Wiktionary:Requests for deletion

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Archived revision by Msh210 (talk | contribs) as of 20:34, 3 June 2009.
Jump to: navigation, search
Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup
add new | history | archives

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for deletion
add new | history | archives

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

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/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

{{rfdate}} - {{rfd-redundant}} - {{rfdef}} - {{rfe}} - {{rfex}} - {{rfap}} - {{rfp}} - {{rfi}} -

All Wiktionary: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5
This is for pages in the main namespace. For all other pages, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others.

This page is where users can propose and discuss the deletion of pages in the main namespace (see the nomination category). Requests are archived when a decision has been reached (be it deleted, kept, or transwikied); the deleting administrator should remember to sign.

  • Terms that failed a request for verification are presumed invalid. They should not be resubmitted as the same term without adequate verification (see verification archives) and do not need duplicate listings here.
  • Terms should be listed on Requests for verification if their attestation is being called into question.
  • Section title should be exactly the wikified entry title, only. The entry should have the tag {{rfd}} at the top.
  • Very blatantly obvious candidates for deletion should only be tagged with {{delete|Reason for deletion}} and not listed (here, nor elsewhere).
  • 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 (not necessarily an administrator) may act on the discussion.

Good nomination guidelines - Page deletion guidelines - Overview of the deletion process - List of deletion templates, categories, etc.
Start a new deletion nomination
Oldest tagged {{rfd}}s
No pages meet these criteria.


February 2008


Defined solely in terms of a redlink "The state or quality of being akenned." Akenned has 474 raw googles, but they seem to be proper nouns and email addresses. Akennedness has 5 raw googles (one of them us). RJFJR 18:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

uh, wait. Middle English dict. shows akenned. But that doesn't support akennedness. RJFJR 18:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be OE: on cristes akenned-nysse daege from Aelfric's Lives of the Saints] DCDuring TALK 18:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It's OK. You can debate about whether it's English or Middle English, but it's definitely a word. I've now added akenned and aken. Ƿidsiþ 07:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Move to RfV. DCDuring TALK 10:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted as failed RFV - 16 months is adequate time to find citations, which haven't been found. --Jackofclubs 12:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


Two identical senses?—msh210 20:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, stone is at least a specific subset of "to throw stones at" (at least within biblical references, the only place I've ever experienced the verb "stone"). I would switch "sometimes" to "generally." Past, that I'm happy with the entry as it stands (although it wouldn't be the end of the world if the two senses were merged, as they're obviously closely related). Atelaes 21:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
If stone only sometimes is to death (which is what you must say if you want to change "sometimes" to "generally", or, for that matter, if you want to keep the "sometimes"), then how does stone differ in meaning from throw stones at? To me they're completely synonymous, which is why I said these are identical senses. Is there some difference between them of which I'm unaware? (I.e., what "specific subset" is it?) (Note we have s.v. stone "to pelt with stones, esp. to kill by pelting with stones", which agrees with the entry lapidate and with my understanding.)msh210 21:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
If I had to pick one sense I would pick one that included the idea of stoning to death, partially because "lapidation" is topical in connection with the use of lapidation as punishment in some cultures currently. DCDuring TALK 21:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I have edited his and provided a single real quotation for each of three non-redundant senses. Please inspect. Feel free to edit or RfV or otherwise edit. DCDuring TALK 11:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Merge 1 & 2. These fail the lemming test: although MW3 and the OED both acknowledge that this can mean either "stone to death" or just "throw stones at", they both confine it to a single sense. Some lapidations are more thorough than others, but that isn't enough to justify two separate senses. -- Visviva 12:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a legal context? DCDuring TALK 12:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
If it is used with the specific legal meaning of "stone to death as punishment" then definitely that would merit a separate sense. But I don't think the current journalistic cite is enough to support that. Are the Sharia-based northern Nigerian legal codes written in English, and do they use this term? (At least in Zamfara state, the technical term seems to be "rajm" and the general term "stoning".) Or are there other current or historical English-language legal codes that use it? -- Visviva 16:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


rfd-sense: (psychology) "a recurring psychosocial issue that stimulates growth and development in the personality"

not in 2 psych dictionaries in this sense, incl APA 2006, contibutor cites one author in edit summary. DCDuring TALK 15:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
A section about Arthur Chickering from Professional Orientation to Counseling may shed some light on this use of the word "vector". It still sounds to me like an application of a generic term for a specific purpose that may not be widely recognized as a new connotation, but I'm not a psychologist (nor do I play one on TV). Interestingly, I hadn't read the edit summary of the addition of this sense before I checked, so the fact that my quick search yielded the same Chickering weakly reinforces the idea that this is a very uncommon connotation, maybe only in use by a single professional. Broader evidence is certainly called for. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


Do we want to actively delete these or leave them be if someone wants to create them? Conrad.Irwin 13:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I want to actively delete them. (I might be more O.K. with them if they were more accurate, though. "Genitive singular form" is misleading on three counts: this isn't really a "genitive"; it's a "singular" only in that everybody is a syntactically singular pronoun, which hardly seems relevant to everybody's, since syntactically it doesn't have a number, and it's not like there's a genitive plural it needs to be distinguished from; and it's not really a "form". And our POS header, "noun", is flat-out wrong: everybody is a pronoun, so there's no way everybody's is a noun.) —RuakhTALK 02:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
There's a reason the vote was for noun plurals only - to keep entries like this. Move to RFC. Keep. --Connel MacKenzie 04:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what vote you're referring to, but the vote I remember did forbid entries like this. It explicitly made exception for "the irregularly-formed possessive forms of pronouns", and there seems to have been general agreement that the personal pronoun one's would probably be O.K., or at least was a special case to be considered independently; but I see no suggestion that the vote only cover nouns. —RuakhTALK 03:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Ruakh. The vote clearly only allows for irregular pronominal possessive forms, such as whose and its. While I don't know how I would have voted, had I been around for this vote, its mandate is fairly clear. Delete -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
To quote Ruakh: "(I'd actually prefer that there also be an exception for one's, which is the only personal pronoun that we use the apostrophe in, but whatever. This way is quite fine.)". The only one, eh? Really? Not that it is my place to protest deletion: this is not my mother tongue. However, Dutch does have: ieder - ieders (everybody - everybody's) and imho ieders deserves a lemma. What translation should I give [[everybody|everybody's]]?
Jcwf 04:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
We do not create English entries simply to provide a translation substrate. I would probably do everybody's. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe that when there is enough reason to we should, even for entries like father/mother's brother which could be linked in place of a translation of uncle in certain languages. It would not surprise me if several languages necessitated this for all possessives of pronouns. Therefore weak keep as a phrasebook entry. DAVilla 10:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The only one, yes. (In Standard English, at least. Certainly "it's" is a very common misspelling of "its".) I don't speak Dutch, but on the face of it, yes, [[everybody|everybody's]] looks like quite a reasonable translation, as does [[everybody]][['s]] [edit:] or, as Atelaes suggests, [[everybody]]'s. (From what I gather, the genitive in Dutch is mostly archaic except with pronouns like ieder. If this is correct, then I agree with your opinion that ieders deserves a full entry.) —RuakhTALK 04:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, genitives are mostly archaic and in fact less common than the English possessive. They are mostly limited to persons: Jan->Jans etc. Pronouns are a bit of an exception like wiens, wier, ieders, niemands, but then there is a whole bunch of adverbs that derive from genitives. I still don't understand your 'the only one' argument: i.e. I fail to see the difference between everybody's, one's, somebody's and anybody's.

Jcwf 04:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete. The vote Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-07/exclusion of possessive case definitely disallows this entry (The proposed exclusion of entries for Modern English possessive case forms of words formed by the addition of the enclitic ’s or its postsibilant form). As for the translations, that's for the foreign-language Wiktionaries to discuss. --Jackofclubs 18:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
That was a contentious vote at first, and there were at least three people in support of the vote who still had trouble with the wording, making exceptions specifically for prepositions. Keep on the this-ain't-a-slippery-slope-so-what's-the-big-deal-about-it-anyways-yous-guys principle I just made up. DAVilla 05:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

March 2008


A bunch of interspersed redundant senses. --22:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm presuming that you are wanting to merge the following noun senses:
  • "A round piece of metal put around a bird's leg used for identification and studies of migration." (3) with "A circumscribing object (looking like an annual ring, earring, finger ring, etc.)" (1).
  • "A circular arena where circus acts take place, a circus ring." (5) with "A place where some sports take place; as, a boxing ring." (4)
If so, I can see what you mean about 4 and 5, although the definition of 4 would need to be modified slightly to note that it isn't just sports that take place in that sort of ring.
I disagree that the specific bird ring sense is redundant to the general circumscribing object one though. A ring around a birds leg is used to uniquely identify that bird for various reasons, this is not true of any other sort of ring that I can think of.
Regarding the verb senses, I disagree that any of them can be merged. Thryduulf 23:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't see the verb senses being combined in any way. But both should be expanded a bit.--Dmol 23:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that deleting senses usually laughable for us in a common polysemic word like this. For ety 1, MW3 has 28 senses for the noun + 14 subsenses, 10 + 2 for the verb. For ety 2, noun 6 + 2, 14 + 4 for the verb; for a grand total of 80 senses. It seems as if we should figure out how to make sure we have all the main senses covered and context-labelled, and grouped and sequenced so they provide mutual support. DCDuring TALK 00:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
A boxing ring is not always circular; to quote w:Boxing ring, "A boxing ring is the space in which a boxing match occurs. A modern ring, which is set on a raised platform, is square with a post at each corner to which four parallel rows of ropes are attached with a turnbuckle." On the other hand I believe that circus rings are generally circular, or at least round, in shape. -- Visviva 06:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Bird rings are not always round pieces of metal. Their main purpose is to identify, not to be round. -- Algrif 16:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't they always sit around something, though?—msh210 18:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
They usually do, but they can come off and are still rings. I presume (but don't know) that before they are applied to a bird they are neither ring-shaped nor enclosing anything. Although it is possible they have a different name before they're applied, my guess is that this is not the case. Thryduulf 19:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe the bird sense is also specifically UK, as indicated by the Wikipedia article. At least, in the US I have always heard these referred to as "bands." -- Visviva 04:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
That's evidence enough for me for a UK tag. Thryduulf 13:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Kept bird ring sense - no strong views to delete - looks more than warranting of its own definition. --Jackofclubs 12:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


Sense 5 seems to be just a special case of sense 3, but I don't speak Welsh, so I cannot judge accurately. Dbfirs 23:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think they mean proselytizing or proselytising ? DCDuring TALK 23:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I think they're distinct. I read sense 3 as being a character trait epitomised by non-conformist preachers, whereas sense 5 is the name of a method of prosthletising employed by preachers (who may or may not be non-conformist). Only senses 2 (fun) and 4 (sail) are listed in my (basic) English-Welsh dictionary so I am not sure. Thryduulf 23:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps this will shed some light on it. I didn't realize that all five senses were in some way part of the same meaning. Another meaning seems to be personal "state", although that might be an abstraction of mood. GTTR. DCDuring TALK 01:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately I can't see a preview of that book (it is not unknown for different regions to see or not see different works on bgc), so I can't say one way or another. Thryduulf 01:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't see the book either, but I accept the shade of meaning, so I've removed the rfd and corrected the spelling (which is what brought me to the entry in the first place). Thanks. Dbfirs 21:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I am distressed that the two of you can't use the link. Any thoughts on why? Browser related? Does this problem arise in entries? I thought that I could paste a link and thereby provide all the context anyone would need for our more stringent attestation test. If I can't, ..... DCDuring TALK 01:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
From past experience of this (sometime last year), it is almost certainly a region thing. Dbfirs and I are both in the UK, whereas I believe you are in the USA or Canada. The most likely explanation for the difference is Google being cautious over copyright issues. Thryduulf 01:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

‘Writers very often mystify matters by using words that are not intelligible to their readers. Some with the air of classical knowledge will tell us that “hwyl” is an “affiatus;” and a good many readers will ask, “What is an affiatus?” They may as well aver that “hwyl” is a kind of atmospheric disturbance cause by windmills. It is mere rhetorical enthusiasm. It is a nautical metaphor. “Hwyl” is a “sail;” and when the Welsh say that a man is in a good “hwyl,” they mean that he is moving along or enjoying himself immensely, navigating gloriously on a sea of good feeling. When a man enters into a discussion of a subject enthusiastically, he is said to be “sailing” into it, which is exactly the Welsh idea of “hwyl.” It is somewhat akin to spread-eagleism in politics. The Welsh word “hwyl” is used  generally in a good and, par excellence, in a religious sense. There is, however, one peculiar characteristic of this hwyl which is especially Welsh. This is the peculiar cadences of the Welsh preacher when he is on the high sea of inspiration, when in a grand breeze and with all sails spread, he moves majestically to the goal of his sermon.’ —RuakhTALK 02:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

en zo voorts

For correct spelling see: here Jcwf 23:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

But there's plenty on Google Books, especially older texts. Is it an older form, as with "et cetera" being now more commonly "etcetera" in English? Equinox 21:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

