Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup add new | history | archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification/English add new English request | history | archives Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for verification/CJK add new CJK request | history Requests for verification of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.	Requests for verification/Italic add new Italic request | history Requests for verification of Italic-language entries.	Requests for verification/Non-English add new non-English request | history | archives Requests for verification of any other non-English entries.	Requests for deletion/Others add new | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.
Requests for moves, mergers and splits add new | history | archives Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.	Requests for deletion/English add new English request | history | archives Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/CJK add new CJK request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.	Requests for deletion/Italic add new Italic request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of Italic-language entries.	Requests for deletion/Non-English add new non-English request | history | archives Requests for deletion and undeletion of any other non-English entries.	Requests for deletion/​Reconstruction add new reconstruction request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of reconstructed entries.
{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

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

This page is for entries in English. For entries in other languages, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English.

Scope of this request page:

• In-scope: terms suspected to be multi-word sums of their parts such as “green leaf”
• Out-of-scope: terms whose existence is in doubt

Templates:

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

See also:

• Criteria for inclusion
• Page deletion guidelines

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

Out of scope: This page is not for words whose existence or attestation is disputed, for which see Wiktionary:Requests for verification. Disputes regarding whether an entry falls afoul of any of the subsections in our criteria for inclusion that demand a particular kind of attestation (such as figurative use requirements for certain place names and the WT:BRAND criteria) should also go to RFV. Blatantly obvious candidates for deletion should only be tagged with {{delete|Reason for deletion}} and not listed.

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

Closing a request: A request can be closed once a month has passed after the nomination was posted, except for snowball cases. If a decision to delete or keep has not been reached due to insufficient discussion, {{look}} can be added and knowledgeable editors pinged. If there is sufficient discussion, but a decision cannot be reached because there is no consensus, the request can be closed as “no consensus”, in which case the status quo is maintained. The threshold for consensus is hinted at the ratio of 2/3 of supports to supports and opposes, but is not set in stone and other considerations than pure tallying can play a role; see the vote.

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

(Note: In some cases, like moves or redirections, the disposition is more complicated than simply “RFD-deleted” or “RFD-kept”.)

Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request should be archived to the entry's talk page. This is usually done using the aWa gadget, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS.

Oldest tagged RFDs

• 786
  nasal vowel
  fuck it up
  oral vowel
  adult material
  smackers
  not-to-scale
  Colon Street
  mathematical function program
  elder
  occasional furniture
  instance dungeon
  take its toll
  Kube
  stealth wealth
  stem mutation
  morel
  abstinence
  py chiminey
  non-Arabic
  history book
  dynamics
  ex-minister
  be at
  ex-serviceman
  ex-servicewoman
  lavalier microphone
  Hypatia
  in conclave
  square root of fuck all
  adoptive mother
  pro-Hamas
  anti-Hamas
  pro-Israel
  anti-American
  pro-American
  pro-Arab
  pro-British
  anti-British
  pro-Indonesian
  pro-Jew
  anti-Jew
  pro-Palestinian
  anti-Palestinian
  anti-Russian
  pro-Slavism
  anti-Slavism
  pro-US
  pro-Russian
  primiparous
  school-age
  fat lot of good
  blue light
  acquired characteristic
  from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free
  anti-Hindu
  accessory before the fact
  accessory after the fact
  good boy
  good girl
  unspoken rule
  unwritten rule
  Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
  subbranch
  Lulu
  -un-
  DKC2
  DKC3
  Nissia
  mean time
  zinc-bearing
  foregoing
  unrequited love
  El Camino Real
  marine toilet
  quarter-
  do want
  do not want
  because reasons
  twelve hundred
  December solstice
  ex-member
  tacit collusion
  Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
  apple turnover
  aluminium-27
  argon-36
  argon-38
  calcium-45
  argon-40
  beryllium-9
  U-235
  run
  queen bee
  neutron radiation
  tuna salad
  biological parent
  biological mother
  biological father
  anti-Israel
  

February 2018

osthya

I'm not convinced this is an actual English word; it looks rather like code-switching to me. The use of italics is telling.

See also Talk:mahā.

@DerekWinters --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Per utramque cavernam: To be honest it might be. I'll leave the decision up to you all. But there are quite a decent number of uses, strictly in Indian linguistics. DerekWinters (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it's citable; every cite I see on Google Books is oṣṭhya, not osthya. But I'll push my standard position; if osthya is verifiable as a word, I don't care much about exactly what language it's under, but I think it highly inappropriate to delete and leave no entry. "oṣṭhya" is an easily attestable word, and thus shouldn't be deleted over an argument about a header name.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I honestly think it's nothing else than Sanskrit (in transliteration, but still). It's the same deal as having Latin words in French sentences: l'ager publicus. That doesn't make ager publicus a French term.

We then have three options: 1) rely on the search engine, which will redirect us to the Devanagari-script Sanskrit entry; 2) create Sanskrit transliteration entries which are attested, or 3) always create Sanskrit transliteration entries, regardless of whether they're attested or not. I don't like 2) because of its randomness, and 3) is more or less out of the question (cf. this discussion). That leaves us 1), which is fine by me. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Delete - all cites I could find were in italics and with dots underneath (i.e. oṣṭhya) to signify cerebral consonants which are not part of English phonology. The authors are making it clear that these are Skt words used in English sentences. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect to ओष्ठ्य#Sanskrit. bd2412 T 14:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

  Do not redirect. I favour deletion, but the most important thing is not to proliferate obviously bad redirections that occupy a pagetitle where an entry for a word in a language could conceivably go. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:23, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

  If an entry for a word in a language can go here, then it should. If we are talking about a word that exists now, then there is no reason to delay in making such an entry. Otherwise, what harm is there in redirecting to the thing for which the reader is most likely to be looking? bd2412 T 20:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

  A great deal of harm. Anyone who doesn't know how redirects work will be discouraged from creating an entry. The burden of proof should be on those creating hard redirects to show that there's no possibility of a valid entry under the redirecting page's spelling. There's a reason we have a page like WT:REDIR, which, by the way, explicitly mentions this kind of redirect as unacceptable. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

  For the record, WT:REDIR is a policy draft that was reactivated and rewritten in 2018. It used to say "The actual common practice is to keep some redirects while avoiding others. There is no hard and fast rule for which redirects to avoid" and maybe it should say as much again, or else we have that kind of sneaky policy making that we want to avoid. And as for "show that there's no possibility of a valid entry under the redirecting page's spelling", no such thing can possibly be shown; rather, a search for "osthya" in Google books suggests that there would be no valid entry in another language. Likelihood of non-existence given current searches of evidence should be enough; proofs of non-existence that are impossible in principle should not be required. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

  Then keep per Chuck Entz; we should be including common transliterations, anyway. I would go so far as to say that we should have specific headers and categories for them. bd2412 T 19:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@AryamanA, Per utramque cavernam, BD2412, my inclination is to err on the side of the status quo and leave this entry as is, closing the discussion as no consensus. Is that how you all interpret the outcome? - TheDaveRoss 20:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• I think we need more participation to make a clear determination. I interpret the statement by User:DerekWinters as ambivalent about deletion ("there are quite a decent number of uses, strictly in Indian linguistics") and the statement by User:Prosfilaes as opposed to deletion if it is attestable ("I think it highly inappropriate to delete and leave no entry... shouldn't be deleted over an argument about a header name"). I think User:Chuck Entz has taken a position opposed to redirection, but I wouldn't call this a vote to keep the entry. bd2412 T 20:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
• @TheDaveRoss: Yes, there seems to be no consensus. My two cents are that it's definitely not codeswitching, because no one codeswitches between academic English and academic Hindi... —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 19:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @AryamanA: I probably shouldn't call this "codeswitching" (I may have been throwing this term around a bit too much), but still, I think it's very wrong to say it's an English word. Are you sure you don't want any Romanization entry for Sanskrit? I think it would be the best solution here. Chignon – Пучок 19:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Chignon: Looking into it more, I don't think it deserves an English entry. If it's used, it's inevitably written as osthya or oṣṭhya with italics. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 00:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

July 2018

nowhere else

anything else

• A translation hub. DonnanZ (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

SOP; no one else, nothing else and anything else have already been successfully RFD'ed (see Talk:nothing else and Talk:anything else); I don't know why the latter has been kept or recreated. Keep something else as it has an idiomatic sense (see Talk:anything else). Per utramque cavernam 14:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Let's ask one of your favourite questions: WHY? Most of these have translations, apart from the synonyms, and I may be able to clear some red links. DonnanZ (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Because it's SOP, as I wrote above. Per utramque cavernam 23:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delete as to most, but keep "something else" as an &lit companion to the idiomatic sense, and keep "somewhere else", for which I just added the missing idiomatic sense for daydreaming. See, e.g., '2013, John Bemrose, The Island Walkers: A Novel, p. 3: "Hearing the laughter of his sons, Alf grinned. But he was somewhere else, thinking of the woman moving through the dim house behind him". bd2412 T 16:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• somewhere else is a synonym of elsewhere anyway. But I don't think we should pick and choose like that, I would prefer to keep the lot (and any others that were possibly missed). DonnanZ (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Not going to vote explicitly, but it does seem that we ought to be able to capture the sense of else without creating all (or most) of the collocations. Equinox ◑ 13:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• At least keep somewhere else (also has a non-SoP definition) and someone else as WT:THUB, as well as something else (not SoP). Alexis Jazz (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Alexis Jazz About someone else, which translations qualify? Per utramque cavernam 00:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Keep since it is hard to do a proper WT:THUB analysis in this volume nomination; somewhere else now has two senses entered; something else has an idiomatic sense and survived something per Talk:something else. The nomination is so made that I am supposed to pass some quick summary judgment; in this case, I disagree with that approach. The entries seem to have been here since 2005. anything else has German "sonst noch etwas" entered as a translation, which might be appropriate for a proto-sentence use. someone else seems to meet WT:THUB using Esperanto and Romanian. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "somewhere else now has two senses entered": indeed; as such I've removed somewhere else from the nomination.
  • "something else has an idiomatic sense and survived something per Talk:something else": indeed, which is why I didn't nominate something else (see above).
  • "The nomination is so made that I am supposed to pass some quick summary judgment": I don't know what you mean by that.
  • "The entries seem to have been here since 2005": is it somehow relevant?
  • "anything else has German "sonst noch etwas" entered as a translation, which might be appropriate for a proto-sentence use": I don't know what you mean by that.
  • "someone else seems to meet WT:THUB using Esperanto and Romanian": per WT:THUB, "A translation does not qualify to support the English term if it is a closed compound that is a word-for-word translation of the English term".
    • Romanian altcineva = alt- (“other, else”) + cineva (“someone”); compare altceva (“something else”) (alt- (“other, else”) + ceva (“something”)), altundeva (alt- (“other, else”) + undeva (“somewhere”))
    • Esperanto aliulo = alia (“other, else”) + -ulo (“a person; a ... someone”). But someone is translated as Esperanto iu, so this one might qualify. Per utramque cavernam 23:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

September 2018

mahā#English

Following on a similar discussion at Wiktionary:Tea_room/2018/September#tiru, determining that that term is not English, I would like to nominate the entry at mahā#English for deletion, on the grounds that this is also "clearly never productive in English", and is also not English. There was considerable discussion about this term in the past, as recorded at Talk:mahā. Said discussion included a refutation of the various citations intended to support the validity of the term's English-ness listed at Citations:mahā#English_citations_of_mahā, pointing out that none of the provided citations actually supports that position.

Looking forward to a thoughtful and reasoned discussion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I've already perused the mahā talk page several times in the past, and I'll issue a tentative delete: just as I do not believe osthya to be an English word, I don't believe this to be an English word. But we'll see.

The problem is that (in my view) quotations such as "All are classed among the eighteen mahā or ‘great’ purāṇas." or "hence in spite of its labio-dentality, it came to be listed as an oṣṭhya sound." are useless for our purposes: they cannot be used to attest the words in English, nor can they really be used to attest the words in Sanskrit. They simply aren't quality quotes / good for anything. Per utramque cavernam 16:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Delete the adjective. Abstain on the noun sense. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
• Keep in some form. This is a word that appears in print often enough that a reader may want to learn what it actually means. There are a small but concrete number of instances of this word appearing in English running text which are presented without italics or other formatting to distinguish it as a word in a different language. We should not delete words based on catch-22 reasoning, which seems to presume that words are bad, and should be eliminated from the dictionary if we can find a technical reason to justify their removal. Rather, we should consider how we can help readers define words they may reasonably come across. bd2412 T 13:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I have no judgment on words being "good" or "bad", that is entirely beside the point.

I am also not pushing to "eliminate" words from Wiktionary. I am much more concerned with accurate description.

As stated before, I am fine with the existence of an entry at [[mahā]]. What I am nominating for deletion is [[mahā#English]], and as noted at [[Talk:mahā]], those (exceedingly few) instances of mahā in running text without any gloss or special formatting are also in works that treat a broad array of Buddhist- or yoga-related terminology the same way: essentially as untranslated Sanskrit sprinkled through the body of the text. If inclusion in an otherwise English sentence, without regard for context or domain, is our only criterion for "English-ness", then it follows that we must also create English entries for ... a truly vast array of terms, so many that the significance of the "English" language label would be severely diluted. That, I argue, would do our readers more of a disservice. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I would welcome your proposal of what form this entry should take, if [[mahā#English]] (which is currently the entire entry) is removed. bd2412 T 19:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

In the past, the idea was floated (perhaps even by you?) to have romanized Sanskrit entries. I still support this option, as we also currently have for Gothic, Japanese, and Chinese (and perhaps others too). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

It was. I am not opposed to having this presented as something other than an English term. My concern is that different groups of editors will oppose different solutions, so that the end result is no solution, and the benefit to the reader of knowing what "mahā" means will be lost. I would prefer a process to determine how it should be included, rather than one which risks excluding an attested term from the dictionary entirely. bd2412 T 00:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't share the assumption that there must be an entry here if this string appears in print. Even a remit as broad as "all words in all languages" is not "all representations of all words or portions of words". There are enough works on German and its dialects that contain blocks of text transcribed in IPA or even other pronunciation systems that I could probably "cite" words like zaɪn or diː or ʃə, but I don't think we need an entry at [[zaɪn]] or [[diː]] or [[ʃə]]; the entries at [[sein]] and [[die]] and [[-sche]] cover the words as they exist in the language to which they belong. In this case, it's arguable (there is a case to be made) that there should be (soft) redirects of sorts at romanizations for Sanskrit as there are for Gothic, but I don't share what seems to be the underlying assumption. - -sche (discuss) 01:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

You say, "I don't share what seems to be the underlying assumption." Could you unpack that? What underlying assumption? (Honest question, I feel a bit confused and am seeking clarity.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 04:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

(I hope this doesn't sound curt,) Would it clarify things if I said the clause you quote, from the last sentence of my comment, is merely restating my first sentence? The assumption I'm referring to is the assumption (embedded in bd's comment about "what form this entry should take") that there should be an entry at this title because (quoting again) "this is a word that appears in print often enough". - -sche (discuss) 04:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@-sche I feel that you have either misunderstood or misrepresented my position. I have been consistent in opposing the inclusion of neologisms and brand names even where these appear in print "often enough". In this case, the term in question not only appears in print often enough, but has for a long time, as a freestanding word (not just a particle of another word), perhaps having a meaning unique in some subtle sense to this specific presentation of the word. bd2412 T 19:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Delete the adjective as it stands, or (if kept at RFD) send to RFV to seek better citations, as every one currently under the adjective section is inadmissable: under the first sense the 1980 and 2014 Shiva cites clearly set it off as a foreign language term, the 2012 cite doesn't use this spelling (in addition to other problems), the 2013 cite doesn't seem to be an adjective (in addition to other concerns), the 2014 Mohr cite is clearly a mention of a foreign language term and not a use, and not even a mention of this adjective but rather of a prefix with a hyphen; the cites under the second adjective sense suffer similar problems. It is also very questionable to use even a valid use of a compound word as an argument that its elements are also independently English; as I wrote recently in the Tea Room, the ability to say "I visited Bad Kreuznach and Bad Kissingen" doesn't in and of itself make "Bad" an English word meaning "spa" (although someone may now seek out better citations which do). Use in collocations that aren't viewable as wholesale borrowings/transliterations, e.g. "a mahā leader", "the mahā teachings of the ascetics", would be more convincing evidence of the existence of "mahā" as an English word. It is concievable that the string might exist as an English word the way e.g. verboten does, but it would need to be demonstrated. Abstain for now on the noun. Some investigation should be done to determine if the noun (or adjective) is more commonly spelled maha. - -sche (discuss) 19:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@-sche, @Μετάknowledge: regarding the noun form, we currently only have one citation given for the purported noun sense, from the work Luminous Essence: A Guide to the Guhyagarbha Tantra. As can be seen here, if Google Books search is working correctly, the term mahā only appears five times in this whole book, in three separate sentences (formatting kept as in the original):

• This is also the reasoning behind the subdivisions of the Nyingma School's mantra scriptures, such as the classification of mahāyoga into three parts, starting with the mahā of mahā. -- page 3
• The Tantra of the Secret Essence is the ati of mahā, which is the same as the mahā of ati in terms of the three divisions of the great perfection. -- page 5
• The liberating paths of the supramundane vehicles explained above can also be classified into nine vehicles: the three vehicles that guide through renunciation (the vehicles of the listeners, self-realized buddhas, and bodhisattvas), the three vehicles of Vedic austerities (krīya, ubhaya, and yoga), and the three vehicles of mastery in means (mahā, anu, and ati). -- page 23

The book's topic appears to be esoteric Tibetan Buddhism. No definitions are given anywhere for the terms mahā, ati, anu, krīya, or ubhaya. Yoga I only know as the common exercise practice of stretching and controlling one's breathing and posture; if it has any other meaning in this book, that is wholly lost on me. I would argue that these terms are untranslated Sanskrit, used on the assumption that the intended audience is sufficiently familiar with the Sanskrit terminology.

