to us linguistically? Should we really include every MWE minimally tainted with idiomaticity under any of the numerous definitions or criteria advanced? DCDuring TALK 14:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure, because most users come here looking for some "filtering of the mass of collocations of English words". Not definitions or translations. What do you imagine, someone will bother to look up in pain and then say, "I was hoping the bastards would have filtered this out...fuck this, I'm heading for UrbanDictionary"? These arguments are not about more or less content for users, they are about giving editors a manageable and internally-consistent way of providing the content. (Saying all that, I'm still not sure whether this should be kept or not..) Ƿidsiþ 14:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
We are apparently in wholehearted agreement that we could dispense with the prominent placement of everything other than definitions and translations in an entry. But whether or not we have an entry for something conveys information. If we have an entry for an MWE that is not truly idiomatic we are implying that it needs to be looked up and that there are no meaning-construction rules to be learned. Learning the way prepositions head prepositional phrases is about as basic in English as case endings are in inflected languages. DCDuring TALK 15:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
(from the left) For in + noun, the meanings vary quite a lot, which is one reason to consider them idiomatic. As native speakers we're so familiar with these common terms that they appear not to be idiomatic. Sometimes we get so obsessed with "sum of parts" that we nominate valid entries. Are we worried about having too many entries? Certainly just because lots of English terms start with in isn't alone a reason to delete them all. Our criteria still apply. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Strong delete. We're just looking at words and terms, not context or encyclopedia content. Why not in love, in luck, out of luck, feeling good, etc.? Because anyone who knows what "in" and "love" are can figure out "in love".Facts707 11:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I just looked at my post and in love and out of luck have entries. It'd be a hard sell for out of luck, but in love is silly, it's obviously just being in a state of love, like in pain is just being in a state of pain.Facts707

Deleted.​—msh210 15:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

butingzhan huoche & butingzhan hangban

Meaning, "nonstop train" and "nonstop flight". SoP. Delete. ---> Tooironic 23:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing SoP. Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
That was a speedy deletion Atelaes, couldn't we have waited a week like we normally do? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Wasn't me. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 13:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Apologies, it was User:Atitarev. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, if I deleted too early. If there are serious objections and if someone thinks they have a value, please advise. --Anatoli 13:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I would say leave them deleted, unless someone raises a stink. This seems fairly clear cut. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 13:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

silly pill

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

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

​—msh210 18:58, 27 April 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:
  • 2003, Thomas Kinkade, The Many Loves of Parenting‎ ((Please specify the language of the quote)), page 133:
    Lua error in Module:usex/templates at line 41: The parameter "1" is required.
  • 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)

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 JamesjiaoTC 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 cancer of the prostate. 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)
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)


this word doesn't exist in french —This comment was unsigned.

An old Wonderfool entry. Should it be texto? Equinox 18:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Probably. texto is French for SMS (text message) I believe. SemperBlotto 21:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Move to RFV. Never heard of it, but all the same... Mglovesfun (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Texto is a Parisienne noun. txto is usded only in sms. To delete. Ihmo--Pierpao 05:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
But we have txt. PS French for SMS is also SMS. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Kept and moved to RFV. This isn't good deletion logic. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

anecdotal evidence

Probably sum of parts - evidence which is anecdotal in nature. Yes, there is a Wikipedia page, but that is not part of our Criteria for Inclusion. Moreover, the definition given is too narrow, as evidence can be anecdotal without necessarily being obtained randomly or having no legal basis. Delete. ---> Tooironic 06:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ironically this is the sort of entry that SemperBlotto usually shoots on sight - although he created it in 2007. Delete, I see no controversy here. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Strong keep, at the very least it is a set phrase. But the definition is not very good, and needs a full rewrite. I actually consider the term a misnomer, as it is not evidence in the scientific sense, and this takes from the SoP claim, and could be included in part of the definition.--Dmol 12:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure, if you can improve the entry there's a much better possibility of it being kept. See Talk:master mariner for a specific example of this. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I have change it to "A limited selection of examples chosen to support or refute an argument, which are not supported by scientific or statistical analysis". This is more broad than the previous definition, and seems to show that the term is a set phrase.--Dmol 23:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If it were really a set phrase it would not be found in expressions like "anecdotal and statistical/geographical/empirical/survey/experimental evidence", as it is at COCA. "Anecdotal" is followed by many nouns with similar meaning, such as "report", "account", "cases", etc. And evidence can be modified by many adjectives.
OTOH "Anecdotal X and evidence" and "anecdotal evidence and X" do not occur with "anecdotal" unambiguously modifying both X and evidence.
Some lemmings have it, including Dictionary.com's own 21st Century Lexicon and a medical dictionary.
Keep 2+ lemmings can't be wrong. DCDuring TALK 00:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

light green

SoP, like the definition says "any green that's light". No help to anyone. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete as defined. Another exemplar of the silly results of the "polysemous constituents" rationale for including multi-word entries. DCDuring TALK 14:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • delete. As Prince George said, "doesn't really mean anything." Ƿidsiþ 14:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
This is one of the colors that seems to have a standardized specific referent in computing in both HTML and in X11 (X Window). Perhaps that is worth a specialized definition. Also, Websters 1913 had it and its copiers have it, though Merriam-Webster's lexicographers thought better better of it: it is not in MW3 or MWOnline. 14:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
See if you like it now.--Pierpao 15:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
That sense seems possibly keepworthy. Note the formatting and template use, especially {{&lit}}. Also, I didn't use {{en-noun}} as I don't think that this is much used in the plural in the possibly keepworthy sense, nor would I call it "uncountable" rather than "uncounted". DCDuring TALK 15:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Seems much better now, maybe keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Fixed and, styled i hope!--Pierpao 15:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The prescriptive technical sense doesn't meet our CFI unless we find three citations. Certainly the plural is used, or how would we know our light greens from our dark greens. And it's a colour, chiefly defined by its hue, ad not a toneMichael Z. 2010-05-05 15:49 z
I agree re meeting the CFI. And searching google books:"light green" css|html does not show any visible relevant hits among the first 20 hits, though I didn't look very carefully. (A bunch use the phrase to refer to any of a number of similar colors.) Keep and RFV. Of course, if the non-SOP sense fails RFV, the others will go, too.​—msh210 15:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

[Corrections] “Web colors” is not exactly a system – light green is not an HTML4 colour keyword[17] nor a CSS2 colour keyword,[18] it is the name of an X11 colour.

Its derivative, lightgreen is a color keyword supported by many browsers, and also an SVG color keyword[19] (therefore supported in the latest HTML5 draft[20]), and also in the latest CSS3 draft.[21] Michael Z. 2010-05-05 16:52 z

I added X11 and hue. I don't like repetitions, but if you prefer color, feel free to rollback please--Pierpao 17:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Move to RfV. DCDuring TALK 17:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
RfV. Light green can't be defined purely as a hue, since X11 green, for example, has the identical hue, but different saturation (or chroma) and brightness (lightness, or tone). (And boy, some of our colour-related definitions are just confusing and wrong. Added to my long list.) Michael Z. 2010-05-05 21:17 z
Delete  This is not an English word, it is a translingual keyword from a series of computer standards (X11, SVG, CSS3, HTML5). These are not English; HTML or CSS has the same keywords when written by Albanians and Zimbabweans.
We don't include keywords or function names from computer languages (be they procedural, object-oriented, or markup) in the dictionary.
Regarding the possibility of verifying actual usage of the term: the first two pages of Google Books results for HTML "light green" yielded 15 uses in a computing or web-authoring context. Only 1 used Light Green, in a table of keywords, to refer to this colour,[22] 1 used Light Green in a table possibly to refer to the X11 colour,[23] and 13 various uses mean simply “a green that is light,” amply demonstrated by provided RGB values or HTML colour keywords.[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] Michael Z. 2010-05-06 17:00 z
I read the bgc hits as you do. Notwithstanding that, we can't exclude the possibility that groups might yield some citations. If, after 30 days, none are found, then yet another approach to having color entries with narrow meanings suitable for illustration with color examples will have failed. As with other classes of encyclopedic content, I'd be happy to let WP sort it out for us for cases like this. But there is a modest specialized scholarly literature on color words ("chromonyms"). So it is not a matter of no lexical interest. Has anyone read up on the subject? It is fairly obvious that "green" as in "green eyes", "green grass", or "green apple" is not the same as "green" as in "green paint" and "light" in "light brown hair" is not the same as in "light green paint". DCDuring TALK 17:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Not having read up on the subject of chromonyms, those differences are not obvious to me, not even fairly obvious. Can you explain them, please?​—msh210 18:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I am still wrestling with how to talk about this. For someone more in practice, see this passage, at page 30 in Lexical Semantics (Cruse) for a discussion re "red" as in "red hair". BTW, "chromonym" would be barely attestable. DCDuring TALK 19:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand how the green in "green paint" is different from the green in "green apple"? Any any color can be made "lighter" by shining more light on it, or "darker" by shining less light on it. Photographers have to deal with that all the time - who's to say how "light" or "dark" the subject really was on a certain day at a certain time in a certain light? Facts707 11:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
"Color standard" can give you the peace :)? What do you think?--Pierpao 09:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Strong delete. Why not "dark green", "light blue", "bright red", etc.? Any use in the computer world belongs in Wikipedia unless it is idiomatic and means something else like "my hard drive just caught on fire"! Facts707 11:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
This is not a problem limited to multi-word color names. All color terms have the same problem: they need ostensive definitions. What specific hue or range of hues should be shown for "red"? (See w:Red and red) In this case, the apparent existence of a "standard" makes it clear what the referent is. If it turns out to be attestable, then it has a definite non-compositional meaning. DCDuring TALK 11:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Is it a good idea to put single-colour swatches on entries like red at all? It's impossible to make an illustration that defines a colour, or even one that defines its range. The best we could do is provide any number of examples of a colour, which may be better left to Wikipedia. Michael Z. 2010-05-15 07:05 z

Deleted by opiaterein. Striking.​—msh210 19:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

superparticular number

Is it just superparticular + number? Ƿidsiþ 12:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Dunno, I can't understand superparticular. Anyone else? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
It had a typo, which I've now fixed: perhaps you can better understand it now. In any event, it defines superparticular as a particular kind of ratio. I'm not sure what sense of ratio is meant. If it's a number, then superparticular number's definition is just "a number which is superparticular", SoP. If OTOH ratio in our definition of superparticular is the "the relative magnitudes of two quantities (usually expressed as a quotient)" sense, i.e. something that looks like a fraction (so that 6/4 is not the same as 3/2), then superparticular applies to a particular such representation, and superparticular number, currently defined as "a number in the form of a ratio where [] " should be instead "a number which can be written in the form of a ratio where [] " i.e. a number that can be written as a superparticular fraction, and is not AFAICT SoP. (Even if ratio in the definition of superparticular means a number so that superparticular is SoP, if we wind up keeping it for some reason as we do so many SoPs then we should reword its definition, as "a number in the form of" makes no sense.)​—msh210 18:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
(After checking bgc.) From hits it looks as though ratio in our definition of superparticular means (or should mean0 a number, i.e. that a superparticular anything relates to the number (e.g.) 5/4 and not the representation 5/4. So I say delete.​—msh210 19:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
keep, whatever the meaning of superparticular. superparticular number is a mathematical term. Same case as topological space: even though the sense of topological in this phrase might be defined in topological, keeping topological space is really useful. Lmaltier 19:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
If it is a common set term in maths, then I am happy keeping it – I just couldn't tell how much it was really used. Ƿidsiþ 08:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
And how do you know, Lmaltier, that superparticular number is a mathematical term, as opposed to superparticular's being a mathematical term, and number's following it relatively frequently?​—msh210 16:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
see w:superparticular number. Keep--Pierpao 09:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've checked out that page, and have no idea what part of it you're pointing us to. Please clarify.​—msh210 15:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Common, I don't know, but it seems to be a set term in maths, yes. Lmaltier 18:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
prime number is just a number that is prime, but I seem to remember it passing RFD. Equinox 22:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Of course. Many dictionaries define prime number, and common sense makes obvious that this is a mathematical term needing a definition. Lmaltier 05:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Apparently I lack common sense then! It's any number that is prime (in the sense glossed "math"). Oh well. Equinox 08:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
You recall correctly: talk:prime number. There, too, I said to delete.​—msh210 15:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

@msh210 Sorry i didn't see your clarifing request. the espression superparticular number is "idiomatic". it's more than the sum of part. It's not a "not normal" numer, a strange numer, a fuzzy nuber, it's a unique and very exactly mathematical definition which have not any other names. keep--Pierpao 13:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I read what I could find in the net about "superparticular". Those who are interested may check the result of the study in the entry superparticular. It seems to me that "superparticular ratio" would be a more accurate term for the definition which we currently have for "superparticular number". However, "s-ratio" and "s-number" seem to be used synonymously in current writings, and Wiktionary is committed to being descriptive rather than normative. The concept of superparticularity does not seem to be an issue in modern mathematics, but it is an important concept in the study of harmony in music. This, of course, does not solve the keep-or-not-to-keep dilemma. --Hekaheka 16:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

master's thesis

SoP. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete, hard to think of it as anything other than SoP.--Dmol 23:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Del--Pierpao 04:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This did not appear as SoP to me when I was writing my "master's thesis", in Czech "diplomová práce" and "diplomka". I never figured out why this should not be just "master thesis", and why "doctor's thesis" is a rather uncommon term. So the formation "master's thesis" looks peculiar to me as a non-native speaker.
I admit that the term has zero OneLook hits.
I need a mapping from cs:"diplomová práce" to en:"master's thesis". One of the leading online Czech-English dictionaries gives the low-rate "diploma paper" and "graduation thesis" as a translation of "diplomová práce", doing a lousy job for a term for which Wiktionary currently does a great job. Okay, translations target is a proposal for inclusion that has not been made into a policy, and has un unclear support. Be it as it may, I find the entry rather useful.
If "master's thesis" gets deleted, the term should probably better be documented in the "thesis" entry in an example sentence. If "diplomová práce" gets deleted, it should be documented in "práce" in an example sentence. --Dan Polansky 08:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Does diplomová práce refer to only a university master's thesis, or to a dissertation at any level? Thesis is also used, perhaps less formally, for undergaduate or doctoral works, and possibly for college-certificate works. Michael Z. 2010-05-15 07:00 z
Two related entries that have been deleted on sight without a process AFAICT: doctoral dissertation, doctoral thesis. Compare their Google rate with the rate of "master's dissertation" and "doctor's thesis". --Dan Polansky 08:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I know a lot of people who do not know what a master's thesis is, and would not be able to guess just by looking up master and thesis. —Stephen 18:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Narrows the range of meanings for master to just one, and also for thesis (i.e. not just an idea, but a whole exploration of a particular subject). Facts707 11:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, since master didn't even mention this sense, I added it:
A type of postgraduate degree, usually undertaken after a bachelor degree. Facts707 11:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
A master is the holder of a master's degree, e.g., a master's in architecture. The proper name of the degree, and hence the holder's title, would be Master of Architecture (n. and attrib.). Michael Z. 2010-05-15 07:00 z
Yes, but colloquially master is often in lowercase, such as in He's working on his master's thesis in quantum computing. 09:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this is "thesis of a master" (master + 's + thesis), but rather "thesis for a master's degree" (master's + thesis). The issue here is that master's degree lacks a satisfactory adjective (or even noun) of its own, where other degrees have baccalaureate and doctoral, so master's is pressed into service. IMO the situation is opaque enough to justify an entry, though I would be skeptical of the inclusibility of many translations (since few other languages have this specific problem). -- Visviva 17:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear in case I wasn't bold' enough, that's a keep. As Dan and Stephen have also made pro-retention arguments, I don't see any consensus for deletion here. -- Visviva 19:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Christ myth theory