April 2008


"Front of a queue" sense. Isn't this just the "foremost part" sense? Does anyone ever say "you can go to the head" when they mean "you can go to the head of the line"? -- Visviva 07:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"At the head of the queue" and "go to the head of the queue" are the most common formulations, "come to the head of the queue" is rarer. When the context is firmly established as being the position in a queue, you could say "You can go to the head" or "I'm at the head", but in both cases I would use either the word "front" instead of "head" or include the word "queue". In other words, delete sense. Thryduulf 11:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Can we look at some of the other senses, too, and the rfc, while we're at it? These multi-sense words are killers. Grouping can help a bit. Some of the entries with contexts are closely associated with a more generic sense, more figurative with more concrete (e.g. pus/crisis).
  1. 2nd sense "any round object". A ball or sphere is not automatically a head.
  2. The sense for hammer/axe head is worded to include striking tools so the business end of a lacrosse stick needs to mentioned separately and other non-striking tools and other implements that have parts called heads that are not included.
  3. It doesn't seem to have a good sense for head of lettuce, cauliflower, etc.
  4. The sense for nail doesn't seem to include screw.
  5. Anyone who is willing to take this on should go to the head of the class. DCDuring TALK 01:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
1. No, but many round masses are called heads. I have replaced "any" with "a"; is that sufficient?
2. I'm not really familiar with lacrosse terminology, but my understanding is that the rationale for this is similar to the rationale for the guitar sense; it refers to not to the business/top/working end of the stick, but to a very specific part of the stick. As for other tools, I'm sure it's true, but examples would be helpful. Some, like "head of a rake," might be covered by the principal-operating-part sense; or the striking-tool sense might need to be reworded to encompass all hand tools.
3. I guess it depends on whether a seed/flower head and a lettuce head are basically the same thing. My first inclination when reorganizing the defs was actually to put the lettuce example under sense 2; i.e. a head-shaped lump of lettuce, not a capitulum of lettuce -- but other dictionaries seem to disagree.
4. Huh? Why not? The definition mentions screws, and people talk about the heads of screws all the time.
6. I'd be surprised if the pustulent-abscess and crisis senses have any connection; it seems more likely that it is derived from the tendency for the head of the abscess to become round and swollen with pus. -- Visviva 08:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm so sorry. I hadn't looked at the edit history. Wow! This is so much improved that I feel like I'm just quibbling, but quibble we must:
  1. I'm not so sure that a round mass not connected to something to make a non-round whole would be said to have a head. The comet usage example is an illustration. Maybe it just has to say "part" in the def.
  2. Too bad "business end" is too idiomatic for defining vocabulary. It seems almost a synonym for some of the senses of head.
    1. The ball-carrying part of a lacrosse stick is the business end. The stick is used (within the rules) for carrying the ball and for holding it while throwing it.
    2. Not just hand tools, but power tools, including industrial ones, also often have heads.
    3. MW3 has 11 subsenses for the sense closest to this (75+ subsenses for "head" as a whole).
  3. I had never known the word capitulum; MW3 uses it as a subsense for an undefined sense, the other half of which is the head-of-lettuce sense.
  4. I think I need another monitor so I can see what I'm writing about while I'm writing. I seem to misrember things. (ie, screw/nail). Huh, indeed.
  5. You are the usage example for head of the class.
  6. I recently got that crisis/abscess relationship from some non-authoritative, but credible source (Crystal or Pinker, I think). They didn't offer any support for the assertion. It seemed to give me a litte aha moment.
  7. Is a well-head ever referred to as the head of a well?
Having a long, single-level list of senses made me use my printer to try to hand-make a hierarchy. A two-level (even three-level hierarchy, as in my MW3) is a little bit of a help in grouping somewhat related definitions. Why is that not done here? The use of "#" allows it technically. DCDuring TALK 11:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
7. Seems so. [1] But this is arguably covered by the "topmost part" sense. -- Visviva 12:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should move this discussion back to RfC. Regarding subsenses, I was thinking about the same thing and put together one possible mockup at User:Visviva/head. I agree that this leads to much improved readability, but a) MediaWiki's handling of ## seems less than ideal (it's confusing to have multiple "sense 2's"), and b) if this were going to be implemented on more than an experimental basis, it would require thorough community discussion and a revision of WT:ELE, particularly since some additional fiddling with indentation rules is required. -- Visviva 12:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
RfC seems like the right forum. I'm going to collect prior discussions about subsenses and put the links on a user page somewhere. DCDuring TALK 13:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding MediaWiki's handling of ##, it would be ideal to have senses labelled as 6, 6.1, 6.2, 7, etc. I would assume that doing this will require a mod by a developer to allow this behaviour to be set on a per-project basis rather than being js or css hackable?
If it does require a developer mod, then we will need to show overwhelming support to have any hope of anything being done this side of 2012. Where do we have the discussion about this? Thryduulf 16:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually it is CSS-hackable; MediaWiki just generates <ol> and <li> tags for the list and leaves the rest to the browser. Not sure how feasible it is to have one level numeric and one level alphabetic (which IMO would be ideal), but there must be a way. -- Visviva 00:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The options described at http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/generate.html#propdef-list-style-type are supported by most halfway-modern browsers (though IIRC not IE 6); something like ol > li > ol { list-style-type: lower-alpha; } would do what you describe (as would just ol ol { list-style-type: lower-alpha; }; the former would only affect ordered-lists that are immediate children of ordered-list elements, while the latter would affect any ordered-list that's a descendant of another). I have no thoughts how to do what Thryduulf describes, barring JavaScript that finds them, sets their list-style-type to none, and inserts the right pattern at the beginning of their content — though that would have the down-side of moving the list markers inside the list. To keep the list markers outside the list and do this would be even more complicated. All told, a great thought, but probably not worth it. —RuakhTALK 00:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
What I currently have here seems to implement Thryduulf's suggestion fairly well, at least on FF/Windows; however, it may cause undesirable effects with other types of lists. -- Visviva 04:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wow. One of these days I should re-read the CSS 2.1 spec; I had so completely forgotten that those properties even existed, to the extent that they don't even look familiar! At least, I should re-read it before the next time I decide something is impossible. :-P   Anyway, good work. :-)   Something like this would be even better:

ol { counter-reset: subitem }
ol > li { counter-increment: subitem }
ol ol > li { display: block }
ol ol > li:before { content: counters(subitem, ".") ". " }

since for the top-level it would retain the benefits of actual list style (e.g. the ability to have list-style-position be outside, as it is by default; we can halfway-simulate this with something like ol > li { text-indent: -1.5em }, and maybe we should do so for the nested lists if no one can think of a better way, but for the outer list there's no need).

RuakhTALK 11:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
This would have to go to BP and Vote, I'm pretty sure. There has, unsurprisingly, been discussion of this: Wiktionary:Beer_parlour_archive/2007/May#subdividing_definitions and Talk:quaint, for example. There are probably other discussions, but I'd rather someone selected a good one that they were involved in rather than me trying to determine the quality and import of something I wasn't involved in. It's worth a review of the prior discussion before we reopen it to see if the issue looks different this time. There also might be something else we could do that was less dramatic to improve the definitions for long, basic, highly polysemic words. We seem to be a little light on guidelines, let alone policy, in this area. There are a few examples of subsenses for particular words. Widsith has been a reasoned advocate of subsenses. Most of the ongoing head additional-sense discussion is back at rfc. DCDuring TALK 17:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


This does not appear in my Classical dictionaries, but that does not mean it isn't a word in New Latin. The problem is that many of the 206 Google cites (linked on the page) are dubious. One of the cites I looked at was otherwise in German, with tincidunt in the middle of it. Many others I looked at seem to be books about software packages, but written in Latin!? I am very confused by all this. Do we have a neologism here? A protologism? Or soomething else? --EncycloPetey 15:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  • This is not in my Latin dictionary either - and I can't even figure out what verb is might be a form of. SemperBlotto 16:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Every bgc result (IINM) is in a lorem ipsum. (There must be some software used by all these authors that generates a lorem ipsum including the word tincidunt.)—msh210 19:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • So do we delete this, or keep it, since so many books have it, but with a note that it's not a word and has no meaning?—msh210 16:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm don't think it meets the current CFI, except perhaps for the “general rule” that “A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means.”link Indeed, that seems to be the reason this entry was created: an anonymous editor found it in lorem-ipsum text generated by a certain lorem-ipsum–generating Web site, and despite knowing the purpose of the site, seemed to believe that it was a real word (which does make sense, seeing as the original lorem ipsum was a corrupted version of an actual Latin text, and one might well expect words in lorem-ipsum text to be real Latin words). So, move to RFD and ponder the nature of meaning. :-) —RuakhTALK 23:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Preceding is from RFV. Please continue discussion here.msh210 21:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. to be nice to users who might not be familiar with lorem ipsum, as Ruakh suggested. DCDuring TALK 14:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    There is at least one other way of being nice, so I take back my keep vote until the finessing more-or-less within-the-rules approach suggested below is evaluated. DCDuring TALK 11:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep, as it is used and someone may want to find out what it means (or in this case refers to). sewnmouthsecret 15:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments. (1) It's obviously meant to look like Latin (especially considering the text always found around it). But it's not Latin. If we keep this, what language header do we use? (2) and what part of speech? (3) I suspect that there are many other terms in tincidunt's class: non-words that are frequently found in lorem-ipsum text. If we keep this, presumably we'll keep all such.—msh210 22:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    The lorem ipsum entry calls "lorem ipsum" an English noun. It does not have any attestation.
    Perhaps we could finesse the problem. Perhaps we could include "text" including "tincidunt" (not now present in the entry) in the "lorem ipsum" article. That way at least the search engine would lead a user to a place that gave an explanation. (BTW, it would be nice if we could also find at least one real usage example for "lorem ipsum" as a noun. It would also be nice if we had some discussion there about the term on its talk page.) DCDuring TALK 00:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    I have found a few cites of "lorem ipsum" being used as a noun for attestation. I have also found a short nonsense quote in which it is used with "tincidunt", which I have inserted in the lorem ipsum entry. Once the article gets re-indexed, it should direct search to that entry as well as "tincidunt". That would make our decisions about "tincidunt" and the precedent it might set a little easier. DCDuring TALK 01:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    A search for "tincidunt" would find the cited noun entry "lorem ipsum", which is used in English. DCDuring TALK 11:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    I would have thought one of the key points of lorem ipsum is that it is ==Translingual== . -- Visviva 15:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    I wouldn't object to such altering of lorem ipsum. I was just interested in whether we could stick to the form of our practice about PoS and citation, preferably both for lorem ipsum and tincidunt. We seem to be able to do it for lorem ipsum under one of English or Translingual header. I see how by finesse to include in search "tincidunt" and many other frequently occuring pseudo-words without having to have new entries for them, but I don't see how they can be entries under our existing rules. Nor do I particularly want to if search would take a user to an informative lrem ipsum entry. DCDuring TALK 15:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    Well, I think that "lorem ipsum" itself is probably a valid English term, but that the words (or word-like objects) which occur in lorem ipsum passages are best regarded as translingual. IMO the same arguments that apply to having entries for nonsense Hangul sylables that have never been used to convey meaning -- which the community recently decided was desirable -- would apply at least as strongly to lorem ipsum words, which at least are used for some purpose. Given the structure of Wiktionary, I would say that if we are going to cover such words in mainspace, they should each be given their own entry. If not, they could simply be listed in Appendix:Lorem ipsum. -- Visviva 09:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    An appendix is only useful if you know what you are looking for or at least realize that are appendices to search. It's one drawback to citation space. There are many more users who don't know than who do. DCDuring TALK 11:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    Fixed formatting slightly (my goof). Fair enough, but if these are worthy of mainspace inclusion -- and they certainly do provide some user value, if only to let the user know that this is not a real word -- I think they really do need their own individual entries. -- Visviva 14:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't, because they're never used as words. They're nonsense text that appear in a single, specific (albeit widely circulated) "text". The text is in pseudo-Latin, which is not a language and has no ISO code. The individual "words" are never used in Latin nor in any other language I know of. --EncycloPetey 15:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    I don't see how that would make them any worse than random Hangul syllables which are never used to convey meaning, but which the community unanimously decided were desirable because someone might want to know that they are not words (or something like that). At least there is plausible reason to think that someone might actually imagine that tincidunt (et al.) are words, and need to be disabused of the notion. -- Visviva 10:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    The differences are: (1) Hangul syllables are used to assemble words. So, just as we have entries for the letters of the Roman alphabet, we have entries for Hangul syllables. (2) Hangul syllables have a language header; tincidunt does not because it is not used in any language. --EncycloPetey 18:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    Good point, EncycloPetey (15:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)). All the cites are from the same widely distributed lorem ipsum. So they're not independent, right?—msh210 18:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

tío materno

Sum of parts. Spanish, like English, has no word especially for maternal or paternal relatives. Dmcdevit·t 05:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete, I guess, except that it seems silly to delete it as long as we still have maternal uncle. —RuakhTALK 12:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

tío paterno

Sum of parts. Spanish, like English, has no word especially for maternal or paternal relatives. Dmcdevit·t 05:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

How else would you know that it doesn’t simply mean a "fatherly uncle"? —Stephen 20:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

abuelo paterno

Sum of parts. Spanish, like English, has no word especially for maternal or paternal relatives. Dmcdevit·t 05:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

maternal uncle

Sum of parts: useful only as a place to hang translations. (Unlike some editors, I'm not thoroughly opposed to having such a place in cases like this where a lot of languages make this distinction; but if we're going to do that, the entry should be structured so as to make that clear, and it should only include the translations that rightfully hang there. A lot of the translations we currently list are either catch-all words for "uncle", or equally-SOP translations.) —RuakhTALK 12:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it really sum of parts? A genealogically naive user might assume it means "mother's uncle." -- Visviva 13:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Or a matronly uncle. —Stephen 13:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Not sum of parts. No combination of maternal or uncle will define the term without ambiguity.--Dmol 14:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Necessary, and desirable, in English. Translations which are SOP should have their component words wikilinked separately. Widsith 20:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

So, question: would y'all argue that since maternal brother isn't already taken as a genealogical term, it might indeed indicate a mother's brother, or to a motherly brother? It's true that maternal has multiple senses, but I believe that maternal <relative> has only one, and various examples of this fact are all SOP. —RuakhTALK 03:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I would say that "maternal brother" can only mean a brother who is quite motherly. At any rate, it is pretty confusing to interpret it any other way. More to the point, it is an almost non-existant phrase, whereas maternal uncle is a very common collocation, and furthermore is idiomatic in the sense that this is the most natural way to express the concept in English. Widsith 05:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, all the b.g.c. hits I can find for "maternal brother" use it to mean "brother with whom ego shares a mother" only... however, a web search for "maternal brother"+"mother's brother" turns up a number of sites which appear to treat these phrases as synonymous. (For example, on a professor's course-notes website, "He notes in European stories the maternal brother is good and the father's brother is evil." [2]) This does seem to indicate that "maternal" can be polysemous even when applied to relatives, at least when the author is not paying strict attention. Personally, if I encountered "maternal brother" out of context, I wouldn't be sure which way to interpret it, if only because the notion of distinguishing siblings by shared parent is rather foreign to me. -- Visviva 06:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, good point. You could obviously have a maternal brother and a step-brother. Widsith 06:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
So if I may paraphrase: there's a strong tendency to interpret maternal uncle as "uncle on one's mother's side", just as there's a strong tendency toward that interpretation of maternal <relative> in all other cases. (Is that fair to say?) That doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement of the term's non-SOP-ness. —RuakhTALK 21:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete. --Bequw¢τ 23:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep. IMO reasonable doubt exists as to compositionality, and the value of this and related terms as translation-hangers adds some weight in favor of keeping. -- Visviva 14:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Not sum of parts. very useful for translations and linguistic analysis. --Diligent 05:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep as a family term. Interestingly, a maternal uncle can have special status in some placs, see s:On the function of the maternal uncle in Torres Straits. --Jackofclubs 16:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Harry Potter terms

I presume all the other wonderful Harry Potter coinages/meanings abide by the same policy?