Considering the overall context of the work -- the subject matter, the intended audience, usage of other esoteric terms -- I would argue that this work is using untranslated Sanskrit as Sanskrit and not as English, and that this is thus not a useful citation to show use of an English term. And without this one citation, we have no citations at all for the noun sense, and should therefore strike that from the EN entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

If that's the case, I recommend you RFV the noun sense. By the way, I also support romanisation soft redirects for Sanskrit. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: suppose we had a policy of allowing romanisation soft redirects for Sanskrit. In that case, what would we do for an entry like this one that has a sense in another language? We can't use the template that says Wiktionary has no entry at this title, because it has one for Pali. bd2412 T 15:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@BD2412: The same way we do it for any other language treated thus, e.g. kara#Japanese. I don't see the relevance, now that the vote to implement such entries has failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection to such a change for the current English entry at mahā. bd2412 T 19:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@BD2412: My mistake; the vote was in fact extended and is still ongoing, although I don't expect it to pass. See Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-12/Allowing attested romanizations of Sanskrit. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

For the record, the vote was not extended but rather was created to run for 3 months from the start. What made me do so was the knowledge that vote extensions were accused of fishing for results in the past, and at the same time, it took people long time before to cast a vote in a Sanskrit-related vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

fortnight

I think "fortnight" in "Wednesday fortnight" is either a noun or an adjective, but not an adverb. If it is an adverb, that PoS should be added to "week" Helenpaws (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

If evening isn’t an adverb this is neither. It is to be understood as an accusativus mensurae, adverbial accusative Indo-European languages use often for time and space. Sometimes one creates these for Arabic but I tend to do not because it is regular use and not lexical, no kind of conversion has taken place usually. Remove because of the analogy. We could add adverb senses to night etc. else. Also remove in the other day, Friday, Tuesday and everywhere else where it can be spotted. I have been surprised to find that it is found as an adverb sense in Tuesday. Now I find mid-March … oh no. Nobody ascribes adverb quality to März despite German uses the month names without “in” (not “in March 2018” but “März 2018”; and we can also say “den März 2018” though this is usually too much to be said; but point is these all aren’t adverbs lexically). Fay Freak (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

If you're making an analogy between "Wednesday fortnight" and "Wednesday night/evening", I see these as rather different. The latter is a night/evening, while the former is not a fortnight. This makes the classification as a noun more straightforward in the latter, in my opinion. Mihia (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Not an adverb nor an adjective, delete. I moved the quote. DonnanZ (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I can see why these may appear to be adverbs. "I'll see you Wednesday fortnight" is elliptical for "I'll see you on Wednesday in a fortnight", where "on Wednesday" and "in a fortnight" are prep phrases that modify the verb "see", making them adverbial. I am leaning towards keep, since there seems to be a contained set of such words, i.e. this pattern doesn't work for all nouns (you can say "I'll see you on my birthday" but not *"I'll see you (my) birthday", and I don't think you can say "I'll see you June" or "I'll see you September" - they kinda sounds weird to me). Certainly, I wouldn't want to delete the other day meaning "recently". - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

high speed, low drag

Sum of parts. Adjective sense defined as if it were a noun. Adverb defined as if it were some sort of verb.SemperBlotto (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Fixed that, sorry ... I haven't written a definition for an entry that wasn't a noun in quite a while, perhaps ever. I will be adding attestation later today when I have a bit more time. Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

As for SOP ... that might be true in aviation, but as the attestations I've now added should make clear, it has an idiomatic, metaphorical meaning that would not be obvious just from those component words. Daniel Case (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

how many

The second sense under the Pronoun L2 seems duplicative of the determiner sense claimed to be a translation hub. DCDuring (talk) 04:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you want to remove it completely or can it be turned into a translation hub? I think the translations are the same. 83.216.80.232 05:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

oral mucositis

Deleted by me as SoP; restored by Wyang as a "valid clinical" something. So is "major depression" but it's clearly SoP unless we get into the nasty legal whatnots of "what, today, in the DSM, is defined as depression", or "what percentage of cream is legally allowed in milk". Equinox ◑ 06:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

It's a distinct clinical entity by itself, with an ICD-10 code (K12.3). The characteristics, aetiology, diagnosis and evaluation, and treatment are all entirely different for oral mucositis compared with mucositis elsewhere. major depression is not sum of parts; when a patient is diagnosed with “major depression” it isn't just depression that is major ― specific criteria need to be used before such diagnosis can be made. Wyang (talk) 06:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

If we accept ICD categories as a reason to keep (never mind the fact that doctors change their minds and their systems all the time), then we must have entries for e.g. ICD-10-CM K12 stomatitis and related lesions, and noninflammatory disorder of vagina, unspecified. If that's not okay, then you need a better "keep" argument. The fact that treatment is different is totally irrelevant because we aren't a medical textbook, we are a dictionary. Equinox ◑ 06:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Individual clinical disease entities (not ICD codes) warrant individual entries ― this is the default in medical dictionaries. Patients would say they suffer from oral mucositis, but no one would say they suffer from “stomatitis and related lesions”, or “noninflammatory disorder of vagina, unspecified”. Those are umbrella terms used in ICD classification, and are not disease entities. Similar examples: pyloric stenosis is stenosis of the pylorus, but it's a clinical entity and thus needs to be kept. So are ischaemic colitis, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary fibrosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, premature ejaculation, granulomatosis with polyangiitis, benign prostatic hyperplasia, familial hypercholesterolaemia, membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis, etc. Wyang (talk) 07:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• How does this compare to something like oral thrush? Ƿidsiþ 13:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep per Wyang. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Abstain: I tend to think Wyang is making a strong argument, and e.g. major depression is not a depression that is major. Still, oral mucositis really seems to be mucositis that is oral, and while having ICD-10 code could be suggestive, it is not conclusive for keeping as Equinox points out. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

lame

"strangely corny or sweet to an extent". The Usex looks to me like just another example of the previous definition (uncool). Isn't this just putting a positive spin on the same meaning? Kiwima (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Made-up usexes do not serve to attest senses anyway. To include the corny sense we need examples of actual use in that sense.  --Lambiam 10:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete, or RFV if necessary. Per utramque cavernam 10:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I recall noticing this myself and wondering about the distinctness of it. It does seem like, in the second usex, the carrots aren't exactly "uncool" in a way that makes it "disliked", but if our chief RFV-tender/parser-of-cites thinks it's the same sense, I'm inclined to go along with that assessment. There does seem to be a continuum, like "before he was deployed overseas I never realized how much I liked seeing his lame ___ every morning", where the person did dislike the thing but now views it positively (like the corny carrots), which also suggests that a merger is in order, although we might need to expand/tweak the "failing to be cool" definition. - -sche (discuss) 18:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

GBA SP

Specific game console brand, not a hugely well-known one. Since the "SP" part is just "SP" and doesn't really stand for anything, the space means that the GBA entry is probably enough to steer people in the right direction anyway. Equinox ◑ 18:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete, not really dictionary material. Per utramque cavernam 22:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep by the fcuk criteria. DTLHS (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Redirect to GBA or delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

theoretician

sense: someone who is expert in the theory of a particular science or art

Isn't this a verbose obfuscation of the other definition: "a theorist"? Most other dictionaries seem to think so. DCDuring (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Per our definitions, one could be expert in the theory (theoretician) without ever having constructed a theory of one's own (theorist). Equinox ◑ 18:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I think "expert" is a bad way to express it, but a theoretician is someone who examines or studies the theory and theoretical assumptions relating to a certain academic study, field of inquiry, etc.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

MAGA chud

NISoP: MAGA + chud.

DCDuring (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Then you should probably add the relevant sense to chud. DTLHS (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep unless such a sense is added and attested. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep per jiffy. If chud (noun) is citable as a hot word in any one sense, it is derivative of MAGA chud. But the meanings seem all over the place, from just a short for MAGA chud to "rube" to something like "troll" to "ugly person" (given by UD), depending on whatever stereotype a writer wants to use. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

How could anyone possibly sincerely believe that IRW chud is derived from MAGA chud? I thought that our horde of contemporary slang collectors would not have failed to surpass Urban Dictionary, which has chud in its current cloudy, but clearly abusive sense as well as its etymology. I personally do not feel at all competent to add the missing contemporary sense. Nevertheless, though in WiktWorld wikt-lawyering may provide a tortured rationale for inclusion, the challenged term remains in reality SoP. DCDuring (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@DCDuring My bad, now dial down the hyperbole. Anyway, the sense is obscure enough to be absent from several recent dictionaries of slang. I have added an adjective and noun sense. Check whether you agree with the definition. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge Pinging you because you indicated that you might vote differently when there is a sense that could make "MAGA chud" SOP. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@DTLHS Also pinging you because of the noun definition at chud. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly CHUD/C.H.U.D. might not meet CFI because of WT:FICTION. Sad that only the poisonous political atmosphere has provided sufficient motivation to make this use of chud in this sense attestable. DCDuring (talk) 12:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Now that I see how chud is defined... I'm not sure. There's still a slight jump between "Make America Great Again" + "disgusting person" to "[pejorative for] Trump supporter". It's definitely a set phrase, but does it go beyond that to reach some level of idiomaticity? To pose a couple concrete questions, is there a range of words that could be substituted for "chud" in this phrase that would be similarly easily attested? And should MAGA have another sense that refers to Trump in particular, rather than his political movement? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

This really needs cites before we start drawing conclusions about equivalents. DTLHS (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Like DCDuring, I will be very surprised if the slur (broadly 'gross/unliked person') sense of "chud" originated in, let alone is specific to, this phrase. (If necessary, move to RFV and then re-open / open a new RFD if evidence refutes a 'jiffy' argument.) I also don't think slurring people who support Trump['s movement to "MAGA"] by referring to their support for that movement is idiomatic, either in this phrase or in a phrase like "MAGA idiots", which is also a set/common collocation. There must be more examples of partisans for one side or another being referred to by a notable phrase, movement, etc they're associated with. I think this collocation only seems idiomat-ish because "chud" is not that common of an insult. - -sche (discuss) 22:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

But that depends on a figurative interpretation of chud that isn't in the entry yet and that I doubt is citable even on Usenet. Even the Usenet cites lean more toward "hideous person" rather than "non-hideous person causing disgust". The closest I get to a figurative sense is an exception like this that is an obvious short for MAGA chud. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Delete, SOP, implying that who supports MAGA is a chud. Fay Freak (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete as SOP. I looked for MAGA redneck and found examples, and there are prob. a host of other similar collocations of MAGA. chud seems to have a life of its own as a noun. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

ride the ... train

Uuuuggghhh. Serious WTF-age. Meh, we cooouuuld move this to train. --XY3999 (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn’t this first go to rfv? The WTF-ness does not determine the idiomaticity. BTW, you’ll also find surf the AI wave and jump on the AI bandwagon.  --Lambiam 07:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I think there is no doubt that the expression "ride the ~ train" is verifiably in reasonably common use (though I question how precisely the present definition captures its meaning). I guess the question is more whether it deserves to be a dictionary lemma in itself, and, if so, how it should be presented. Do we normally allow lemmas to contain "..."? Mihia (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

This is more of a metaphor than anything fixed and lexical. You can {be on|be on board|board|catch|get on|get on board|ride|take}(or {get off|miss|skip}) the {huge variety of nouns/proper nouns- e.g. w:Peace Train} {bandwagon|train|? possibly others}. I'd call it a snowclone, but it's a bit looser than that. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Move to Appendix:Snowclones/ride the X train. That's how we normally deal with these. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

"snowclone" is a word that I had never heard of until I heard it here, but our definition says "A type of cliché which uses an old idiom formulaically placed in a new context", so for it to be one of those, would there not need to be an original or prototype idiom of the form "ride the ~ train", which the others copy? Is there one? Mihia (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Could the old idiom be ride the gravy train?  --Lambiam 16:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

That seems more likely than ride the crazy train or any other alternative, yes. Move per MK. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Not a term I'm familiar with, is it American? I also think the pro-Trump usex should be deleted, even if tne entry survives. DonnanZ (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Keep where it is unless existence is in doubt, which is for RFV. I don't like Appendix:Snowclones; let's keep items in mainspace for maximum convenience. We have I'm ... year(s) old, although I prefer I'm twenty years old. An alternative would be to find a high-frequency representative term of the pattern, create an entry for that term to host the snowclone, and redirect other terms matching the pattern to it. The entry to host the whole snowclone could be ride the gravy train (now redirect); see also ride the * train at Google Ngram Viewer. If that approach would be chosen, the nominated entry ride the ... train could be redirected to it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• Move to the snowclones appendix. Per utramque cavernam 21:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

go out to eat

SOP. Per utramque cavernam 15:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. Just like "go out for lunch and a game of miniature golf". Chuck Entz (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Wow what? NO! Delete twice. Equinox ◑ 20:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be some meaning here that isn't covered by the meanings of the four individual words. Having a picnic, or a snack in your backyard, isn't going out to eat. Maybe this is a missing sense of go out. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. "Go out" may imply socialising but only because that's a common reason for leaving one's house. Equinox ◑ 01:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not missing. It's the second sense at go out: "To leave one's abode to go to public places". It's not strictly one's abode, though: it can be your workplace, or some event you're attending- basically wherever you're currently based. One might ask a coworker "Are you going out for lunch?" They might respond: "no, I'll just order in". A more informal version would be "step out", as in "I think I'll step out for a bit to get something to eat." As you can see, there are zillions of permutations, and things like "while you're out, could you get something for me, too?" Now that I think about it, even this sense of go out might be SOP. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

But it doesn't just mean eating in a public place. Like I said above, having a picnic (even in a public park) is not going out to eat. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• 'Redirect to go out, and keep the definition of "go out" that means to leave one's house. Purplebackpack89 02:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Make into alternative form of eat out. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Support this option, otherwise delete. - TheDaveRoss 22:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that's an "alternative form" in the sense we usually use that word here, though. It's a synonym, but a SOP one. Per utramque cavernam 13:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete, totally SoP. You can go out to buy food, you can go out to fish, you can go out to collect firewood, and then you can go home to eat whatever you bought or caught. Or go out to eat if you can’t cook.  --Lambiam 11:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Abstain. DonnanZ (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Delete, SOP. Fay Freak (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Delete, SoP. --Robbie SWE (talk) 07:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• FYI, I changed "To leave one's abode to go to public places" to "To leave one's abode to go to public places, especially for recreation or entertainment." Mihia (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• Keep: no one has satisfactorily addressed the point made by Granger that going out of one's abode to a public park to make a picnic is not go out to eat, or is it?; go out: "to leave one's abode to go to public places, especially for recreation or entertainment". Put differently, what makes go out to eat select a public restaurant to the exclusion of a picnic in a park? How should a non-native speaker, by perusing go out and eat, know that it excludes certain things? Or does it really exclude a picnic? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  Despite my point about picnics vs. restaurants, I'm not sure go out to eat means more than the sum of its parts, because one can say things like "go out for lunch" or "go out for dinner", which equally imply going to a restaurant. I think an additional sense at go out could cover this. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

sift through

Isn't it pretty transparent and also covered at sift? --Robbie SWE (talk) 07:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. Delete. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Keep, I think. No reference is made to "sift through" at sift, the most likely place is sense 3. When sifting something like flour, which my mother used to do, "through" isn't normally used, even though the flour goes through a sieve. DonnanZ (talk) 10:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, sense 3 ("to examine carefully"). Sift through is simply "to go through while examining carefully". I think it would be adequate to give a usage example. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

This entry could be incorporated there as a subsense rather than lose it completely. DonnanZ (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Certainly the meanings are close, though I think the def "examine carefully" is wanting. In any case, I think we need to treat sift through in somewhere, somehow, since this is the most common collocation/usage now, whereas sift with a direct object (to "sift the evidence" for example) is much less common. I originally added this entry as I wanted to be able to use it in the def for "sieve through" which is the Singapore English variant of "sift through" (e'en though I haven't gotten around to adding that yet). - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete/hard redirect as it is not special enough not to be SOP. One can form such things with through many verbs and one expression being more common does not make it non-SOP. It is just the verb having two different ways of government. Fay Freak (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Note also that sieben durch, durch etwas sieben in German would be SOP, unlike durchsieben (in both stresses). This here is the very same. It’s just been created because of helplessness about adding the government with through at sift in a fair fashion.