Bgc shows "Christ-myth theory" for this, I think more often than this spelling, but, more importantly, it also shows "the Christ myth" lots of times, which would imply that the (alleged) myth is called the Christ myth, and the theory that it's a myth is SoP.​—msh210 17:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete. NISoP DCDuring TALK 17:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Are the Ps "Christ myth" and "theory", or are they "Christ", "myth", and "theory"? —RuakhTALK 18:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Not sure. I suspect it's the former.​—msh210 18:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't "Christ myth" be likely encyclopedic? Or is WT:NOT a dead letter? If the latter, then perhaps it should be RfDed. As it [ie, WT:NOT has not been, I take it as reflecting some kind of direction for en.wikt. DCDuring TALK 13:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I didn't RFD it because it doesn't exist. As I implied in my reply to Ruakh above, I'm not sure whether it's SOP, anyway. I'd check our definition and probably usage before commenting.​—msh210 15:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I suspect that the ambiguity of the referent in 8 May post above may have made for a misunderstanding. I was referring to the RfD(O) of WT:NOT. (I think there is one or has been one recently.) DCDuring TALK 18:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete--Pierpao 18:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I was the one who originally added the entry. I'm new to Wiktionary, what do all the anagrams above mean? I'd like the entry to stay so if I know why it's in the chopping block I could potentially argue on it's behalf. Eugeneacurry 21:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

SOP = "sum of parts"; no more than the individual components. WT:NOT is a page WT:NOT describing what Wiktionary is not. RFD is this discussion page (requests for deletion). RFDO WT:RFDO, a page for nominating deletion of items not in the main namespace. --EncycloPetey 21:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


Per a previous discussion (if I can find it) do we really want every contracted form in French? Any word starting with a vowel can contract this way. If we do want them, best idea is to get a bot to make them - probably tens of thousands of them, or more. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-sense. Immediate deletion. --Actarus (Prince d'Euphor) 13:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Isn't this a French-specific policy issue (WT:AFR), possibly with all-site interest (WT:BP)? DCDuring TALK 13:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
All these forms (unlike presqu'île) are always considered as 2 words in French (e.g. n'avais = ne (contracted in n') + avais.) Note that s'a is a mistake, I don't find any possible use (but m'a and t'a are used). ny and sy don't exist. Normally, n'avais and other such examples should be deleted. If they are kept, this should be the result of a new policy to be discussed, because they're less justified than mother's. Lmaltier 18:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
They are two words for the French, and for those who know French. For those of us who know virtually nothing of French, they are one word. We should keep at least the most common ones, such as n'a, n'est, etc. They are MORE justified than mother's, because many native English speakers do not know French, but all native English speakers do know enough English to deal with mother's. —Stephen 18:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, they are less justified from a strict acceptability point of view, according to current policies, but they are probably more useful. This is why a new policy might be defined. For example, accepting redirects in such cases (n'avais redirecting to avais). Accepting complete pages for all pages such as l'île, j'absorberais or n'opérasse would be absurd. Lmaltier 07:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete.RuakhTALK 20:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
keep--Pierpao 08:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
DeleteInternoob (DiscCont) 19:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I propose that wherever foreign contraction f'ubar could be confused with real word fubar, we include the contraction, but where there is no fubarangina with which f'ubarangina could be confused, we redirect f'ubarangina to ubarangina. The reason is that someone seeing the contracted form might look up the word (e.g. fubar) sans internal punctuation, and come to the wrong word by mistake; whereas, someone looking up the word sans punctuation for which no such word exists (e.g. fubarangina) will merely get a results list with the redirect to ubarangina on top. bd2412 T 15:30, 16 June 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)

NMEA 0183

A specific standards document, like RS232 or RFC 2550. There are thousands of these, and I don't think they are dictionary words. Equinox 22:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Just like ISO 639. Shouldn't we eat our own dog food? DCDuring TALK 23:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Weak keep. Should be translingual, but I can't think of a single good reason to delete it. How would another few thousand translingual entries make Wiktionary worse? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete. If we have to delete ISO 639 as well to prevent the zillion abbreviations of various national and international standards from entering Wiktionary, then just do it. Currently it is the only individual ISO standard that has an entry of its own in Wiktionary. --Hekaheka 11:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Aren't these the "names of specific entities"?
OTOH, if we can have toponyms, why not have gnormonyms/normonyms and titles of other published works? They have etymologies, pronunciations, transliterations (at least), translations, etymologies, semantic relations, nicknames, etc. All nyms in all languages. DCDuring TALK 12:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Re Equinox, no I suppose they aren't 'words' although a lot of our translingual entries aren't 'words' or 'idioms' either. This is why we need a comprehensive entry at WT:AMUL which right now, we don't have. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete. These belong in Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. Facts707 10:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
And yes, we should delete ISO 639 as well, although we can link to its Wikipedia page from our Glossary or other locations not in the main dictionary. Facts707 10:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


Added together with 802. entries below. DCDuring TALK 17:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)











Delete these all (NMEA 0183 included) per my comments at [[#ISO_639]] (eventually, I suppose, at [[talk:ISO 639]]).​—msh210 16:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

DeleteMichael Z. 2010-05-15 06:50 z

Delete, I don't think these are 'words' in any 'language'. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
You know, this is a tough one. We have USB, and rightly so, even though it's really the same kind of animal. USB is a part of the English lexicon, understood by a very sizeable chunk of the English-speaking world. Of the preceding, I suspect that your average, reasonably tech-savvy person knows a, b, g, and n. They could use them in sentences and be understood by many listeners. NMEA 0183 and ISO 639 don't really share this luxury....except within a fairly narrow range of the population. However, the same could be said of gluon and phospholipid. I think that this is an area where CFI fails to distinguish between terms which have genuinely entered the lexicon, and those which are used in a bunch of technical documents. I think that these should be deleted, but only because of the aforementioned failing in our CFI, not because of something intrinsic to the terms themselves. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete all. They are encyclopedic, and not saved by being in common usage like USB.--Dmol 07:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I am thinking b and g might warrant adjectival entries, they are used very often in sentences like "...you can throw out all of your 802.11b gear as 802.11g has arrived...". Those two at least are not hard at all to attest. Also please consider that the lexicon is not one simple list of words from which we can determine whether something is "in" or "out", everyone has their own lexicon and what we are trying to do is determine if there is a large enough set of people who share a particular term with a particular meaning in their respective lexicons for it to be included here. There are certainly enough IT people out there for many of these 802.11 terms to be known and defined similarly as adjectives meaning "adhering to the 802.11* standard"; there are also hundreds of books out there which use them in this manner. I guess mine is a keep opinion for adjectival usage, include a brief noun sense which points at Wikipedia for the protocol definitions. - [The]DaveRoss 13:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
These haven't been shown to meet the basic tests for being a true adjective rather than nouns often used attributively. See Wiktionary:English adjectives. Any proper noun can be used in the same way.
I believe that this falls under WT:CFI#Names of specific entities. The attributive use of the proper noun would constitute evidence for its inclusion and would certainly provide evidence to support a replacement of the embarrassingly poor definition we have now.
Move to RfV. DCDuring TALK 15:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me, I have a feeling they will fail there but at RFV there is more a of a chance some searching for proper cites will take place. - [The]DaveRoss 17:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
It all depends on what class of attributive use we view as not explicitly referring solely to the standard itself. I would expect that "an 802.11g slowpoke" is clearly referring to something other than the standard. I would also expect that "802.116 specification/standard/wireless standard protocol/extension/variation" are all clearly referring to the specification itself. All the other collocations seem ambiguous to me (radio, chipset, device, and more than a dozen others) DCDuring TALK 18:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

for fun

I'm seeing for + fun. See also #just for fun above (or Talk:just for fun when it's been archived). Mglovesfun (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Strong delete as per nom. Easy SoP. Facts707 10:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep I think "for fun" also means "for no good reason", especially when applied to actions that have negative aspects from the speaker's PoV (difficulty, criminality, cruelty, etc). Also, three OneLook lemmings have this as an idiom in a run-in at "fun": RHU, Cambridge, AHD Idioms. Also McGraw-Hill. All of them have this as meaning the same as in fun. All of them have more literal-seeming definitions than fit my reading, however. DCDuring TALK 11:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Do you want for yuks, for laughs, for giggles, for grins and giggles, etc.? I've heard these many times too but they are blatantly obvious as is for fun. What the writer considers "fun" is up to him to explain. If he thinks cruelty or difficulty is fun, then that will have to become clear from the context because there is no way to infer that from simply the term for fun. Facts707 09:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
A: Why did you put the hamster in the microwave oven?
B: I did it for fun. or I thought it would be fun. or It made me smile. or It was just in fun. Facts707 09:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Topical X government entries

Thanks in part to electoral division in the UK, we have the following entries; all, as presently defined, IMO, NISOP:

It's not really the electoral division's fault that you created a load of entries expressly to nominate them for deletion. Ƿidsiþ 12:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I said "in part". Had the electorate not been so divided, such terms would not have been bandied about so much, and so they would have been less likely to have been requested. My point was about causality, not responsibility. Anyway, since when are amicable suits banned?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

coalition government

Delete.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 12:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep Ƿidsiþ 12:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
keep. lemmings have it --Rising Sun talk? contributions 12:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Probably delete, but unsure. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
How is this not NISOP if all it means is "government by a coalition"? How is it different, idiomatically speaking, from Labour government, Conservative government, and Liberal Democrat government, which were are rightly speedily deleted by Mglovesfun?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
To refresh, topicality is not a consideration for a term meeting or failing WT:CFI. Of course, it is often a stimulus and motive to make sure that a CFI-meeting term is included.
If we interpret CFI to keep these, I would like to understand whether there is any non-whimsical basis for excluding any noun1-noun2 phrase. Almost all of them can be defined by selecting the appropriate sense of the nouns, correctly ordering noun1 and noun2, and inserting the appropriate preposition or prepositions. As our target audience is clearly people like us (See Wiktionary:Purpose), are we saying that people like us lack the skills to construct this meaning by the appropriate ordering and pronounpreposition selection in context?
If we interpret CFI to include noun-noun phrases like these, how do we justify excluding other multi-word entries up to and beyond sentences? All deixes, ellipses, and indeed context-dependent sentences would seem to qualify as idioms. DCDuring TALK 14:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Right: delete.​—msh210 17:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Rising Sun wanted this discussion off his talk page:

Coalition government is NISOP; it's just government by a coalition.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 11:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

debatable. I'd vote keep for it. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 12:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Cf. minority government, Labour government, Conservative government, Liberal Democrat government, &c.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 12:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
keep minority government, delete others --Rising Sun talk? contributions 12:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
On what basis? Government by a coalition of parties, government by a minority party, government by the Labour party, government by the Conservative party, government by the Liberal Democrat party; idiomatically speaking, how are they different?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 12:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know what a minority government before I came across it and looked up a definition. I thought it might be a government of minorities (you know, a government made of chinks, yids, fags, niggaz, pakis, johnny foreigners etc.) or government run by a minority party (e.g. a Lib Dem government, where the Lib Dems are the third party of the UK). coalition government is similar --Rising Sun talk? contributions 12:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
That means we need a {{politics}} definition for minority, which I've now added:
Do you now see that minority government is nothing but the sum of its parts? Coalition government is the same, except that there is yet less ambiguity in that phrase. BTW, you'll probably want to comment in WT:RFD#Topical X government entries.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the new definition. I still vote for keep. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 13:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but why? The only argument you've given so far is that you didn't know what it meant before you looked it up. So what? Since I'm guessing you know what government means, what you needed was the proper political definition of minority; when you have both, it's a simple case of minority + government. Sure, you could use the wrong definition of minority, but very rarely does that possibility justify the creation of entries for unidiomatic, SOP constructions. I could misinterpret "nice fruit" to mean "a stupid homosexual", but that still wouldn't justify creating an entry for nice fruit defined as "a fruit (such as an apple or pear) that is pleasing to the palate".  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, the one-polysemous-constituent-makes-an-idiom argument has been repeatedly advanced, apparently seriously, by EP. No one has explicitly rejected it AFAICT, however absurd the consequences. DCDuring TALK 14:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

 — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 08:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. "coalition government" does not narrow the range of meanings of either coalition or government, and neither is it idiomatic since it doesn't mean something other than a combination of the meanings of the two words.
BTW, re: the "nice fruit" comment, such a hypothetical entry should be rejected because it has no particular single meaning in common English usage, nor does it narrow the range of meanings of either component word, nor is it idiomatic. Facts707 10:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

minority government

Delete.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 12:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep Ƿidsiþ 12:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Strong keep - I didn't know what a minority government before I came across it and looked up a definition. I thought it might be a government of minorities (you know, a government made of chinks, yids, fags, niggaz, pakis, johnny foreigners etc.) or government run by a minority party (e.g. a Lib Dem government). But it's not. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 12:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Is it necessary to use derogatory words in your comments? Whether or not intended as humor, I find them offensive and I think you should apologize.Facts707 10:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
As I said on your user page, that means we need a {{politics}} definition for minority, which I've now added:
Do you now see that minority government is nothing but the sum of its parts?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep IMO. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Having the sense at minority doesn't automatically make this a deletion candidate. Even if it is sum of parts, it can still be idiomatic, and I'd say this is. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Strong keep, the reason being is that the term implies a particular meaning of minority, which would not be clear to someone reasonably fluent in English and who knows the meanings of "minority" and government but had not heard of "minority government" before. Facts707 10:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
But it's not idiomatic, in that the meaning is made up of some combination of the meaning of the component words, not an entirely different meaning. Facts707 10:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Strong keep. The meaning of minority is not obvious, even if it is one of the definitions of the work. Compare with "minority rule" where the minority meaning is totally different.--Dmol 00:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Labour government