And probably a few others. For some of them RfD/RfV has already been placed. --Ivan Štambuk 13:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

From an above discussion, these should all be looked into and decided upon individually, most can be deleted without prejudice. - [The]DaveRoss 23:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but save sieppi. I have already deleted Harry Potter -sense, but the word has other meanings in Finnish. Hekaheka 20:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
מחפש (m'khapés, seeker) is not just a Harry Potter term; it should be fixed rather than deleted. —RuakhTALK 03:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
quidditch is now a real sport. That will pass RFV or RFD. I imagine Muggle would pass, as well. sewnmouthsecret 20:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course these terms shouldn't be deleted outright if they aren't just HP terms. - [The]DaveRoss 21:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

May 2008


Characterized as a suffix. It is not. It is a "combining form", which we do not normally allow as an entry AFAIK. DCDuring TALK 18:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete Actually, this is not a combining form nor a suffix (at least in the examples cited). This is simply a Latin verb (scrībō) which is the etymon of a number of English words. Unless someone can find some words which are the result of an English suffix "-scribe" this really needs to go. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
If it were a combining form, would we keep it? Are you suggesting that this should be an RfV? DCDuring TALK 21:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep. This combining form has meaning to English speakers; just about every combination-word that I thought to Google, including omniscribe and retroscribe and angloscribe, had hits. I couldn't find any that seem to meet CFI; but they suggest to me that -scribe itself might be worth including. (Of course, it would need to be fixed — firstly, to change "suffix" to "combining form", per DCDuring, and secondly, to make clear that the terms in the "Related terms" are just that, and not derived terms, per Atelaes, lest we give readers the wrong idea.) —RuakhTALK 23:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Firstly, this isn't a suffix; it's a Latin root word. A suffix is an ending tacked onto a root, not a root itself. Nor is this an English combining root, well, at least not in the examples given. Each of those comes from a Latin source word formed from a preposition + scrībō. That is, the combination was made in Latin, and the resulting combination was then transmitted into English. --EncycloPetey 00:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This feels like the type of entry that should be well understood by English speakers, in which case there may be productive evidence that it has entered the English language. That is, it might be possible to find neologisms that were formed with an understanding of what this combining form means. But you're right that without that, it isn't an English term. DAVilla 05:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd tend to say that it's the word scribe with different prefixes, but it's much harder to differentiate between the two than you might think! So I'm on the fence. Mglovesfun 23:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I had expected to find words that used scribe as a contemporary English combining form. Wrong! I must have extrapolated from company and product names. As EP and Ateles say or imply, it is not productive of attestable English words. Virtually all English words ending in "scribe" were derived from Latin verbs with major overlap in meaning with the current English word. DCDuring TALK 00:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

B. splendens

This is illustrative of a type of abbreviation common in botany and zoology. It is a context-dependent abbreviation. The meaning of B. would vary according to what genus was being discussed. I would assume that such entries should be deleted on sight or moved to the spelled-out entry name if it does not already exist. Please advise on any better course of action. DCDuring TALK 16:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak don't know. E. coli should be acceptable though, and several more widely used ones. SemperBlotto 16:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks for reminding me. I wouldn't have deleted that one - almost no matter what was said here. DCDuring TALK 18:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree with SB. There are a few which we should keep. E. coli is one and C. elegans is another, but that's all I can think of. No one says (nor writes) H. sapiens or M. musculus, and Drosophila always just goes by its genus for some reason. I think anything besides the above two should be shot on sight. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 17:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
OK. If I come across any marginal cases, I'll check b.g.c. for use outside of technical literature or bring them here. DCDuring TALK 18:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
My experience is that the abbreviations are only used routinely for model organisms whose genus name is long and hard to spell. So, you'll see E. coli and C. elegans instead of Escherichia coli and Caenorhabditis elegans. But each of these is ambiguous, since there is an Entamoeba coli (gut parasite of some note) and Calochortus elegans (a flower). For Drosophila and Arabidopsis, the genus name is used instead. And, as Atelaes has noted, no one bothers to abbreviate Homo or Mus, perhaps because the names are so short anyway. Likewise Zea mays isn't abbreviated.
There is at least one other model organism whose name is regularly abbreviated, and that is S. cereviciae (Saccharomyces cereviciae), or "brewer's yeast". It's abbreviated name deserves an entry as well. --EncycloPetey 19:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Disagree with Atelaes. Check each for cites without context and keep. (A valid cite, imo, would be, e.g., a journal article entitled "Bright red B. splendens", even if its text/abstract starts "Betta splendens...".)—msh210 19:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's the trick. Quite frankly, you could probably cite just about any such abbreviation. That does not mean that anyone except for the twenty or so people working on the species actually understand it. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope I don't correctly understand what you are saying. As I understand it, an implication would be that we should have a sense of "fish" that corresponds to each genus, species, and subspecies of fish for which we could find a use of the word fish that was referring to that type of fish.
This is not idle or facetious. I would expect that I could find a few senses each for "A. palmata", "A. palmatus", "A. palmatum", "B. palmata", etc. I'm certainly not going to cite them myself and would be inclined to RfV each instance. I was trying to make our lives easier, not harder. DCDuring TALK 20:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that the test should be if the abbreviation is used in non-technical publications without expansion on several occasions spanning at least a year; news articles would be good sources of these I suspect. Off the top of my head I'd say that E. coli and C. difficile should have entries, as should the latter's even more abbreviated form C. diff. Thryduulf 20:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense, DCDuring. Do you think, then, that we should have splendens, #{{non-gloss definition|a species name in various genera}}?—msh210 20:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Excellent. Should we have a tag and/or category for these as "International Scientific Vocabulary" ISV? Are ISV Translingual taxons descendants of the Latin adjectives? DCDuring TALK 20:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, we have {{taxonomic name}} as a categorizing context tag, and it seems appropriate to these. To answer your second question, it seems that those which are actual Latin words will usually (and in each case presumably) be descendants of the Latin; of course, not all fall into that category.—msh210 20:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
But they are not standalone names, nor would WP let me call them Translingual.
Semi-relevant newbie question, are the things findable through http://scholar.google.com "durably archived"? Conrad.Irwin 19:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
As durably archived as it gets. Now, that's not to say that they necessarily meet CFI; that's a whole nother conversation. But, yes, very durably archived. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
We seem to deem them to be. IMHO, the hard part is getting access if not affiliated with a subscribing institution. In practice, I rarely find useful material-in-context from Scholar, much more from b.g.c. DCDuring TALK 20:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I suppose that, in order to avoid misleading the user, we should include all the possible senses of each abbreviation. Thus, based solely on the woefully incomplete coverage of Wikispecies, we should have at least one sense each for Buchnera, Buchanania, and Beaufortia, as well as for Betta. DCDuring TALK 20:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
We run into the problem then of all the taxonomic synonyms, obsolete combinations, and nomina nuda that have ever appeared in publications. This is a door best left closed. Having the entry on Wiktionary would add nothing that couldn't be better handled by a good search on Wikispecies. --EncycloPetey 21:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hear, hear. Or even a search for splendens on Wiktionary. DCDuring TALK 21:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete (per EP and nomination) along with the various similar entries that have been created over the last couple of days for the sole purpose of gaining points in the Christmas Competition. -- Gauss 22:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete per Gauss. By the way here is the "Christmas Competition list" in case we do delete these: N. g. salvini, R. gularis, R. chavin, N. caspica, A. anarthros, E. aenea, Y. ysypo, K. kieneri, R. dunni, N. nivalis, P. potens, Z. zorro, C. kachetica, D. lyelliana, N. nomurai, R. thomana, T. timens, S. salatis, R. varini, H. koreana, K. kachuga, N. tigrina, M. minimus, D. gelus, D. diraspes, L. siamica, N. sipedon, I. justi, L. varians, L. pacari, R. nereis, R. scita, X. tyrrhea. Sorry if I overlooked one or two. And as there are quite a few among these which are only "defined" by a red-linking Latin full name, I would think it prudent on the part of those who had contributed such to do something about it. You know who you are. --Duncan 18:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

{{look}} was inserted today by Duncan. It's still a strong delete to me. These are all abbreviations of scientific names of species that are presumably never used outside their scientific context. -- Gauss 21:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete Christmas competition terms. I am guilty of a few of them, and admit that I would have never considered them passable under CFI (I wanted to win, that's the reason mine are there!) --Jackofclubs 17:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted per consensus. No strong desire to keep this. And I'll delete the other "Christmas competition" ones soon if I don't see any objection. --Jackofclubs 16:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Deleted others - I warned you! --Jackofclubs 13:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    At long last! Thanks a lot. --Duncan 13:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


Noun + particle. We're still down on these, right? -- Visviva 12:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

We keep declined forms in other languages. I say keep. —Stephen 14:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
But as I'm sure you know, nouns don't technically decline in Korean, any more than they do in Japanese; they simply take a range of particles. Just as English has no possessive case, Korean has no accusative case. -- Visviva 15:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete if I understand correctly that the particle attaches to a noun phrase or other nominal, and not necessarily to an individual noun. (Otherwise no vote: I see no obvious benefit to such entries, but no obvious harm in them, either, and am happy to let y'all sort it out at Wiktionary:About Korean.) —RuakhTALK 00:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Japanese, like Chinese, Thai, and Khmer, does not use word spaces, so it is debatable whether the postpositions and particles are suffixes or separate words. Most authorities treat them as separate words. In Korean, they are suffixes, exactly like the case endings in Turkish, Mongolian, and Finnish. If it were not for the traditional parsing of Japanese as noun+postposition, these Korean words would probably be considered noun cases. And while having terms such as 꿈을 does no harm, on the other hand they are useful because they yield a useful result when you search for them. If you don’t know Korean and search for 꿈을, and if the only entries are for and , you would not know what the word meant. —Stephen 15:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This last is a valid point; I've been vaguely thinking that we should have a standard usage note (or sidebar, or something) that notes the more frequent (and semi-irregular) particles, so that the entry would also appear prominently in searches for 꿈이, 꿈을, 꿈과, etc. On the one hand, AFAIK Korean grammarians are unanimous in regarding particles (조사) as separate words. The standard South Korean orthography (한글맞춤법) specifically notes particles as an exception to the principle of words being separated by spaces. Samuel Elmo Martin and others even write them as separate words; thus in Yale, this would be transliterated as kkwum ul. So for us to treat something like 꿈을 as a word would be a serious exercise in OR. On the other hand, our target audience cannot be assumed to be familiar with the finer points of Korean grammar, so a templated usage note seems to me like the best approach. -- Visviva 09:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete. We treat Korean particles as separate words, consistent with standard Korean grammar, so this is just a multiple word phrase with no linguistic value beyond the sum of its parts. Rod (A. Smith) 20:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I hate you people. If it looks like a word it should be treated like a word. It's just mean to say "Oh sorry, technically it's not one word according to standard Korean grammar, come back to wiktionary after you've learned it". It's even worse than screwing people on English possessives, at least the 's gives a visual clue. Kappa 10:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It's bad to be mean, but it's also bad to be wrong. Ideally we can find a way to be neither. To this end, I've created {{ko-usage-particles}} and added it to . Does this address your concerns?
FWIW, I was once of the same opinion regarding the major Korean particles (see the early revisions of Template:ko-noun), but was eventually persuaded of the error of my ways. -- Visviva 10:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
A search for 꿈을 only finds that page, it does not find the page. The only way to get to from "꿈을", if 꿈을 is deleted, is if you know enough about Korean and Korean grammar to try dropping the last syllable when searching. This puts Korean generally out of reach to most Americans. —Stephen 00:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's my input. As someone who knows nothing about Korean, I have to say that the difference between 꿈을 and , or rather the lack thereof, is thoroughly confusing. When does one use a particle, and when not? How many particles are there, and how many attach to this word? (Abstain of course.) DAVilla 05:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

buried treasure

Treasure which has been buried; sum of parts, not obviously idiomatic. What was this doing on Wiktionary:project-wanted articles anyway? Is there another meaning? -- Visviva 03:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