So I added the government in this sift revision. Wiktionary can peruse much more addenda regarding the regimina of verbs – especially if formatted smartly, which currently is not so easy. I like the templates {{+preo}} and {{+obj}} quite and one could make the dictionary much more usable and competitive if one were to combine multiple governments at once (on which further discussion should take place at Module talk:object usage, @Rua, Erutuon) Fay Freak (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Fay Freak for alerting me to those templates which I did not know existed. I have preliminarily re-edited the entry to split the two defs since one is trans (and archaic) and the other intrans (and current), and have used the +preo template. I didn't think it was necessary to keep {{+obj}} for the orig. def since the "(something)" in the def makes it clear enough. That said, with the +preo template, the object is actually an indirect object (i.e. it is not sifting something(obj) through a sieve, just sifting through something), but I suppose the entry is clear enough now. Finally, also, the phrase "sift through" needs a hard redirect (sorry, dunno how to do that). - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Sonofcawdrey But that’s not what “transitive” means. ”Transitivity” can be mediated through prepositions. It is purely semantical. On Wiktionary transitive is glossed as “takes an object”, and what have you written? “(intransitive) [+ through (object)]” – a paradox. It is not an indirect object either but a prepositional object. Fay Freak (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Fay Freak Yeah, you're right, I was only thinking that as I walked to work this morning. Still, the def "examine carefully" is substitutable for the orig. "sift" examples, but not for "sift through" (you can't "examine carefully through something"); so I have re-edited again. Other dicts make a point of mentioning the "through" construction as well. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete, SOP, not a phrasal verb. Per utramque cavernam 01:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Keep: In Macmillan and in three idiom dictionaries[1]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

CTAL

Not an initialism. --Pious Eterino (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

It is actually an initialism of “Certified Tester Advanced Level”. I’m not sure though it meets our CFI, but that is a question for RfV.  --Lambiam 13:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

keep ahead

SOP. 2602:252:D2B:3AA0:3DEF:997D:6268:B6DF 12:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Is the second sense given (“To keep track of new developments in area of study or inquiry; to monitor a situation”) really correct? Can you say, “Good physicians keep ahead” when you mean, “Good physicians keep track of new medical developments”? If so, perhaps this is not truly SoP, but I think one would say (when using the collocation) something more like “Good physicians keep ahead of new medical developments”, in which case the “new developments” aspect should not be part of the definition. Also, how is stay ahead not as much or more SoP than this? Should it be listed too?  --Lambiam 13:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and all the other entries created by 2601:14D:C200:3C20:789A:23D2:4002:1BAE (talk). Per utramque cavernam 13:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

So let’s forge ahead and get rid of ’em; I look forward to it.  --Lambiam 18:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Not all of them, actually. Some of them give me pause, and some of them are found in other dictionaries. Per utramque cavernam 11:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I've converted it to a synonym of stay ahead. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete, SOP; not a phrasal verb. Per utramque cavernam 09:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Fay Freak (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Keep: present in two idiom dictionaries[2]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

stay ahead

SOP; not a phrasal verb. You can also keep abreast of recent developments, stay abreast of them, etc. Per utramque cavernam 09:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Delete.  --Lambiam 17:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete both - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete, SOP. Fay Freak (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

come out ahead

I think this is SOP: come out + ahead. It's just a common collocation. You can also end up ahead ([3]), which looks more or less synonymous; or come out first. Per utramque cavernam 09:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. I think (in case this doesn’t get deleted) that the def conflates two distinct sense, both of them SOP. First, you can come out ahead of where you started – you made a profit; never mind how others did – maybe there even aren’t any. Second, you can come out ahead of everyone else – maybe you suffered a net loss, like everyone else, but still, you did better than the rest.  --Lambiam 17:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
• A person can also come out on top. John Cross (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Indeed, thanks. come out + on top Per utramque cavernam 11:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete SOP - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete, SOP. Fay Freak (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
• Keep: present in three idiom dictionaries[4]. Note that this is not strictly per WT:LEMMING since that only allows general dictionaries. I would not know how to obtain the meaning from come out and ahead. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Thames River

Sum of parts. Seems to have been created only to tell people not to use it. Equinox ◑ 18:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

River Thames is a redirect to Thames. We could do likewise for Thames River. On Wikipedia, Thames and Thames River are redirects to River Thames.  --Lambiam 21:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Redirect. The usage note can go to Thames. Fay Freak (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I don’t know what it means to claim that it is “technically incorrect” – and who is the arbiter regarding correctness?  --Lambiam 08:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

In the case of a geographic feature, those who live on, in, or beside it generally get to set the naming rules. No matter how many people read "Reading" off the map as reed-ing, if the inhabitants insist it's red-ing, red-ing it is. Local or national geographic boards also may have legal power to name things. If the English, particularly Londoners, agree "Thames River" is incorrect, I'd say it's reasonable to call it incorrect.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's technically incorrect, just incorrect in language usage in Great Britain and Ireland. In New Zealand and Australia "River" follows the name, e.g. Clutha River. DonnanZ (talk) 09:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

It generally does in the US as well. But if the English insist that it's the "River Thames", most other English speakers are going to respect that as correct. (Likewise "Kolkata", "Côte d’Ivoire", and "Bejing", and only the first nation has any English-speaking tradition.) Maybe "technically correct" isn't the best way to write it, but I do think that most English speakers, if told that the English use the River Thames, would accept that as the correct name.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I had a go at rewording it. DonnanZ (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks good.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

As for diff, where can I verify the following: "(nonstandard, not the customary language usage in Great Britain and Ireland)"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

You might be able to find evidence for it with a clever Google Ngrams search, or you could look for prescriptions in reference works. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Google Ngram did not show Thames River to be dispreferred by language users (River Thames, Thames River at Google Ngram Viewer); it probably was not clever enough. And as for the reference works, I would have thought it is the task of people entering that kind of information to tell us which reference work they used. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Local knowledge helps. I live near the River Thames, as well as a tributary, the River Crane. You can also refer to River Shannon and River Liffey, two Irish rivers. DonnanZ (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

River Thames, or R Thames, or River Thames or Isis in the Oxford area, is the name which appears on Ordnance Survey (OS) maps (published under Crown copyright). The same applies to other rivers; there are exceptions such as the Longford River, which is not a natural river. DonnanZ (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible to do a Google Ngrams search that excludes hits that include the word "Connecticut"? Or exclude hits with American spellings like "center"? Many of the "Thames River" hits seem to be talking about the river in Connecticut. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: Thames River:eng_us_2012,River Thames:eng_us_2012,Thames River:eng_gb_2012,River Thames:eng_gb_2012 at Google Ngram Viewer. Per utramque cavernam 16:59, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I modified the above GNV: (Thames River:eng_gb_2012*10),River Thames:eng_gb_2012 at Google Ngram Viewer, and I get frequency ratio of 10. That does not suggest "non-standard" to me; "much less common", sure. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Some facts: Thames River,River Thames,(Thames*0.07) at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. A river in Connecticut has this name. DonnanZ (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Most rivers are entered without "River", but this can be a grey area, e.g. Red River, Orange River. Seas are usually entered in full, Black Sea, North Sea, Mediterranean Sea, but there is also Mediterranean. I think there is a case for retaining "River" in certain entries at least. DonnanZ (talk) 10:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The Grey River in NZ was derived from the surname, not the colour (see Grey), but may be worth an entry all the same. The same sort of thing applies to the Orange River. DonnanZ (talk) 12:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

lose one's virginity

SOP. The previous discussion doesn't seem conclusive to me:

• Widsith says "Keep, this is the idiomatic way to express the idea in English, no one talks about discarding or breaking one's virginity": but none of the languages found in the translation table speaks of "discarding" or "breaking" the virginity either; all use the same idea of "losing" it. Hence it's not specific to English.
• He adds "anyway, ‘lose’ otherwise implies carelessness, whereas losing one's virginity is normally a deliberate thing": I don't think people go about with the intent of losing their virginity; they go about with the intent of making love/fucking for the first time, and a byproduct of that is that they lose their virginity (but losing it wasn't the aim in itself).

Possible idiomatic translations would be Chinese 失身 (shīshēn) and Spanish debutar. Per utramque cavernam 15:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• MW has it (ergo Lemming), and also this feels like a set enough phrase that I would favor keeping it regardless. Re intentionality, I think it goes both ways (e.g. movie trope summer camp pact to lose virginity). - TheDaveRoss 15:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Delete, SOP, obvious choice of words, I can’t follow the idiomaticity claim. Fay Freak (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  It is non-obvious that the concept is expressed in specifically this way. While you can say that someone lost their sanity, it is far more common to say that they became insane. So why don’t we say equally commonly that someone became deflowered?  --Lambiam 08:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  Maybe that's because "insane" is a common word and "deflowered" isn't. There may also be a problem with "become" + past participle—other examples of that structure sound strange to me ("*became eaten", "*became erased"). I think "lose one's virginity" is clearly SOP, but it's the kind of common collocation that English learners need to know and that we haven't found a good way to cover here at en.wikt. The phrase should be an example sentence at virginity, I'd say. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  I've added it to virginity. Per utramque cavernam 13:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• Keep: 1) WT:LEMMING via M-W; 2) WT:THUB via Chinese 失身 (shīshēn) and Spanish debutar thanks to nom; now THUB does not really allow Chinese, but that's a defect in THUB. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
• Leaning keep per Dan Polansky. bd2412 T 21:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. Classic case of a set phrase or common collocation that is nevertheless SOP and easy to understand from the parts. These seem to come up fairly frequently. I believe that some kind of "set phrase / common collocation" category has been discussed in the past? Perhaps this should be revisited. Mihia (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

NAN

An airport code. Do we accept these? Probably should be Translingual. --Pious Eterino (talk) 01:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

There are other examples: JFK (both Translingual and English) and LHR (as English). I think they are useful information actually, so I would like them to be considered acceptable. I agree that it probably should be Translingual and moved there. DonnanZ (talk) 09:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

DCA is another that we can probably consider together. --Pious Eterino (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

and JST, FAO, CAI, VER and SHJ --Pious Eterino (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I feel like we have had a discussion where we decided that we did not want these in general, but I don't know where that discussion might be. I would include them all, though. bd2412 T 17:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Searching the talk namespace for 'airport code', the most relevant RFD discussion that I spotted was Talk:A (about a stock symbol, but as DCDuring opined, those seem to be on all fours with airport codes). - -sche (discuss) 12:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Keep: Purplebackpack89 13:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Without weighing in (directly) on the matter at hand, I don't think IATA codes should be considered initialisms. An initialism is usually the starting point, but there are modifications such as the "X" in LAX and lots of Y's and Z's in Canadian airport codes, not to mention oddities such as Kahului Airport's OGG (from the last three letters of "Hogg"). I also think "IATA code for..." is a bad definition. The fact that "LAX" is an IATA code is more a matter of etymology than a definition. In LA we get commercials touting w:Ontario International Airport as an alternative to "the mess at LAX". Those are referring to the airport, not the IATA code. By itself, an IATA code is a quasi-arbitrary sequence of letters. It's only its use in running speech to refer to an airport that makes it anything worth having an entry for. I would hazard a guess that most of the people who refer to Los Angeles International Airport as LAX don't even know what the IATA is. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

In some sense, if the codes were actual abbreviations of the words, they would be in local language rather than Translingual. (BTW, these remind me of the British railway station codes, which are also always three letters, and usually a shortening of the name, but sometimes [due to overused letters] slightly different.) Equinox ◑ 03:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

A code is a code, not an initialism, a term I'm not fond of. Also consider AKL, the IATA code for Auckland International, which appears to come from AucKLand. DonnanZ (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

There are IATA codes (usually two-letter) for airlines as well, e.g. CX (not mentioned there added it) for Cathay Pacific. DonnanZ (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Chuck Entz mentioned LAX (yes, my late wife and I have been there as transit passengers, not a great experience), which I think should also have a Translingual entry. It will probably have to stay as an English entry because of the quotes included. DonnanZ (talk) 12:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Weak keep. As to whether it should be English or Translingual, I'm not sure, but Chuck is right that they're clearly not initialisms. "Proper noun" may be the best POS (although we do have some things labelled "symbol", like SM, that seem like nouns). - -sche (discuss) 07:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, what PoS should codes be given? I'm not absolutely sure that they are proper nouns. With IATA codes I would regard them as Translingual first, as they are used in many languages, if not all. DonnanZ (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I would say keep airport codes, but I am scared of the precedent. They constitute a limited set, I can easily envision people encountering them in text with little context and thus interested in looking them up, their etymologies are often non-transparent and thus of some interest, etc. I can also imagine that a very similar set of terms would fall into the delete category for me without much distinction, though. Also agree with translingual, and I would call them proper nouns. - TheDaveRoss 13:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Japan Socialist Party

Doesn't seem to fall within our purview. We don't have entries for Democratic Party and Republican Party; see Talk:Republican Party and Talk:Democratic Party. Per utramque cavernam 19:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Keep. The nomination does not refer to any item of WT:CFI. This could be deleted via editor discretion, per WT:NSE. Rereading now Talk:Democratic Party, I now realize that the claims of SOP made in support of the deletion were wrong: both Democratic Party and Republican Party are democratic, but only one of them is called Democratic. Anyone remembers German Democratic Republic or Holy Roman Empire, about the latter of which Quine opined that it was neither holy nor Roman nor an empire? Is the Japan Socialist Party socialist? Who knows. As for WT:COMPANY, it does not have a consensus support, and it is questionable that political parties are companies--not in my universe. The same talk page shows that other political parties have not been deleted yet, e.g. Conservative Party and Labour Party. A 2015 keeping is at Talk:Transhumanist Party. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Democratic Party and Republican Party could have been kept via WT:LEMMING, per “Democratic Party”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. and “Republican Party”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.; it is a pity I did not realize that in the deletion discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we should have entries for specific political or corporate entities, books, buildings, people, etc. except in some very rare circumstances. That's stuff for Wikipedia. Equinox ◑ 06:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Single-word names of companies have pronunciation, and in non-English languages inflection, both classes of lexicographical information. A related question is whether we should have species names and whether that is a job for Wikispecies. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Having lexicographical information is not (IMO) sufficient to argue for inclusion. That way we could include every Pokémon, every (single-named) character from literature ever, every product made by a company. To me (perhaps someone who doesn't belong to this modern pop-culture world) it's absurd even to contemplate. Equinox ◑ 07:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

There's a point in what you say, and I'm not keen on covering every Pokémon either. That said, Tesco (redlink) is not part of any pop-culture world; it is part of everyday experience of shoppers. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

CFI has no notability criteria, so Tesco is no different from (to give some hypothetical examples) Sam's Hardware, Al's Pizza, Joe's Diner, etc in various small towns. There's also no time limit, so a business that used to be on a corner that's now a subway station would be fair game. The main objection I have, however, is that it leaves an opening for people to use our dictionary to promote their own businesses- we won't know who they are if they didn't tell us. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

They would need to meet WT:ATTEST for their Joe's Diner, and there would not be much to state for promotion in a dictionary definition. By contrast, Wikipedia is a real venue for business promotion; indeed, companies are not excluded from Wikipedia. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

If their local paper is archived, attestation isn't much of an obstacle. As for motivation: anyone who does much first-line patrolling sees people trying to sneak in references to their businesses all the time (not to mention spambots). Wikipedia can handle promotional edits because it has notability and referencing requirements- we don't. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate that you know better than I do what you are talking about as for people trying to promote their business. We might create notability guidelines for companies. Current CFI basically forbids companies, even though there is no consensus for that (cca 50:50). where there is a will. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete. I don't think this is the sort of thing someone should expect to find in a dictionary as opposed to an encyclopedia. Tesco is at least a single short opaque word, but this is (not a single word and) transparently the name of a political party. - -sche (discuss) 08:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Iceland is also a UK supermarket chain that specialises in frozen food, but it doesn't get a mention. DonnanZ (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not saying Tesco merits inclusion, only that Japan Socialist Party has even less merit than Tesco. - -sche (discuss) 18:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the Iceland supermarket deserves a mention either … DonnanZ (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I have only just discovered the {{no entry}} template, which is used for Walmart. Could it be used for Japan Socialist Party? DonnanZ (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Keep, as Dan notes editor discretion is allowed, this seems unusual as there was a fierce factional dispute about what English translation to use (this is the former name). ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

fourth gear

The current definition is "second highest gear of an engine", which is incorrect, my car has six gears and fourth is the third highest. The correct definition would be "the fourth gear in ascending order", which is about as SOP as you get. We have the appropriate definition at gear (twice). - TheDaveRoss 15:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The standard version of the Maruti 800 had a four-speed gearbox, so then it was the highest gear. The gearbox is normally not integrated with the engine, so the formulation “gear of an engine” is strange, to say the least. An engine-less mountain bike can also have a fourth gear. So few words, so many errors. (Sighs.) And, of course, we also have a terminal case of SOP-hood here.  --Lambiam 19:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The definition is misleading as it stands; I remember my father had a 1938 Dodge with a 3-speed gearbox plus overdrive. DonnanZ (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Del per nom. - -sche (discuss) 23:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Remember to adjust all translations if deleted. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah, translations. Keep as translation-only, I see the def has been fixed. DonnanZ (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Delete the new SOP definition. The translations look like straightforward SOP, closed compounds or just the word for "fourth", so that's not a basis for keeping the entry. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete, SOP, translations SOP. Per utramque cavernam 10:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete, I doubt that there are going to be any idiomatic translations for this. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

This is unrelated, but French en quatrième vitesse has an idiomatic meaning. Presumably arose when the fourth gear was a novelty. Per utramque cavernam 00:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Note also first gear, second gear, third gear, fifth gear. second gear has an alleged idiomatic sense that does not seem more than figurative. Fay Freak (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Mh, why haven't I thought of those before? Delete all, except second gear which requires a bit of discussion. If it's lexicalised, we should have it imo. Per utramque cavernam 18:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Deleted. No decision on other gears, as they are not explicitly part of this nomination. bd2412 T 04:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I have recreated the entry, with a new idiomatic definition. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

funeral store

What do we think about this one? - TheDaveRoss 14:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Obvious SOP. KevinUp (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Something I have never heard of. Is it an American thing? I would say keep it. In Britain an undertaker has an office where one can arrange a funeral, show a death certificate, and choose a coffin from a catalogue. It ain't no "store". DonnanZ (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