Delete.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 12:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete this and below. Ƿidsiþ 12:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
This and the other two were speedily deleted by Mglovesfun, which was, of course, correct.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Conservative government

Delete.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 12:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Liberal Democrat government

Delete.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 12:48, 12 May 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. —RuakhTALK 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 (talkcontribs) 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 hoseMichael 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 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 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)

ISO 639

ISO 4217

ISO 216

Can these be considered 'words', 'idioms' 'expressions' or whatever in any language, never mind translingual? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. IMHO, they are covered by WT:CFI#Names of specific entities. DCDuring TALK 17:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The passage that literally nobody understands. This is not good news. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
They're undoubtedly specific and entries, but my point remains, are they 'words', 'idioms' 'expressions' or whatever. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
They are names of specific entities, ie, proper nouns. The only basis for excluding them is that they don't meet the applicable section of WT:CFI. That it is difficult to meet the requirements is the point. ISO 639 has not attestably entered the lexicon, not can we claim widespread colloquial use.
CFI seems to have been written At a time when folks thought that WP had that part of the world covered and ignored the possibility that transliterations/translations, pronunciations, and the rest might be deemed to justify such entries. DCDuring TALK 18:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I find it ironic that we delete stuff saying 'Not dictionary material: see WT:CFI, but CFI doesn't really have any information relevant to that. Why speedy delete Tiger Woods or Bill Clinton but allow these ISO entries an RFV? That's not purely rhetorical, any serious answer would be extremely helpful. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The CFI include the one of idiomaticity. If someone's sure an entry will fail it, he deletes it speedily. Perhaps someone might have speedily deleted ISO 216. It's up to the admin to decide what to do, and another can always call him on it. There have been many speedily deleted entries, or those marked with {{d}}, that were undeleted and brought to RFD or RFV; some of them were kept in the end.​—msh210 18:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Right (what DCD said), they're covered by the CFI for specific entities' names. Technically, we should RFV them, but it'll fail, so I'll just say delete. (If they're kept, please move to WT:RFV.)​—msh210 15:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep, per WT:NOBODYHASTHESLIGHTESTCLUEWHATTODOWITHTHESETHINGS (aka WT:Unresolved issues/Names of specific entities). --Yair rand 03:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment. These are names of documents, like The Bridge over the River Kwai and Charter of the United Nations.​—msh210 15:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Terms from technical standards are inherently prescriptive. If someone wants to keep these, at least take two minutes to add a single frippin' good citation to each one before we spend hours debating this. DeleteMichael Z. 2010-05-15 06:42 z

Delete All names of technical standards, especially ones with abbreviations and numbers, belong in Wikipedia and not Wiktionary. If someone types in ISO 639 and Wiktionary doesn't have an entry, Wiktionary will offer Wikipedia's entry. Although I certainly would never type ISO 639 into Wiktionary, I'd go straight to 'pedia. We're looking for words and expressions in the English language, not in the technical jargon of international standards. If we include ISO 639 we go down a very slippery slope. If we absolutely must have an entry for it, it can go in an appendix with a redirect in the main dictionary. Facts707 07:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless and until of course, someone uses it in a way that makes it part of the English language, such as "Wow, Jeff, you really got ISO 639'd at the meeting!" Facts707 07:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
This RFD is about the Translingual term, not the English. And I'm pretty sure cross-namespace redirects are generally considered a bad idea. --Yair rand 17:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
You're right. Then, "unless and until someone uses it in a way that makes it part of any human language." C'est dommage! Vous avez un ISO 639 sur votre tete! Facts707 08:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete all standard names as useless and being against common sense, keep ISO, DIN, SFS, SAE and other names of standardizing systems . Common sense isn't exactly a CFI criterion, but I think it should be. If we include names of standards, the next thing to include would be the official names of laws, decrees, government decisions or whatever - they are usually numbered. There are lots of other things to which numbers are given. In Helsinki and most other places of the world, for example, people refer to bus lines by their number. For many of them, it would be no problem to find loads of permanently archived quotes. --Hekaheka 10:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete per nom and Hekaheka's excellent reasoning. ---> Tooironic 23:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

wo shi Yingguoren

ihmo it's not so useful - delete --Pierpao 03:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep. This is a perfectly good phrasebook entry. --Yair rand 03:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

::Not idiomatic, sorry--Pierpao 03:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Phrasebook entries are not supposed to be idiomatic. See WT:Phrasebook. --Yair rand 03:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Noted. i'am a neewbie.keep. Sorry again.--Pierpao 03:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep and move to wǒ shì Yīngguórén. I dunno why 123abc adds toneless entries, but then specifies the 'pinyin'. So if this isn't pinyin, what is it? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

sick man of Asia

sick man of East Asia

sick man from 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 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)

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 smackMichael 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)


Defined simply as "a trade mark." Equinox 14:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Even with a better definition, it would have to meet WT:CFI#Brand names. See fathometer for the long-ago genericized name. DCDuring TALK 15:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

shoot on sight

to shoot + on sight. NISoP. DCDuring TALK 03:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep, No meaning of either shoot or on sight will cover the second definition. It's totally idiomatic.--Dmol 03:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
It's just a figurative use of "shoot". We're trying to lexicalize everyday poetry. "I wanted to shoot him" is an everyday kind of expression, at least where there is a right to bear arms. DCDuring TALK 10:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I've added the appropriate sense of on sight.​—msh210 16:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Figurative rather than idiomatic. Delete. 09:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
There is still not any meaning of shoot that conveys the meaning of to dismiss or ignore.--Dmol 00:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
But... are you saying it doesn't exist? I quite fancy trying to cite "shoot" in this sense, assuming it wouldn't be redundant to something else. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No relevant citations. DeleteMichael Z. 2010-06-03 19:34 z

I'm allergic to milk

Sum of parts. So are the translations as far as I can tell. SemperBlotto 09:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Rename at the absolute best. It seems our 'very common phrases' are becoming less and less common. 09:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm allergic to would be a useful phrase. Food allergies are a fairly widespread problem. Lactose intolerance (not a true allergy) and peanut, shellfish, and certain fruit allergies are fairly common. DCDuring TALK 10:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete this. Create I'm allergic to. ---> Tooironic 23:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep. An "I'm allergic to X" appendix might also be useful though. --Yair rand (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete in favour of blank and appendix X. I'm allergic to crustaceans, not just any old shellfish. Pingku 18:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep, phrasebook. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 00:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Move and merge into a phrasebook page (in the phrasebook: namespace when we get around to creating it) about allergies. This page should include ready-made phrases for common allergies such as milk, nuts, wheat and gluten. It should also explain how to compose sentences for less common allergies. Whether the same treats food allergies and others like penicillin I don't know, but we certainly need both in the phrasebook. What we don't need is this type of entry in the main namespace. Thryduulf (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

do you accept credit cards

As above - sum of parts. Could possibly be moved to do you accept as more shops etc accept cards than cheques these days (at least in the UK). SemperBlotto 10:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Almost all phrasebook entries are sum-of-parts. We have explicitly used the phrasebook rationale to retain SoP entries. "Do you accept" is no less SoP. I expect that we will want our phrasebook entries to be complete utterances, following the practice of print phrasebooks. DCDuring TALK 10:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd go for the move. 10:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep as all phrasebook entries. See WT:Phrasebook. --Anatoli 11:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Not common enough. I'll repeat what I said at the Tea Room re I am horny: If we accept this, we accept something less common next time, then before you know it Wiktionary has become a sentence database. ---> Tooironic 14:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  1. Phrasebook-type lemmings have this kind of thing.
  2. We have no applicable criteria of our own
  3. We have long had a phrasebook
  4. We have repeatedly explicitly saved NISoP phrases from deletion for purposes of populating a phrasebook, which no one has gainsaid.
-- DCDuring TALK 00:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Strong keep. This is exactly the kind of thing the phrasebook is supposed to have. --Yair rand (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You don't get to decide what a phrasebook should and shouldn't have. Baleeted. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 21:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me? I count 3 keeps and 1 delete, not counting the original RFD. What's this about?? --Yair rand (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Strong keep. One of the first and most common phrasebook sentences. --Anatoli 22:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


King Wen of Chu (ruled Chu between 689 BCE - 675 BCE). We don't include the names of people - that's Wikipedia's job. Delete. —This unsigned comment was added by Tooironic (talkcontribs) at 19 May 2010.

Delete or like for some sort of generic use - 'a King Wen of Chu'. But that won't happen, just delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

lesson learned

This seems to be a lesson that is learned. It is conceivable that there is real usage following the normative definition provided. DCDuring TALK 16:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The normative definition was not included in the most recent source (2009) of US DoD jargon, though the term is used as a definiens and given an abbreviation, "LL". DCDuring TALK 16:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete, IMO. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
How about as an interjection? "oh well, lesson learned!" -- Visviva 15:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually I think there's enough reasonable doubt here. It does seem to refer to a lesson (figurative sense). Maybe citations would help, not to mention a much better definition. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete Let's not copy stuff from prescriptive sources unless we have evidence that it is used that way.

Lesson Learned” is the proper name of a specific US military SOP under the Joint Lessons Learned Program (I'm not joking). And when the cited report was written, it only had the status of a proposal. The complete definition reads “A technique, procedure, or practical workaround that enabled a task to be accomplished to standard based on an identified deficiency or shortcoming. Upon approval of this publication, this term and its definition will be nominated for inclusion in Joint Publication JP 1-02.” Michael Z. 2010-06-07 18:23 z

Deleted primarily because the content is garbage, secondly per this debate. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

junk drawer

I say this myself, but I say it's sum of parts. Ultimateria 22:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom. ---> Tooironic 12:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
If the case were made for the regional difference in term used for the same referent, there is a case for having the entry. Move to RfV to encourage collection of the evidence. DCDuring TALK 15:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep, one man's trash is another man's treasure. The items kept in a junk drawer are not really junk, they are just miscellany. bd2412 T 21:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Miscellany is a valid definition of junk. It's almost like a filler word. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
But it's not junk in the typical sense of things we would throw away. Consider:
  • M. Diane McCormick, "A Place for Everything",Old-House Journal‎ (Jun 2005), v. 33, no. 3, p. 33:
    Crammed with twist ties and stray screws, the standard junk drawer is a sanctuary for items we hoard out of practicality or affection or the nagging fear that "this may come in handy someday".
  • Donna Smallin, Organizing plain & simple‎ (2002), p. 54:
    There's nothing wrong with having a junk drawer. Where else can you store those odds and ends you need from time to time. But some of what ends up in the junk drawer really is junk, such as unfixable items, pens that don't work, expired coupons, and a piece to a game you sold at a garage sale five years ago.
  • Allegra Bennett, Renovating Woman (1997), p. 239:
    We all know that the junk drawer doesn't really contain junk. We know junk when we see it, and that gets tossed pretty fast. It's the odds and ends that had a limited purpose once, are still functional, and one day may come in handy, but for now . . .
  • William D. Tracy, "Notes on Practice", The Journal of the Allied Societies (1912), Vol. 7‎, p. 376.
    With a 5/8-inch sandpaper disk cutter, if you happen to have one in the junk drawer, or with a brass or steel tube of the same size sharpened to an edge at one end, four wheels suitable for the engine mandrel may be cut from each eraser.
bd2412 T 21:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Granted, but it is junk in the common sense 'miscellany'. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I was adding the second quote while you wrote this, but note the emphasis in the second one, on what "really is junk". I'll expand on that just a bit. It is not merely "miscellany", but rather is, as Bennett suggests, a collection of small items that are not otherwise classifiable, and which have a limited potential purpose. bd2412 T 22:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
My real point is this. Why not add this to junk and delete this? I agree our current definition is a little off (but not wrong). Mglovesfun (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with MG on this particular point of semantics without prejudice to the possibility of regional difference in terms referring to the same thing, which might justify inclusion.
I find literary discussions of the term, such as those above, to be more mentions than usage. It is a staple of humor both to find slightly quirky uses of language and to make fun of human pack-rat behavior. (See "Fibber McGee's closet" (from WIWAL).A drawer is called a junk drawer as a pejorative or an excuse for its being disorganized. A "junk drawer" is not different from a "j. box", "j. closet", "j. room", "j. shed", or "j. corner", except that drawers are more common.
Of course, we could boldly go where no lemming has gone before. DCDuring TALK 22:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The phrase incorporates a particular use of the word "junk" which is not the most obvious one. Imagine explaining to a foreigner that you keep the useful little implement for the occasion in your "junk drawer". bd2412 T 22:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with that. I believe that we are talking about a fairly common human behavior. DCDuring TALK 23:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Are you saying that the use of "junk" in "junk drawer" significantly differs from its use in "junk pile", "junk shop", "junk heap", "junk room", "junk store", and "junk dealer" or that some or all of these merit inclusion? The very existence of commercial enterprises in "junk" implies that there is potentially positive value to junk in the eyes of some, though many find it not worth sorting and researching. In any event, we merely need to have a definition of "junk" that encompasses elements omitted from our existing senses, if such there be.
Similarly, is a pencil drawer meritorious of inclusion because it is used for pens, post-it notes, and USB drives? DCDuring TALK 23:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Touche. And I keep an apple in my stationery drawer. (!) ---> Tooironic 08:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Oddly enough, my stationary drawer is not stationary at all! In any case, I've come around to a "set phrase" justification, below. bd2412 T 13:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • junkdraw is just about citeable, which would have this pass under WT:COALMINE. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 08:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
    • You mean junkdrawer? The only way I can find enough cites for that to meet the CFI is to go to Google Groups, but those results are sloppy. However, I now think we should keep this as a set phrase, since it is used for this specific meaning with far greater frequency than "trash drawer" or "garbage drawer", both of which get Google Books hits in the dozens rather than the thousands, and are just as likely to actually refer to a pull-out garbage bin. "Knick-knack drawer" and "miscellany drawer" get fewer than ten usable hits each. bd2412 T 13:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete per DCDuring's excellent analysis. (Of course, if junkdrawer is inclusible, then COLAMINE will apply, and we'd keep this.)​—msh210 15:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
OTOH, of the first 100 uses in Google News, 0 were from outside the US.
I wouldn't mind seeing some actual analysis that settled the question of "junk drawer" being a set phrase, rather than depending on unsubstantiated assertions as is our wont.
"Trash" and "garbage" are not very close synonyms for "junk". "Trash" and "garbage" are low value and already placed in a location for disposal. The collocations with these in literal usage are clearly related to the waste disposal process. DCDuring TALK 16:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Seems simple enough. What word "foo" would you consider a reasonable synonym for junk, such that if it were not a set phrase, you would expect to see comparable number of hits for "foo drawer"? I did try "knick-knack" and "miscellany". bd2412 T 21:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't know of one, but I don't see how that can be a required test, especially since "junk" has the enormous advantage over most potential synonyms of being of one syllable. I have identified the sense of "junk" as being common to "junk closet", "junk pile", "junk box", etc. The sense of drawer is the same as the one in "pencil drawer", "silverware drawer", "sock drawer", etc. I don't know of any good synonyms for "drawer" either. It is interesting to me that "junkdrawer" and "junk-drawer" are apparently not attestable from edited sources. Such alternations are typical of true lexical units (the rationale for "coalmine"). Neither term seems to have any meaning other than one that exists in other common collocations. DCDuring TALK 23:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
But keep it anyway, because now I've become sentimentally attached to it, and will be sad if it is deleted. Also, it's not exactly a slam-dunk case for deletion. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Does the existence of a set of products called "junk drawer organizers" change the situation at all? [37] This suggests to me that this is less of what I would have thought of as a "junk drawer" (old rusty bits of whatever), and more like what my family calls an "everything drawer." -- Visviva 19:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep per BD2412 and the reasonable doubt test. -- Visviva 19:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Here is an additional piece of evidence to consider:
    • 2002, Alison Comish Thorne, Leave the dishes in the sink: adventures of an activist in conservative Utah, p. 71:
      Today's generation of young mothers also believe the trash drawer is a good idea, but terminology changes and they call it the junk drawer.
  • I think this is important as it shows an evolution in terminology over time, suggesting that the current usage must be idiomatic because it supersedes a previous idiomatic usage. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
    I don't think it shows idiomaticness. I like the quotes, I really do, but they could just as easily justify the miscellany sense of junk. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Isn't the limitation of the word as used in the phrase to one of several possible senses exactly what makes it idiomatic? Or is that a set phrase? Either way, the determination that this kind of drawer was previously called a trash drawer, but is no longer (that is, in modern parlance, "trash drawer" would be incorrect and "junk drawer" would be correct) would qualify both "trash drawer" (as obsolete) and "junk drawer" as entries. bd2412 T 15:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I think we would need to establish that "junk drawer" is replacing "trash drawer", but that "junk" is not replacing "trash" in other uses, especially attributive. I look forward to BYU making their corpus of historical American usage available this summer.
OTOH, I don't see any evidence of use of "junk drawer" in the UK. What is it called in the UK? Does the entity not exist? DCDuring TALK 16:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
All of the sources I have found are American. I'm not sure how to search for UK uses. However, I tried searching for "junk drawer" AND centre OR colour OR labour and got 37 hits, compared to 536 hits for "junk drawer" AND center OR color OR labor. By the way, a search for "trash drawer" yields an overwhelming number of hits favoring a tall kitchen drawer in which a garbage bag is inserted for collection of actual refuse. bd2412 T 17:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I have added an entry for trash drawer accordingly. Also, as I mentioned above, "knick-knack drawer" (which is listed in the entry as the UK equivalent) gets a paltry number of hits. In any event, there is not, at this point, a clear consensus for deletion of this entry. bd2412 T 17:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete. “A drawer for your junk.” What's all this about “set phrase?” I still don't see that in our CFI. Michael Z. 2010-06-07 18:15 z