By my lights, a figuratively buried figurative treasure wouldn't warrant an entry, but perhaps someone thinks so. DCDuring TALK 03:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I added the term. It has both a literal set phrase sense and a figurative sense. The literal concept of buried treasure evokes images of pirates and piracy, and of treasure chests. This connotation is not inherent in the sum of "buried" + "treasure". The figurative sense shows up in sources like these: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. --EncycloPetey 04:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Buried treasure has at least two idiomatic meanings. 1) A reference specifically to pirate treasure, even out of context—as in, treasure specifically buried by a stereotypical (mythical) pirate, and found with a treasure map (!), as popularized by Treasure Island and probably all pirate fiction since. 2) Like treasure trove, "buried treasure" is also used to refer to any valuable find, uncoviering something that was hidden, buried or not, as in "The best place to look for buried treasure is the library." [10] Dmcdevit·t 04:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, buried#Adjective can also have the meaning "hidden, concealed." So the figurative sense doesn't seem obviously non-compositional to me. And I have to dispute the association with pirates; a cursory check of b.g.c. shows all sorts of references to buried treasure in pirate-free locations like New Mexico, Oklahoma, and the Sri Lankan interior. (I was rather surprised to find that w:Buried treasure focuses on pirates, as I would have expected more general coverage of the topic.) Seems like this can be (and is) used pretty freely in any relevant sense of "buried" or "treasure."
IMO those who write of "the buried treasure of Jean Lafitte" and "the buried treasure of the Kandyan kings" are using this collocation in exactly the same way. But I could be persuaded otherwise -- is this ever used out of context to refer to specifically to pirates -- that is, where it is not obvious in context that the treasure would have been buried by pirates? -- Visviva 05:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't care if you delete the article. However, "treasure" has so many different connotations (treasure can mean something different to each person - i.e. gold/goal/knowledge/etc.) Yet, with this definition, I used the common type relating to pirate, and have included a reference to Wikipedia since I retrieved the idea for the definition from there. miranda 05:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your work. I don't mean to disparage this contribution in any way (although I realize it probably seems that way). The entry was quite well-composed, and you are to be commended for filling an open request.
To respond to your point, I guess it's the very fact that "buried" and "treasure" can have so many meanings that bothers me -- as far as I can tell, looking at the various uses on Google Books, "buried treasure" can have any of those meanings. That would seem to make it non-idiomatic. -- Visviva 12:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the stuff between the lines makes it worth keeping. DAVilla 06:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I realize that there is a connection between pirates and buried treasure. But is there a connection between the word "buried treasure" and pirates? I wouldn't normally make the connection myself, unless I happened to be on a seacoast somewhere. For example, if my cousin were searching for buried treasure in Indiana, I would assume that an outlaw or a miser was involved, not a pirate. -- Visviva 12:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
But in that case, you've added context information by specifying geography. In the absence of other context, I think first of the stereotypical image of a pirate's chest. --EncycloPetey 13:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

کله کیر

It has been at requests for verification before but does not appear to be verified. The English definition has been removed by (talk) but I reverted and decided to nominate it for deletion, unless it can be verified it should be deleted. 01:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The fundamental meaning is correct, but the question is the semantic level. Literally it says "prick head", but I don’t know if it is used only in a vulgar sense or also in medical jargon. —Stephen 06:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


I think the proper suffix is -stomy (making a hole). The "-o-" is added for euphony. Should we have this as a full entry, redirect, not at all, or what? DCDuring TALK 01:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, not this again. I get a headache just looking at that discussion. Agree that this should be a soft redirect to -stomy; -ostomy may (or may) not be a "real" suffix, but we cannot assume that either users or contributors will be aware of this. -- Visviva 16:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
-o- is incidental. The real problem to me was that the more correct suffix -stomy wasn't an entry. I don't want to waste folks' time on this. I suppose having an extra "erroneous" suffix really doesn't matter much since suffix entries are rarely used to support or validate usage (which would be new word coinage). The words will be coined by influence of past practice and, now, the emergence of the word ostomy.
MW online has -stomy, not -ostomy. I'd expect the same from most dictionaries that have suffixes. DCDuring TALK 17:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to have this as a misspelling of/misconstruction of -stomy entry with a usage note explaining the -o-. Thryduulf+
Likewise for the OED, but the OED has both -logy and -ology, which seems like an identical situation. Similarly for the Collins Concise I have at hand at the moment. Since the business of infixation is opaque even to most native speakers, including many contributors here, I'd say we should have both such forms for every suffix (though the -o- form should preferably be a soft redirect with usage note, per Thryduulf). -- Visviva 06:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Kept as soft redirect to -stomy --Jackofclubs 12:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

on me

As in "I'm paying". SoP if we have the right sense of on, which would take any noun phrase in this sense. Or am I missing something? DCDuring TALK 01:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It’s a common idiom. If you didn’t already know what it meant, you wouldn’t guess the meaning from on + me. The beer is on me sounds logically as though I’m wearing the beer. —Stephen 02:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Definitely a useful expression for a non-native speaker, adds value, SoP or not. --Hekaheka 03:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
But the phrase is not "on me". It is "on NP", where NP could be "me, "you", "him", "them", "us", "Uncle Sam", "the house", "the company", "my wife's family", any personal name, etc. How many of the forms would we need as either headwords or usage examples to capture enough of the searches? On the house should make it on its own merits. I have entered the relevant sense of on. DCDuring TALK 04:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
In which case I think this should be treated as an idiom and redirected to on somebody.
I don't object. All the pronouns should redirect to on someone or on somebody. (Do we prefer "someone" over "somebody") The same effect is accomplished by including all the different likely forms (all those using pronouns) as alternates, usage examples, or citations (in principal namespace). And that still doesn't fully address all the forms. I suppose that if someone searches for a term that has a space in it, we could generate some kind of help screen that informs them of our someone/body/thing lemma format for such entries. DCDuring TALK 15:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Are we obliged to included some reference to all the non-idiomatic possible meanings of "on someone" in the entry to "reduce confusion" by showing the contrasts? Is this really an idiom ? To me it is just a meaning of on that is not necessarily in a language learner's experience. DCDuring TALK 16:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The financial responsibility sense of "on" is a modest extension of the the general responsibility sense of "on", which is, in turn, a reasonable figurative extension (along the lines of "burden of responsibility") of the more physical senses of "on". How many senses of "on" would we want reflected in the "on somebody" and "on something" entries? We would need to make sure that a user didn't think that the financial responsibility sense was the only one that could connect "on" and a person (or other financially responsible entity) That would essentially mean duplicating much of on. I don't see how we can include this without being compelled to include almost any slightly unusual or regionally restricted figurative use of any preposition with its object. Why should we bother having the preposition entries themselves? DCDuring TALK 18:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yuk, nasty. In that case, we could have "be in something", etc. In any case, "be on someone/somebody" excludes the possibility of phrases like "this is on the company" ( = the company is paying for this). This is just a special sense of the preposition "on", which is where this sense belongs — something like "to be paid for by (the person, people, organisation, etc, following "on") as a treat, rather than by someone else or jointly". Not my best attempt at a definition, but it's something like that. "On the house" is good to keep ("house" has a special meaning here, so this is idiomatic), but on + pronoun needs to be deleted. — Paul G 12:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
The last sense of on#Preposition is currently:
  1. Paid for by.
    The drinks are on me tonight, boys.
    The meal is on the house.
Does this need improvement? Or an extra sense? The more general meaning is something like "burdening". For example, "the responsibility for cleaning up the mess in on her." Note the usage examples include the most common objects. on the house is fairly idiomatic though. If we can make "on" good enough, perhaps we can get this to a delete consensus. DCDuring TALK 15:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep. The entry at on is quite clearly sufficient. BUT, the Phrasebook argument is strong enough for this entry to be kept for that purpose alone. IMHO. -- Algrif 15:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Added Phrasebook category. Category has fewer than 100 English entries. DCDuring TALK 16:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Not useful enough to even be a phrasebook entry, IMHO. --Jackofclubs 16:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

wait for

(From RFV)

I can see nothing but a sum of parts, wait and for Goldenrowley 03:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't have that sense of for, and I'm not sure how it would be written. Waiting for someone does not necessarily mean to wait on that person's behalf; you might even be waiting for someone on someone else's behalf ("my boss asked me to wait for his daughter.") -- Visviva 06:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand the comment, two of the definitions of "for" apply after "wait":

  1. for =Supporting (opposite of against).
    I wait for you to love me
  2. for = Because of.
    I wait for love

Goldenrowley 19:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Abstain. I believe that the relevant sense of for is one that we don't yet have — something like this:

  1. Used to construe various verbs.
    Don't wait for an answer.
    What did he ask you for?
    He was convicted for murder. (We currently have this as an example for the “Because of.” sense, but that can't be right, as “He was wrongly convicted for a murder that never happened” is perfectly standard.)
    I'm looking for my friend.

— but that's no reason to keep wait for. On the other hand, in my experience we're pretty arbitrary about which verbs we take as phrasal and define on their own, and which ones we define at the main verb entry; if we expect our readers to be able to predict this, we might as well give up now on ever having readers. —RuakhTALK 19:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

An experienced Wiktionary user will try multiple approaches, knowing by experience that we are often inconsistent. A new user is more likely to type in "wait for" (or "wait") than "for", IMO. I am not yet certain that we have fully and accurately defined the senses of "wait for". DCDuring TALK 20:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

IMO those are not the right senses of "for".
  1. In the first example the emotional content has introduced the idea of support, but that is not common and not relevant to the meaning at hand. For example, in the sentence "I am waiting for the other shoe to drop." the "support" notion does not apply in any way.
  2. In ordinary language "cause" usually doesn't refer to a goal or an event in the future, but rather something from the past. "I am waiting for my hanging for my love." shows two sense of "for", the first is the sense that had been missing and the second is the cause sense.
"Wait for" is roughly synonymous with "await". MW3 shows 10 major senses and 18 subsenses of "for". There are obvious parallels among the senses, derived from a basic spatial metaphor applied in various ways, but they are distinguishable. DCDuring TALK 20:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree delete. This is just sum of parts, with for leading off a prepositional phrase in the examples above. --EncycloPetey 20:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think keep, myself. How would you know how to translate it? wait for is a single transitive verb in many (most?) languages. Widsith 20:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I am afraid if we go down the route to say we cannot define "for", then we will have to make entries for things like "hold for", "stop for", etc. I think the word "for" is a word that links the word "wait" with the reason for waiting.. just as it links many other words to their reasons. Goldenrowley 22:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. To me, wait for sounds obviously more idiomatic than "stop for". The point is that, despite having a transitive verb await, the natural way to express the idea in English is to use an intransitive verb (wait) with a preposition. This is quite unlike the situation in other languages. It is not a matter of "not being able" to define for, but rather that it is more appropriate and helpful to consider this to be a compound verb. Widsith 08:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
For me that's not the issue. We ought to have both the appropriate senses for "for" and whatever phrasal verbs or idiomatic expressions use "for". In gray-area cases I favor being nice to naive users by including more likely-to-be-searched terms both as headwords and elsewhere, in alternative forms, usage examples, and usage notes. DCDuring TALK 23:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete, and wait on too. If we delete, we need a usage note s.v. wait.—msh210 17:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, and improve the definition of for. My rule of thumb on deciding whether something is a phrasal verb or just a verb followed by a preposition is whether it can be felicitously passivized. In this way, wait for is very different from, say wait on, which is definitely a phrasal verb. "Yesterday I was waited on by a very good-looking waiter" is perfectly grammatical, but ???"Yesterday I was waited for by a very good-looking customer" sounds quite odd. (It's still better than *"The store was gone to", though, so maybe it's slightly more phrasal than go to, which is definitely SOP.) Angr 17:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • wait for cannot be translated by looking up wait and for, because the two words are translated by a single word in most other languages. Using two words is idiomatic English, not to mentiona a common set phrase. Why not have it? Widsith 20:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know if I agree with your premise. The correct way to translate wait for is to look up wait, find its translation, and see what preposition the translation is construed with. For example, the Hebrew translation of wait is חיכה (khiká), so you'd look that up, and find that in the relevant sense, it's construed with ל־ (l'-, to, for). Problem solved. Unless you're saying that most languages use different words for wait for as for bare wait; but I don't think you are, and if you were, then it seems like we'd need the translation of wait for at wait in order to prevent confusion. —RuakhTALK 22:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Er...I'm not sure, until that Hebrew page is created, how clear that will be. From what you are saying, though, I think that case is less confusing than translations which do not take any preposition at all. The French word attendre for instance — to me the defs wait (intransitive) and wait for (transitive) would ideally be on separate lines and link to separate English entries. The English word wait can be used with different prepositions – for, until, about, around, on, up — all of which effectively create very different "indirect" verbs, some transitive and others in-. Now while this can be dealt with through good preposition information at wait (the current entry is nowhere near, btw), I don't see why it's not more helpful to make common collocations such as wait for pages in their own right. As well, if not instead. Widsith 17:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • While I appreciate Widsith's valient efforts to find a perfect translation of words from other languages into English, the primary purpose of English Wikipedia is to define English words and phrases, not to fit what other languages have (that we do not) or to force the translations into English. For example we load English idioms here, we do not load English translations of French idioms (just because they can be translated). That having been said, "wait" implies we are waiting "for" something, in most cases. I never hear anyone "wait from" anything. Goldenrowley 03:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    I don't see how anything I've suggested interferes with this "primary purpose" you are talking about. But whatever, I'm done. Widsith 06:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete with explanation at wait, and possibly splitting translations (if we still do that). DAVilla 06:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

I was about to delete this, but is there anything salvageable (movable) among the translations?—msh210 19:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A sign that something is merely SoP is if it translates literally and nicely into numerous other languages. I don’t know of another language that has this particular construction. English "wait for him" becomes in German "warten Sie auf ihn" (not "warten Sie für ihn"). In Spanish, I’d say "espéralo" (not "espera para él"). In Russian, "ожидайте его" (not "ждите для него"). It’s idiomatic. Keep. —Stephen 22:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
(Further to the above) Also, this phrase can be tricky, because it has different meanings (wait for him vs. wait for him to do something...German "warte auf ihn" vs. "warte, dass er etwas tut"), and the sense "wait for him" has at least two subsenses (await his imminent arrival vs. wait part of a lifetime until he returns from duty or is released from captivity, with an eye towards marriage). —Stephen 23:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
On the flip side, one can also say "he waited three hours for her", or "he waited three hours for her to finish", so even if we keep [[wait for]], won't we have to duplicate all its information at [[wait]]? —RuakhTALK 23:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
In the interest of keep the entry for wait of reasonable size, wouldn't it be desirable to have the wait for usage notes and examples separate from any such for wait? Something terse, but not hidden under show/hide, at wait that pointed to wait for would provide users the needed trail to follow. I know that size of entry is not a linguistic consideration, but it is a meaningful practical one for users if we want to give them OED-type depth of information. We haven't solved the problem of how to do that with single large entries. DCDuring TALK 23:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
As a staunch supporter of phrasal verbs, I have stayed away from this discussion because I am not convinced it is really phrasal. But following through the debate it is clear that 1. it is borderline phrasal for a number of reasons (although "he waited three hours for her" is a demonstration of non-phrasal status), and 2. trying to put all those usage notes everywhere would be anything but useful!!. So on the grounds of practical utility for the users, I think we should Keep this entry, with usage notes in the entry itself. -- ALGRIF talk 16:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