This puts a funeral store right in the middle of 1927 Swansea.  --Lambiam 20:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is meant there, it appears to be a mortuary. Is that the only British link to be found? DonnanZ (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Possibly a store for storage, not for selling things. DonnanZ (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Some more: [5]; [6]; [7]; [8].  --Lambiam 16:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

A couple of those are for "mortuary and funeral equipment", which doesn't fit the definition of the entry. The other two may be isolated copycats. DonnanZ (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

In the good ol' U-S-of-A you might not get free health care, but you can absolutely accessorize your coffin. - TheDaveRoss 16:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete – a fūnus-related store. Fay Freak (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, do we speak Latin all of a sudden? I think there is a good case for keeping this for the benefit of non-American users. DonnanZ (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep. They don't sell funerals. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Pace User:Tooironic, they sell things for funerals just like a google books:"Christmas shop" sells Christmas-themed things (without selling the holiday itself somehow), a google books:"wedding store" sells things for weddings, a google books:"party rental" store rents tuxedos etc for parties, etc, etc... and it's not even a set phrase, "funeral shop" and "funeral shoppe" are also attested, as is "mortuary store" (about half the hits I see are for a store selling things, with the other half referring to storage spaces). (And pace Donnanz, I don't get the impression that it's common in American English and absent from other dialects; as Lambiam points out, they exist in the UK and other places; it just seems they're not very common anywhere — because it seems like funeral homes usually handle the sale of urns, etc.) - -sche (discuss) 09:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete per -sche. Per utramque cavernam 10:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

ylw

I can also find yllw, yel, yelow and yell as abbreviations, my vote is that all of them are ad hoc. - TheDaveRoss 17:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete, not lexicalized. Fay Freak (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Move to RFV and keep if attested, IMO. This is a bit of a grey area; we almost certainly don't want every name that starts with M and has been reduced to an initial to be listed at "M.", and having {{abbreviation of|yellow}} at "y." is at least a little murky (probably a large number of non-name words that start with any given letter can be abbreviated to their first letter)...but this seems like the sort of abbreviation we've tended to include. - -sche (discuss) 09:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I think there is no question that this can be fairly readily attested. I think the question is more a matter of policy -- whether we want to include these somewhat ad-hoc-seeming abbreviations, and where to draw the line. The extent of such abbreviations in attestable use is pretty enormous, I think. In this case I vote weak keep. Mihia (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Send to RFV. If I were a non-native speaker of English, chances are I'd want to be able to look this sort of thing up. There are a finite number of abbreviations out there, and no reason why we can't include them. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

much-mocked

SoP, like much-derided, much-hyped, much-publicised, etc. Equinox ◑ 10:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

That would make a lot of terms SoP, well-behaved, well-deserved, ill-advised etc. We don't have mocked as an adjective, only mock. DonnanZ (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I say keep as I created it. DonnanZ (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Donnanz: What is your opinion about much-admired, much-derided, ..., much-vilified, all of which can be attested? Are all equally inclusion-worthy? And what then about eagerly-anticipated, eagerly-awaited, eagerly-expected? (And so on.)  --Lambiam 19:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a massive grey area. Firstly I would say that the eagerly- examples are not includable as it is normal English practice not to include hyphens with adverbs ending in -ly (but it's still done, of course). However I would like to see an entry for fully automatic, helautomatisk (Bokmål) gets one, and so does semi-automatic. Yes, I would like to see the much- examples you gave, another one is much-maligned, the only one I could find in Oxford was much-needed, I don't know why no more are included there. But again I would only include them as attributive adjectives where a hyphen is normally used, e.g. the much-maligned president, but not where it is used after the subject without a hyphen (a predicative adjective): the president is much maligned. The same applies to well- combinations and others. That's my rule of thumb anyway, but I expect nobody else agrees with it. DonnanZ (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

My inclination is to delete per nom, though Donnanz points to a lot of comparable bluelinks and is right that this is a massive grey area. I will observe that terms formed with "well" can sometmes be found written "solid" (like "wellknown"), which points to them being considered single words, whereas this isn't (AFAICT). - -sche (discuss) 06:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The argument that well-known can be kept because it also exists as a non-standard spelling seems to be a bit flimsy, it should be kept anyway. I would keep any hyphenated adjective as they can be regarded as one word, albeit not compounded; words like much-mocked don't lend themselves to compounding. DonnanZ (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

All such hyphenated terms should be kept if they can be verified to exist. But I wouldn't go out of my way to create more of them. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I really don't see what's magic about the hyphens. Any such phrase ("not-quite-legal", "all-too-smug") has exactly the same meaning as if it were written with spaces. Equinox ◑ 17:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Words with more than one hyphen - what would you call them - ad-hoc? That's a slightly different issue, I think; I don't have any desire to enter anything like the examples you gave. DonnanZ (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

They would need to be set phrases, e.g. holier-than-thou. DonnanZ (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Does it follow, then, that we should include hyphenated forms such as "not-legal" or "too-smug"? bd2412 T 20:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete for sure per nom.​—msh210℠ (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

It's hard to know what is acceptable and what isn't (to some), I don't see anything wrong with much- combinations, but I think this is the only one of its kind; perhaps that is the problem. It is no small wonder that I create very few English entries of this nature for fear of someone slapping an RFD on them (that action combined with the fear is often counter-productive), it's all very inhibiting. But they are still words that are used even so. DonnanZ (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete - TheDaveRoss 16:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 20:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete. There are potentially hundreds and hundreds of such combinations with "much-", all formed in a regular way as a regular feature of the English language. There is no need for a dictionary to list them all separately. Mihia (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep single word. Ƿidsiþ 15:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep. Sure there are potentially gazillions of them, but, having the "well-worn" ones in the dictionary is useful for users. We already have so many in (ill-conceived, ill-begotten, well-intentioned, well-informed, etc.). Sonofcawdrey (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

president-elect

President-elect

Isn't this just [[president]] + [[-elect]]? One can also speak of a "senator-elect", "chairman-elect", "attorney general-elect", etc. - -sche (discuss) 06:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is just that, but should we consider this two words, or is it one word? (Also, by the way, isn‘t attorney general “just” [[attorney]] + [[general]], sense #2)?  --Lambiam 09:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep per WT:LEMMING (“president-elect”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.), although the lemming support looks more uncertain than before: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-12/Lemming principle into CFI. Apart from lemming, why should the reader look at -elect and not elect, and how should they know? “-elect”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. I think president-elect is a very convenient entry for someone looking for the meaning; if not for WT:LEMMING, I would at least suggest a redirection. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep president-elect, a reference added. President-elect is apparently used as a title; I suppose it can be kept but modified slightly. DonnanZ (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Abstain. I'm not bothered by this one. Per utramque cavernam 20:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• RFD passed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The O2

Was tagged rfd but not added to this page. --Pious Eterino (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

If kept, move to O2 (as we have Eiffel Tower, not the Eiffel Tower). Equinox ◑ 15:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

In this case the word "the" helps to clarify the meaning as it is used for the building but not for the company. John Cross (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

"The" can be displayed in the headword: ((en-proper noun|head=the O2)). No need to put it on entry titles. Equinox ◑ 20:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

tenth century

This is the only entry we have of this type (I think). Should we get rid of this one or create all of the others? We have 1900s (e.g.), and the tenth century does refer to two periods of time (BCE/BC and CE/AD), so there is some nuance, but perhaps that is all encyclopedic and has too little lexicographic value to bother with. Thoughts? - TheDaveRoss 13:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

My impression is that centuries BC are always referred to that way, or provided some context to that effect. bd2412 T 14:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection to this, it's worth looking at short twentieth century, which is the only reference to the 20th century. DonnanZ (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Donnanz, just to be clear, you are OK with deletion or OK with the entry? We also have long nineteenth century, which seems like a worthy entry to me, and we probably ought to have long eighteenth century as well. - TheDaveRoss 13:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm ok with these too, but I don't see how it's relevant to the matter at hand. Per utramque cavernam 13:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@TheDaveRoss: I would say keep, it does explain that refers to 901-1000, not 1001-1100, which can be a pitfall for some. DonnanZ (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It may be a pitfall, but that doesn't make it any less SOP. It's only a pitfall when people don't stop to think about the fact that the first century AD must of necessity have passed by the year 100, rather than beginning in that year. Delete. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a need to create all of these -- and anyway, where would one stop? The first definition at century seems to cover this kind of usage. Mihia (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 13:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

weak keep - there are two possible meanings - general usage has '99 as the last year in the nth century and 'OO as the first, but strict usage has centuries starting in Jan '01. John Cross (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@John Cross That is an ambiguity with the term century and has nothing to do with tenth century in particular though, right? We do address that ambiguity in our definition at century. - TheDaveRoss 20:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. - -sche (discuss) 22:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

end in

end with

Delete or redirect: SOP, the usage should be documented at end, not in separate entries. Per utramque cavernam 13:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC) 

Advanced Encryption Standard

This is purely encyclopedic. - TheDaveRoss 14:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

A long time ago I nominated Twofish? (or Bluefish? or some such "named crypto algorithm") on the same grounds, and it was kept: I felt it was something like a trademark, and not quite a dictionary term. I will say delete because I still feel that way and this one is pretty much an SoP phrase, even though there could theoretically be other "advanced encryption standards" that aren't AES. Equinox ◑ 05:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

antique shop

Seems NISOP, antiques shop as well. - TheDaveRoss 14:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, it's not the shop itself that's antique. DonnanZ (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

In chocolate shop the shop is not chocolate itself either. And most record shops won’t make The Guinness Book of Records.  --Lambiam 17:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I would still keep this though, in speech one could say "We bought it in an antique shop", in the other sense "This is a really antique shop". The only reason bookshop gets an entry is that it's one word, but there is another entry for book shop. This is an odd place. DonnanZ (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The only reason this is any different is that antique can be either a noun or an adjective: the shop takes the noun as a modifier, but (generally) not the adjective. That argument would apply to any phrase that uses the noun attributively- antique buyer, antique collector, antique fancier, antique forger, antique restorer, antique seller, antique showroom, etc. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Delete, clearly SoP.  --Lambiam 17:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 22:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Though I guess it can be kept by THUB. Per utramque cavernam 12:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• I'm quite happy to keep this, if only because "antique" doesn't apply to the shop, but to what it sells. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • And "antique" applies to an antique commode, but not what it's designed to hold. Context and common sense should be enough to sort these things out. After all, we don't need an entry for orange suspenders to tell us they're not multiple devices for suspending oranges... Chuck Entz (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per WT:THUB (Polish, Portuguese) and WT:LEMMING. Admission: The lemming principle is not supported as a rigid policy per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-12/Lemming principle into CFI. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• It's interesting that /an'tik ʃop/ and /antik 'ʃop/ mean different things…but I'm neutral over whether or not this is kept. Ƿidsiþ 07:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

That occurred to me too, different stress on antique. DonnanZ (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep per lemming. [9] ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep, good translation target, innocent. Fay Freak (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

crazy-paving

This one of about a thousand "attributive form of noun", I suggest we convert them all to redirects (unless there is another sense or language). This is a standard construction, I think the user is better served landing on the page with actual content. - TheDaveRoss 15:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete most for essentially the same reason as "much-mocked" above. The hyphenation of compound modifiers is a regular feature of the English language, with practically unlimited potential from "aardvark-skin handbag" to "zebra-stripe socks". Learners of English (and in fact many native speakers) may need to be taught this, but it is not the job of a dictionary to list every possibility individually. Mihia (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not an adjective like much-mocked, which should be kept, just attributive. This will probably end up being deleted, but I will abstain. DonnanZ (talk) 10:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

They are both compound modifiers hyphenated in exactly the same mechanically predictable way that is repeated across a virtually limitless number of combinations. All of these hyphenated compound modifiers that are composed predictably from separate words should be deleted (or not created) unless there are special usage issues or special idiomatic considerations applying. Mihia (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep, this is more of a BP matter anyway. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you know what we're missing here? There is a larger problem. There are a lot of terms that were traditionally spelled with a hyphen that has now been lost, either by dropping the space or by changing the hyphen into a space (people today will probably write "icecream" or "ice cream" but not "ice-cream"). These hyphen-attributive entries seem to suggest that the hyphen form is a magical attributive thing whereas in real usage it's often just an alternative of the everyday noun. If I saw "they're adding crazy-paving to their garden" I wouldn't blink. Equinox ◑ 17:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

None of which is captured by a bare bones "attributive form of" entry which is useful to nobody. Put up or shut up, whoever wants to create these types of pages should do their homework and research historical and contemporary uses. Otherwise they can get bent. DTLHS (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Wow I never saw DTLHS angry before. Related: check this out: the OED realised hyphens were bullshit 12 years ago: [10] Equinox ◑ 17:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

In this case, judging from the results on Google Books, the hyphenated form is a very rare recent development used in medical terminology as an attributive form, not a relic of the dated compound hyphen. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't these all be kept if someone can find actual usage for them (not me). SemperBlotto (talk) 10:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@SemperBlotto, I don't believe that combining hyphens de facto create distinct terms, no more than spaces between terms, or punctuation before or after them. In some cases the hyphen does combine two terms into a single term, but this is not one of those cases. By the same logic which would make this idiomatic so would be word! (exclamatory form of word), word? (inquisitive form of word) and word... (at the end of an unfinished thought form of word). Combining hyphens are just a form of punctuation, the fact that that punctuation has meaning (as all punctuation does) does not mean we need to define every construct in which that punctuation is present. - TheDaveRoss 13:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep but perhaps as some kind of soft redirect. Alternative form, maybe, although in many cases it IS only for the adjectival use. Ƿidsiþ 13:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Didn't we have a general discussion about this? One issue is that these are rarely limited to being attributive forms, they're often also attested as mere alternative forms.IMO, keep as a soft-redirect ({{altform}} of some kind) or, at worst, make into a hard redirect. - -sche (discuss) 17:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep: crazy paving is included, and crazy-paving is one of its attributive forms. Let me emphasize that this is to keep attributive forms of included multiword terms, not attributive forms of excluded multiword terms. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

heckuva job

This passed a decade ago, so perhaps I am wrong to list it. Doing it anyway. Heckuva has been combined with lots of nouns, and we have that sense covered. Sarcastic usage does not equate to idiomacity. - TheDaveRoss 21:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Is this any different from the interjection sense of good job? bd2412 T 00:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps in commonality, but no I don't think it is much different from that or nice job or good work or well done or any of hundreds of other similar constructions which can all be used literally or sarcastically. - TheDaveRoss 13:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• For me personally, if someone says good job, I take that at face value (within the context of the discourse, of course). If someone says heckuva job, or more specifically writes it with that spelling, that does unavoidably bring to mind the sarcastic use by association with Hurricane Katrina and the Bush administration's bungled response. That association might be stronger for me as an American, than it might be for other English readers in other countries.

I'm not sure if this has sufficiently lexicalized, however, to merit inclusion for this specific sense. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Note that WT:CFI#Sarcastic usage states: "The straightforward sarcastic use of irony, understatement and hyperbole does not usually qualify for inclusion". — SGconlaw (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that applies here, as this is not just straightforward. Due to the association with political history, the specific collocation heckuva job winds up meaning the opposite of its initial sense. See also thanks a lot, where the sarcastic sense is strong enough to merit at least a usage note. For that matter, I wonder if the sarcastic usage is what merits the entry at all -- without that, thanks a lot is purely SOP as thanks + a lot. If we keep thanks a lot, should we not also keep heckuva job? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, there was a long discussion about sarcastic usage concerning less-than-stellar (now archived on the entry's talk page), and the RFD only failed because fewer than two-thirds of participants voted for deletion – the ratio was 5:3 in favour of deletion. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

There is a reason that no consensus is needed for any person in the world to add a sense or create an entry here, but a strong consensus - basically a supermajoritarian one - is needed to remove a sense or an entry. It only takes a small proportion of the relevant community of interest to find a term useful to warrant including it in the dictionary. bd2412 T 02:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete heckuva job, keep good job. Per utramque cavernam 18:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Eirikr: I agree with Jberkel: thanks a lot seems fairly lexcialised to me, while heckuva job not so. Maybe I shouldn't vote on this one though. Per utramque cavernam 10:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete, move useful information / usage examples into heckuva. Jberkel 16:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• I'm curious -- @Per utramque cavernam, Jberkel, would you also advocate deleting thanks a lot? If not, what distinction do you make between our handling of thanks a lot and heckuva job? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Eirikr: Looking at usage patterns this might be material for Appendix:Snowclones (“Heckuva job, X”). I'd say that thanks a lot is fairly idiomatic and therefore warrants an entry of its own (are there similar constructions “[noun] a lot”? can't think of any). I think it's ok to delete the entry and add a usage note to heckuva. As you say, it doesn't seem to be fully lexicalized, and I noticed that many usages are followed by an explanation. – Jberkel 11:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing how "heckuva job, X" is a snowclone unlike, say, "X is the new X". What is supposed to substitute for the X? — SGconlaw (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

A name replacing the original “Brownie”, sometimes with added -ie/-y/-ey e.g. “Heckuva Job, Trumpie/Barack/Bidey etc.” – Jberkel 11:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

From the quotations, I don't see the term used exclusively in the format "heckuva job, X", though. — SGconlaw (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I am relatively new to the idea of "snowclone", but I wouldn't think that tacking the name of the person being addressed onto the end of a phrase would count. Mihia (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe not, but as I mentioned in some cases the names are changed (Trumpie/Bidey), so it's not simply “tacking the name at the end of a phrase”. It doesn't seem to be widely used though. – Jberkel 11:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