Regarding this and trash drawer, if we were proposing the etymology for deletion, youd win hands down. Unfortunately we're proposing the entries for deletion because of their meanings, not their etymologies. And you seem unable to justify that at all, simply showing us citations. Since it's sum of parts, of course there are going to be citations. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Under that standard, it should be impossible to show that fire truck merits inclusion. What, exactly, would it take? bd2412 T 16:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Care to say why? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Why fire truck would not merit inclusion? Because, how would you show that it is not just a sum of parts? The etymology for that entry merely says, fire + truck. Since a junk drawer is not a drawer made of junk, or a drawer which is itself a piece of junk, or something that is a drawer of junk (either in the sense of drawing a picture or towing something), how would we go about proving what it is? bd2412 T 17:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
So you're gonna drop your whole fire truck argument before even starting it? The client-centered approach says that a good English speaker seeing junk and drawer together knows what it means with any explanation. A pencil drawer isn't made of pencils, a paper drawer isn't made of paper, a pen drawer isn't made of pens. As much as I like these arguments, they're not relevant to CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
How have I dropped the fire truck argument? I'm saying that they are essentially the same. You point to the "good English speaker", which suggests someone who doesn't particularly need a dictionary. There is a translation section in "junk drawer" (albeit with only one translation at this point, which may just be a question of finding others), so the entry would seem to be of use to that vast majority of people in the world who are not good English speakers, and who might well think that a "junk drawer" is a device that draws junk, or a drawer full of things that should be thrown away as useless. A good English speaker would also presumably know a fire truck is not a truck made of fire, so if this entry is deleted, why shouldn't fire truck be deleted too? bd2412 T 17:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm asking you why they're the same. IMO junk drawer could refer to at least three definitions of junk (1, 2, and 3) as it stands. So if kept, it needs three definitions, not one. So, explain why it's impossible to show that fire truck would not merit inclusion. I seem to have wrong footed you simply by asking you to explain what you meant. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Your assessment is incorrect. The citations for junk drawer indicate that the only applicable definition of junk is sense 2. We even have citations here directly stating that "We all know that the junk drawer doesn't really contain junk", and that a junk drawer is for things which "may come in handy", and for "odds and ends you need from time". Find me a citation for a "junk drawer" referring to one of the other senses you mention and you'll have a case for the phrase not being set. bd2412 T 22:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


Translingual section: Specific epithets are never proper nouns. The entry has a wrong part of speech, wrong language, and no definition. --EncycloPetey 18:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think rattus means anything on its own (or does it?). You could make a similar argument for parce in French, as it's only ever used with que (or qu'). Mglovesfun (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
It does in Latin, but in taxonomic names, it does not. The duplication "Rattus rattus" is a quirk of the ICZN that effectively means "the rat rat". --EncycloPetey 18:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I meant [] apart from in Latin. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
The difference with this situation is that we're discussing a Translingual entry, which should be something used in many, many languages as a word, and that the situation involves the parts of a proper noun. To put forth an example that may help demonstrate my thinking: suppose for the sake of argument that United Kingdom is translingual, and that it is the form of the name used in many, many languages. That would not mean that kingdom is also a translingual word, or even a word in any of those languages except the parent language. The fact that it appears as part of a larger name does not make the component element translingual. This isn't entirely a hypothetical argument either, as it would apply to the name of Burkina Faso, from which we could not infer that Faso was an English word, even though Burkina Faso has an English entry. When names have hopped language, the component pieces have not necessarily hopped with them. --EncycloPetey 19:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Should Rattus#Translingual be shown as a descendant of rattus#Latin? DCDuring TALK 18:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but note that it's Medieval Latin. In Classical Latin, the word was mus, and I think (but am not certain) that the rat was originally included in the genus Mus. I've not been able to find a statement concerning this etymology further, although I suspect the Medieval Latin derives from some Germanic language. --EncycloPetey 18:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure it's Medieval Latin? Webster's Unabridged says "New Latin, from English rat". --Vahagn Petrosyan 20:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes. It's in Niermeyer's Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus. If I'm reading the citations right, then the earliest citation is dated prior to 1089 and credited to a work by a Canterbury bishop. This would be too early for New Latin. --EncycloPetey 20:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Webster's is probably referring to Rattus as a proper noun naming the genus, which use originated in New Latin with the rise of Linnean taxonomy. However, the word rattus as a common noun can be traced back much further, and Linnaeus did not make the grammatical distinction as clearly as a grammarian would. --EncycloPetey 20:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


This entry has the wrong part of speech (specific epithets are never proper nouns), wrong "language", and no definition. --EncycloPetey 18:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

These should all be (New) Latin presumably. Would it not be desirable to indicate that they are used in taxonomic names, though not by themselves taxonomic names? DCDuring TALK 18:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
In an appendix, perhaps, but not as the "definition". This should exist only as a Latin form-of entry, and I'm getting tired of cleaning them all up. If these were being created by an anon, we'd have blocked him by now after stern warnings. --EncycloPetey 18:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete the section. Alone, this word is not translingual at all (no standard defines it in isolation). But I agree with DCDuring: when such a Latin word is used only in scientific names, this fact should be mentioned in the page (in the definition or in a note). When it is used in other contexts, there is no need to mention that it's also used in scientific names. Lmaltier 20:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
That isn't what DCD said, but a templated usage note to that effect in some epithets seems reasonable, such as those derived from proper names of specific people. --EncycloPetey 20:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I was open to any possibilities. One idea: category placement: Category:Taxonomic epithets or similar. Having a date of first use for the ones coined in New Latin would establish that the term was "New Latin". DCDuring TALK 23:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Would it be more productive if you told us how these words should be defined, rather than telling us what is wrong. Could you, for instance, point me to one that has been "cleaned-up". SemperBlotto 21:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
If there were a single easy way to clean them up, I could point that out. However, they're a mix of nouns (rattus), adjectives (carolinianus), participles (erectus, sapiens), and other items. Sometimes they're lemma forms of Latin terms (like carolinianus), and sometimes they're "form of" entries (like caroliniana). As a result, formatting these requires a knowledge of Latin grammar. --EncycloPetey 21:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
We're getting closer to a consensus on what not to do. Just not a consensus on what to do (per SemperBlotto). Mglovesfun (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
There also seems to be a general opinion that these words are some sort of Latin. But there are words such as decapetalus (as in Helianthus decapetalus) that seem to be from Greek. SemperBlotto 21:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
They are from Ancient Greek, but they are still Latin. Latin has a very large number of terms from Greek, even in the Classical language. --EncycloPetey 21:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and these new "Latin" words may have any etymology, they may from any language, even modern ones. Lmaltier 22:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
So, if Latin can have words that are from Greek, can't Translingual have words that are from Latin? SemperBlotto 22:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and names of genera are such words. However, nudiflora is not a translingual word any more than "Faso" is an English word. See the reasoning above under the previous section rattus. The element nudiflora appears only as part of a Translingual name, and never as a translingual word. --EncycloPetey 22:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
FWIW I tend to agree that 'A specific epithet for [] ' isn't a definition. I'd rather have a Latin entry. Let users use their brains to work out the rest. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • It is easy enough to look up a given term of classical origin at Perseus using dictionary search to find out what Latin PoS an entry might be and whether it is in lemma form or not. For newer terms the Latin suffix might provide a clue. {{infl}} is a start. {{attention|Latin|topic=taxon}} should get the entry perfected. DCDuring TALK 23:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
    It's not that easy, since Perseus is based off Lewis & Short, who often set entries of one PoS as subsections under the header of another PoS from which the term was derived. It also will not help when the word being examined is not the lemma, which is quite often the case for a specific epithet, as it may be the genitive form of a noun with a stem modification, the genitive form of a noun, or the feminine or neuter of an adjective or participle (which may also have a stem modification). While the ending might provide a clue, there are many situations where it will be misleading or uninformative. A -us ending could be a noun, adjective, or participle. An ending in -e or -o could be almost any part of speech. --EncycloPetey 23:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
    There is also the word-study tool there to point one to the lemma. If all this is too complicated for a contributor the other option is to use WT:RE:la. DCDuring TALK 00:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
    Which is less than satisfactory, even for words that were common in Classical Latin. I tried looking up rubrum, and got information that it was related to rubrus, which is incorrect. The word rubrum is a form of ruber (red), and this information was not returned by their tool. --EncycloPetey 01:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
    Oh, well. Since we aren't likely to experience a widespread improvement in Latin skills beyond those in the online resources, our choices seem limited. Would you prefer efforts to make entries which have to cleaned up or to have a larger list of requested entries? DCDuring TALK 01:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
    Personally, a list of requested entries is better for me, in general. The cleanup list gets swamped by things that don't actually need cleanup. I've practically given up on that category, but do still work on the Requests list. It's also easier for me to create a clean entry from scratch than to try to judge, manipulate, and correct content, at least when the creator doesn't know basic Latin entry principles. There are some editors here with meagre Latin skills who manage to do all right (mostly) because they're aware of the limits to their knowledge and so don't insert lots of incorrect content, but do insert the useful content that they have with just enough framework to make it usable. --EncycloPetey 01:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
(IMO) a good comparison would be je ne sais quoi. It's undeniably English, but that doesn't justify English entries for all four words. I'd argue this is a particle, hence delete, keep just the Latin. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Right. These should be Latin entries, and, until they are, I don't see the major harm in keeping them, but we shouldn't create any more, and, when they're converted to Latin, the translingual section should be deleted.​—msh210 15:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
These are certainly NOT Latin entries. Translingual is the only language header which makes any kind of sense, especially when you consider species names like "darwinii" from a person's name or the Greek or English or other language species names which have been "Latin-ized" by some taxonomist or other at some point in the past. I think we should probably not include the species part of taxonomic names, rather keep the binominal names and genus names only. The species name can be defined briefly in the etymologies of the binominal names e.g. "+ darwinii from Charles Darwin" or "+ troglodytes cave dwelling from Latin". - [The]DaveRoss 13:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with most of that. The only reason to keep them at all is if they are words used apart from any specific genus name. A quick look at Google books yields, for example, "Among those honors are dozens of plants with the epithet darwinii" and "The specific name nudiflora has reference to the flowers being without hairs or glands". SemperBlotto 13:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that constitutes a "mention", or at least a metalinguistic usage, rather than a true "usage".
Part of the point is that they have been Latinized. New Latin is a vintage of Latin. Some New Latin is used for ecclesiastical purposes and for Latin mottos, inscriptions, diplomas, etc. The inflection of these terms requires knowledge of Latin. Most who use the term are incapable of using the component words properly. The Translingual taxons seem to serve as set phrases for those who do not know Latin. Perhaps if it could be shown that, say, "darwinii" is used in multiple languages not as part of a two-part species name, this would warrant inclusion as Translingual.
IMHO, the core difficulty is that we are attempting to treat "Translingual" as if it were a language. It is simply a header that is designed to help us eliminate one large set of cases of mostly meaningless duplication of entry content across multiple language sections. I suppose we could make Scientific Latin a language name that we accepted, but it seems at best a dialect of Latin. Would Church, Medical, and Legal Latin be next? DCDuring TALK 15:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Not a language or dialect, but jargon specific to a particular field. We treat "legal Latin" as English in most cases, since the phrases and terms do not appear in a Latin context nor in non-English contexts, in most cases. Their use seems restricted to English legal documents and publications. --EncycloPetey 16:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I really hesitate to include words which are meaningless in Latin as Latin words. When I said they had been Latin-ized it was a bit tongue-in-cheek; they have been made to look Latin but have certainly not been adopted into the Latin language. We should either delete them or include them as Translingual based on taxonomic usage. - [The]DaveRoss 17:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Calling them Translingual makes no sense, because they have no independent existence as words outside of Latin. Their only Translingual useage is as part of a proper noun, and your assertions have not addressed any of my arguments objecting to the inclusion of them on that basis.
However, many of these recent coinages do have an existence in Latin that is separate from species name usage, so of course, they've been adopted into the Latin language. Botanists require every published botanical taxon name to include a diagnosis written in Latin. Many of these recent coinages come to be used in such diagnoses, which are (1) in Latin, and (2) durably archived. The diagnosis for the order Lepicoleales, for example, is: Plerumque, folia dissecta, triseriata. Plantae perigyniis succulentis, perianthiis reductis vel deest (praeter Ptilidiineae). Setae grandes, capsulae parietibus multistratosis. (publ. 2000) About a third of those words will not be found outside of New Latin, and less than half have the same meaning prior to the 18th century when they are found in older forms of Latin. --EncycloPetey 16:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