June 2008


rfd-sense Prefix for Canadair aircraft models. We have government aircraft prefixes, but not DC, as in DC-3, for the fabled twin-prop. DCDuring TALK 20:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm clueless about the topic, so please bear with me. By "we" do you mean Wiktionary? Can you give some examples of "government aircraft prefixes" that we include? What are CL and DC instead? (Canadair used to be nationalized; would that make its prefix a government one, at least during that time period?) Why does this distinction bear on inclusion here? (I'm not saying that it doesn't, I'm just really clueless about this). —RuakhTALK 00:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The Imperial Wiktionary we, yes. Both are arguably "private". If government enterprises are exempt from our rules on things like trademarks and such, do we have to keep track of shareholdings to know whether an item should be included? How much government ownership would get an entity over the hump? I really hope that government ownership will be a red canard.
DC stood for the Douglas Commercial, Douglas being Douglas Aircraft, the leading commercial aircraft company until Boeing came from their second position at the onset of the jet age. DC-3 through D-10 were their model numbers. The MD-80 is a descendant of the DC-9. US military prefixes are abundant. There are many, many naval ones, ranging from USS, to CVN, similarly for armored vehicles and helicopters. Surprisingly the Air Force hasn't gotten very many of their designations in. I don;t know about the government equipment designating prefixes. Our standards for abbreviations might allow them. The manufacturers' designations seem different to me. Mind you, I'd think we'd be better to have more trademarks, place names, etc. in Wiktionary, but rules is rules. DCDuring TALK 00:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
So are "CL", "DC", etc. assigned by some external authority, or is it just something the manufacturers do? If the former, I'm inclined to think of it as a meaningful and neutral unit that may be worth defining here; if the latter, I'm inclined to think of it as low-grade spam — not a big deal, but not something we'd want to encourage. —RuakhTALK 02:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
And, thanks for explaining so patiently. :-) —RuakhTALK 03:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Manufacturers. The manufacturer's don't care enough to spam us. But there are plenty of fans for all kinds of boys' toys, especially "heavy metal". I have not been immune to the fascination of some of this. The two-letter airline codes (now augmented by additional codes), the three-letter airport codes, military equipment designations, .... Lists galore. The idea that we limit ourselves to product and brand names that convey more meaning than what they directly designate seems like a good idea, if we are going to exclude brands and company names. I'm not so clear whether we have drawn the line in the same place for abbreviations. It probably warrants some clarification of how our existing standards apply to determine if we need more. I see a lot of low-quality material in abbreviations. Not every government program and agency really merits inclusion of its abbreviation. I haven't seen terribly many RfV challenges to it. I don't find most of the abbreviations on Ullman's not-counted list to be worth fixing. I also don't think we should swamp the RfV/RfD with challenges without clarifying CFI for abbreviations. DCDuring TALK 04:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


rfc hasn't elicited good def in one year. DCDuring TALK 09:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The only usage I know of means "bit of made-up language" (a severely reduced, ad hoc construction as opposed to a complete constructed language such as Esperanto or Ido). Made-up language tests are sometimes used to test language-learning ability. The U.S. Government used to use these tests to qualify applicants to the Defense Language Institute. See w:Artificial grammar learning. —Stephen 14:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Looking at th WP stub article and the first 2 pages of the 600+ raw b.g.c. hits, it seems SoP to me, but similar phrases have passed RfD. DCDuring TALK 15:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I've replaced the definition and removed rfc, but it still looks SoP to me. DCDuring TALK 16:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see this as SoP any more than artificial intelligence. Since it is used attributively in artificial grammar learning, it should satisfy CFI. I'll try to find a more thorough explanation, since the current definition seems somehow lacking, but I can't articulate quite why I think that. --EncycloPetey 16:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the current definition simply defines grammar. artificial grammar means "small bit of made-up language, used for testing language-learning ability". —Stephen 17:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008


rfd-sense: "The material left behind by the retreat of continental glaciers. It buries former river valleys and creates young river valleys. The Driftless Area, a geographical area of North America, was unglaciated for the past 510 million years. Mass noun." Should this be a new entry or is it too encyclopedic? DCDuring TALK 23:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep it, but remove that part about the Driftless Area (which does make the definition sound a bit encyclopedic). There's no need for a new entry.--♠TBC♠ 02:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


Translingual section (transliteration of a cuneiform sign). If I remember correctly, we don't do transliterations unless native speakers use them. Could be wrong, but I think all the native speakers died well before Latin characters were invented, so..... -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. I seem to remember a discussion about extinct languages regularly written in transcription in scholarly works. I think it was a discussion about Egyptian hieroglyphics or perhaps Coptic, but I can't locate it. Anyone else remember something of this that might help locate the discussion? --EncycloPetey 08:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if this is relevant, but we're currently using transliterations for a number of ancient languages whose scripts are not yet unicode supported, such as hieroglyphics and the Tocharians. However, it is my understanding that this is a temporary measure, until those scripts become supported. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep Yes, it is typical for Akkadian, or Assyro-Babylonian cuneiform signs to be Latinised and I doubt strongly that the questionmark appearing as ("the Cuneiform sign ? ") could ever be comprehensive for anyone. There are transition rules and lists with original and Latinised signs, but in none of the two or three I had seen were the cuneiform signs digitalised, but instead rendered with the help of images, which are the only sensible way (hitherto) for Akkadian, Ugaritic and Eblaite and since original cuneiform signs are absent from Unicode (now and in foreseeable future) and the Latin correspondence is the only wise to reach the original source (in digitalised texts, printing books is another matter) besides .png, .tiff or whatsoever images, I oppose the deletion. Bogorm 22:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete Cuneiform is present in Unicode, in all it's glorious varieties of signs as they evolved merged to the same code points which should in theory be handled at the font-level (imagine Phoenician and Greek alpha and Latin 'a' all to be handled at font-display level!!) But it will take a lots of time until all the switches inside the {{Xsux}} get proper font support. Ugaritic is also present at unicode (see Appendix:Ugaritic abjad). The policy is to write languges in original script, and creating dozens of ===Transliteration=== redirects for every phonetic transcription of 𒁳 that was reconstructed to be used for writing languages in 3 different families (IE, Semitic and Sumerian which is language isolate) would not be reasonable, as the 𒁳 is already reachable by using usual search on DAB [11] --Ivan Štambuk 23:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I do not know about which Unicode you are talking, but my OS based on UTF-16 is displaying but questionmarks and I do not dare to know what happens to the users with OS relying on UTF-8, but if you speak of some imaginary UTF-256, yes, perchance the Akkadian and Eblaite cuneiforms may be included there. As for now, leaving the reader with the questionmarks alone and with not image represantation would be too merciless. In addition, Burmese alphabet, wherever I come across it in Wikipedia, is too rendered as questionmarks and I am sure that if Unicode does not comprise a living language spoken by 40 000 000, one should be far more cautious in what concerns ancient ones. Bogorm 08:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Bogorm, you have already established on numerous occasions that you cannot see (or cannot see properly) a great number of scripts that others can. Thus, I think that the fact that you cannot see something is not great evidence that no one can see it. However, with the pending discussion concerning transliterations, I think we should hold off on deleting this. Inasmuch as I would very much like to see this entry go away, if the community decides that transliteration entries are something we want........then I have no power to stop them......much to my chagrin. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I am using a quite modern operating system(from the current decade), live in a European Union state and cannot see this rare, advanced and complicated scripts. Have you ever thought that readers of Wiktionary with even older software should not be repelled from Wiktionary, that in India and Africa there are innumerable users of Windows 98 or Windows 95, when no Unicode was in question at all and that they deserve at least a little bit of mercy from self-conceit users from developped countries (not all of them are such, hopefully you neither) ? Transliteration entries for languages outside Unicode (UTF-8) should at any cost be preserved in order to show understanding for the mentioned users and because one ought not to embrace any innovation and to impose it on others. Bogorm 09:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I can only pity users of Win9x and other non-Unicode OSes. There are several free and Unicode compliant cuneiform fonts available on the Web, one trivial search query away, for anybody to use. There should probably be some kind of appendix discussing these "obscure fonts", where to get them and how to install them, on language-specific basis, and this was already partially discussed in BP for some Old Persian entries. One special problem with cuneiform is that it cannot be really "transliterated" as one sign had lots of (reconstructed) phonetic values in various languages it was used, so what gives DAB more prominence than DIB, not to mention akkadian sequence of dib, dip, dab, dap, tib, tip, ṭib, ṭip listed in the entry? Search on transliteration cupled with the keyword of "cuneiform" or "sumerian" yields proper-script entry immediately, usually as the first search result, so it shouldn't be out of reach of anyone willing to utilize his brain cells instead of figuring out how to copy/paste Akkadian.otf to his %WINDIR%\Fonts folder.. --Ivan Štambuk 10:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

point of the compass

I'm not really into what goes as "sum of parts" and not, but for me this really looks like a noun being the sum of its parts. --Eivind (t) 15:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? It's not a literal sharp point on a drawing compass; it's one of the 16 cardinal directions marked on a navigational compass. The definition could certainly be improved, but it's not merely SoP. --EncycloPetey 16:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I would agree .... except that we already have compass point. How about a redirect, if you don't want to delete? -- Algrif 16:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, no-one said "point" is a "sharp point". "Compass point" is one of the definitons for "point", therefore I reckoned "point of the compass" must be the sum of its parts. --Eivind (t) 16:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Once one is talking about a compass, then isn't the specific sense of "point" obvious and, therefore, isn't it SoP? DCDuring TALK 17:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Either keep as is or redirect to compass point. You can’t translate point of the compass into other languages simply by the individual words, you have to look up the specific phrase (or compass point). —Stephen 17:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
To answer DCDuring's "point". :-) It is useful to distinguish the various meanings of N,S,E, and W. They can be geographical, magnetic, or compass points(for instance). So, although your argument is thought provokingly good, the term compass point is still needed, as there are situations where the compass has not been mentioned. However, I am behind you all the way if we are talking about point of the compass -- Algrif 18:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • delete or redirect (it's not a set phrase in the way that compass point is). Ƿidsiþ 12:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

redirect or keep. Point does mean 'a direction,' as in a 'point of sail,' but it's usage appears to be extremely rare in English outside of idiomatic usages. Yartrebo 02:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No one seems to disagree with a redirect, so done. 21:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone should've though. undone. This could be kept as a set phrase, it does no harm. Conrad.Irwin 21:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
We do redirect for some idiomatic expressions, e.g. my/your in place of one's. I don't actually agree with the redirect here, it just seemed to be the consensus. 05:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Redirect.RuakhTALK 03:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

August 2008

be bound to

bound to

Both of these seem to be direct consequences of the adjective senses of bound#Etymology 1 and possibly misconstructions. Should they be redirects to the section of bound? DCDuring TALK 18:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