WT:CFI#Sarcastic usage states "[...] Terms which are seldom or never used literally are not covered by this rule, and can be included on their own merits." heckuva job has "(US politics, usually ironic)" label. Do the two things said yield keep? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Possibly. That was the reason I suggested that less-than-stellar should be kept. — SGconlaw (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Going by my experience, delete: it's no different from "heck of a job" and "constructually" (lol) no different from "heck of an anything". Equinox ◑ 22:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Google Books does not suggest that this is mostly ironic, the oft-quoted "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job." was intended as a commendation. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

WASD

This feels like a list of key names rather than a "noun". The article at Arrow keys lists, among others, ESDF, DCAS, QAOP, ESDX, WAXD, QEZC. Equinox ◑ 10:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It's fairly commonly used attributively, modifying nouns like key(s), movement, method, keyboard+mouse combination, user(s), layout etc. It is pronounced "wazz-dee". I am not sure whether the other keyboard groups used similarly have gotten enough recent (post-BBS) traction. Keep, I think. DCDuring (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

give someone a big head

SOP, per Wiktionary:Tea room/2019/January § give someone a big head: give + someone + a + big head (“inflated ego”) (though we're currently missing that sense). We can also say "have a big head", etc. Per utramque cavernam 22:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete. When I first saw this, I thought it was about giving someone head. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I've added what I think is the definition missing at big head, which is IMO only rarely an alternative form of bighead. They are also pronounced differently, bighead being heavily stressed on big, big head having roughly equal stress on its parts. DCDuring (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, delete. DCDuring (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Does not have any idiomatic or dictionary-worthy content beyond what can be explained at "big head". BTW, I agree with DCDuring that "big head" is not a well-known (possibly not even a correct) variant of "bighead". Mihia (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Redirect to big head Purplebackpack89 06:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, I don't expect that I can convince you all to change your minds, but all I can say is that this entry was useful and helpful for me. I am not a native speaker of English - perhaps you all are and that's why you don't see how having such an entry can be helpful. I did encounter the expression in a newspaper a few minutes ago, I searched for 'give somebody a big head' (and yes, it was spelt just like that) and I found out the meaning thanks to this entry, which is also how I saw the deletion proposal. I'm not at all sure that I would have thought of searching for 'big head' alone, if I hadn't found this article. If you don't Keep the entry, I believe that at least a Redirect should be preserved.--82.137.111.223 00:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Then I guess you were lucky this time, but the problem is that "give someone a big head" literally just does just mean "give" + "someone" + "a" + "big head". It is completely impractical for a dictionary to include such phrases that are straightforwardly the sum of their individual components with no additional idiomaticity. Mihia (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I can see where non-native speakers might find the meaning a bit opaque, because the use of give here is very unusual. It's not literally handing someone a large head. Give is used to mean "cause to have", a sense we don't really feature at give, though senses 1.8 and 9 are the closest. Leasnam (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

That is a reasonable point, and not one that I had considered. However, this "give" is not at all confined to use with "big head", but is reused across all manner of phrases. If it isn't adequately covered at "give" then I guess it should be. I do understand that finding the right sense of "give" is an additional obstacle for non-native speakers, but what can we do? Include "give someone a headache", "give someone an inflated ego", "give someone a false sense of security", "give someone an inferiority complex" and a hundred other such phrases? Mihia (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Give someone an inferiority complex is a perfect analogy, as are the others. Well, I always like to root for the underdog, but given this I have nothing more to say, unfortunate for this entry :( Leasnam (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I've added that sense to give. It is the new sense #10. Delete as SoP. Leasnam (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I've nominated this, but I guess a redirection won't hurt. Per utramque cavernam 12:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

zoo break

SOP. See also Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English § zoo break, soon to be archived at Talk:zoo break. Per utramque cavernam 20:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. Not very obvious from parts. I had to click on the link to understand what was being referred to. Mihia (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

  Out of curiosity, before clicking on the link what other concept did you think the term might represent? - TheDaveRoss 18:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

  • @Mihia: But how is it different from prison break? Per utramque cavernam 11:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I would say that "zoo break" is harder to understand from the parts than "prison break" (but I wouldn't object if someone also wanted to create "prison break"). Mihia (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

There is an entry for jail break after all. DonnanZ (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

It's protected by coalmine. This one is not. Per utramque cavernam 19:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The animals (and birds) are the inmates, if not true "criminals". DonnanZ (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete, sense 1 of zoo and noun sense 10 of break. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. There are no less than 17 senses of the noun break, and this one appears to be a shortening of breakout. It certainly doesn't have the same meaning as daybreak, century break, tea break, weekend break, etc. DonnanZ (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  I have to imagine that there are orders of magnitude fewer two-word terms which comprise two words which each have only one meaning than those in which one or both terms have multiple senses. There may not be any such terms at all, if nuance is allowed. - TheDaveRoss 18:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per Mihia. Jberkel 18:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep. Appears to be etymologically modelled on jailbreak.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

two hundred

Can be regarded as 'multiple of parts'. Over 100. John Cross (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

eight hundred

Multiple of parts, over 100. John Cross (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

nine hundred

multiple of parts, over 100... unless this is about two and a half turns... John Cross (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

eleven hundred

Multiple of parts. John Cross (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

three hundred

Multiple of parts. Could conceivably be kept as translation target. John Cross (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep all Purplebackpack89 12:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect all speedily to "Appendix:English numerals" unless any have an idiomatic sense, as per the policy previously put in place: see "Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Numbers, numerals, and ordinals". — SGconlaw (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if some of these would be worthy translation targets, but on their own merit the should probably be deleted per the rule SG linked. - TheDaveRoss 13:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep two hundred, three hundred, ..., nine hundred. Some of them will be per WT:THUB. Now, the items to apply for WT:THUB need to be looked for, but I believe can be found. For instance, pl:dwieście is not obvious from pl:sto, and cs:dvě stě is not obvious from cs:sto; it is not obvious why it is not "dvě sta". Or taking pl:dziewięćset, the inflection in pl:sto does not provide anything for me to guess pl:dziewięćset. If WT:THUB would not apply, I would support keeping these multiples of "hundred" as an exception to the passed rule; this is a small set of round numerals and I think the reader is better off our having these entries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• Keep two hundred per Semitic (where a dual of "hundred" is typically used) and certain Slavic languages, per Dan. eleven hundred might also be kept as a translation target. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • In that case, a translation hub exception needs to be added to "Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Numbers, numerals, and ordinals", and it needs to be clarified exactly which numerals the exception applies to (for example, "200" but not "729"?). — SGconlaw (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
    • The easy solution is to rescind proposal 2 of Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals as redundant to proposal 1 of that vote; that is, remove "Numbers, numerals, and ordinals" as covered by "An attested integer word (such as twenty-three or twenty-third) or a decimal numeral (sequence of 0, ..., 9 digits) that is ≥ 0 and ≤ 100 should be kept even if it is not idiomatic. [...]" --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

urine therapy

Potentially a SOP, see urine therapy. However, that it can also refer to cosmetic practices might make it not SOP. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep. Specifically refers to a set of pseudoscientific practices, rather than any therapy with urine. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm in therapy, too. bd2412 T 21:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

fish for compliments

SOP. 32.210.179.170 20:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• The definition may need refining. My understanding has always been that "fishing for compliments" involved making overly humble or self-effacing comments in the hope that another person will counter them with praise. bd2412 T 21:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I would comment that (AFAIK) you can't be said to "fish for flattery" or "fish for love" etc. even though you could equally well use emotional manipulation to get those things. Equinox ◑ 22:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

There are a number of Google Book Search hits for "fishing for flattery", and one or two for "fishing for love", along with hits for fishing for information, details, clues, an admission, the right answer, confirmation, news, gossip, and so on and so forth. I don't see anything much special about "compliments". Mihia (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I should add, apropos of a comment that I made above in relation to "lose one's virginity", that there is nothing special except that it is a common collocation. AFAIAA from previous discussions, there is presently no rule for including common collocations that are straightforward SOP, but perhaps that is open to discussion. Mihia (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Easy enough SOP. Mihia (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The strange thing (in my eyes) is that there is also the verb angle with a sense of “attempt to subtly persuade someone to offer a desired thing”. One can be angling for a promotion, or a spot on a committee, or a contract. But when the desired thing is getting a compliment, the idiomatically preferred verb switches to fish.  --Lambiam 14:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• Inclined to keep per Equinox. Per utramque cavernam 19:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Abstain. Per utramque cavernam 19:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete, one can fish for information, fish for trouble, etc. - TheDaveRoss 14:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete. It is far-fetched to look this phrase up, there is nothing special about the sum. Fay Freak (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm twenty years old

So this passed RFD in 2012. The logic to keep was basically:

• the reader could not put together the phrase by just the translations at old (#5)
• "Twenty is a round number, so "I'm twenty years old" seems to be a fit example entry to represent all the other phrases with different number word."

But I'm ... year(s) old shows the reader how to put together this phrase, and it's better at showing how to build the phrase with different numbers. If I were trying to say "I'm 19 years old" in Hungarian, the translation at I'm twenty years old (húszéves vagyok) is useless. I don't know which part means "twenty", so I can't apply it. But with the translation at I'm ... year(s) old (...éves vagyok), I can just plug in the Hungarian word for 19 in the ... — Julia ☺ ☆ 19:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep again: I find it better to have a representative phrase for the phrasebook than have an abstract parametrized phrase I'm ... year(s) old. The Hungarian translation would be more useful if húszéves vagyok had an entry rather than being a redlink; in that entry, each separate word would be glossed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hm. I would imagine there must be some languages where you can't just plug in a missing word (due to inflection, or adjacent words merging together, etc.?). I also have unpleasant memories of those old snowclone-type entries where we would put "X" as a placeholder in the entry title. But the twenty does seem a bit silly and arbitrary. Equinox ◑ 18:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Admittedly, twenty is arbitrary. It is round, to say the least. I'm eighteen years old was deleted; 18 would be a legally significant age in some countries, I guess, so it would be less arbitrary. One such entry is enough, I think, but I would not object to I'm eighteen years old being restored instead of the 20 entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep per Dan, but okay with moving it to a less arbitrary age. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

prison gang

SoP, a gang in prison. Ultimateria (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Could it also mean a prison work gang? (that's a term that should have an entry). DonnanZ (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Seems SOP to me, delete unless there is some more specific sense. Re work gang, I have not seen it used in that way, and we do have chain gang, beyond that specific term I have seen a few different formulations related to groups of prisoners working outside of the prison, work gang, work crew and work detail among them. - TheDaveRoss 14:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Oxford has an entry for work gang. DonnanZ (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think a conscientious writer would use the term “prison gang” for a work gang of prisoners, for the simple reason it would surely be misunderstood by almost every reader, just like one wouldn’t use the term “kitchen table” for a table of weights and measures used in a kitchen.  --Lambiam 14:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

In fact, that was the first meaning I thought of when I read the thread title. Of course, I understand the other meaning well enough too. Mihia (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is a question that has come up before with arguably SoPpy terms: How should an ESL learner know which of the many senses of gang is the one to choose for understanding the term prison gang? I think sense 6, but that may not be obvious – and, moreover, that sense does not impart the persistence of prison gangs. Therefore I’m leaning towards Keep. (BTW, the somewhat figurative sense for a group of politicians – which I think could also be high-level executives or officials in a non-political organization – ought to be a sense on its own, rather than being lump together with criminal gangs, which tend to be more structured and have a longer lifespan.)  --Lambiam 14:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

drawn game

We don't have won game, lost game, tied game, all are clearly SOP. - TheDaveRoss 14:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, "the match was drawn" etc. Delete. Equinox ◑ 14:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete, SoP.  --Lambiam 11:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 11:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• It is actually a game in which neither side wins. It has inspired me to enter no-score draw however. DonnanZ (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
• RFD failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

acute-angled triangle

right-angled triangle

• Keep - others have this. Also, not all angles have to be right angles - only one. Plus: if we include the term we can include an illustration which would be helpful. [As an aside, you can draw a triangle with three right angles on the surface of a sphere.] John Cross (talk) 08:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right-angled%20triangle

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/right-angled-triangle

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/right-angled-triangle

We can include an illustration at right-angled, that's not an argument. Per utramque cavernam 17:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

By the way, if we go by the current results of Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-12/Lemming principle into CFI, that vote is not likely to pass. So the lemming argument isn't CFI-based either. Per utramque cavernam 18:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

right triangle

FYI, the relevant sense at right seemed to be absent, so I have had a go at adding it. Mihia (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - John Cross (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

acute triangle

• Keep - John Cross (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/acute-triangle

obtuse triangle

• Keep - John Cross (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/obtuse+triangle (McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific & Technical Terms)

equilateral triangle

• Keep - recognised term. John Cross (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/equilateral-triangle

isosceles triangle

• Keep recognised term John Cross (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Cambridge Dictionary: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/isosceles-triangle

Macmillan: https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/isosceles-triangle

Merriam-Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/isosceles%20triangle

scalene triangle

• Keep 'scalene triangle' - John Cross (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/scalene-triangle

I admit they're vaguely useful, but all of these are SOP. Delete the numerous SOP translations (such as French triangle rectangle) as well. Per utramque cavernam 18:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I would say you have ordered them roughly in order from most delete-able to least, I am totally on board with deleting the first three, after that I am on the fence. - TheDaveRoss 18:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

An acute triangle is one with three acute angles whereas an obtuse triangle is a triangle with one obtuse angle. On that basis these are not entirely sum of parts. John Cross (talk) 08:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete the ones containing "-angled"; keep the rest. bd2412 T 15:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• What BD said. Purplebackpack89 06:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep all above but make angled terms to be synonyms of main words. There are many names across the world referring to these objects that different from direct-translation. (This also applies to 4-side polygons and more.)--Octahedron80 (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Octahedron80: If we keep right triangle, acute triangle and obtuse triangle, then there's no need to keep the -angled entries too. Per utramque cavernam 17:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No problem. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete them all. Are mathematics students too obtuse to be able to look up the adjective and determine how it applies to their respective polygon? Maybe I better end here before I become to acute. -Mike (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

wax technician

Based on the synonyms section this is not a unique formulation, and based on the definitions is isn't for just one type of wax professional either. SOP. - TheDaveRoss 15:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

irregular plural

SOP. Per utramque cavernam 13:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Why? They do exist. Keep for the same reason as irregular verb. DonnanZ (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Appendix:English irregular nouns does list irregular plurals, but they occur in other languages too. DonnanZ (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

You realise we're talking about words here, not concepts, right?

As to your question "why?", I'll repeat myself if it pleases you: SOP, as in "Sum-Of-Parts". Per utramque cavernam 20:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. DonnanZ (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

You're confusing words and concepts, and you're asking for a rationale which I've already provided, so pardon me if I sound a bit disgruntled. Do you have anything of substance to answer? Per utramque cavernam 08:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I could say a lot more, but it's better left unsaid. DonnanZ (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Please go ahead, I'm interested. Per utramque cavernam 18:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

So do words with plurals that don't end in "s", but we wouldn't want a dictionary entry for words with plurals that don't end with "s" Chuck Entz (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. A dictionary should carefully define terms describing the construction of words. bd2412 T 03:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

  I don't know what that means. Everything could be accomplished at irregular, why isn't that enough? Per utramque cavernam 08:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

  The appropriate place to explain various linguistic (grammatical, phonological, rhetorical) concepts “carefully” would be in the appendices. We have Appendix:Glossary#irregular; I imagine that (if desired) this could be expanded, although it is simpler to refer to Wikipedia’s section on Regular and irregular inflection in the article over there on Inflection (to which Irregular plural redirects).  --Lambiam 15:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per BD2412 John Cross (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, SoP.  --Lambiam 15:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, SOP. Compare "irregular verb", "irregular pluralization", "irregular inflection", ... - -sche (discuss) 20:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Bizarre reasoning that terms related to the dictionary are subject to laxer rules is unexpected from the likes of @BD2412. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  I have not proposed any laxer rules. "irregular plural" is a set phrase, and should meet the CFI. bd2412 T 04:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  That's a valid argument. We don't normally keep set phrases and collocations if they're not idiomatic, and CFI does not say we should, but you could conceivably argue that CFI should change to reflect that view. (I would disagree.) That wasn't the argument that you made, however, which was based on the how the term descibes "the construction of words". —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  Try this on, then: the plural of "irregular" is irregulars. However, "irregulars" is not an irregular plural. Therefore, a phrase referring to plurals that are irregular, and not to the plural of irregular, is idiomatic. Also, just for fun, other languages contain both the word "irregular" (with the same meaning) and "plural" (with the same meaning), but don't construct the phrase the same. bd2412 T 05:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  "Try this on, then: the plural of "irregular" is irregulars. However, "irregulars" is not an irregular plural. Therefore, a phrase referring to plurals that are irregular, and not to the plural of irregular, is idiomatic." > huh, what?