As with the others, wrong part of speech, wrong format (not a lemma page), no real definition, and just a list of species names that ought to be in an appendix rather than in a Latin entry. Please move to an Appendix and delete. --EncycloPetey 17:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Not really very helpful. I've changed the language, changed the part of speech. I can't think how else to define it. SemperBlotto 17:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
    It's not really helpful for you to be creating pages where you don't know enough of the language to even get the part of speech right. We block less experienced users for creating such nonsense. Please set a good example and stop creating pages where you don't have a clue. --EncycloPetey 17:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
    Pete – this is a ridiculous way to talk to a fellow editor, especially someone who is manifestly working in good faith and, I might say, who never loses his own temper. Ƿidsiþ 22:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
    It's not ridiculous when this has been going on for months without acknowledgement or change on his part. --EncycloPetey 21:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • To me, these should all be kept and improved.
    Language - Translingual makes most sense (whatever language in Etymology section)
    Part of speach - Adjective (whatever is in Etymology section)
    Definition - Only English words have definitions. These should have translations - as adjectives
    so - sapiens = thinking, nudiflora = having naked flowers, darwinii = Darwin (attributive) and so on
    Derived terms - this is obvious place to put list of species. 13:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Your assertions are useful as an expression of an opinion, but what are the arguments in support of the assertions? We have been following a fairly consistent practice about such entries.
  1. We have been avoiding two-part species names because they are much better maintained by Wikispecies, which is better even at tracking etymology and coinage. We have virtually nothing of interest to say about two-part species names.
  2. These epithets are most commonly initially used as part of species descriptions and in two-part species names, both following Latin grammar (esp., inflection).
  3. As EP has pointed out, not all of these are adjectives, most pointedly those that are nouns, but also those that are verb forms.
  4. The glosses for these terms often are more definition-like than those for some other non-English terms because there is no one-word English equivalent {eg, nudiflora) or they involve possessives of proper names (eg, Darwinii, Sieboldii).
  5. We have no problem providing links from the Latin entry for an epithet to wikispecies for the two-part species names that are its descendants or derived terms.
  6. Translingual is not a language. It is an attempt to avoid having many language sections for terms that would be essentially identical in numerous languages. DCDuring TALK 17:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I feel as though it should have an entry, being a word that is used, but I'm not sure as to its pedigree as part of "real" Latin. Equinox 15:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean by "it" should have an entry? The Translingual "adjective" with the "meaning" of "a specific epithet"? Or are you referring to having a Latin entry for this word? No Latin entry has been nominated for deletion, only the Translingual entry with no meaningful definition, wrong part of speech, and a list of species names. --EncycloPetey 21:36, 24 May 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 [38] 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 cover seems to cover this. Ƿidsiþ 04:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


Allusive common noun, having meaning by direct reference to a specific event, and only to readers who have knowledge of the event. It has no generic meaning in English. I don't know why I bother; I suppose someone will “verify” it by finding three quotations where the name is used this way. Michael Z. 2010-05-24 16:27 z

Apart from the generic meaning given in the entry, you mean? NB WT:CFI line 1 "all words in all languages". Yes it contradicts other parts of CFI, but it is there. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I think MZ's point was that it doesn't mean "A terrorist bomb attack on an airplane" as we have it but rather "A specific terrorist bomb on an airplane in 1988".​—msh210 18:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete. If the slogan governs, than we must have been wasting our time for lo these many months. A slogan is not a mission statement, a constitution, legislation, or rule. It serves mostly to rouse rabble. As rabble no longer have any influence here, its pointlessness should be obvious. Lockerbie might make it as a placename. It should have a lovely WP article for its association with the event. If some of us are jealous of WP's ability to cover some things that are beyond our purview, perhaps we should split from WMF.
If there should be some attributive use of the form "a Lockerbie X" or "Lockerbie Xs", then the sense thereby cited should be included. "The Lockerbie X" is clearly a solely reference to the specific event. There may be some determiners that would also collocate with "Lockerbie X" in attributive use. Non-attributive "another Lockerbie" or "a Lockerbie" are collocations that do not warrant inclusion under WT:CFI#Names of specific entities. If this kind of attributive-use citation is too hard for this page, then perhaps it should be assigned to WT:AEN. DCDuring TALK 18:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
At COCA, only 12 or the 79 hits for Lockerbie followed by a noun were not immediately preceded by "the". On closer examination all of the remaining 12 were clearly references to the event or to matters set in motion by the event. This does not exclude the possibility of citation, but suggests that the usage in question is certainly not common. DCDuring TALK 19:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I added another cite - it's not as good as it comes from a book about plane disasters. There's another waiting from The Sun. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 19:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep if attestable in the defined sense "A terrorist bomb attack on an airplane". --Dan Polansky 20:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

console emulator

NISOP, emulates a games console. Equinox 19:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem as straightforward as the next one. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete. I've never heard a gamer call it this anyway - we just say emulator or romulation as a generic concept. ---> Tooironic 03:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

console emulation

NISOP, emulation of games console. Equinox 19:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

"The practice of emulating a video game console on a computer, a handheld, or another video game console." Delete. I'm not seeing controversy here. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete. I've never heard a gamer call it this anyway - we might say romulation though. ---> Tooironic 03:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete, although maybe "console emulator" above is worth keeping. Ƿidsiþ 05:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


"An extension often given to PHP-generated web pages." As defined, it is filename extension, rather than a word or abbreviation. (Probably bad caps, too, since filename extensions on the Web are rarely upper-cased.) Equinox 15:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

And an extension is what it is, in fact: the first 100 bgc hits show little else, all of which is names of objects in programming languages or the like.​—msh210 16:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Not dictionary material, then, is it? Remember changeme? [39] Equinox 16:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete per its content. HTML is clearly a noun. This isn't claiming to be a word, so delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete Michael Z. 2010-06-03 19:30 z


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)

autonomous oblast

Like the definition says, an oblast that's autonomous. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete. I have a notion that the Russian term may have a specific legal meaning that merits retention, but I doubt if there is sufficient English literature on the pertinent Russian/Soviet law for that to apply to this term as well (and if it did, it would probably apply only to the capitalized version). -- Visviva 16:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
If the CFI doesn't have a clause for including a term because it sounds too awesome to delete then we are doing this all wrong. - [The]DaveRoss 17:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, delete if you insist. I don't see any harm in the entry, though. Yes, legally an autonomous oblast is different from other federal subjects. I made sure there will be no impact on Jewish Autonomous Oblast entry, the only autonomous oblast in Russia - other federal subjects are called differently, among them - autonomous republic, oblast, kray. --Anatoli 00:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete  Direct SOP translation of SOP Russian автономная область (avtonomnaja oblast’). Michael Z. 2010-05-31 01:30 z
keep: it's a word (in the linguistic sense of word), because it's a set phrase specifically used to to something (it's not possible to replace autonomous by a synonym). It's exactly the same case as commune, except that it contains a space, or district attorney. Lmaltier 06:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't "self-governing oblast" have the same signification? -- Visviva 19:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep. This is not a SoP: Russian автономная область (avtonomnaja oblastʹ) had a specific legal meaning in the Soviet law; so does it's English translation. And there is a sufficient English literature on the pertinent law, conditioned by the fact that many AO's (such as Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast and South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast) declared independence, fought wars and generated a lot of press and legal debate since the collapse of the USSR. See also the citations I added. --Vahagn Petrosyan 09:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep The word is attestable and clearly not SoP. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep as cited. -- Visviva 16:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually now I'm less sure. The definition still doesn't specify any particular meaning in Soviet law; it simply boils down to "an oblast that is autonomous." I have no particular reason to doubt that this has a non-compositional meaning, but the definition as written does not explain that meaning. -- Visviva 19:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I rewrote the definition. It still needs improvement but at least now it does not say "autonomous oblast is an oblast that is autonomous". The connection between autonomous oblast and oblast is etymological, not legal. The legally defined administrative divisions of the USSR were union republic, autonomous republic, oblast, autonomous oblast, autonomous okrug. --Vahagn Petrosyan 10:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Now you've written an encyclopedia article. You've written why, when, and for whom the referent was created, but said nothing lexicological about the phrase. The previous definition was better (funny: w: autonomous oblast has a dictionary definition: “An autonomous oblast is an autonomous entity within the state which is on the oblast (province) level of the overall administrative subdivision.”). Michael Z. 2010-06-03 19:24 z
By the way, autonomous oblasts are apparently also of Russia ,Yugoslavia, Croatia, and Bosnia–Herzegovina. Regarding the list of “Derived terms,” shall I start RFDing this gazetteer list right away? Michael Z. 2010-06-03 19:29 z
I don't find the new definition encyclopedic in itself: it could have been the sense. But the actual sense seems to be less precise, and I suggest to use the Wikipedia definition. Note that it's quite normal that Wikipedia has a dictionary definition: the definition is (or should be) the only common part between a language dictionary entry and an encyclopedia entry. Lmaltier 19:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but with a bit of copy-editing improvement, that definition will be back to “an oblast that is autonomous.” It's an SOP term, and the best definition is the term itself. Even if we choose to include it for whatever reason, it's a disservice to the readers to tart up (i.e. obscure) the language just to pretend it's not SOP. Michael Z. 2010-06-04 21:27 z


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)

air kerma

"the kerma in given quantity of air." NISOP? Equinox 13:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete per its content. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

two beers please

Nonsense. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh, how exactly is it nonsense? --Yair rand (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it's ok. =) --Diego Grez 20:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Sum of parts. If adding [[Category:English phrasebook]] to any entry makes it immune from being rfd'd, why not create I'd like a beer, a packet of peanuts and a gin and tonic for the lady? Knowing Rising Sun, he probably created this as a satire. The problem is, the phrasebook is becoming so frivolous that the satires aren't any more frivolous than the 'genuine' entries. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Reminds me that phrasebook should be separate from word entries. Equinox 20:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree, appendix only, or create a new namespace. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Why? --Yair rand (talk) 21:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
The purpose of a dictionary (to define words and specifically idiomatic phrases) is different from the purpose of a phrasebook (to provide non-idiomatic phrases that happen to be (considered) useful in certain real-life situations). They will trip each other up. Equinox 23:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
For reference, I have started Appendix:English phrasebook some time ago. --Dan Polansky 07:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I warned you guys this would happen ;) Delete, please, pending creation of real Phrasebook criteria. ---> Tooironic 22:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Phrasebook entries don't follow the same rules like SoP, see WT:PB. As in a paper phrasebook (Lonely Planet, etc.) common and useful phrase are chosen, not necessarily covering all possible combinations. See previous delete requests for phrasebook. Why do they keep coming up again? The CFI for phrasebook entries will be created - don't worry, suffice to say the entries are useful and have many supporters. Strong keep again. --Anatoli 23:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete, pending creation of real Phrasebook criteria--Dmol 23:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I say keep, it doesn't makes any harm =) --Diego Grez 23:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Strong keep. If someone wants to propose a Phrasebook CFI, go ahead. IMO, we could go a while longer without any phrasebook rules. --Yair rand (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Mglovesfun, don't worry. Satire phrases will be deleted, I will personally make sure they are. We had a discussion about including obscure languages in the "I don't speak..." series, no need to exaggerate with your "peanuts" examples. --Anatoli 00:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete, before somebody adds one beer please. --Hekaheka 06:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete - totally pointless. SemperBlotto 07:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Ƿidsiþ 08:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

  • keep as creator. I've seen this in real phrasebook before, I didn't create this satirically. Our phrasebook needs space and time to evolve --Rising Sun talk? contributions 09:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised anyone is saying to keep this. Strong delete pending phrasebook CFI. —msh210℠ on a public computer 00:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Abstaining, per DCDuring (below).​—msh210 15:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete. If my penis phrase doesn't live, this should go too. I am being vindictive. --Vahagn Petrosyan 12:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep per Rising Sun. At some point in the past somebody (possibly me) suggested that the Phrasebook CFI should require presence in two or more "real" phrasebooks. "Two beers please" easily meets that criterion: [40] [41] [42]. (Incidentally, so does "two more beers please"). This appears, in fact, to be part of the canonical set used in all/most Rough Guide dictionary-phrasebooks (and is also found in others, so meets the independence criterion). All other things being equal, I'm inclined to trust Rough Guide's judgment more than my own when it comes to what does or doesn't belong in a phrasebook. Incidentally, my b.g.c. search also turned up some fun reading on the question of the use value of "two beers please" in a phrasebook. -- Visviva 13:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep per Visviva. Lemmings rule! At least until we have superseding Phrasebook CFI. DCDuring TALK 14:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Of course, this sentence might be included in a phrasebook. But it makes no sense as a separate page. This is why defining how the phrasebook should be organized is so important. See the Beer Parlour (the most appropriate place for ordering two beers, anyway). Lmaltier 18:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not as a separate page? The translations can be useful, it would be less useful if people had to piece things together from appendix information, the audio pronunciation of each of its translations would be useful, we have no space limitations or anything, why should this be deleted? --Yair rand (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Such sentences are included in phrasebooks only as examples, to be adapted to your situation. These examples are grouped by typical situations, and this makes them useful. But nobody will ever try to find this page, because nobody will expect it to be present, no more than three beers, please, ten beers, please, or four apples and five oranges, please. Yes, this information might be useful (if you want to order beer), but it's completely useless here, as a separate page. This is why the phrasebook should be organized in such a way that it is useful, in such a way that useful information can be found easily. Only set phrases should be kept as separate pages, because they are constituents of the language. Lmaltier 19:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
"Examples"? Meaning what, exactly? Eventually, we will have a category structure and appendices to help people find the various phrases, and people can search for them directly, and thus the phrasebook entries are useful. The phrases themselves are what's useful, not some pile of words that someone can attempt to adapt into situations, replacing words and making grammatical messes. The phrasebook should include common, usable phrases that someone would want to have information about. --Yair rand (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Such examples in phrasebooks are mainly intended to help with grammatical issues involved in some situation. If you want to order four beers in France, would you really try to find the translation of four beers, please in the Wiktionary? No, either you'll have a look at four, beer and please, or you'll consult a phrasebook in the appropriate chapter (how to order drinks or food), or you'll try an automatic translator. Such phrases are useful in phrasebooks, but I cannot imagine how this page can be useful to anybody. Lmaltier 19:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The point of the phrasebook is so that people have a better option than piecing together words or relying on inaccurate autotranslators, and so that they can find out how to use those words. We might at some point have Category:English phrasebook:Ordering food or drinks, to enhance the usability of the phrasebook, but for now, we should try to add as many useful (by themselves) phrases as possible. --Yair rand (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Weak keep per Visviva. When the phrasebook leaves the mainspace, then this can be deleted. --Dan Polansky 06:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
New data: google books:"two beers please" shows me 420 hits; google books:"two beers please" intitle:phrasebook shows me 17 hits. --Dan Polansky 21:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