They need entries, as previously discussed (somewhere), because of the use as an alternative to must in the sense of logical conclusion, where there could be ambiguity with must meaning obligation. The phrase is always in a form of be + bound + to followed by the bare infinitive. It forms part of the modal series. -- Algrif 16:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
What I viscerally dislike is the incorporation of what I have learned is a part of the infinitive ("to") into this entry. I find it OK to occasionally split an infinitive in usage, but not to so do in a headword. To me, this is a bit different from phrasal verbs because the prepositions are not part of a PoS as to is part of the infinitive. Without the "to", neither entry would have value, unless we start adding entries for passives (if that is a valid way of interpreting "be bound").
I have an old idioms book that shows "bound to" and "be bound to" at "bound", but I vastly prefer the way Longman's DCE presents it at "bound" with context-like notation indicating the required infinitive, something like what we now have at bound#Adjective. I can't see any reason not to have that at "bound", whatever is decided about these entries. If we help 2 users per entry per year, I'm down with it. DCDuring TALK 17:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't rely too much on gut reactions. Modal verbs, which is what we are considering here, are normally followed by the bare infinitive. (Example at the start of this paragraph.) So, just as ought to = should and both are followed by the bare infinitive, this is a case of be bound to = must also followed by a bare infinitive. A typical modal structure. The example given at bound Adjective is particularly good one to demonstrate why we need to use be bound to (unique sense; logical conclusion) to avoid the confusion with must (sense; obligation)
I suspect my gut reaction reflects the response of many users. I offer my gut in lieu of any other evidence about user response. My gut is not much cluttered with linguistic knowledge, therefore more qualified in its ignorance to speak for our purported anon user (if that is our target user). ;-) DCDuring TALK 12:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • They are bound to come into conflict eventually. cf: They must come into conflict eventually.
    I have no problem with leaving the entry at bound Adjective, but to eliminate be bound to is to eliminate the most probable search entry, and leave a verb usage of bound hidden away as an adjective, where it is difficult to find, even when you know it is there.
    To summarise; 1) bound is not a modal verb and as a verb it does not mean must. 2) Bound to is not a modal form, it means tied up with rope to a chair, or stuck to something with glue, and does not necessarily mean must (logical conclusion). But the entry is as it is as the result of a previous discussion about this. I disagree with the result, but that's life on the Wikt! The only way to show bound as meaning logical conclusion, equivalent to a disambiguation of must is the entry be bound to. I refer you to any decent grammar book you care to chose on this one. -- Algrif 12:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think users can be assumed to convert to lemma form for search. Usage examples including the forms of "[be] bound to" would very substantially address the need for users to find the correct entry for "bound" (or the other entries - at least if our search worked a little better. What about "seemed bound to" and its synonyms? I offered Collins DCE's approach precisely because they are a dictionary (albeit a grammatically sophisticated one) rather than a reference grammar book. I think that we need to find ways of presenting sophisticated ideas that represent the best understanding of language and present it so that it is useful for the target user. These entries seemed to me to be a waste. I suppose they might help someone, but they led to neglect of providing useful information at bound. We may just need to have multiple locations for the information and hope that search will find one of them for a user. DCDuring TALK 12:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
    PS, I am unable to locate the previous discussion of this. DCDuring TALK 13:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Can't find it either, even though I participated. It was probably a sub discussion. I'll try to find it for you later. I think the entry be bound to should stay, and is useful, for all the reasons I've mentioned. I do not agree that looking up bound is going to get anyone anywhere near the correct meaning of the phrase be bound to = logical conclusion, unless there is is a link from one to the other, of course. And I must question the idea that these entries are "a waste". A waste of what? On that basis, we can have a spree with be able to, have to, ought to, going to, etc. That aside, I am working (using the term very loosely ;-)) on a Modal appendix. The term will be there also, along with some other similar phrases that are used modally. I believe modals are such an important part of English. Native speakers take them for granted, forgetting that they express so much more than just the surface. -- Algrif 14:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
"Waste" was my initial reaction. I appreciate the points made, including Widsith's below. I will work to make sure that the component words also contain clues about the phrasal senses, but will be much more selective in my challenges for less usual, long-standing phrasal usages like this. I wouldn't have done so if there were a discussion or a link to a discussion on the entry talk page. Our search engine doesn't even support our needs, let alone our users.
Also, would it make sense to include an explicit etymology section in such entries pointing to the best section of the main component words' entries? I find the logic of language evolution more economical of thought and memory than grammar rules. DCDuring TALK 14:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The fact that it includes "part of the infinitive" is just a reflection of the way it is used, ie often with the following verb only implied. Consider "Do you think she'll come tonight?" "Oh yes, she's bound to." Ƿidsiþ 14:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • But consider also "She's bound". The usage, whether you care to think of it as "bound" + "to infinitive", or "bound to" + "bare infinitive" is a modal use of the word which is only apparent in that exact structure. It is much clearer if the term "bound to" is considered as what it is, a modal, and as such, is followed by the bare infinitive. Grammar is "invented after the fact" in an attempt to put order to something that is basically disordered. So this is just the kind of rule that has less exceptions if you consider the phrase + bare infinitive to be a typically modal construction. And from experience working with learners of English, the expectation is just this. Learners check out phrases such as ought to rather than ought. going to rather than going. And so on. -- Algrif 15:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • My view is that we should delete the content at bound to but keep the page and refer people to the appropriate section of bound. To me it seems weird to have "bound to" listed as an "adjective". What about "delighted to", "happy to", "obliged to" etc.? Are these all adjectives? Where does it end? Matt 20:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC).
Which is why, in the end, the preferred entry is be bound to, because it is a verbal entry representing a modal verb usage. This entry has nothing in common with the standard "adjective + to inf", because of it's modal sense. -- Algrif 12:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I definitely see where you're coming from, but since "seem|seems|seeming|seemed bound to", "look|looks|looking|looked bound to", etc. are so well attested, I don't think that's ideal. (Not the end of the world — we could create redirects to [[be bound to]], with appropriate usage notes — but not ideal.) —RuakhTALK 15:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I forget the correct term for these state verbs that can substitute be. Later edit. linking verbs. But that argument applies to nearly all the be + something entries. seems (etc) able to, seem (etc) as cool as a cucumber, and so on. I have often wondered what, if anything, could be done about that. -- Algrif 16:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Having an entry for verbal "be bound to" makes more sense to me than calling "bound to" an adjective. I confess I didn't notice that "be bound to" was also listed as a part of this deletion request. But is there a fundamental difference between "be bound to" and "be delighted to", "be obliged to" etc.? Or should there (ideally) be separate entries for all these? Matt 20:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)~.
There is a fundamental difference, yes. I am delighted to attend is a simple SoP statement. I am bound to attend does NOT mean that I have been tied up before attending, nor does it mean that I have made any promise, or any of the other meanings of bound. It means that MY OPINION is that IT IS LOGICAL that I will not miss the function. In other words, it is a modal verb in effect (similar to must), and as such, is not "adjective + to infinitive" and therefore is not SoP. -- ALGRIF talk 09:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, indeed, it doesn't mean "tied up"! But I don't have any problem parsing "I am bound to..." with "bound" as an adjective meaning something similar to "sure" (a seemingly reasonable extension of its literal meaning). In fact, both Collins and M-W online dictionaries explain the "bound to" usage under adjective "bound". I agree, though, that there doesn't seem to be any other way to use "bound" with exactly this adjectival meaning. Matt 20:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC).
Personally speaking, I don't even think that this adjectival definition is valid. One day (not now) I will argue the case more forcefully. For the moment, just worth noting that "a bound noun" and "this noun is bound" never have the sense under discussion. The same goes for "a bound to noun" and "this noun is bound to" (where the "to" becomes a preposition, doesn't it?, if we are talking about entry "bound to"). It would be interesting to compare how these other dictionaries deal with be able to, by the way. -- ALGRIF talk 11:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


Just a misspelling of mosey. A OneLook search comes up with no hits for this sense. I don't think it even qualifies as nonstandard. -- WikiPedant 05:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete. google books:"mozy|mozying|mozies|mozied along" gets only 3 hits, compared to 665 for google books:"mosey|moseying|moseys|moseyed along". —RuakhTALK 17:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete - we can not afford wasting resources for misspellings made by uneducated people. And the misspelling of a slang word goes forsooth too far. Bogorm 22:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Is it in use? Yes. Is it citable? Yes (see Ruakh's link above). Is it rare? Yes. But 574 Google web hits, ~ 100 blog hits, and ~ 15 group hits show me that it certainly exists. sewnmouthsecret 20:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
We don't include rare misspellings. —RuakhTALK 23:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not that I want or don't want to keep this term; I just want things to make sense logically. Per CFI, this term is OK to keep as long as it is cited. There is nothing that states we do not include rare misspellings. A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means. People may run across it. It is attested and used in permanently recorded media.

Furthermore, when searching b.g.c. for "mozy", it yields 688 hits.

The first 6 pages of hits alone allow one to expand to 5 different adjective senses on top of the verb sense (which I shall add).

Point is, one can't pick and choose which words stay or go because one feels a word is a misspelling, especially when CFI says nothing about it. sewnmouthsecret 15:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There are four spellings: mosey, mozey, mosy, mozy, approximately in that order of frequency on bgc. We should be relieved that mosie and mozie aren't also in use in bgc material. "Mozy" might (barely) be attestable basede on bgc hits, but most hits are not for the verb or anything else that we are likely to feel compelled to have an entry for. "Mosy" is sometimes a last name or a nickname or a scanno. If we don't have explicit standards for what makes something a misspelling or an alternative spelling, the four forms would seem to have equal standing under our policies. "Mosey" is the only one of these that is in the OneLook dictionaries, suggesting that other dictionaries can find a rationale for excluding such forms. At least one "z" form would be good inclusion, because a user might well type "moz" in searching for the word as heard in a movie or speech. "moz" would yield mozey if we troubled to enter that more attestable form. DCDuring TALK 16:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Our standards are CFI, which don't spell out how to handle rare spellings that may or may not be misspellings. As far as a word's standing, that's why we have tags such as {{rare}} and {{archaic}}, among others. As is often stated, we are not other dictionaries. We can include anything that meets our criteria, which, per CFI, this term does. sewnmouthsecret 17:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused. Your comments seem to be at variance with Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Misspellings, common misspellings and variant spellings. —RuakhTALK 18:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I think these criteria are fine as far as they go (not far, IMHO). It would be helpful if we had explicit criteria for when something was definitely an alternative spelling or definitely a common misspelling (or even just definitely common or definitely a misspelling). We could still leave a big gray area for what is not so definite. DCDuring TALK 19:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Some of the adjectival senses just added to the entry by Sewnmouthsecret seem OK albeit obscure, although I wish s/he had provided a supporting quotation for each. But to suggest that this is a valid alternative spelling of the verb mosey is not credible for me and I still think that we should delete the verb sense. (Pet peeve: Except for slang bordering on nonstandard and words of very recent vintage, I think that it is inappropriate to rely solely or even heavily on g.b.c. hits or blogs. We should rely on writers and sources which are credible exemplars of English usage, which is why I'm biased toward recognized literary sources, academic journals, and prominent news outlets with good standards like Time magazine or the NYT.) -- WikiPedant 21:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
My issue here is this: it seems to me that this is a valid alt spelling of mosey. To say it is not credible for you is to say your opinion is to delete it. I would support deleting it if there was no evidence of use, but there is, no matter how obscure. Opinion should not dictate keeping or deleting a term. To be biased towards any given publication is an unnecessary bias, as new terms, alternate meanings, etc. show up in less recognized sources and are often the bastions of language transformation. I will add supporting quotations for all adjective senses, and I will add quotations for the verb sense as well, as the quotations were already linked to above. sewnmouthsecret 20:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The citations Sewnmouthsecret has added for the verb are probably adequate to justify retaining that sense, for now. But I wonder whether this rather thin set of citations may be the result of sporadic misspellings or typesetting errors by the authors or printers. (Such things do happen, and they do not really constitute legitimate alt spellings.) I'd particularly like to get my hands on a couple editions of that Zane Grey novel to see if they all really say "mozy". -- WikiPedant 01:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete, the citations only show that it's an error. Mglovesfun 14:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

air sport

"any recreational activity performed in the atmosphere" Appears in no OneLook reference word except Wiktionary and Wikipedia. Seems SoP to me unless there is another definition. DCDuring TALK 23:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This needs redefinition, not deletion. All terrestrial sports are performed "in the atmosphere". Basketball is not an "air sport" even though players' bodies may lose contact with the ground. Shooting ducks is not an "air sport" even though the bullet may hit the duck in the air. To my understanding, air sports are those that involve some means of human-powered flight, either as the sport in itself (stunt flying, balloon racing) or as a platform from which to perform (skyboarding or skysurfing, group skydiving). bd2412 T 01:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Your understanding would fit with the WP stub article, but also with what one might expect the words to mean, just as we don;t think of an airplane as merely a plane (surface) in the air. Give it your best shot. That other dictionaries don't have makes it more important that we do a good job. It might be a valid category, but I wonder whether it is often used and whether anyone wouldn't instantly guess the meaning. DCDuring TALK 03:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Consider, for example, someone who doesn't speak English. Might be easy for you to guess, but for everyone? I'll work on it - at some point. bd2412 T 03:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, we do have watersport (I don't know about defn. 2. But since SemperB put it there, I assume it is correct.) -- ALGRIF talk 10:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a second definition. Single words (former compounds that are spelled solid, like "watersport") are thereby not subject to challenge as SoP. I believe that compelling an English learner to construct the possible meaning of such a collocation is reasonable. It is misleading to treat it as if this were a true idiom. It is the kind of term that is most useful for someone who runs a business serving those who enjoy these activities, such as the apparent spammer w:Airways Airsports. Perhaps it would be useful to put this through RfV to get the cites that would support a meaning, which could then be assessed as to whether it was SoP or not. DCDuring TALK 11:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Re: your last sentence: Unfortunately, this never happens. Citing is a fair bit of effort, and editors aren't always motivated to do it in the best of cases, let alone cases of the form, "Let's see if we can get someone to add three quotations for this. Once we've done that, we can decide whether to delete those quotations. Afterward, we can come up with other ways to waste editors' time." :-P   —RuakhTALK 13:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Kept due to redefinition - one news quote backs it up, there's loads of others out there. --Jackofclubs 12:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

short cut

rfd-sense: A very short rendition, or snippets, of a film or play, as used in a coming attraction or promotional video.

IOW, short (brief) + cut (result of cutting). DCDuring TALK 10:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete.msh210 20:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Not the primary sense of cut, so keep. Would be a stronger keep if the stress is on short.

Category:Sinhala language

There are 2 separately named categories for this language- Category:Sinhala language and Category:Sinhalese language. The first has no content, so it should be deleted to avoid confusion, or move everything into the other category. Nadando 21:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete --EncycloPetey 21:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep, and rather delete Category:Sinhalese language or change {{sin}} to "Sinhalese." I'm undecided as to which is better. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
This language has a 2-letter ISO code of si, for which we have the template {{si}}. The templates should certainly match, but currently they do not. Template {{si}} says "Sinhalese" while {{sin}} says "Sinhala". --EncycloPetey 22:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


No. There is no such suffix. The combining forms listed here are from ...man + ship, not from ... + manship. — Paul G 08:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