  "Also, just for fun, other languages contain both the word "irregular" (with the same meaning) and "plural" (with the same meaning), but don't construct the phrase the same" > Which ones? Per utramque cavernam 18:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  Spanish and Portuguese, I believe. bd2412 T 19:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  Like Puck, I cannot figure out how your word game ties into idiomaticity at all. As for your new THUB argument, plural irregular is how you say "irregular plural" in Spanish. (Shocking, I know.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  Ergo, not constructed the same way. bd2412 T 21:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  What? It's constructed the exact same way. Are you confused by the fact that adjectives generally follow the nouns they modify in Spanish? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  Are you arguing that a construction with an adjective following the noun is exactly the same as a construction in the opposite order? I'm afraid that pursing that line of thought would end up leading a lot of foreign-language readers astray. bd2412 T 04:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

  Well, it has nothing to do with lexicology. That's a grammatical feature, but we're not a grammar book. From a lexical standpoint, it's a perfectly straightforward translation (and so would be French pluriel irrégulier), thus THUB doesn't apply. Per utramque cavernam 12:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

  I tried it on, but it doesn't fit. The word "irregular" is not irregular. True. But then, "ninety words" isn't ninety words- just two. Does that mean that "ninety words" is idiomatic? Those quote marks are there for a reason- to make it clear that a word is not the same as that to which it refers. Try this on: legal misfeasance can be illegal- does that make "legal misfeasance" idiomatic? Chuck Entz (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

  Wiktionary lists "childs" as a nonstandard and rare plural of "child", the word "childer" is also defined as being the plural of child but obsolete outside Ireland. In one sense Children is the regular/normal/standard plural so I don't think the term is a transparent sum of parts. John Cross (talk) 06:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  You appear to be arguing that we don’t have a transparent sum of parts because the collocation “regular plural” can also mean “standard plural”. In other words, to understand a use of “regular plural” one has to determine the intended sense of the adjective regular by choosing the appropriate one in the context. Indeed, but how is that an argument for selecting one sense – the linguistic one – and giving it sort of a preferred status?  --Lambiam 06:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

  John Cross makes sense here. Even a native English-speaker unfamiliar with linguistics may think that "wives", "knives", "lives", "calves", "wolves", "hooves", and "leaves" are all "regular" plurals because they follow a common and familiar scheme of pluralization, i.e., that pluralizing words ending in "f" or "fe" with a "ves" is the "regular" thing to do, or is done in a "regular" fashion. The fact that the phrase "irregular plural" encompasses things that an average speaker of the language would intuitively consider "regular" makes the primary meaning of the phrase "regular plural" idiomatic. bd2412 T 15:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

And rooves is an irregular alternative plural of roofs. DonnanZ (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

If it's to be kept on such a basis, e.g. a basis that "wife -> wives" may intuitively seem regular but actually counts as irregular (if I understand your point correctly), then the definition needs expanding. Presently it reads "A plural that does not follow the normal rules for its inflexion", which does not assist in the "wife/wifes/wives" question as it just transfers the question to the meaning of "normal rules". Mihia (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Good point. I have amended the definition to read: "A plural that does not follow the normal rule of forming its inflexion solely by the addition of the letter "s", or of the letters "es" to a word ending with an "-s", "-ss", "-ch", "-sh", "-x", or "-o"" (emphasis added to the amended portion). bd2412 T 23:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• Having worked on revising the definition, it has also become apparent that some words have more than one plural, and the "regular" plural (i.e., the one most commonly used) is "irregular", while the "irregular" plural (the one not commonly used) is "regular". For example, the plural of "fish" is "fish" (as in there are plenty of fish in the sea); an uncommon variation is "fishes", but by the rules of construction, the regularly used "fish" is an irregular plural and the irregularly used "fishes" is a regular plural. bd2412 T 00:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

So all Italian plurals are irregular? What about Chinese? Chuck Entz (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

All Italian plurals are by definition irregular within the confines of the English language, which has words that are pluralized (irregularly) by the substitution of an "i" for the final letter(s). bd2412 T 05:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I have further adjusted the definition to state:

A plural that does not follow the normal rules of its language in forming its inflection, particularly a plural in the English language formed other than by the addition of the letter "s", or of the letters "es" to a word ending with an "-s", "-ss", "-ch", "-sh", "-x", or "-o".

If that isn't idiomatic, I don't know what is. bd2412 T 05:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 05:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Blatant SOP and also a dubious concept. Fay Freak (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Abstain - There is no specific "grammar" sense in the definitions of irregular that fully covers the use of this adjective in the terms "irregular plural", "irregular verb", "irregular adjective", etc. So perhaps this is what is needed. I note that Google Books has examples of "irregular singulars".- Sonofcawdrey (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete, but add linguistic-specific sense to irregular. Something like "Not inflecting according to regular or expected patterns in a given language." Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I support adding this. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• I count 3 in favour of keeping (Donnanz, BD, and John), 7 in favour of deleting (PUC, Lambiam, -sche, me, Eq, Fay, and Andrew), and 1 abstention (Sonofcawdrey). Chuck seemingly argued for deletion, but did not cast a vote. A formal 70% is consistent with closing this as RFD failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

regular polygon

SOP. Per utramque cavernam 13:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. The use of "regular" here is different from the normal sense of regularity (e.g. a "regular guy"). bd2412 T 15:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

  The regular sense of “regular” is ”following a rule”. So is a “regular guy” someone who follows a rule? Then Benedict monks are regular guys: they follow the Rule of St. Benedict. But I guess “regular guy” means something else; the use of “regular” here is different from the normal sense of regularity. So by the above argument we should have an entry regular guy.  --Lambiam 15:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

  The use of "regular" and "irregular" with respect to polygons are unique to those shapes. Would you call a six-sided shape with five straight sides and one curved side an "irregular polygon"? No, it wouldn't be a polygon at all. bd2412 T 19:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

  Sorry, I cannot follow the argument (apart from the incorrect statement about uniqueness; the concept also applies to polyhedra and in fact also higher-dimensional polytopes). Suppose someone proposes to delete happy customer (“a customer that is satisfied with the service offered”) because it is SOP. Someone argues that it should be kept because this is not the “normal” meaning of happy, although it is one of its listed senses. In response to criticism of that argument (specifically the notion of the “normal” meaning), they now ask: “Would you call a shoplifter that walks out with the goods without being detected a ‘disenchanted customer’? No, they wouldn’t be a customer at all.” Indeed, they wouldn’t, but what has that to do with anything?  --Lambiam 20:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

  A shoplifter could be a disenchanted customer. A shape that is a polygon but for the irregularity of having one non-straight side can't be a polygon. A shape that would be a "regular polygon" but for that difference is therefore neither a regular nor an irregular polygon. bd2412 T 20:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

  I still don’t see the relevance of not calling something a polygon that is not a polygon to the question whether the term “regular polygon” is SoP.  --Lambiam 00:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  One could easily think that a "regular" polygon means a "typical" polygon, like any triangle, or any five or six-sided figure that doesn't have some crazy indentation. In fact, it is limited to one that is "both equiangular and equilateral". However, the theoretically interchangeable phrases "equiangular and equilateral polygon" and "equiangular equilateral polygon" get one ten-thousandth as many Google Books hits as "regular polygon". I would suggest that a meaning of the word "regular" that only applies when specifically used in combination with a handful of other words, and disproportionately found in only one of those combinations, is idiomatic. Otherwise, we might as well get rid of stop sign and police car, and have entries at "stop" and "police", respectively, reading "when used with sign..." and "when used with car..." bd2412 T 05:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  I think stop sign and police car are a different thing, but I agree to some extent with you when you say that when a word is found (almost) exclusively in a combination, that combination might be said to be idiomatic. I don't know what the best treatment is for those cases. Per utramque cavernam 18:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC) 

  @BD2412, In no way is this the same. A polygon can be regular, a sign cannot be stop and a car cannot be police. Those are fixed set terms. The note at regular does not say "when used with 'polygon'", it says "of a polygon", i.e. it can describe any kind of polygon. An octagon can be regular or otherwise, you can have regular dodecahedrons, etc etc. "Stop sign" is a set phrase outside of which there is no other use of this sense of "stop". Ƿidsiþ 14:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  Answered below. bd2412 T 21:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep by all means. An illustration would be useful however. DonnanZ (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

What part of WT:CFI is "all means" referring to? Per utramque cavernam 18:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

By all means is a figure of speech. bd2412 T 19:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I know, I was jesting. Per utramque cavernam 19:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep - The word regular has 15 different meanings. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep - per SemperBlotto. John Cross (talk) 07:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. That's…just what "regular" means in geometry, as it says if you look up regular. So what if "regular" has lots of meanings? You might as well say that regular guy should have an entry in case people think it means "guy who is equilateral and equiangular". Ƿidsiþ 13:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

It does seem redundant to have both this and a sense for this at regular. - -sche (discuss) 17:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but if we added a sense at "stop" for a sign saying: "(traffic, of a sign) instructing traffic to cease movement," that would make it seem redundant to have stop sign, although it seems obvious that we should have an entry for it. bd2412 T 21:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Seriously? That is not at all the same thing. "Stop sign" is the only use of this kind of "stop", whereas lots of things can be geometrically regular. It was not even the earliest use of the word (that was "regular bodies"). Nothing about this indicates a set phrase. Ƿidsiþ 07:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

No it isn't. There is also stop light, and either could be called a "stop signal". bd2412 T 19:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Nnnnn…I still don't think it's the same, I'm afraid. Noun-noun collocations are always unpredictable because the qualifier can't be used predicatively. It's completely standard to say that a given polygon is regular (or otherwise) – this does not "break" the term in the way that you would expect for a set idiom. Is the polygon regular? Yes, the polygon is regular. It's a regular polygon. You say that the last one is a set term but the other sentences aren't, it doesn't make sense to me. It can also be split with other qualifiers; you could talk about a "regular thirteen-sided polygon". And "regular" can be, and is, applied to any number of different polygons; so in what way, exactly, is it a set phrase if the adjective can be applied in the same way to numerous different nouns, can also be used predicatively, and can be interrupted by further qualifiers? Ƿidsiþ 07:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

So, delete as redundant to the polygon-related sense of regular which is also widely used with other words. - -sche (discuss) 18:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

If we keep regular polygon, should we not logically also have entries for regular quadrilateral, regular pentagon, regular hexagon, regular heptagon etc.? In this case I think the common meaning is better explained at regular, where, as has been mentioned, there is a specific sense labelled "geometry, of a polygon", so it is easy to find. Mihia (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Also regular polyhedron, regular polychoron, regular polyteron.  --Lambiam 23:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

And also regular tiling and even regular hyperbolic tiling.  --Lambiam 13:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance to these to the far more common collocation of "regular polygon". Compare my reference to stop sign above. We don't also have yield sign or speed limit sign or pedestrian crossing sign, so it doesn't follow that including one collocation forces the inclusion of the rest. bd2412 T 19:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

You argued above that the use of “regular” with respect to polygons is unique to those shapes. Well, as this list shows, it is not. A Google search for "regular polygon" reports about 731,000 results, while the search for "regular triangle"|"regular quadrilateral"|"regular pentagon"|"regular hexagon"|"regular heptagon"|"regular octagon" reports about 1,110,000 results. For "regular tetrahedron"|"regular hexahedron"|"regular octahedron"|"regular dodecahedron"|"regular icosahedron" Google search reports about 259,000 results. The search for "regular polytope"|"regular polyhedron"|"regular polychoron" yields another 106,000 results.  --Lambiam 05:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I consider yield sign fairly entry-worthy. Per utramque cavernam 20:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

It might be. However, speed limit sign and pedestrian crossing sign are probably not. bd2412 T 21:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

What is a yield sign anyway? A give way sign? DonnanZ (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Answering my own question, yes, it's a give way sign. DonnanZ (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Purplebackpack89 06:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  Why? Per utramque cavernam 18:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Because the ambiguity of "regular" is such to render a definition of "regular polygon" necessary and useful. Purplebackpack89 05:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Doesn’t the ambiguity of good, which can be used in a sentence like “It’s a good mile away”, then render a definition of “good mile” equally necessary and useful? If not, why not? Moreover, one can also say: “If you train hard you’ll be able to run a good mile”, so wouldn’t the ambiguity of “a good mile” then necessitate a definition of “a good mile away”?  --Lambiam 07:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep It's a jargon in geometry. It could be said equilateral/equiangular polygon but no one did. Compare regular expression.--Octahedron80 (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, strongly. Reading the arguments previously made, I would have to throw out an argument like "too many meanings." And it isn't valid to compare an adjective-noun phrase "regular polygon" to a compound noun like "stop sign". The comparison with "regular expression" is better, but it truly is computer science jargon that cannot be understood by analyzing the individual components; whatever sense regular brings to the combination is not obvious from its other senses and is probably unique to "regular expression" (hence the need for the separate page). (I don't know if "the expression is regular" would be a valid statement, which could argue against what I just wrote.) By comparison regular in "regular polygon" has the clear sense of having equal sides and equal angles which applies not only to polygon but to many other (geometric) nouns as well. And "the polygon is regular" would be valid. I haven't seen any arguments good enough for keeping this phrase. -Mike (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep: the meaning of "regular" employed is specific to polygons; thus, per talk:free variable rationale. If not that, redirect to regular. As an aside, note that star polygons are very regular but they are not what is meant by "regular polygon", which has to be convex. As for "regular expression", it would be a sum of parts if a corresponding definition would be placed to regular, of the form "(computing) of an expression, such that X". That is reminiscent of the red dwarf argument I made in talk:free variable. As for regular triangle, it could be created as well or it could be redirected to regular polygon since triangle is a species of polygon and the predicate "regular" when applied to a triangle is really inherited from polygon. On another note, I have no objections to placing label "sum of parts" at the beginning of the definition line so that the reader has a hint that they could figure it out themselves by looking up the component definitions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with a user-visible "sum of parts" label being applied to this or any other entry. Mihia (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

That's a statement of position; is there a rationale for that position? --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about @Mihia, but I personally think it looks silly. Per utramque cavernam 08:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

For me, "sum of parts" is internal jargon that we use when discussing eligibility for inclusion. It seems inappropriate to make it visible to readers. Mihia (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Having a SOP label would open up every adjective-noun combination to having its own page. I will also mention that Wikipedia disagrees with you. It says, "Regular polygons may be either convex or star." -Mike (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

It would not since the label would not introduce a policy that all attested SOP shall be included. As for the meaning, our definition excludes star polygons: "equiangular and equilateral (i.e. having all sides the same length and all interior angles the same", and this matches Mathworld[11]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how "equiangular and equilateral (i.e. having all sides the same length and all interior angles the same)" excludes regular star polygons. Mihia (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

How can a star polygon have all interior angles the same, when half of the internal angles will be the opposite of the other half? bd2412 T 18:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The true interior angles of a star polygon are the angles at the points of the star only. The additional angles created by the intersection of the sides of the polygon do not count. This is why the regular star polygons are truly regular polygons (albeit self-intersecting), and not a mixture of different edge lengths and angles. Mihia (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Star polygon with intersecting sides

Star with non-intersecting sides, also a polygon

I see what you mean: you mean star polygons with intersecting sides whereas I meant star polygons with alternating angles and non-intersecting sides. Mathworld only shows the "ordinary" non-intersecting regular polygons on its images, no star polygons. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean. Yes, I am referring only to the self-intersecting ones. Mihia (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

If a polygon is "a plane figure bounded by edges that are all straight lines", doesn't that exclude shapes with intersecting lines from being polygons at all, since those lines wouldn't part of the edges by which the shape is bound? bd2412 T 22:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Self-intersecting polygons are a recognised class of polygons. Mihia (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed they are. I stand corrected. bd2412 T 01:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep as a useful entry. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - It's a common geometrical term. If this shouldn't be here, then truncated icosahedron, truncated dodecahedron, and pretty much anything here shouldn't either. But I do find it sort of strange how certain other common geometrical terms lack entries, such as concave polygon and convex polygon, though. Johnny Shiz (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• I count 9 in favour of keeping (BD, Donnanz, Semper, John, Purple, Octahedron, Dan, Sonofcawdrey, and Johnny) and 4 in favour of deleting (PUC, Widsith, -sche, and Mike). Mihia and Lambiam seemingly argued for deletion but did not cast votes. Therefore, RFD passed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

aab

Lowercase form of AAB, I am sure FBI has been written fbi on many occasions, I don't believe that makes it a distinct term. - TheDaveRoss 16:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

aacp

Same as above. - TheDaveRoss 16:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

aac

Same as above. - TheDaveRoss 16:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

OTOH, if these are written in lowercase, it would make them even less intelligible because they would look like words... if I read "the aab fired on the approaching jet", how am I to figure out that "jet" is a word and "aab" is only an acronym (and for what?) if there's no entry for "aab"? IMO keep if attested, although I wouldn't object to converting it to a soft redirect like {{altcaps|AAB}} or {{altcaps|AAB||anti-aircraft battery}}. - -sche (discuss) 18:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

by one's own admission

I could fulfil the {{rfdef}}, but it's just by one's own admission, by an admission one oneself made AFAICT, including per the Merriam-Webster link. Is it enough of a set phrase to keep? - -sche (discuss) 20:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Abstain as the creator, with a weak inclination to delete. That's one of my weaker English entries. Per utramque cavernam 18:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete. DonnanZ (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I would be happy to keep the entry but which card to play? We don't say this in Czech, but it can be just a difference in a larger pattern. There is a reference to M-W in the entry, but the lemming vote does not fare well: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-12/Lemming principle into CFI. One might argue that the use of "by" is peculiar; when something is true by one's admission, it means that one admits it is true, not that the means by which it is true is an admission, one's or otherwise. Compare by one's lights. A definition could be as one admits. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

astern of

It is not necessary to have a page for astern of defined as a preposition as astern is an adjective and of is the preposition, and each of those are separately defined. In the usage example on the page ("a wake astern of her") the usage of astern is akin to east in "a mile east of here", and we wouldn't define east of as a preposition with its own page. Mike (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Doesn’t the argument equally apply to ahead of? Also, don’t you mean adverb? In these uses, astern and east are not serving as attributes, so a more likely part-of-speech assignment is that they are adverbs.  --Lambiam 07:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Usage such as following shows that astern fits in the adjective word class:

• 1872, Hunt's Yachting Magazine‎^[12], volume 21, page 288:

  Every yachtsman knows that if the ballast of a ship be too afore or too astern.