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 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)

I have a big penis

Until we come up with some criteria for what "phrasebook" entries are, and how they are to be distinguished from normal dictionary entries, we really need to have a freeze on creating this kind of thing. Otherwise apparently any old shit can be allowed to stay here because "different rules apply" for "phrasebook entries". Not that I've ever seen this in a phrasebook. Ƿidsiþ 12:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete, I'm pretty sure it's a joke. As I said, it's hard to create phrasebook satire entries because the genuine entries look like satires. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
My favorite is Hebrew: (not used). Mglovesfun (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep. A useful phrase in sex tourism. I even think of creating I have a very, very big penis specially for me. --Vahagn Petrosyan 12:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
For sex tourism wouldn't I have a big wallet be more appropriate? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but I have a big penis may perhaps grant a discount, no? Anyone from Thailand? --Vahagn Petrosyan 12:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep 4 teh lulz. XD  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Looks like we're going to face the question of whether part of the justification for our getting resources will or will not include being a resource for the children of protective parents. As I understand it, WP and Commons have had to face the issue. DCDuring TALK 14:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete, the faster the better. This is not such a common phrase that it should be included. In fact it's one of the most stupid utterances I can think of. --Hekaheka 16:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
It may not be a common phrase among Finns, but why deny more favorably endowed nations the opportunity of using the phrase? --Vahagn Petrosyan 17:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Grow up! --Hekaheka 21:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I have amended Wiktionary:Policy#Users to indicate that we don't give a damn about parents who are trying to protect their children from vulgar and sexual content. Would it be better to:
  1. have some kind of adult-content warning for the entire site or
  2. wall off parts of it in some way?
"Not censored" has been a core tenet of all the Wikimedia projects since very early in our history. I don't think we need to take any action that isn't being taken by our sister projects, which would seem to have considerably greater grounds for concern. I haven't noticed any content warnings on Wikipedia pages or Commons galleries, and IMO something like commons:Penis needs it a lot more than anything we have (or are ever likely to have). -- Visviva 21:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
There seems to have been some ruckus about some erotic images at WP and Commons. I am not sure about the outcome or status. I was mostly interested in incorporating this into our policy as accurately as possible so there is no need for much subsequent discussion on individual cases. It simplifies some aspects of presentation if we are largely excluding younger children (preteens?) from our target user population. DCDuring TALK 23:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I've undeleted this for a couple reasons. One - It's no less useful than I don't speak Old French, and two - It's way more interesting. It's more fun learning a new language when you're talking about your junk and not your house. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 23:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
There's the flaw in your argument. Wiktionary shouldn't be fun --Rising Sun talk? contributions 00:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete. I think we shouldn't make Wiktionary obscene. Quality will definitely suffer, even if we include all possible dictionary words in the main body, including obscene words. A normal phrasebook wouldn't have this kind of phrases. I start to think the same about I'm horny. --Anatoli 00:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Wiktionary is already obscene. We have a great number of vulgar words and phrases. If you don't like the naughty bits you don't have to go to them. What exactly makes Wiktionary a 'normal phrasebook', or even a normal dictionary? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 14:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
What is "a normal phrasebook"? If you mean an actual paper-based book, then I'm afraid we're definitely not "a normal dictionary" either, because we already include countless words that "normal" dictionaries would or will never list. They are confined by factors such as the 1) finite amount of obsolescent paper medium 2) utility to their buyers. None of that concerns us. They're selling a useful product, we're trying to do the same thing - and more. The only relevant question should be: how useful this phrase is.
And I don't see how this would affect quality. You can make the entry for any obscene word just as good and thorough as for any non-obscene word. Most of them are in fact comparatively higher in quality, simply because of the higher amount of scrutiny they get. --Ivan Štambuk 07:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete. This is not something that should be in the phrasebook. --Yair rand (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
And I don't speak Old French is? If you're going to campaign so hard for such utterly useless entries, you're going to have to come up with something better than "this is not something that should be in the phrasebook" when it comes to things you don't want. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 14:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete, nobody has suggested specific Phrasebook criteria under which this would qualify (other than the "any phrase anyone might want to use, ever" criterion, which does not seem tenable). Cannot find this phrase in any other phrasebooks. -- Visviva 03:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The resentment of those against keeping is strong and they are in majority, I'm going to delete it, so we don't spoil the good idea of phrasebook work. --Anatoli 03:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I suggest we add I have with some examples. It'll cover all cases of having something that one wants to brag about. --Hekaheka 07:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
We already have the entry have to cover all cases if complete sentences are somehow undesirable. --Daniel. 10:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I have a big penis may go. But mark my words, history will always suspect you, opposers, of having small penises... --Vahagn Petrosyan 10:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we don't have penises at all. --Hekaheka 16:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh my god, Heka, what happened? Was it a crocodile attack? I hear crocodiles in Finland are ferocious. --Vahagn Petrosyan 16:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
What's a big penis good for, if you don't know there are two sexes? --Hekaheka 16:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Homophobe. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 17:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Strong keep. The arguments against this are that it's vulgar and useless. We already have assholeloads of vulgar and useless entries that no one seems to care about. Some even fight for keeping the utterly useless ones. The English phrasebook has 300 entries, many of which are simply "I don't speak..." followed by a language. If we had one for every living language, we'd have thousands. We also have some questionable inclusions as I don't eat fish, how do I get to the seaport, he's unconscious, let freedom ring, I don't speak American Sign Language, I'm ... year(s) old (what kind of format is that?), I'm mute, do you have a menu in Swedish, I've been raped... There is no reason other than censorship to include these but not a simple fun entry about the size of your manhood. Please do not delete this entry again until it has been thoroughly discussed and until we have real criteria for phrasebook entries. And don't lie about how many times it's been deleted. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 14:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

AFAICT the reason to delete this isn't to do with censorship, it's to do with this being tosh. I'd interpret this as a satire by Vahagn. The only reason it doesn't work is it's not more ridiculous than the ones we already have - but it is ridiculous. I'll add a little more to the Beer Parlour. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Im for deleting all vulgar, useless and idiotic entries, including this. --Hekaheka 16:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Heka, sex industry is giant (revenue >100 billion $ per year, bigger than Hollywood and all sports), sex-related terms account (topically) for a vast majority of all Web search terms (just look at our own page hits toplist, ignore special pages because they're not searches), and whether you like it or not, these vulgar and idiotic terms are very widespread, and have tens of millions of search hits (and are much more used colloquially than actually written). Wiktionary is a descriptive dictionary: if it's used, it must be added. The only question pertinent here is: is this phrase useful and widespread enough so that it merits inclusion? --Ivan Štambuk 17:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
You argumentation of porn industry is off the point. We are talking of a phrasebook entry. I have understood that phrasebook is supposed to contain simple sentences that a traveller not knowing the language too well might need in a foreign country for getting by. This definitely isn't one of them. In fact, if one does not know a language and the culture thoroughly, one should carefully avoid uttering controversial sentences. So far, two situations have been mentioned in which one might use this phrase:
  • When talking to a prostitute in order to get a discount - complete tosh, the prostitutes are only interested in the contents of the customer's wallet.
  • In connection with the porn industry - I have hard time imagining when, but possibly when offering oneself to work as pornstar. Also in that case it is useless, the employer is going to want to see it before he believes you.
Or do you guys actually suggest that you would use one of the translations to impress a non-English speaking girl you meet in a discotheque? Good luck! And as the last point, which is decisive from lexical point of view: this is as SOP as it can get: I have + X + Y . There are probably 1 billion adjective + noun combinations that could replace X + Y in this sentence. Why, of all those, it should be "big penis". I would likewise argument against e.g. I have a sports car or I have a beautiful wife. It is simply useless in a dictionary. --Hekaheka 10:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Sex industry reference is actually very much to-the-point. By demonstrating the global scope and influence of sex industry, effectively the usefulness of the phrases related to it is proven. There are millions of people around the globe right now making love or masturbating, and while doing that assessing the size of their (or their partner's) love organs. Its usefulness is undeniable. In upcoming football World Cup in South Africa, probably more money will be made by tens of thousands of prostitutes, than by FIFA selling tickets.
I have understood that phrasebook is supposed to contain simple sentences that a traveller not knowing the language too well might need in a foreign country for getting by. - If that were true, then this entry should have been deleted on sight. But is that all the phrasebook entries are good for? In the age of Web and instant Internet-based communication? Come on! You can learn any language without setting a foot outside your bedroom. In fact, these are the people that we primarily target - netizens. The focus should be on them, not on the non-existing paper version of Wiktionary.
All phrases are sum-of-parts entries. The only difference in including vs. excluding them should be strictly in their utility. As it has already been pointed out, words and phrases typical of human mating rituals are much more likely to be uttered than any of the haughty literary vocabulary that people show off with. Slang, obscenities, vulgarisms...these constitute a better part of the spoken language. We can ignore it hiding behind the faux Victorian morality facade, but that's the real language, in its non-artificial, colloquial register. We shouldn't be passing moral judgments on it, but simply describing it in the same way we describe the language of literary works.
Yes there are many such I have a(n) <adjective> <object>. constructs, but most of them are not useful and are rarely spoken. Average speaker has a limited vocabulary of some 2-3 thousand words, which can be combined in a finite number of ways (you cannot apply every adjective to every noun). Some criteria should be established on what kind of phrases should be included. I'd say everything having >50k hits on top 3 search engines in the respective language is worth including. I have a beautiful wife seems fairly common, but I have a sports car not so. --Ivan Štambuk 09:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Most of the Internet traffic is porn-related. I strongly suggest that we keep these, either in the main namespace or in an appendix. These phrases could be very useful for those who seek them. --Ivan Štambuk 16:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
All right then, maybe we should start to think of clever answers for the poor girls to whom Vaughan et.al. will use their newly learned language skills. Oh, I think you are a big dick might be a good starter. --Hekaheka 16:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
If we keep this, then we should also have the derived term I have a very big penis, the antonym I have a small penis and maybe some female equivalents. Perhaps we could also have I have a twelve inch penis, but I don't use it as a rule. SemperBlotto 16:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
No 'inches', please. Normal people count in centimeters. --Vahagn Petrosyan 16:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why not. If they're useful and frequently used, they should be included. That is, after all, the inclusion criteria for phrases, isn't it? --Ivan Štambuk 16:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I like I have a very big penis, and I have a small penis, but going into sizes could be like the I don't speak and I am x years old piles. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 17:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I can safely say that "I have a big penis" will be said infinitely more often in regular speech than half of the entries in the whole of wiktionary. Sex sells and sex is what people are more interested in. There's really no need to censor it. You gotta laugh, really. Though I agree with maybe somehow tagging the more explicit terms with a warning in the future if you're worried about Wiktionary's integrity.Jakeybean 17:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I personally find all this argumentation with the porn industry looming over you in Internet far from convincing. Internet has also made storage of large quantities of classical literature possible - virtually all writings whose authors died before the 1920s are easily accessible. So it is up to the user to decide what he is willing to udertake in Internet, and up to his character and interests. On the other hand, if we consider the spread of the phrase the primary criterion, why do we lack phrases like miserere nobis peccatoribus, et lux perpetua luceat eis which are uttered by hundreds of millions of Catholics on masses, funerals et cetera? They are certainly more widespread than those salacities (being uttered more often), but on quite different venues (concert halls - hundreds of masses and other sacred music being performed daily, churches) and are pious. Please, do not let wiktionary become a præferred reference for porn addicts and all kind of lascivious folks! These entries should be moved outside main space, to say the least. Not because we should censure anything, but in order to maintain an honorable and reliable audience. Vandals already overwhelm numerous pages with their obscenities, so if they come across Wiktionary while searching for obscene sites, vandalism here will become even more minatory and præsumptuous. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
We're never going to run out of vandals. I seriously doubt that our having obscene entries is going to increase our vandalism. Like those women that say pornography increases violence against women. We lack Catholic phrases because no one has added them yet. And I don't think that they're more widespread than people bragging about their dicks. Catholicism is in decline. Pornography is on the rise. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 20:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The appendix should be called "Teenagers' obsessions with their own body parts". It could include phrases like my left breast is bigger than my right breast, I have pimples and my nose is the wrong shape.--Makaokalani 12:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
While teenagers may be excessively obsessed with their penises, most men are also. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 14:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This discussion shouldn't be about psychology. It should be about lexical merits of "I have a big penis". There are none. It is just "I have" + X. --Hekaheka 17:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Lots of things have passed since the 1920s Bogorm. In the old days, content-creators were a limited group of professional writers. Today we have 4 or 5 orders of magnitude more content creators. Most of them are inaccessible (private IM, e-mails etc.), but lots of them are. There is virtually no difference if a word has been used by some Nobel-prize writer or on a blog of some horny 12-year old from Botswana. And I'm afraid that masses around the world are no longer held in Latin. 99.9% of Catholics doesn't have clue what those Latin words mean. OTOH, millions of Hindus utter Sanskrit mantras every day, which they also don't have a clue what they mean. And these we should add, just like we add Allahu akbar that Muslims use in English, shalom that is used by Jews and so on. I'm sorry Bogorm, but the days when works were written for "honorable and reliable audience" and are gone and are never, ever coming back. For linguaphiles such as yourself, things with massive vulgarization of discourse are only going to get unimaginably worse, and they are never, ever going to get better. That is a battle that cannot be won, and it doesn't make much sense to maintain the lexicographical "standards" of the past when Zeitgeist was so different, that even the word penis was offensive enough that they used membrum virile instead. What some of you are suggesting with blocking obscenities is effectively as telling biologists to only study "pretty" species like pandas and big cats, and ignore much more populous and diverse "creepy" creatures of the night and deep ocean. --Ivan Štambuk 09:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The word "penis" being in it does not kill its potential merits. It's a useful construction - I have [(article) maybe] (adj) (noun). Do we have any others like that? None that I've seen. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 15:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. fatuous entry. The only reason I can see for it is to prove that Wiktionary phrase book policy needs work. Conrad.Irwin 16:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Undeleted. By what criteria is this a "fatuous" entry, as compared to other much less useful SVO sentences inside the Category:English phrasebook ? If phrasebook policy needs work, that's a separate problem altogether. The only reason that I see why people object to this entry is because it contains the word penis. --Ivan Štambuk 06:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Ivan here......sort of. I think that this entry is worthless and should be deleted, but we really can't delete it until we figure out exactly why we're deleting it. I'd delete half of our phrasebook entries if this were a dictatorship headed by me, but it isn't (anyone who wants to start a vote to make it one could count on my support vote.....and probably only my support vote). We really need to figure out what phrasebook entries we want and why. In all honesty, I do hear guys using this phrase (and variants) all the time. It's entirely conceivable that someone might want to know how to say it in other languages. I think we'd be entirely justified in refusing to assist them in this endeavour, but if so, we need to figure out why. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Earlier Anatoli said that this would never appear in a "normal phrasebook". Well, allow me to introduce you to the Making Out series. Making Out in Spanish is just one of far more than I was expecting. A quick look over shows Making Out In Japanese (which I bought about 6 to 8 years ago in a Waldens), Making Out in Chinese, Making Out in Vietnamese, Making Out in Korean, Making Out in Tagalog, Making Out in Indonesian, Making Out in Thai, Making Out in Turkish. There's also Talk Dirty Spanish, Talk Dirty German, D!RTY Spanish, D!RTY German... There are many more such series, but I think by now I've made the point that there are phrasebooks out there that do include things that include at least sections that concern sex and sexual situations, if they aren't completely dedicated to those subjects, including everything from picking up people at bars to when you're alone in bed. So you can find such phrases in paper phrasebooks, and there is market for them, because you know whether you like it or not, some people do still have sex, and some people do like big penises, and some people will be thrilled to find such phrases on wiktionary. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 13:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I have a big penis — AEL
  • Delete as part of a cleanup on what's actually in the phrasebook section. (Regardless of the size of the associated economy - I didn't know *that's* any reason for keeping/deleting terms??? I thought that was restricted to what proportion of said economy trickles our way... That is, the bigger the trickle, the more important to add sector-specific phrases, no?) \Mike 19:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep. :P I'm not gay nor am I overly obsessed with the size of my penis but I agree with the points put forward in favour of keeping this. I don't think "I have a very, very big penis", etc are needed though.