By what criteria does one evaluate the "existence" or, more importantly, includability in Wiktionary of a suffix? DCDuring TALK 10:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Good question. Do we have criteria for this? The question is also begged by entries such as workmanship or craftsmanship. Are they derived from + -man + -ship or from + -manship? A craftswoman, or craftsperson displays good craftsmanship. But this does not give rise to craftswomanship or craftspersonship. -- ALGRIF talk 12:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The words evolved from adding "-ship" to craftsman etc. The word appeared and stabilized before there was a regular word craftswoman in English. I think a good avenue for exploring this is the word sportsmanship, since the hypothetical root sportsman is not a common English word. --EncycloPetey 23:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, both craftswomanship and craftspersonship do exist. Also, sportsman is, in fact, nearly four times more common than sportsmanship (also consider (un)sportsmanly &c.). I believe an essential criterion for the inclusion of an affix ought to be (by analogy with the “idiomaticity” criterion that we have for words) that its meaning cannot be reduced — in a sum-of-its-parts fashion — to its constituent affixes; in the case of -manship, unless it can be shown that there exist at least three words ending in -manship whose -man æquivalents do not exist, then I believe it should be deleted.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  • gamesman;
  • one-upman (though this is probably by back-formation); and,
  • Google Books, unfortunately, refuses to recognise brinkman as anything other than a surname; “a brinkman” yields results chiefly for people named “A. Brinkman” and technical terms named after people bearing that surname (e.g., a Brinkman medium); the world book dictionary lists it, but the results page is blank; nevertheless:
    «Threatening to sue unless something is repaired is a brinkman’s move, as lawsuits hurt everyone involved — except the lawyers. On the seller’s part, the willingness to risk “no sale” can be a brinkman’s move.» — [12];
    «His record shows he is a brinkman. I think he should clearly understand now he is at the brink and he must now seek a settlement.» — [13]; and,
    «But this doesn’t make Galileo a martyr, only a brinkman. When it came to actually dying for ideas, Galileo wasn’t having any.» — [14].
  •  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The recency of your hits indicates a back-formation, which would necessitate "-manship" having existed before brinkman was derived from brinkmanship. bd2412 T 03:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, not easy to get a citation for a freestanding suffix, but:
    • 1996, Steven H. Gale, Encyclopedia of British Humorists: Geoffrey Chaucer to John Cleese, p. 874:
      Summary Stephen Potter is best known for his gamesmanship theory, a cunning, psychological tactic used to best a competitor, on or off the field. His basic "-manship" principle was later incorporate to include many everyday events.
  • And, there is no "exams-man", but :
    • 2004, Jonathan Silverman, Suzanne M. Kurtz, Juliet Draper, Skills for Communicating with Patients, p. 102:
      This exams-manship history is decidedly different from the focused history that we are talking about in this chapter...
  • Cheers again! bd2412 T 00:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Examsmanship is valid, considering [15], [16], and [17]. The citation for -manship alone is rather interesting; it should be added to the entry.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep per Algrif and BD2412. All of BD2412's -shipless examples do seem to meet the CFI, but they're certainly far less common than their -shipped counterparts, and IMHO seem to be backformations. google books:"her chairmanship" makes google books:"her chairship|chairwomanship|chairpersonship" look like Taíno, even though google books:"she was chairman" is not far ahead of google books:"she was chair|chairwoman|chairperson". Also, it seems to be a fixed expression, so to speak: -manhood, -manity, and -manness are all almost nonexistent. —RuakhTALK 00:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this last point of yours: That doesn’t prove that -manship is one suffix. Due to the esoteric (descriptive) rules of English morphology, certain morphemes are simply naturally prædisposed to be affixed by this or that affix; for example, the en- -en words, as far as I know, form nouns exclusively by the suffixation of -ment, whereas the -less words are almost always suffixed with -ness when nominalised — this doesn’t mean that en- -enment* and -lessness* are English affixes.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
That's true, but it's an additional reason to keep the entry, just as we keep fixed series of words. (I won't argue that all such fixed sets of suffixes should be included — for one thing, they're not constituents — but taken together with the other arguments, I think it makes a stronger case. Or maybe not.) —RuakhTALK 03:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • One more note, the 2002 World Book Dictionary entries on brinkmanship and conmanship present the respective etymologies of the words as "brink + -manship" and "con + -manship". Although this is a citation to a dictionary, it is not to the dictionary's definition of the word, but to the use of -manship as a suffix. bd2412 T 00:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    Brink + -manship” I can believe, but I reckon they’re wrong with conmanship (which is far more likely to be “conman + -ship”). I get your point though; however, it is not absurd to argue that they’re wrong in according suffixship (  ;-) ) to -manship.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    But wouldn't that be prescriptivism on our part, to decide that a use in print is 'wrong'? Also, I have found another such use in the nifty Rice University Neologisms Database:
    • Quippmanship n.
      The ability to produce a catchy soundbyte, witty remark, or clever turn of phrase. The art, skill, or ability to create a catchy soundbyte, witty remark, or clever turn of phrase. Formed by an unknown word formation process.
      [affixation; formed from 'quip' + 'manship']
      "So far most of our intelligentsia have been more eager to explain what this war is not than what it is. Yet the conflict is not a hash-it-out in the faculty lounge, nor a brainstorm over a headline in the newsroom, nor flashy quippmanship in a political d" -From a NationalReviewOnline editorial by Victor Davis Hanson, on Fri Nov 7, 2003.
    Cheers! bd2412 T 16:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Here’s the deal: I don’t personally object to this entry’s existence. Nevertheless, I believe the principle I outlined above is a good one; what do you all say? As for the entry, I think examsmanship and the direct use count as two of the requisite three citations, so I’m sure we can find another -manship word that lacks a -man æquivalent; perhaps in one of these three lists (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I think the fact that another dictionary uses it as a word-forming suffix should at least count for a citation. bd2412 T 01:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    I disagree (although I’d be open to debate on that, if it is explained to me their reasoning for specifying those etymologies); we don’t consider as citations the fact that a word is listed as a headword in a dictionary. Neither do I think that appearance in an etymology counts as a “use”.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    It is exceedingly difficult to find uses of suffixes in the wild. How would you prove that -ist or -ally exist? We don't accept existence as a headword in a dictionary as proof of existence, but the writers of a dictionary would be more, not less qualified in using a word in its natural form, and not as a definition. bd2412 T 03:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
    First of all, whoever wrote that entry isn't actually using the suffix, only mentioning it; it's equivalent to the full sentence, “Quippmanship[sic] is formed via affixation from quip and manship”. Further, it's not a durably archived word list. So it might be usable as a reference, but not as a quotation. (Not that we need quotations for affixes, anyway, provided we have quotations for the words they form.) Secondly, looking through that page, nothing about it suggests that all of its writers are particularly knowledgeable about these things; for example, one of them describes Quick Outtie as a blend of quick and outtie, and another describes Queasishness as the result of zero-derivation because (s)he thinks that -ness is a verb-forming suffix. It's like urban dictionary, where some contributors know a lot and others just act like they do. (On average I'd imagine they know more than the typical urban dictionarian, since they're submitting these entries for an English-slash-Linguistics class, but overall they're clearly not reliable.) Our CFI don't say enough about affixes; I think it's obvious that we can't expect them to be attested detached-ly, since that would be basically impossible (and counterproductive, since that would be a very unrepresentative set of quotes if we managed to find them). —RuakhTALK 14:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
    Actually my last comment was about the 2002 World Book Dictionary, which is an actual print dictionary. bd2412 T 17:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
    Oh, sorry, long discussion, got confused. So, it is reliable and durably archived — but still a mention. —RuakhTALK 19:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
    My fault, I threw two different thoughts up at the same time there. But the larger point is that it is virtually impossible to find use of a suffix alone in a format that is not simply a mention (try to find such a citation for "-istic", "-faction", or "-atory" ). And yet we include (and must include) suffixes. bd2412 T 19:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah, I think we're basically in agreement. Your reasoning seems to be "it's not possible to find uses of such affixes, ergo our quotations for them will have to be mentions", whereas mine is "it's not possible to find uses of such affixes, ergo we can't require quotations for them", but that's a tiny difference, in the grand scheme of things. :-)   —RuakhTALK 20:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Whether it's its own indecomposable suffix or a combination of two suffices is academic, subjective and irrelevant. When two separate words are put together to form a new one, the new word warrants an entry; why should suffices be any different? Language Lover 03:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Per all above. Whether or not the suffix itself is formed by suffixing another suffix is irrelevant. --Jackofclubs 18:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

side wall

back wall

front wall

Someone had marked these for speedy deletion, obviously inappropriate. I'm listing them here, although I personally do not see why they should be deleted. __meco 12:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitions refer to squash. The phrases seem to be used also in handball, rooms, houses, properties, etc. So if we keep this we'd have to change our definition to "the back|front|side wall of anything" rather than "the back|front|side wall of a squash court" — and it's SoP. Delete.msh210 20:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep. On seeing them here, I instantly knew they were about racquetball. As it turns out, I "knew" wrongly (they were about squash), but I do think we should keep the squash/racquetball sense. We can put something like this:
  1. The wall at the front of a room or building.
  2. Specifically, the wall at the front of a squash or racquetball court, which the ball must hit after each stroke before it hits the floor.
RuakhTALK 23:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Even if we keep this, I don't see that those are two senses. Why not combine them into
  1. The wall comprising all or part of the front boundary of a room, building, squash or racquetball court, or other enclosed or partially enclosed area.
?—msh210 19:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
They're not two senses, exactly, except that one is a term of art used with a precise and well-defined sense that's hyponym-ish to the other. It's like how at [[set]] we include the math sense, even though that's just a special case of the more general sense. —RuakhTALK 22:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I guess so. (See also the two senses of free: "Unconstrained" and "(mathematics) Unconstrained".  :-) ) Weak keep.msh210 22:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete, pointless entries. Mglovesfun 14:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

'"`UNIQ--postMath-00000001-QINU`"'-American entries and '"`UNIQ--postMath-00000002-QINU`"'-born entries (ex: Sicilian-American, American-born Chinese)

"SoP" entries. Sets a bad precedent for thousands of similar entries (ex. Korean American, Cuban American, Mexican American, and so on). --TBC 22:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

keep Submit for RfV just like anything else. There are usually important as preferred alternatives to usually non-SoP pejoratives. Usage notes alone on each subject would warrant their inclusion. I would suggest that we should have at least one attestable non-pejorative demonym (?) for every ethnic grouping for which we have a pejorative demonym. DCDuring TALK 22:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete American-born Chinese and British-born Chinese; keep Sicilian-American and African-American. I'll see if I can dredge up the classic Nelson Mandela quote using "African-American" where an idiot American reporter "corrected" him about the term and Mandela explained that the black people of Africa were not actually African-American. African-American in particular is not sum of parts, since it is not used to refer to Americans of North African descent or to white Americans of South African descent. --EncycloPetey 00:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that these ought to be treated en masse, as EP's views suggest. There may be very different merits for each. I often find that the effort of citing the entries leads to an adjustment of the definitions that clarifies the usage of the terms. DCDuring TALK 01:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
That logic doesn't really apply to the [[[Sicilian-American]] entry, but I can see why the African-American entry isn't completely SoP. If it's necessary, I'm for separating this request, as per EP's comments.--TBC 02:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Separate these, per above. Otherwise, keep African-American per EP's Maghreb comment, and delete all the rest unless a good argument is made for any.—msh210 22:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Famous Buildings and Monuments

CFI explicitly states that entries like "Empire State Building" should not be included. I don't see why this shouldn't apply to other famous buildings and monuments as well. The rationale that these entries should be kept because translations exist doesn't make much sense, since that would merit the inclusion of all famous buildings (including the Empire State Building). --TBC 23:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep some, but delete others. Should be an RFV matter, primarily. If any of the above are or have been used in an idiomatic comparative sense, those should be kept. bd2412 T 01:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:BP would have been a better place for this actually, since this is more of a discussion on policy (CFI) and it's applications to specific entity entries. That's besides the point, though.--TBC 18:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Procedurally, Golden Gate Bridge does not belong here at all, having passed previously. I have put it in RfV, to determine whether there are citations that might support its inclusion. Perhaps Angkor Wat would get citations that made it includable. The others especially would appear to be candidates for {{only in|Wikipedia}} entries. Alternatively, move individually to RfV, wait a month (or two or three) for the absence of citations to become apparent, then they will be deleted. It seems extremely implausible that a four- or five-word building name would have quotations that would satisfy us. Even the three-word names seem unlikely. I could more easily see us keeping nicknames for these entities, like Golden Gate, Colossus, and Hanging Gardens or hanging gardens. DCDuring TALK 11:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
So what if it's been nominated before? Consensus changes, there's no policy that prevents an entry from being RfD'd again. Anyhow, deleting the full names and keeping nicknames sounds like a good idea.--TBC 18:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The process and general civility are what keep a wiki from descending into chaos. The clear trend in our policy is toward selective inclusion of entries like this that have some attributive meaning, which is not going to be ascertained in the RfD process. We have separate processes because they involve different kinds of effort and process. Incidentally, if what you want is to change policy or discuss whether we are actually adhering to policies, that would belong in WT:BP (horses for courses). DCDuring TALK 18:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
WT:CFI mentions attributive use, which might be deemed to imply that such entries have to be usable as adjectives. I think the actual meaning of attributive is a bit broader, which possibly should be explicitly included in CFI. For example, Threadneedle Street refers to the Bank of England (which in turn refers to UK monetary authorities and policy) and Wall Street refers to the US financial markets. The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Capitol Hill, the Pentagon, Number 10, Broadway, Fleet Street all seem to mean more than the places referred to, whether or not they are used as adjectives (and whether or not we have them as entries yet!). I would not expect most of the places in this RfD to meet the attributive test. It is possible that we would want to broaden CFI to include such well-known places, which might emerge from this discussion and the discussion of Golden Gate Bridge on RfV. DCDuring TALK 15:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
When there are specific translations into other languages for a given building or monument, definitely keep. —Stephen 12:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The translation criterion is not part of any policy, AFAICT. Would the undocumented criterion mean that any SoP translation would warrant keeping the name of the great building or monument ("GBM")? I don't really see why we couldn't be gazeteer, albeit possibly a very selective one. We could provide a service even just by offering pronunciation of place names. DCDuring TALK 13:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Dictionaries are the principal tool of my professional trade, translation. Encyclopedias are used for information such as lengths, widths, dates, and histories. Dictionaries are primarily for definitions, capitalization, spelling, grammatical information such as tense and gender, and translations. Few paper dictionaries have definitions as well as translations and grammatical notes, but a book of definitions is a dictionary, and a book of translations is a dictionary. What I mean is, no one paper dictionary encompasses all that a dictionary can be, but some dictionaries are for definition (American Heritage, Random House), and some dictionaries are for translation (Vox, Larousse, Cassell, Langenscheidt). Among paper translation dictionaries, there are also different types, due to the physical limitations of a paper book: there are general dictionaries, medical dictionaries, transportation dictionaries, petroleum dictionaries, etc. General translation dictionaries try to include important proper names such as Empire State Building, Eiffel Tower, Slovakia, etc. Some translation dictionaries, mainly those that use a different script or exotic language, try to include other important names...e.g., Chinese has special specific translations for important names such as Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter, and a good one lists them.
Since Wiktionary is not limited to definitions à la American Heritage, but includes translations and grammatical info as well, it should fulfill the duties not only of definition dictionaries but also of translation dictionaries, and translation dictionaries, depending on speciality, have entries for names such as Angkor Wat, Golden Gate Bridge, and George Washington.
This is why User:A-cai wrote the definition for the common term 成龙 (chéng lóng), which can only be translated by looking it up in a dictionary. Then someone who doesn’t use Wiktionary for translation purposes deleted the page. —Stephen 13:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
This discussion does not really belong here, it belongs at the BP. It would seem to need a vote to be a valid defense of any particular entry. A vote usually needs prior discussion if there is any potential for disagreement. I have already seen disagreement on this point without resolution. QED. If there is an ongoing discussion at BP, the possible deletion of these specific entries would be held in abeyance. There seem to be two issues which have a little overlap: 1. criteria for inclusion of places and fixed physical structures and 2 the translation criterion for inclusion of SoP and other entries. DCDuring TALK 15:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe there was some discussion of this on BP, but it didn't result in anything conclusive. That's the problem with BP; discussions last for a week or less before they're forgotten in favor of another issue. --TBC 03:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
If we have something interesting to say about the name (some etymology, regional variations, not-simply-transcribed translations), we should keep the entry (as we exist to describe words). If we have nothing to say about the word (though I doubt this is often the case if we are trying hard enough), replace it with {{only in|{{in wikipedia}}}} and let Wikipedia describe the entity that the word describes. Conrad.Irwin 23:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Hanging Gardens of Babylon, Lighthouse of Alexandria, Mausoleum of Maussollos, Statue of Zeus at Olympia, Twin Towers 2, Colossus of Rhodes, Temple of Artemis; no attributive usage shown in almost a year, nor have the CFI rules changed to permit them without it. Equinox 23:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