• 1883, Lieutenant J. Menteith Brebner, RETURN WRECKS AND CASUALTIES IN INDIAN WATERS‎^[13], page 140:

  The chief engineer's evidence of the S.S. Lennox was the best given; but, as will be seen, he asserted that from the orders he received the Lennox's course was more astern than ahead.

• 1883, Alexander George Findlay, A Sailing Directory for the Ethiopic Or South Atlantic Ocean‎^[14]:

  but when near Cape Palmas the wind will perhaps be more astern

• 1966, Peter Padfield, The Titanic and the Californian‎^[15], page 233:

  The steamer was more than ahead of us, just on our quarter as we say, and the light was more astern.

It appears as a predicate (unlike an adverb) and is gradable (unlike a noun). Other usage shows that in can appear attributively (unlike an adverb) in phrases like astern power/thrust. DCDuring (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not disagree, but observe that all of that equally applies to ahead, which is now classified solely as an adverb:

• 1909, The American Review of Reviews‎^[16], volume 39, page 633:

  Whether in the case of industries other than railroads, the contraction is more ahead than behind, is the question now.

• 1920, J. W. M. Sothern, The Marine Steam Turbine‎^[17], D. Van Nostrand, page 496:

  In this arrangement only two ahead turbines and two astern turbines are fitted, or four in all, the astern turbines being contained in the same casings as the ahead.

And this use of astern looks more adverbial to me:

• 1911, James Connolly, The Magic of the Sea‎^[18], B. Herder, page 511:

  Then on looking astern we saw that the severed parts of the Speedwell were filling with water, the midship ends settling and the men scrambling up on the bow and stern that were cocking up in the air.

 --Lambiam 10:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

When pondering questions of definition and usage, I like to go back to see what others have done previously. My modern (1980s) A.H. collegiate, the 1918 Webster's Collegiate, and the 1910 Webster's New Intl. only refer to ahead as an adverb. The 1914 Century Dictionary defines it as "prep. phr. as adv. or adj." while the 1919 Concise Oxford says it is an adverb and predicate adjective.

In your quote from 1920, ahead is being used attributively, and perhaps in being a nautical sense of the word it is a reflection of how it was historically used. (Compare "two ahead turbines and two astern turbines" vs. "two forward turbines and two backward turbines".) I assume that Wiktionary would include any such historical usage.

Returning to "astern of", I can see how it would be comparable to "ahead of". -Mike (talk) 09:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

kin

Adjective. This doesn't meet the usual tests that would distinguish it from a noun. DCDuring (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless it can be demonstrated that kin in the usex is a clipping of akin then it's a noun. Leasnam (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, delete and probably wouldn't hurt to add a usex at the noun that shows this usage. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. The first four dictionaries that I checked all list an adjective sense, and a couple also include a "kin to" example similar to ours. [19][20][21][22] Mihia (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The use in this sentence, ‘Chopin, “subtle-souled psychologist,” is more kin to Keats than Shelley, he is a greater artist than thinker.’,[23] indicates an adjective.  --Lambiam 21:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

You may be right. However, even in this pattern it could be interpreted as a noun; cf. "She is more mother to him than to her own children". Mihia (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Some faint evidence: The word “mother” is far more common than ”kin” (GBS 183M : 24.7M), yet “more mother to” is less common than “more kin to” (GBS 2,060 : 5,140). The Ngram Viewer gives a nice graphical representation. Expressed in proportions (assuming these counts are right): about 11 in a million uses of “mother” occur in a collocation “more mother to”, whereas about 208 in a million uses of “kin” occur in a collocation “more kin to”.  --Lambiam 09:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right in this case. I guess I was just making a general point that "more" does not inevitably signify an adjective. Mihia (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep - I would interpret such uses (e.g. "He is kin to Frank") as an adjective. It is in Century Dict as an adj, with etymology that says "partly from the noun" and "partly by apheresis from akin". - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA

Some kinda Creative Commons licence, a trendy Internet thing so of course it got an entry here. But is it an abbreviation? Not exactly. Is it a word? Not exactly. It's more like a code, like an accounting system where "34" means "donations". Equinox ◑ 06:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It is categorized as a proper noun. What about uses as in “The operator of an MMC Site may republish an MMC contained in the site under CC-BY-SA on the same site ...”,[24] and “I did not reflect the CC-BY-SA terms on my board for clarity ...”[25]?  --Lambiam 08:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Incoterms are included too though. This is not different in essence. Seems like abbrevations of licenses being around should be included. They are nouns (“license”). Fay Freak (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It's a code of sort, used nominally, and we have kept that kind of thing before (e.g. E100). I guess I lean to a weak keep. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

the 'G'

I'm concerned about the apostrophe in the entry title. --Pious Eterino (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• They are inverted commas, but it could be revised all the same. DonnanZ (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep - very common in Aus slang; freq. spelled with inverted commas, but also spelled the Gee (which is needed). Lemmingly in Blackman (1991), Lambert (2004), Matthews (2006), Wilkes (2008), Miller (2009), Macquarie Dict., etc. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• RFD passed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

CLAF

Doesn't seem to exist. --Pious Eterino (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

A tentative delete, I'm not sure of its significance. It's been here since 2005. DonnanZ (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Some of Oracle’s applications have a feature variously called “Customize Look-and-Feel” or “Custom Look-and-Feel”. This short text (an excerpt from a printed book) manages to use both. I am fairly sure that this is what is meant. Other uses in print: [26], [27]. I’m not convinced that an acronym that is particular to just one company’s applications is worthy of inclusion, though.  --Lambiam 21:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

But this one says "change look and feel", not custom or customize. DonnanZ (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

This appeared in the entry in the beginning, but was removed: "CLAF is an acronym created by Xanga.com to designate a page for changing appearance settings for a specific blog site. CLAF stands for Change Look And Feel." diff I think it can be put out of its misery and deleted. DonnanZ (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I say, Delete. If we think of these software suites as creating a fictional universe – which in a way they do – we have terms here that are only used in reference to that universe.  --Lambiam 22:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep in RFD: existence doubt is for RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

meaning of life

Sounds pretty SOP... Per utramque cavernam 08:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete for the nominator's reason. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - certainly not SOP. --Wonderfool early February 2019 (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    • How so? Saying it doesn't make it so. Per utramque cavernam 17:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. What is the value, purpose, importance, point or significance of life? Or, for short, ...  --Lambiam 15:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep: I am not entirely convinced it is SOP. Moreover, a word-for-word translation does not work well for Czech; it would be význam života but the usual term is smysl života. Starting from Czech smysl života, I would expect sense of life to be the English term, but meaning of life seems more common: sense of life, meaning of life at Google Ngram Viewer, and the search includes such occurrences as "make sense of life", which do not really count. An argument similar to Czech can probably be made for other Slavic languages. Therefore, the entry contains useful translation information, and makes English Wiktionary better, more useful as a multilingual translation dictionary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. Probably SoP but useful as a translation hub. ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

OPDrms

I brought this term to the Tea Room, where it was commented on by Lambian, who seems to agree that this is not a term we want. --Pious Eterino (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree (delete), it is usually styled ORD_rms, which indicates that it is not a set term, merely a common combination of two other terms in a standard construction. - TheDaveRoss 14:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Not only do I seem to agree, I actually do agree that this entry should be deleted.  --Lambiam 22:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• RFD failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

book launch

SOP. Per utramque cavernam 07:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep. As the creator I put some thought into this before entering it. There are various types of product launches, but this has never been defined, and this is perhaps the most common type. Besides that, it is not particularly obvious from the sum of its parts. I could walk down to the riverside in Twickenham and see a launch moored there, which may have a book in it, but that doesn't make it a book launch. DonnanZ (talk) 09:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete - there are non-trivial numbers of usage examples for many types of product launch (n-grams has the generic form product launch as much more common than book launch). The fact that there are multiple definitions of launch and book is not sufficient reason for inclusion. We have the sense of book and launch covered well, and this is not a unique formulation. - TheDaveRoss 13:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

No, you're wrong there, sense 1 of launch (noun, Etymology 1) is very vague. DonnanZ (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I am looking at sense 6 of the verb, my read of book launch is that launch is a deverbal noun. Perhaps it needs its own noun sense, but I could go either way on that one. (edit you are right that the noun sense is way too vague, so much so that sense two is just an instance.) - TheDaveRoss 14:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

As an aside, it took less than 24 hours to generate a reference for boklansering in NAOB. and they don't adopt all of my suggestions. DonnanZ (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete. I don’t see how this is different from app launch, beer launch, smartphone launch and a zillion other product launches. One can also say “the book’s official launch” or “the launch of the book”, underscoring that the term is not idiomatic.  --Lambiam 21:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

"Book launch" is more of a set phrase than those. DonnanZ (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd delete: the "launch" part is no different from a "game launch" (video games) or a film/movie, etc. etc... Maybe we need to improve launch, though. Equinox ◑ 23:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'm afraid you're all slaves of the SoP policy, which stinks to high heaven. I have taken the precaution of making an entry elsewhere, so their gain could be Wiktionary's loss. Under these circumstances I can't be loyal all of the time. DonnanZ (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  Slaves we may be, but of course the line has to be drawn somewhere. Some of us have drawn it a little bit more to the exclusionist end, others to the inclusionist end, but everyone has a line. My guess is that you would opt not to have first book launch, or if you would include that perhaps not my first book launch, or if you would keep that, my first book launch in which I self-published... All of these are describing very specific concepts, but at some point you have to let the rules of grammar take over and require users to take care of construction on their own. I put book launch in that category, but I don't think you are wrong to see it in the other. - TheDaveRoss 13:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• I am sorry to hear I am a slave of a stinking policy :( have you thought about forking the project or Equinox ◑ 14:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

No offence intended to yourself. Wiktionary has imposed itself, perhaps with good intent, with a pernicious policy which I have never liked, which is overzealously applied by some users, particularly the nominator; they should recognise that themselves. I do voluntarily limit myself by the way, but in this case I thought that it is a useful entry. It can be difficult when working from foreign languages, deciding how to treat a foreign word on the English side which doesn't fit in with an "approved" English term, and I often don't bother trying. The "other place" I referred to doesn't have that problem, but it doesn't have detailed entries for each word as happens here, just translations (with disambiguation where necessary). DonnanZ (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

As a user of various dictionaries, SOP entries are annoying because I ask myself "why is this a 'thing'?" and it turns out not to be one. That wouldn't be a problem if they were marked as such. I'm curious what this 'other place' is Vices Theme (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

It is Det Norske Akademis ordbok, an online Norwegian Bokmål dictionary that is a joint venture of the Norwegian Academy and the Norwegian dictionary publisher Kunnskapsforlaget. In Norwegian the situation is different, because (unlike book launch) boklansering is one word, which makes it acceptable for inclusion according to our current criteria.  --Lambiam 21:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I meant another place in a different country. DonnanZ (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

delete I've never seen "book launch" before that I can recall, but I've seen "game launch" before, and the meaning of "book launch" is completely clear. Calling me the slave of a policy doesn't make an argument for keeping this phrase; what alternatives to this policy do we have? Why would we want to keep this entry?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

A negative thinker such as yourself would also want to delete hard launch and soft launch as SoP, but I wouldn't. DonnanZ (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think those are necessarily comparable. You can launch many things, but you can't launch "a hard" or "a soft". bd2412 T 23:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete. But, I have edited the entry for launch, and added a new definition "An event held to celebrate the launch of a ship/vessel, project, a new book, etc." - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

go hard

Good title, but the definition is completely wrong. i.e. "Go hard" means "make a great effort; put into your endeavor your all". PrussianOwl (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

{{Sofixit}}, don't delete the page. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it can mean that, but it does not follow that in some contexts the term cannot mean something else. Before requesting deletion of the disputed sense, the usual procedure is to first issue a request for verification.  --Lambiam 21:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Is that all? It has other meanings. DonnanZ (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the disputed sense is basically an SOP: the verb go as the copula meaning “to become” plus one of the senses of hard. Many things can go hard: “His face went hard”, “his tone went hard”. Or go can be a verb of motion: a racecar driver can “go hard through the bend”. There is also the idiom go hard on (as in, “This is the first poem I ever wrote, so please don't go hard on me.”)  --Lambiam 21:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

And concrete goes hard when it sets. Anyway, I have better things to do, RFDing everything is not one of them. DonnanZ (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree, current definition is non-idiomatic, but the usage in go hard or go home is idiomatic. - TheDaveRoss 13:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Have added def. of most common sense. But agree the "erection" sense is non-idiomatic (so delete).-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

an arm and a leg

Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits#an arm and a leg.

sext-

This doesn't seem like an English suffix, just a morphological element that appears in several borrowed terms. —Rua (mew) 10:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it is either, just an adaptation from Latin in the given words. DonnanZ (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)'

• Keep and fix — (Firstly, it's not a suffix at all, but a prefix.  I digress.)  Sext- is the Latin ordinal prefix for 'sixth.'  The page should be fixed to reflect this.  That said, with the exception of sextus, every word on the page is an English word.  Sextus should be removed from the English section of the page and added to the Latin section (that is, once you go and fix the page to reflect that sext- is also Latin).  allixpeeke (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I still think this "prefix" can be deleted. Latin sextus, which is included, but shouldn't be, is the root; sextuplet comes from sextuple apparently. DonnanZ (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Allixpeeke If it is an English prefix, which English words has it been prefixed to, then? —Rua (mew) 16:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Rua, sextillion is a number in the English language, combining the prefix sext- and the suffix -illion, and sextate is an English word, combining the prefix sext- and the suffix -ate.  allixpeeke (talk) 05:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Sextillion was apparently first coined in French with a Latin root. And the given etymology for sextate says it comes from Latin sextus. The sext- prefix has just been added by Allixpeeke, diff. DonnanZ (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Question 1 — Does being-first-coined-in-French make a word not English?  Does having-a-Latin-root make a word not English?  If the answer to those two questions is yes, that would seem to imply that the word decade should be removed from this category.  I genuinely do not understand what makes sextillion's relationship to sext- different than decade's relationship to deca-.  Please explain, so that I may eschew making errors in my future edits.

Question 2 — If sext- can be objectively said to not be both an English prefix and a Latin prefix, if it can be objectively said to be only a Latin prefix, wouldn't that mean that the appropriate course of action is to edit the page to reflect that it is a Latin prefix.  It appears to me that it only makes sense to delete the page if it is not a prefix at all.  Is that the case?  Is sect- neither an English nor a Latin prefix?

Thanks in advance.  allixpeeke (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

If a word is coined in French and then borrowed in its entirety into English, it cannot be used to support the idea of an English prefix on that word. (If you prepare and cook a dish from French meat and French cheese in France, and then import the whole thing to England to eat it, you can't then meaningfully say it was prepared and cooked in England...) Equinox ◑ 13:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The stem of Latin animus is anim-, found back in words like animal, animate, animism and animosity. That is no reason to declare it a prefix. Precisely the same holds for sext-: it is the stem of Latin sextus found back in some words, but it is not a prefix. Ergo, delete.  --Lambiam 17:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete per proponent and Lambiam. Per utramque cavernam 17:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep Based on my subjective assessment as a native English speaker with a GRE Reading score in the 96th percentile, sext- is a prefix that is used in words that are used in English. I would recommend keeping this page. I consider sext- a prefix in the language that I use. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC) (modified)

Do you also consider anim- a prefix?  --Lambiam 19:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Boasting about your reading score means nothing. You must prove that words were formed in English with this prefix. You don't see scientists saying "I'm cool, therefore the superhadron exists". Equinox ◑ 00:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, except for Feynman, but he can't weigh in here. - TheDaveRoss 13:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Harking back to sextuplet, we have sextuple as derived from sextus, although Oxford says it comes from Medieval Latin sextuplus. But there seems to be confusion amongst some users over words that begin with something which isn't a true prefix. DonnanZ (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I imagine professional lexicographers have an extremely high reading score. Me? I'm just an amateur. DonnanZ (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Pharma Bro

DTLHS (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The term can be attested, and not just as “Internet slang”: [28], [29], [30]. We also have other nicknames (for instance, Woz). What would be the rationale for deletion?  --Lambiam 18:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

lord over

NISoP: lord#Verb + over#Preposition, in contrast to the idiom lord it over.