@ Bogorm What Ivan said...>.> Seriously, I don't think that logic applies. I'm sure there are plenty of people using the internet that don't give a damn about religion. Or do you want Wiktionary to discriminate against atheists and agnostics? 50 Xylophone Players talk 21:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete. google books:"I have a big penis" gives me 21 hits, not enough for a phrasebook entry. google books:"I have a big penis" intitle:phrasebook has zero hits, so does not save this entry. --Dan Polansky 21:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Um, not all phrasebooks have "phrasebook" in their title. I pointed out a few series of them earlier. The Making Out series, the Talk Dirty series, and the D!RTY series. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 01:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Google Books is a privately owned website by a creepy Big Brother organization, that contains illegally scanned printed-only texts, and is no way representative of actually spoken language that netizens unleash on free Web. "I have a big penis" has tens/hundreds of thousands of hits. --Ivan Štambuk 05:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If Google count matters, we should delete this (2,2 M raw hits) and add I have a small penis. It gets 10,5 M hits, which would seem to indicate that it is 5 times as useful as "I have a big penis". On the other hand, we are hardly going to need several entries of the format "I have a/an <<adjective>> penis". --Hekaheka 05:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be deleted because it has enough web hits (>100k on all major search engines), but we should also add I have a small penis. Usefulness as a CFI can only be measured in absolute terms: we shouldn't delete a phrase just because a variant phrase is x times more used. If they both pass a certain threshold, both should be added. --Ivan Štambuk 05:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
google:"I have a small penis" gives 912,000 hits. Further, google books:"I have a small penis" gives 64 hits, not enough for a phrasebook entry IMHO. google books:"I have a small penis" intitle:phrasebook gives 0 hits. Beware that you need to search in quotation marks, otherwise you get wrong numbers: google:I have a small penis gives 1,760,000 hits; google books:I have a small penis gives 29,000 hits. --Dan Polansky 08:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I've already explained why using intitle:phrasebook is only a weak guideline, as not all phrasebooks have phrasebook in the title. Just like Dracula wasn't called Dracula: A Novel. Although some novels do weirdly point out that they are in fact novels.... — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 12:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
We must have different setting in our Googles, because I used quotation marks as well. In Dan Polansky's way google:"I have a big penis" gives 192.000 hits and google books:"I have a big penis" gives only 21 hits. That's 5:1 and 3:1 to small dicks. Small penis -variant is more frequent by a wide margin, no matter how you count it. A little bit below Dan Polansky opined that 26 hits for "I need a diaper" is too few. --Hekaheka 17:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

We have already undergone three delete/undelete cycles. Perhaps we should somehow try to iterate towards a solution instead. It may help to take an interim count on votes. I interpret the discussion so that there are 12 deletes and 5 keeps. The deletes are: Ƿidsiþ, Mglovesfun, Hekaheka, Anatoli, Yair rand, Visviva, Bogorm, Makaokalani, Conrad Irwin, Atelaes, \Mike, Dan Polansky, and the keeps are: Vahagn, Raifʻhār Doremítzwr, RIC Optiaterein, Ivan Stambuk, Jakeybean. Sorry for missing some typographic finesses. Feel free to edit the list, if I have misinterpreted somebody's comment. Some participants in the discussion were so neutral that I did not dare to place them in either of the camps. Does deletion require a qualified majority or is a simple majority enough? --Hekaheka 13:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC) I edited my name for "typographic finesses".  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You voted delete like three times. My keep was a strong keep complete with an actual logical argument, unlike a lot of the oddly biased delete votes :p Try not to put votes in people's mouths. I counted 7 votes for delete and 4 for keep. Neskaya bolded his deleted and Ivan bolded his undeleted. If you're opposed to the phrasebook, then take it up in a debate against the phrasebook - not against cocks. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 14:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I counted my vote only once even if I mentioned deleting more often. I recorded the list of names to facilitate checking. Which of them is wrong? A "strong" vote is not any better than an ordinary one. Besides, my "delete" is also strong. I have nothing against cocks and this discussion should not be about them, but about an entry in a dictionary. You may have noted that I have not proposed to delete entries for cock, dick, penis or whatever names this organ may have. I'm only in favour of deleting an entry which adds very little if any value to Wiktionary, since there are zillions of entries that could be created on the basis of "I have" + <article> + <adjective> + <noun>. As an example, the sentence I have a nice job yields 6 times as many Google hits as I have a big penis, and I have a good job about 70 times as many. Vulgarity may not be an argument against an entry, but even less is it an argument for keeping one. The discussion on this entry and the discussion on existence of Phrasebook are two different discussions. This entry should go, whatever happens to the Phrasebook. --Hekaheka 21:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes you have a lots against cocks. Your original comment from June 3rd [43] was: (Hekaheka:) "Im for deleting all vulgar, useless and idiotic entries, including this.". This later argument as if the phrase is useless because it's non-lexicographical came only as an ex post facto justification for your premeditated attitude based on the moral judgment of the entry, which you were careless to utter so openly. This growing concern of the old-timers for keeping "improper words" out of Wiktionary is very disturbing. It's indicative of the elitist nature of the early dictionary compilers, where dictionaries were thought of as "language lawbooks", and not language archeology, what they really are. --Ivan Štambuk 21:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
My original comment was: "This is not such a common phrase that it should be included. In fact it's one of the most stupid utterances I can think of. The comment that you refer to was my sixth and I wrote it only after being provoked by some very biased comments, which I regret and apologize. I repeat: that an entry deals with sex is not a justification for exclusion of an entry, but it is not an inclusion criterion either. Just to prove my point of not being against vulgar entries per se: you can find my name in the edit history of e.g. kyrpä, vittu and nussia, which belong to core vulgar vocabulary of Finnish. I have also translated English sex-related terminology into Finnish. QED. --Hekaheka 23:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Then on what grounds do you actually object to this entry? Why should we exclude this fairly common sentence, and include countless others of much lesser frequency of usage? --Ivan Štambuk 21:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
(@Hekaheka)No, plese, do not count me among the users favouring the deletion. I strongly support moving this entry and all its semblables (i. e. all phrasebook entries) outside main space where people cannot come across them so easily. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I have stricken my original, frivolous "keep" vote. I now favour deleting this. However, this vote should also be interpreted as a vote in favour of deleting the whole phrasebook or, at the very least, consigning its content to appendices or the like.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
This particular discussion of the phrase "I have a big penis" can by no means be read as a vote on whether the phrasebook should only be in the appendix rather than in the main namespace. That is simply not the discussed subject. --Dan Polansky 15:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
This phrase is part of the phrasebook section dealing with sex. People have sex and will at some point in their learnings need to know how to talk about it. All arguments against keeping I have a big penis are based on: its vulgarity, which is silly because we have tons of vulgar entries; it's usefulness, which is completely subjective and can't be decided by 7 people who wouldn't use it, half of them because they don't have penises; anti-phrasebook stances, which aren't remarkably relevant here. Yair, champion of pretty useless "I don't speak" entries voted against it simply because it's something he thinks "should not be part of the phrasebook", which not all of us agree to. If you don't like the vulgar entries, nobody's forcing you to edit them or look at them. If you don't think it's useful, that doesn't mean someone else won't. If you don't like the phrasebook, go to BP like everyone else. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 16:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Nobody here pretends that people don't have sex. In fact that would not be desirable, IMHO. Believe it or not, but also I like sex very much. But that's not the point. People have all kinds of things, but I would oppose any "I have" + <article> + <adjective> + <noun> combination on the same grounds I oppose this. --Hekaheka 21:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Come on, Hekaheka, we both know what's all this about: you're just jealous god didn't give you a penis. --Vahagn Petrosyan 21:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Most boys grow out of their phallic stage at the age of six. Some, obviously, do not. --Hekaheka 21:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Freud was a quack and you know it...:p Anyway it appears that your issue with these entries is their SOP-ness... which isn't an issue for phrasebooks, which frequently repeat themselves. So instead of focusing on this entry, maybe you could go to WT:BP and campaign against the whole phrasebook, which is bound to have hundreds of very similar phrases. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 22:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Whatever, but it is completely out of context to write here estimates about other people's penises or speculate with their existence/nonexistence. This is supposed to be a dictionary and not an adolescent chat site. --Hekaheka 04:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete until we have a better understanding of how the phrasebook should work. Wikisaurus was also once drowning in sexonyms, and I think it put that project back significantly. Once we've developed better CFI for the phrasebook, this sort of thing really might have a place in it; but in the meantime, I think we should stick to stuff that more obviously belongs. —RuakhTALK 00:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete as it's a fatuous entry. --Neskayagawonisgv? 21:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you please explicate what exactly is "fatuous" about this entry? You're generally against sex terms, against phrasebook entries, against this specific entry..? --Ivan Štambuk 21:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete Not very useful for people travelling overseas or for people learning the English language. Not common enough to warrant its' own entry. Even though it gets 100,000 hits in all major search engines, most of the other Phrasebook entries get hits in the tens of millions on major search engines. Don't try to persuade me to change my !vote because it won't change, and nothing you say will make me change it. Razorflame 22:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't try to persuade me to change my !vote because it won't change, and nothing you say will make me change it - This is very "fundamentalist" line of thinking. Reasonable person would weigh up the pros and cons and draw a conclusion on them, leaving it susceptible to change should further arguments arise. Adamantly sticking to a single alternative serves no good. --Ivan Štambuk 22:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Vote count: For delete: Ƿidsiþ, Mglovesfun, Hekaheka, Anatoli, Yair rand, Visviva, Conrad.Irwin, \Mike, Dan Polansky, Raifʻhār Doremítzwr, Ruakh, Neskaya, Razorflame; 13 in total. For keep: Vahagn Petrosyan, R·I·C opiaterein , 50 Xylophone Players, Ivan Štambuk (estimated); 4 in total. --Dan Polansky 22:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

social networking site

Just social networking + site. Could also be social networking website, social networking service, etc. Equinox 11:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Delete. No harm in redirecting, I suppose, but in this case I really don't see the point. Deletion summary should point to the the subphrase to aid future visitors.​—msh210 15:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete. --Yair rand (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete, and put 'see social networking and site separately' in the deletion summary. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep set phrase, yes you could say "social networking website", but people rarely do. Ƿidsiþ 10:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
This is why we don't keep set phrases when they're not idiomatic. The definition might as well be [[social networking]] [[site]]. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I think we should. The meaning is obvious, but the fact that we express the idea in this way is not. To me, "social networking website" is obviously unidiomatic, whereas "social networking site" is idiomatic. Ƿidsiþ 10:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
That reasoning could apply to another 10,000 phrases which don't meet our CFI. Let's talk about changing it, but let's not just throw in this one example ad hoc. DeleteMichael Z. 2010-06-03 19:16 z
Not true, CFI says: ‘Compounds are generally idiomatic, even when the meaning can be clearly expressed in terms of the parts. The reason is that the parts often have several possible senses, but the compound is often restricted to only some combinations of them.’ I think this is a stupid rule, but it certainly passes ‘social networking site’, on the grounds that it's sense 5 of site, and never 1-4. Ƿidsiþ 05:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete. It's a website like any other. What makes this one different? JamesjiaoTC 00:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
A dog is an animal like any other. That is not a linguistic argument. This is an idiomatic term per CFI as quoted above. Ƿidsiþ 05:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


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


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)

drop Benjamins

SOP: drop (14 “spend money”) + Benjamin nMichael Z. 2010-06-03 19:11 z

If it's a set phrase, a constituent of the language (i.e. you must use Benjamins after drop to express the idea, it's not possible to choose instead any word referring to banknotes), it should be kept. Lmaltier 20:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
But it's not. You can drop twenties, drop C-notes, etc. There's already a quotation at drop#Verb v. 14. Michael Z. 2010-06-04 16:58 z
Then, delete. Lmaltier 17:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a trolley car.
Not a set phrase. Both are ordinary colloquial/slang words in the applicable senses. Delete. DCDuring TALK 22:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Not a set phrase, delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Strong Keep: Dropping Benjamins has a different meaning then drop twenties. DC, what's with nominating pages I created for deletion? Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 02:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's talk about the nomination, not the nominator. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm the nominator, so there appears to be some confusion.
How is the dropping in “dropping Benjamins” different from dropping bills, twenties, fifties, dimes, c-notes, etc? I don't believe it is. Would the proponents be so kind as to supply three citations demonstrating the difference? Michael Z. 2010-06-07 15:08 z