Among OneLook references only Urban Dictionary has lord over, whereas several have lord it over. DCDuring (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

BTW: Someone should work over [[over]]. DCDuring (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

“lord”, in The Century Dictionary […], New York, N.Y.: The Century Co., 1911, →OCLC. has "to play the lord" as one of the definitions, which would seem to be the right sense to make this NISoP. DCDuring (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

MWOnline has "to act like a lord especially: to put on airs — usually used with it

I haven't found a definition like "brag". But the best shot at that would be the OED. DCDuring (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Is this intended to apply to all senses? If so, keep sense three. Claiming something as evidence of superiority is different from any sense of asserting rulership. bd2412 T 20:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

This was challenged when there was only the first definition. The other two were added when it went to RFV, looking for more idiomatic senses. If we keep the more idiomatic senses, we should probably also keep the first definition, although we should probably mark it as non-idiomatic. Kiwima (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

If this RfD is only directed to one sense (or to the first two senses), then it should be marked RfD-sense in the entry. I have no opinion either way on the other senses. bd2412 T 03:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Opportunity

2001 Mars Odyssey

Do we want this? Per utramque cavernam 22:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

If there isn't an entry for Voyager, why would there be for any of these? -Mike (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete all. Material for Wikipedia. Equinox ◑ 20:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete all. Vast numbers of things like ships, trains and even tunnel-boring machines have names that are used in CFI-compliant sources. I don't see a clear way to include this and exclude all the others. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete all. Encyclopedic. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

normative grammar

SOP. Per utramque cavernam 17:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete. It is just “grammar” + the “prescriptivist” and ”descriptivist” dichotomy: In some contexts one expresses these as “normative” and “descriptive”. Also the article is from wild 2006, so … Fay Freak (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Tham script

SOP: we already have the relevant sense of Tham, so this is just Tham + script. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 21:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, delete SemperBlotto (talk) 06:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

human condition

SOP. Per utramque cavernam 13:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep, I think it is more than the sum of its parts. Similar to human nature (which many others have). There is a little bit of lemming here too (M-W, their definition is pretty bad). - TheDaveRoss 16:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep. Means much more than just human + condition, as reflected in the current definition. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete The definition is not substitutable and looks like a verbose attempt to obscure the SoPitude of the NP: "condition of being human". Compare, for example, urban condition, mammalian condition, authorial condition. DCDuring (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The definition is verbose because it's hard to define. That doesn't mean we should delete it. By that logic, we should delete postmodernism. Those terms you listed are not relevant - they are no where near as commonly used and understood as "human condition" is. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the definition is a verbose way of explaining exactly what the term literally means. I am not sure that this means the entry should be deleted though. Although I am probably not always entirely consistent in my approach, I increasingly feel that the inclusion criteria should be adapted so that these kinds of clear set phrases that "have their own identity" can be included even if they are explicable as the sum of their parts. Mihia (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep - as per Mihia. But needs better definition. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

naked play

NISOP Kiwima (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delete.  --Lambiam 14:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 00:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Per utramque cavernam 15:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

How can this be deleted as NISOP if it doesn't have a definition? If the definition is "a theatrical performance with all nude actors" then sure, delete. If it is not a term then it should be deleted for not being a term (via RFV). If the original definition is accurate (after being modified to be less creepy) then it isn't idiomatic, as the definition would include many non-idiomatic aspects (age seems to matter, as does the sexual nature of the activity, etc.). I would vote to delete the concept from the world, but sadly that is out of the scope of this page. I vote to nullify this vote until a definition is given to vote about. - TheDaveRoss 12:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. The fact that this entry is lacking a definition doesn't strike me as weighing in its favor. The quotation provided indicates a NISOP usage. bd2412 T 04:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

big dumper

It just looks like a "dumper" ("A small one-man diesel-powered vehicle often used to carry loads and material around, often on building sites") that is big. DTLHS (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

It says it's a synonym of dump truck, which I imagine is a large road vehicle rather than a smaller vehicle for moving stuff around building sites. A possible delete, but I honestly don't know. DonnanZ (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Woody Woodpecker

Move to undelete, based on some discussion at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English#Nakke Nakuttaja, the citations page (Citations:Woody Woodpecker) seems to have citations that could make the entry pass WT:FICTION after all. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 15:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Here are the definitions which were in the deleted entry (for those curious, and those who cannot look):

1. An animated series made by Walter Lantz, beginning in 1941 and starring an anthropomorphic acorn woodpecker.
2. The fictional anthropomorphic acorn woodpecker who is the protagonist and title character of the series.

There are also a few translations. - TheDaveRoss 12:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep deleted. Equinox ◑ 00:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Undelete, the Category:en:Fictional characters already contains quite many fictional characters, and Woody Woodpecker is just as notable as some of them. 193.210.225.180 16:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• The test is not the notability of the character, but whether the name is used as a word (i.e. to convey meaning beyond just identifying the character itself). bd2412 T 19:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep deleted. Chignon – Пучок 08:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

rote

Sense: "The process of learning or committing something to memory through mechanical repetition, usually by hearing and repeating aloud, often without full attention to comprehension or thought for the meaning."

But one can also perform, speak, play by rote.

Aren't both the learning and the performing covered by the other definition: "Mechanical routine; a fixed, habitual, repetitive, or mechanical course of procedure."? Usage examples seem better for conveying the collocations with the verbs learn, play, perform, speak.

What gives me pause is the abundant attestation for what seems to me is a pleonasm: rote repetition. DCDuring (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that fundamentally there is only one meaning, and that the current first sense is a special case of the second "mechanical routine" sense. I wouldn't remove the information about committing to memory completely, though, as it is probably the most common use, but I would be inclined to present it as an "especially" sub-case of the general sense. Mihia (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

By the way, we may also want to look at whether the purported adjective sense of "rote" is a true adjective. Mihia (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Most dictionaries give the word in this sense only as a noun, but M-W sees it also as an adjective. A phrase like “her knowledge was not rote” strikes me as weird but is found e.g. here.  --Lambiam 09:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The OED has it as an adjective:- "Occurring in a mechanical and repetitious manner; routine." with a few examples given. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

horse steroid

"Large quadrupeds" as in... horses? DTLHS (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The point seems to be that it may be used on any large quadruped, and therefore the term is not simply self-evident SOP? Mihia (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Most uses in news sources appear to refer to the use on athletic bipeds.  --Lambiam 09:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, appears to be used metaphorically to suggest very strong or high dose steroids that are dangerous but used by body builders, etc., rather than necessarily steroids specifically designed for equines. I searched for "on horse steroids" in Google Books and it seems common enough. (I don't know if humans can actually take horse steroids.) So, should be 2 defs, an SOP one, and a metaphorical one. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Boldenone undecylenate, sold under the trade name Equipoise (after the famous race horse Equipoise, a Thoroughbred), is meant to be used in veterinary medicine on large quadrupeds (whence the choice of trade name) and is accordingly known as a “horse steroid”[31][32][33]; it is even identified as the primary horse steroid, transferring the moniker to other veterinarian-grade steroids. There are many documented cases of doping with Equipoise in sports by athletes: see List of doping cases in sport by substance#Boldenone undecylenate on Wikipedia. It is also the one identified the most in a Google News Search for “horse steroid”, for which almost all results are about athletes getting caught.  --Lambiam 06:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Compare French remède de cheval, Spanish de caballo. Per utramque cavernam 09:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

And also Dutch paardenmiddel. These terms are much older than horse steroid.[34][35] I also found a use from 1715 of the Latin term equinum remedium, which turns out to consist of the use of the dung of a stallion as a remedy against pleurisy. I wonder if perhaps this literal use (not as a remedy for horses but one based on a natural product thereof, to be applied on humans) lies at the root of the metaphorical use.  --Lambiam 12:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

can be able

A cursory Google search for "can be able" didn't yield any results about Indian English, mostly just people commenting how "can be able to do sth." is grammatically correct but obviously redundant semantically. Without a proper source I don't think this entry should be included. Wyverald (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Indeed, a news search found uses by a speaker from Papua New Guinea, by a Somalia-born Canadese minister and by the Korean president of Samsung Electronics, but nothing related to India. GBS yields some uses by Indian authors but many more from others, including native English speakers, going back to at least the 16th century (the trial of John Philpot, quoted as saying, “So that if you can be able to prove that ...”). So that I can be able to support the request.  --Lambiam 09:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

nary a

NISoP. nary + a, synonymous with nary one. One can find nary two and nary three. DCDuring (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

It is strange that nary is classified as an adjective, while each of its listed senses is an adverb.  --Lambiam 20:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

With many a, the strange thing is that the structure is followed by a singular noun (as the article ensures), whereas many is usually followed by a plural, so the creator of the entry presumably sees these are the same or similar. But, I don't think these are comparable structures, despite their superficial similarity, as nary is not always followed by plural. Can't see any reason to necessarily classify "nary a" as a determiner, either. -Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Redirect to nary, I think. Other dictionaries seem to handle it via mention in their entries on "nary", rather than as a separate entry (like some do have for "many a"), and as noted, "nary" can be used with other words; "nary a" also doesn't seem to pass the WT:JIFFY test. - -sche (discuss) 20:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

DDMMYY

This and DDMMYYYY don't seem like lexical units. --Pious Eterino (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the existence of these entries is appalling and amateurish, but see Talk:yy: we are a minority in realising this. Equinox ◑ 03:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Probable keep. Could well be useful to someone. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Per utramque cavernam 15:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Move and redirect to DMY, which is sometimes used to differentiate from MDY dating systems. bd2412 T 17:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete; not words. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete. - TheDaveRoss 22:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

bleeding obvious

+bleedin' obvious. SOP: bleeding (adverb/intensifier meaning "extremely") + obvious. Per utramque cavernam 14:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Strong delete. Very SoP. Equinox ◑ 03:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to keep it. Its meaning is bleeding obvious to Anglophones but foreigners might find it confusing. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't find it confusing, now that I know bleeding can be used as an intensifier. Per utramque cavernam 15:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Foreigners will find anything confusing if they don't do the absolute basic, minimum, single-mouse-click work of looking up the individual words in a phrase. Unless you think they're subhuman and subliterate somehow? Equinox ◑ 02:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete, re Semper's point I would also delete lorry driver or packet of crisps (thanks BBC America!). - TheDaveRoss 12:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Deleting lorry driver would have the knock-on effect of deleting truck driver as a synonym. SoP policy going bonkers - bleedin' obvious. DonnanZ (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

truck driver has truckdriver for Coalmine and Collins for Lemming, so it will probably be OK. - TheDaveRoss 01:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Lorry driver has at least one lemming. Deleting synonyms merely because they are SoP is IMO rather senseless. DonnanZ (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, keeping with this example, one synonym might be "person employed to drive a semi-truck" which would be clearly SOP, despite meaning the same thing. Keeping SOP terms simply because they are synonymous with non-SOP ones is also problematic. Considering the term at issue, I don't see why it is any more worthy of inclusion than extremely obvious, very obvious, totally obvious, completely obvious, blatantly obvious, etc. It is OK that we have different lines for where SOP outweighs other considerations; I don't think you are wrong to draw your line such that bleeding obvious is included, I just happen to draw my line such that it isn't. - TheDaveRoss 12:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I am neutral on this RFD. Ironically the meaning of "bleeding obvious" may be bleeding obvious. DonnanZ (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Moscha

The Latin form of a Russian name. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

What specifically is the argument for deletion? We have an entry for Μόσχα, the Greek form of a Russian name. We also have La Haye, the French form of a Dutch name. And so on.  --Lambiam 15:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Μόσχα is a Greek entry. La Haye is a French entry. This is not a Latin entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It isn't a translation - it is a transliteration using Latin letters. I didn't think we included those. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The transliteration of the Russian name Москва is “Moskva”. I think that the editor has used the wrong L2 and that the entry means to say that the name in the Latin language for Moscow is Moscha. It is indeed one of the forms used, next to Moscua.[36][37][38](pdf) The name is also used in Latin for the Moskva River after which Moscow was named (flumen Moscha or Moscha fluvius). It was very likely borrowed from Greek.  --Lambiam 13:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep, but fix if necessary. I added the inflections for the Latin word Moschus to this page. But I will leave the fixing of the other stuff to someone more knowledgeable. -Mike (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

!vote

No entry, may not exist. Johnny Shiz (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Do nothing: the page already has a {{no entry}} tag on it. That doesn’t need to be deleted. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  Pronounced not-vote (not as for the negation operator ! of C), this is Wikipedia slang, which does not count for attestation purposes. So there is no way this will meet CFI.  --Lambiam 14:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  We don't have any entries for, let's say, abcdise, so does "!vote" really need an article of its own, even a blank one? Johnny Shiz (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  As the template description page of {{no entry}} states, "This template is intended to create placeholders for terms which, while possibly valid, do not meet CFI. This includes things such as people's names, common list words or dictionary-only words, and fictional words." [Emphasis added.] So it is not intended for nonsense terms but for terms which might plausibly be in the dictionary but which editors have decided do not meet the criteria for inclusion. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

race traitor

gender traitor

Aren't these SOP? One could also be google books:"a company traitor", google books:"government traitor", google books:"group traitor" (including "in-group traitor"), etc. - -sche (discuss) 21:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The only non-SOP part that I can see is contextual, that is that they are primarily used by bigots of one stripe or another. This is fairly well implied by the definition, since treason implies opposing sides, but that part isn't clearly SOP. I do think that bigots use these terms, so maybe we want to keep and label/usage note them instead? I am ambivalent. - TheDaveRoss 22:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Leaning keep as to "race traitor" and delete as to "gender traitor". The phrase, "race traitor" appears to have some interesting etymological history. The earliest use I can find is of the similar phrase, "racial traitor", in these cites: Oscar Grow, The Antagonism of Races: Or the Functions of Human Institutions in the Struggle for Existence (1912), p. 49: "Alexander proved to be a racial traitor; he endeavored by immigration to Hellanize his new territorial acquisitions and to that end encouraged his soldiers to take nonHellanic wives; he favored the intermingling of the divergent races of his empire and devoted his energies to the eradication of all racial distinctions"; Charles Willis Thompson, The New Voter: Things He and She Ought to Know about Politics and Citizenship (1918), p. 329: "A man was a racial traitor if he voted the Republican ticket; that was the feeling". The first use I find of "race traitor" is hyphenated: Frederic William Wile, The Assault: Germany Before the Outbreak and England in War-time (1916), p. 187: "Beneath the British Ambassador's car-windows, I was told, some one had chalked a John Bull drooping ignominiously from the gallows, with “Race-Traitor” for an epitaph!" It seems like "race traitor" may have originated as an abbreviated form of "racial traitor". This Ngram paints a surprising picture of their relative development. bd2412 T 01:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The fact that you're being a traitor to your own race (and not some other where you perhaps have a stake or are trusted) might not be obvious. Equinox ◑ 07:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Isn't that just part of treason? I wouldn't call Klaus Fuchs a traitor to the US, but maybe a traitor to the UK whose citizenship he took. And race isn't malleable in the same way that citizenship is. Traitor implies a level of connection to a group that, when that group is defined (pseudo-)biologically, can't be achieved except by birth.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The set of things that earn the sobriquet with respect to race seems much broader than those for political treason. bd2412 T 21:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about that... on one hand, yes, racists are quick to call a lot of things "treason" to the race, or to call someone a "traitor to their race" or a "race traitor" or any of a number of other such phrases. OTOH, political hacks call people traitors a lot, too. Googling "Obama a traitor (because|for)", some things I see that Obama was called a traitor for include meeting Cuban leaders, letting BP help clean up their oil spill, signing executive orders (both specific ones and the general practice of them), decrying a speech Ahmadinejad gave, ordering an atypical mustard on his food, passing a healthcare law, and accepting the Presidency. In general people who use terms as insults often use them broadly. (Btw, I also don't see how the phrase possibly being preceded by a longer phrase like "racial traitor" would have any bearing on its idiomaticity or entry-worthiness. I mean, "trans rights" is a shortening of "transgender rights" / "transsexual rights" but I don't think it's any more or less idiomatic because of that.) - -sche (discuss) 00:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Remark. Until recently, class traitor was far more common than race traitor. Wikipedia has both Class traitor and Race traitor.  --Lambiam 19:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I can wait

Er, sum of parts really isn't it? Equinox ◑ 07:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete. @PseudoSkull —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Chignon – Пучок 13:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Sum of parts. Not lexical. Not dictionary material. ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

armchair linguist

Also armchair general, armchair generals, armchair hawk, armchair hawks, armchair linguistics.
Armchair already has the appropriate sense, and there are myriad professions which equally accept the adjective. This is distinct from Monday morning quarterback since armchair is generic to all (public, decision making) professions while Monday morning applies only to Football (and perhaps preaching). - TheDaveRoss 13:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Isn't armchair general the basis for that figurative use of armchair? If yes I think that one should be kept. The others can go. Chignon – Пучок 13:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Good question, this n-grams search has armchair critic arising earlier, but that doesn't prove the case. Here is a cite from 1888 for armchair critic, the earliest I see for armchair general is in the WWI era. - TheDaveRoss 13:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete, SoP. Equinox ◑ 13:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Special:WhatLinksHere/Rep.

Rep. of Iraq, Rep. of Korea, Rep. of Nicaragua, and so on… the meanings are probably obvious enough. I guess that the entries might still work as redirects but I’m fine with somebody deleting them. — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 16:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Should it be in RFDO? DonnanZ (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

"Special:WhatLinksHere" is just a way of linking to the entries considered for deletion, not something to be deleted itself. Besides, it's a feature of the system, so it couldn't be deleted, anyway. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see. In that case, perhaps they should be individual RFDs. DonnanZ (talk) 13:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

There are 30 such entries. Deleting some and leaving some others does not make much sense. Either we delete all, or we keep all.  --Lambiam 18:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

armchair

A modifier, not an adjective. Should be moved to the noun. DonnanZ (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree this is not an adjective but a figurative sense of the noun. But the listed senses are adjectival, so they cannot be simply moved without adjustment. It seems a bit of a puzzle how to phrase a nominal figurative sense.  --Lambiam 18:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Lambiam: See another case at Talk:blanket (and yet another at Talk:cookie-cutter, although there it's further down the road of adjectivization).

@Donnanz, I think you're being inconsistent: why would you want to keep the figurative use of blanket in an adjective section, and not do the same for armchair? Chignon – Пучок 19:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately some dictionaries do treat it as an adjective, e.g. Merriam-Webster, Collins, so I am withdrawing the RFD, even though I don't necessarily agree. This is still a horribly grey area though. DonnanZ (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)