Delete, wasn't able to find any good reason to object. In particular, this lacks the distinctive usage profile of "pack heat"; the set of users of this phrase would seem to be identical to the intersection of the sets of users of the pertinent senses of drop and Benjamin. -- Visviva 12:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

pack heat

SOP: pack v. (16) + heat n. (7). Michael Z. 2010-06-03 19:13 z

  • "pack" ~ "carry"; "heat" ~ "rod", "gat", etc. Delete. DCDuring TALK 22:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep as a set phrase... you don't pack a piece or carry heat. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 23:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep as a set phrase. The meaning is not obvious from the two separate words, each having several meanings.--Dmol 01:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
You certainly can pack a piece, that's pretty common, as for carry heat, no idea. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Set, idiomatic phrase. "Pack" has many meanings and that makes it even more ambiguous. Moreover, it has a second (slang) meaning not listed: to appear to have a bulging crotch. ---> Tooironic 13:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd really like it if folks brought more than their narrow experience base to these discussions. We have numerous corpora and criteria to use for determining whether a term is a set phrase. Claiming without a shred of evidence that this is a set phrase when some particular alternative words have been pointed out as valid substitutes reduces this process to mere voting and makes me wonder whether participants are using anything other than whimsy. I had thought that lexicography had progressed beyond armchair introspection.
We have also already discredited the preposterous argument advanced by those who should know better without support of any kind that polysemy of any term in a collocation makes it worth including. Without qualification that argument would mean that the more we refine our definitions, the more collocations we would automatically include. I'm tired of doing citation work against preposterous claims of idiomaticity when mere unsubstantiated assertions seem to be accepted. DCDuring TALK 14:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
1. What are these "corpora and criteria" that can determine whether something is or isn't a set phrase? Enlighten me! 2. The "preposterous argument" that polysemy makes something worth including is, however silly, explicitly allowed for in the CFI. Ƿidsiþ 14:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
See Wiktionary:English set phrases for a discussion of operational definitions of "set phrase", ie, suggesting criteria.
We don't keep set phrases that aren't idiomatic. Lmaltier has always argued keeping set phrases no matter what they mean. I've always counter-argued that if we keep them, we can skip the definition as there's no need for one. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Again though, I think we disagree on what idiomatic means. But look Martin, a dictionary isn't just there to explain what a word means, it's there to record that a word exists. Consider duvet cover above, its meaning is very obvious, but it's not obvious that we would say "duvet cover" and "pillow case" but not "duvet case" or "pillow cover". These common collocations have transparent meanings but their existence is not predictable. That is part of what a dictionary does, and that's part of what "idiomatic" means. I don't know how this should be codified in the CFI, but it should be. Ƿidsiþ 18:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Re 2, see the "bank parking lot" example in the CFI. There is polysemy, but because there is use of the phrase, albeit rare, with both of the feasible meanings, the word is deemed not inclusible.​—msh210 15:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Sure, but that doesn't seem to be the case with pack heat. Ƿidsiþ 15:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
See google:"pack plenty of heat" pepper.​—msh210 17:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. It's vanishingly rare, but it obviously exists. So that makes this inadmissible? Ƿidsiþ 18:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Bank parking lot is inadmissible because all feasible senses actually exist. We have to ask whether all feasible senses of this actually exist. (I'd guess so.) What's feasible is subjective. I, for one, think that it's feasible to say pack heat for pack (to put in a suitcase or the like) + heat (hotness), to mean "put a source of heat in a bag, as to take on a camping trip". If we agree that that's feasible, and if we find that it's never used that way, then I suppose the CFi would have us keep this entry.​—msh210 18:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that bare assertions are not helpful, but I don't know if the available corpus tools have the answer either. My experiments with MI and similar measures were not encouraging; I'd be interested if you've found a metric that gives usable results. Quantitative analysis would seem especially tricky for intersections of polysemous terms like "pack" and "heat"; a satisfactory frequency-based analysis would require that all of the irrelevant senses first be excluded. To do that without picking through thousands of KWICs by hand, one would need a very sophisticated word-sense disamiguation program (of the sort that is probably still years/decades in the future). So the best we can manage for now, I fear, is intersubjectivity.
Unfortunately, the state of discourse on Wiktionary seems to have actually deteriorated of late (something I would scarcely have thought possible before). On the wiki as in life, sincere inquiry requires a certain level of mutual trust. The snide and insulting behavior that has become so widespread here recently can lead even sincere and intelligent contributors to retreat behind false certainty. Likewise, as this mindset takes hold, it becomes ever harder to justify taking time for thoughtful reflection/analysis that will probably just be ignored. YMMV. -- Visviva 15:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I am skeptical of the given sense of "heat". I have encountered this sense nowhere except in the phrase "pack heat", and the only example given for this sense uses "pack heat". I expect the sense can be verified, and perhaps there's a case for inclusion even if it can't. But at best this seems like a classic case of a term that is understood within a narrow speech community, while being understood by the broader community only in a specific phrase. If true, that makes this phrase significantly non-compositional. The existence of a rare independent sense is not sufficient grounds for deleting a common phrase IMO. I believe we have passed terms under these circumstances in the past.
Checking the first page of results for google books:"was packing heat": [44]: 68 hits for "heat", but AFAICT this sense appears only in "packing heat" (1x). [45]: 8 hits for "heat", but this sense appears only in "packing heat" (2x). [46]: 10 hits for "heat", but this sense appears only in "packing heat" (1x). [47]: 15 hits for "heat", but this sense appears only in "packing heat" (1x). [48]: 10 hits for "heat", but this sense appears only in "packing heat" (1x). [49]: 1 hit for "heat", only in "packing heat". [50]: 4 hits for "heat", but this sense appears only in "packing heat" (1x). Two magazines and one duplicate are omitted, but these also contained no independent uses for "heat" in the putative sense. As a sanity check, there is also no use of this sense in the first page of results for "carrying heat", or in the 3 COCA hits for "carrying heat".
Based on the above, unless it can be shown that the relevant sense of "heat" is not only real but comparably widespread, IMO we have to regard "pack heat" as a distinct lexical unit, and therefore keep this entry. -- Visviva 15:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Google Books: "carrying heat" gun has 5/10 relevant hits on the first page. OED has quotations including “I fogged away with my heat until I pooped that dummy,” “I won't use this heat, if I have to,” and to turn on the heat meaning “Cover One with a Gun (v. phr.).” This heat (also heater) has literal and figurative shades of meaning including “agitation,” “pressure,” “violence,” “gunplay,” and “a gun.” Michael Z. 2010-06-04 18:02 z
keep, per Ƿidsiþ, Visviva, etc. What Visviva calls distinct lexical unit is what linguists often call word. May I add that this phrase seemed very strange to me, I had to read the page to understand it. Lmaltier 18:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks. It still seems to me that this sense of "heat" is far less widespread than the phrase "pack heat". google books:"packing heat" gun gives about 507 hits, almost all of which are in this sense, while google books:"carry heat" gun gives 46, of which about half seem to be in this sense; that suggests a ratio of about 20:1, but I think even that is understating it, since authors are much more likely to need to use "gun" in the context of "carry heat" in order to clue their readers in to the intended meaning. Assuming the b.g.c count of ~2700 for "packing heat" can be relied on, that suggests that only about 1 in 5 uses even mentions "gun" on the same page or in the title; thus the ratio of "pack heat" to "carry heat" could be closer to 100:1. On a personal level, if someone (implausibly) were to ask me "are you packing heat," I would immediately understand their meaning; if they asked "you got any heat on you," I would be confused and perhaps think they were asking for a light. Of course, none of this may be relevant to the question of whether this entry and others like it add value to the dictionary. Certainly it is more likely that someone confused by this phrase will look at pack and/or heat for answers. -- Visviva 22:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Lemming check: OneLook shows only Urban Dictionary as having "pack heat" as an entry. Not even Wordnet views this as a semantic unit. DCDuring TALK 20:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    The OED includes it (under sense 9a): "to pack heat: to carry a gun". Ƿidsiþ 05:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
    Slang dictionaries are also of some lemmingological interest in this case. Cassell's gives it an entry, as does Partridge. The Shorter Slang Dictionary actually refers the reader from "heat" to "pack heat" for the lemma entry. Interestingly these vary on the date of first attestation (1920s according to Cassell's, 1930 according to Partridge), which suggests there is room for us to add some value by nailing down the earliest findable uses. (I am without OED access, so can't speak to what they may have.) -- Visviva 22:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

  • I have taken the trouble to provide cites at Citations:pack heat that provide counterexamples to the unsubstantiated claim that this is a set phrase.
  1. Determiners may be inserted (eg, some, any, no, the)
  2. Adjuncts may be inserted (eg. serious, heavy, automatic, semi-automatic)
  3. "Pack" can be at once used with "heat" and other complements (eg. knife, drugs)
Contrary evidence would need to be more quantitative. Because of the polysemy it is difficult to use the readily available corpora for quantitative tests. DCDuring TALK 21:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The evidence presented is contrary to the claim that it is a set phrase. There may be other grounds for arguing that it is idiomatic that other lexicographers haven't yet accepted. DCDuring TALK 21:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep. The possibility of inserting determiners or inserting adjuncts does not run counter to the meaning of set phrase (grammatical sense 2) any more than the splitting of a phrasal verb would make it any less a phrasal verb. The term set phrase does not mean "completely and universally invariant unit". And yes, I have provided examples. In any case, the expression is extremely idiomatic, with many possible meanings of the components, but only one combination of those possibilities is usually meant. --EncycloPetey 03:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep: This was a well-established definition until User:Diego Grez and I noticed that it was tagged under the wrong word form. It is an idiomatic phrase in that "heat" in "packing heat" means something different than "heat" generally does. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 02:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep. There's no way a poor foreigner like me could figure this out. --Hekaheka 04:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
If this was wikipedia, this would be a a candidate for a SNOW close Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 15:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Abstain, since I've never heard of it, I'm badly placed to comment. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

have a word with someone

have a word with

I think these are SOP. We should add have a word and delete these two. Let's have a word about it! --Hekaheka 09:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Added "have a word". --Hekaheka 09:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Could redirect IMO, but yes having three separate entries is bad. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have checked before I added have a word with someone. Yeah, I support keeping have a word and deleting the rest. ---> Tooironic 13:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Could you do the Chinese translation? It's now from "have a word with someone". --Hekaheka 13:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
No worries. Done. ---> Tooironic 14:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm gonna go ahead and delete those two entries. One of them was my fault anyway. I can't see any valid reason why we should keep them, but I will maintain redirects. ---> Tooironic 08:19, 8 June 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)


Replace with {{only in}} referring to the glossary that has wikijargon. DCDuring TALK 18:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete per Twitter. Being a WMF site doesn't give it any exemption and possibly makes it even worse (incest). Equinox 19:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete per Equinox. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
keep if so, then we should delete Wikipedia, Wikinews, Wikinewsie, etc. --Diego Grez 19:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
And Wiktionary, delete the lot, although Wikipedia has other senses. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I would prefer to keep these, since no argument has ever been made that including WMF terminology poses any sort of threat to the project, and hosting such terms is of demonstrable value in raising our visibility (and capacity for recruitment) within the Wikimedia community. The only arguments against them seemed to be based on a ludicrously inflated idea of Wiktionary's status. That said, excluding "WMF jargon" is supposed to be settled policy, and I'm confused as to why these weren't all deleted years ago. -- Visviva 21:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes Visviva, per my comment below, we're supposed to delete them even when they can be cited per WT:Criteria for inclusion. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per Diego. Also have the feeling that people are going around hacking apart this wiki with axes, when scalpels will suffice. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 21:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
FWIW I get equally annoyed by measured to exclude attestable terms used on Wikimedia projects like userbox which meets of the criteria necessary, about from a clause about WMF. IMO anyone who wants to keep this should want to keep the name of every attestable website on the web. But... those are all words in a language. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Do these meet the standard for attestation in WT:CFI#Names of specific entities? I don't think it was easy to find attributive use even for Wikipedia. The issue it seems to me is whether we eat our own dog food. I am reminded of US Congress which is not subject to many of the laws that it imposes on the rest of the US (eg, sexual harassment). We could be frank and decide to allow terms we favor (linguistics, wikijargon, etc) if there is a consensus to do so. DCDuring TALK 22:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been raped

Offensive to rape victims, their advocates, rapists and their advocates. And people from towns called Rape. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 21:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems no more "offensive" than the big penis one, and more potentially useful. Equinox 21:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep until we get some proper criteria. Not ridiculous enough to merit outright deletion. The policymakers sort this one out. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
This doesn't seem like a serious nomination. Polarpanda 22:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Should have been shot on sight. This is getting rediculous. We are a dictionary, and until we set up some sort of all encompassing phrase book with clearly defined CFI then these entries should not be permitted.--Dmol 23:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete No, just no. Kill this entry. --Diego Grez 23:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

AFAICT even the most restrictive approaches to the phrasebook would have it include survival language needed by travelers. Phrases needed to indicate one has just been subject to a common crime, like I've been raped and I've been robbed, would surely qualify. Turning to b.g.c., google books:"I've been raped" intitle:phrasebook indicates this is part of the standard set for Lonely Planet, and is found in some independent phrasebooks as well. Wherever we choose to draw the boundaries of the phrasebook, this would seem to fall well within them. I don't think the nom is serious in claiming this is offensive, but in any case, Wiktionary is not censored. I do not see any reason not to keep this entry, at least as long as we continue to keep phrasebook entries in mainspace. -- Visviva 00:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Will people please stop randomly RFDing phrasebook entries? This is getting ridiculous. --Yair rand (talk) 04:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
What is rediculous is the creation of these entries, not that someone is (quite rightly) listing them for deletion. Until this is sorted out, we should not allow the creation of any more of these silly entries.--Dmol 05:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Wiktionary has been hosting the phrasebook project for over five years, with little or no objection to it. The phrasebook has been, the whole time, a project to add useful phrases like those that are being currently RFD'd. As the way wikis usually work, policies are generally a reaction to a problem, and as the issue of excluding things from the phrasebook didn't exist until recently, of course there is no policy to deal with it. Saying "Until this is sorted out, we should not allow the creation of any more of these silly entries" is like saying that Wiktionary shouldn't include/have included anything at all until we have/had a good CFI, which is plainly ridiculous. A policy is a helpful reaction, not a necessary precursor. --Yair rand (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep per Visviva. After a decision is made to remove the whole phrasebook from the mainspace, this can be deleted. --Dan Polansky 06:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Morning Star

Do we keep newspaper titles? ---> Tooironic 01:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete. If any paper by that name were mentioned in major works of English literature (Dickens or Twai