September 2008


I put this up for rfv a while back but I didn't get much satisfaction. IMO we don't need this at all. Also if this "passes" rfd then please see to the deletion of youkoso(which is only a redirect) and youkai. Discuss--50 Xylophone Players talk 11:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep. We certainly need the entry page for the Spanish definition if nothing else. Angr 13:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
PalkiaX50 is referring specifically to the Japanese section. Don't worry, no one's going to delete the entry as a whole, just possibly remove the Japanese section. —RuakhTALK 13:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The Japanese looks very good to me, very useful, and makes finding the correct meaning and kanji easy. As discussed previously, it should be kept. —Stephen 17:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
*sighs* But is this not just something like (N.B. this is hypothetical) if you were to put troop at troupe (if troupe wasn't a word)--50 Xylophone Players talk 21:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
I know almost nothing about Japanese, and nothing about how it's Romanized, but if accent marks are necessary, then why shouldn't this be deleted (and replaced with {{also}})?—msh210 19:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


Another one. Robert Ullmann 04:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that the sense at torrent is fine, but should refer to WP. Sense at tracker doesn't look like a separate sense at all. Robert Ullmann 11:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this entry be modeled on [[Ethernet]]? Are there any facts that would make that impossible? DCDuring TALK 15:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

on course

purportedly an idiom. But see course#Noun. DCDuring TALK 03:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Sense (among others) seems to be missing at course. DCDuring TALK 03:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Because we it isn't the same as "on a course" or "on the course". Other dictionaries have it.--Jackofclubs 18:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


This time around, I'm adding the first English definition too - a brand of Californian wine. --Jackofclubs 12:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

:This one should perhaps be RfV'd as a brand name that might have enough attributive use for inclusion. DCDuring TALK 19:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It has already passed RfV. What grounds for reopening? DCDuring TALK 19:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
How did it pass RFV? Two of the quotations clearly identify it as alcohol. We could use one other. DAVilla 07:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

semisweet chocolate

Sum of parts? Conrad.Irwin 01:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Has a specific regulatory meaning in the US: w:Types of chocolate#United states. -- Visviva 03:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I hate to ask, but as applied to chocolate, doesn't semisweet have a specific regulatory meaning in the U.S., and doesn't semisweet chocolate mean simply “chocolate that is semisweet”? —RuakhTALK 05:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Seemingly not a regulatory meaning, but I'd agree it has a colloquial one. Seems like a SoP to me, but, then again, I'm not in the food (or food law) field.—msh210 17:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hm, that link is dead (viz, was temporary). My intent was to show that the part of the Code of Federal Regulations that deals with food labeling refers to "semisweet chocolate" but never just "semisweet". Search for "semisweet" at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/ .—msh210 19:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

political label

A term used to categorize people based on their political beliefs or tendencies. SoP, IMO. DCDuring TALK 15:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that the current definition is correct (I've never heard of this term before), this is not sum of parts. The intuitive meaning is that it is a means of organizing something to do with politics, but the stated meaning says implies stereotyping and negative connotations. Also, using 'label' to mean a group is not common as it usually. Perhaps someone else knows more about the term, but I would be hesitant to delete it. Yartrebo 06:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008


Adjective. Attributive use of noun, I think, though def. is not exact match. DCDuring TALK 00:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

  • The use of the word curry in the West Indies is different from that in the Indian subcontinent. It always comes before the noun (e.g. curry goat) and seems to be used as an adjective. The dish seems to use different spices (I am not an expert, only having eaten curry goat once (and survived)). SemperBlotto 08:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
That raises the question of a split in the etymology. DCDuring TALK 10:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

thousand one

I'd rfc'd this, but EP suggested deletion and creation of an Appendix on number-word formation. I agree, though I am not sure that anyone would ever use the Appendix. The entry definitely seems SoP to me. DCDuring TALK 19:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Native English speakers might not use the appendix, but there are lots of fiddly spelling and hyphenation issues for English names of cardinal numbers that non-native speakers would find very useful to have an explanation for. There is also grammar to consider, since these words can function kind of like adjectives (but are not comparable) and kinds of like nouns (but the "plural" forms aren't used the same as the singular). --EncycloPetey 00:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't and didn't doubt the utility of the information. I doubt only that it would be found, except by a user being given the link, probably in response to an inquiry. We would need to have a very explicit and elaborate effort to provide hooks for such content. Right now I suspect (are there any facts?) that new users never find appendices that contain what they need. DCDuring TALK 11:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
2 cents..I try to put an appendix link under See also, or Usage notes, or whatever is the most useful placing. That way, the user will find the info. In this instance, "See also" in the entry number, and perhaps in specific entries such as one and hundred etc. -- ALGRIF talk 17:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Should we have a suggested layout for number words (and similar classes of entries, like letters, numbers, symbols) that contain such items as these links? Are there particularly good examples of any of these? We also by now must have guidelines about criteria by entries of the various kinds are to be excluded or included. I have had trouble finding them. Or do we just leave it bots and existing RfV/RfD? DCDuring TALK 18:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The templates I set up for {{cardinalbox}} and {{ordinalbox}} were designed to clearly display an Appendix link in cases where an appropriate appendix exists. There are examples on the talk page for {{cardinalbox}} of what this looks like. --EncycloPetey 17:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and in answer to the other part of your question, Equinox went through the ordinal number entries and standardized/expanded them a few days ago, so you can look at entries for words like twelfth for examples of how they might be done. This doesn't, of course, include the additional problem of coordinating all the various numerical script systems that might be included, since ordinals aren't developed to that level yet the way that the cardinals are. --EncycloPetey 19:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


See the tag in the entry for more, but also I can understand having ti to show how ignorant people often fail to indicate the critical tonal differences between the pronunciation of two things that would seem to be pronounced in the same way but surely we do not need full word "improper Pinyin" entries.--50 Xylophone Players talk 12:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC) re-signing...50 Xylophone Players talk 16:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

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

December 2008

ever since

Is this worth having as a separate entry? It is an intensifier + since in each of its three PoS incarnations, afaict. Other dictionaries seem to have "ever" in usage examples at since. DCDuring TALK 19:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Move to RFD and/or delete.msh210 18:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with DCDuring (talkcontribs), dictionaries do see to use "ever" in examples with since, as common practice. Cirt (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I had put this on RfV to give this at least 30 days for someone to come up with citations that show a meaning for one or more of the three PoSes that was not essentially "since (intensified)". DCDuring TALK 16:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how it's intensified. Using just since in some cases seems just plain awkward. Keep regardless. DAVilla 01:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Which PoS are you referring too? I didn't think of any examples that seemed awkward without "ever". DCDuring TALK 02:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
The adverb particularly. Without ever it just sounds too formal. For the other two I'm not sure if it's an intensifier or something else. Saying "ever since" seems to establish a causal link moreso than just "since", which more or less establishes a timeline but does not hint that the two parts are more fundamentally related. I'm sure in some cases, though, it really is just an issue of intensification. Or is the relation I pointed out just another form of intensity? Anyways ever since as a conjunction runs off the tongue more easily at the start of a sentence. That at least seems like use without stressing anything. Also note that it distinguishes this meaning from the other definition of since as a conjuction. 08:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


"Communal understanding" sense. The example given seems to apply to sense 1, and I'm having a hard time thinking of a more suitable one. -- Visviva 02:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Also senses #5 and #6 could be combined. --Hekaheka 22:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I had split 5 and 6 per the anon's comment on the talk page, which I found persuasive ... one can use "civilization" to refer to sophisticated modern life, without preferring it ("I don't much care for civilization"), but one can also use "civilization" to refer to a particular society without regard to its level of sophistication ("I'm so glad to get away from the city and back to civilization"). I don't see any way to cover both of these under a single definition. -- Visviva 02:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Adjusted. The latter is used sarcastically to say that another group is not part of civilized society, or I guess literally if one really believes that another society does not have civilized rules. DAVilla 08:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. And I also deleted the sense of "countries" since Western civilization is not the members of NATO or the G8 summit. DAVilla 08:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Much better, thanks; that needed someone with fresh eyes. BTW, I have added another sense just now ("the quality of being civilized"), which I assume to be non-controversial. -- Visviva 09:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Before this change is buried it needs to be fully resolved by merging some of the translations and marking most as TTBC. 07:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
True... but before we do that, let's make sure we really want to erase the "stage" vs. "system" distinction. These do seem kind of distinct, though I'm not sure if/how to best separate them. -- Visviva 11:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you give examples of how you would draw the line? To me it seems to refer to both the people and the system simultaneously. DAVilla 08:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

War on Terrorism

POV; SoP. Same likely life and dictionary value as war on poverty, War on Poverty, war on drugs, etc. DCDuring TALK 20:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete. I don't think the lifetime is necessarily a factor, but in my view it's encyclopaedic. Equinox 22:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Bogorm 17:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep (and submit to RFV, I suppose). It's not SOP, as it refers to a specific war on terrorism, not any old war on terrorism (and also not the general war on terrorism that includes all specific wars on terrorism).—msh210 19:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Idiom, same as: World War One, World War Two, World War III, Cold War, Falklands War WritersCramp 17:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep per Msh, although I wish this logic would have applied to Vietnam War. Any chance we could revisit that vote? DAVilla 07:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The only issue I would have with using the generic "Vietnam War" is which one? Vietnam has had many many wars! Reference WritersCramp 22:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. There have been many, yet you and I know which one Vietnam War refers to. Yeah, it's in an encyclopedia because you can get a lot of information on it, but "which one?" is a very basic question. If somone would be likely to run across it and want to know what it means, that's why it belongs in a dictionary. DAVilla 08:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

War on Terror

Same as above. DCDuring TALK 20:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete as for the one above. Equinox 22:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Idem.Bogorm 17:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep per my comments on War on Terrorism.—msh210 19:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Idiom, same as: World War One, World War Two, World War III, Cold War, Falklands War WritersCramp 17:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Not exactly the same, because those are accepted names for wars in history. This isn't a specific war (it's a policy) and the term often has overtones of propaganda. Equinox 08:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep and stronger than above. This is not set to stop terror but terrorism. DAVilla 07:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

go apeshit

Synonymous with go postal, go crazy. Go + adjective structure wouldn't seem to warrant an entry. Looking up the adjective should get users what they want. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 18:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with you. I immediately thought of go ape (where ape, unlike apeshit, is not used without go) — but, according to our entry at ape, it can be used that way ("we were ape" in an example sentence, albeit a fabricated one). In any case, if this goes, go ape should go as well. Equinox 21:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with myself on this either. There is currently a discussion about off the deep end/go off the deep end (TR?). I'm thinking that "go" + new adjective/sense leads to free-standing new adjective sense, leads to gradable/comparable adjective sense, but that the "go" form may remain very common, possibly overwhelmingly so ("go ballistic", "go postal", go/get medieval). DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 21:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

January 2009

melt into

This doesn't seem like a real phrasal verb to me and there aren't any objective criteria for determining such either, afaict. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 00:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it's not a phrasal verb. The "into" is a preposition that takes an object, or else is an adverb when the object is unstated. There's a difference between "The blue melted into the purple" and "The child ate up the information." In the first case, the prepositional phrase makes sense as a prepositional phrase. The latter sentence, which has a phrasal verb, cannot be parsed as having a prepositional phrase "up the information". Likewise, one can say "The child ate the information up," but one cannot say "The blue melted the purple into." --EncycloPetey 00:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, EP. That helps. But, I get the feeling that what you describe would be a sufficient condition for "phrasal-verbity", but not a necessary one. Am I wrong? Should I just lie down until that feeling goes away? DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 18:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete because melt into doesn't suggest anything that melt + into doesn't. Equinox 00:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Move sense 2 to RFV; if it passes, then keep. I know of no other intransitive use of into — the intransitive counterpart is always in — I find it really hard to believe that are speakers for whom "the ice melted into" means "the ice melted", but if there are, then melt into certainly warrants coverage.
If sense 2 fails RFV, then weak keep, because there are still idiomatic senses, like in this quotation (via google books:"melted into a chair"):
  • 2004, Julia London, Highlander Unbound, Simon and Schuster, ISBN 978-0-7434-8868-6, page 122:
    Ellen pushed away from the door, drifted toward the couch, smiling, and melted into a chair, burrowing deep into the cushions, hugging herself as she thought of the bold man who had just left her sitting room.
As you say, it's not a phrasal verb, but it still seems like an idiom.
RuakhTALK 00:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I would say the idiom is in melt, not in "melted into", since she could have "melted from fatigue". --EncycloPetey 01:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems that way to me. There are lots of varieties of figurative melting, most of which seem to occur either with or without prepositions, let alone with "into". One could "melt" "over the arm of the chair", "onto the floor", "under the blankets", "away from the advancing forces". More troubling to the RfD is "melt into" in a sense of "become". "In a moment, the brave soldier melted into quivering protoplasm." This would seem to possibly be a copula, albeit with a semantically limited range. "Brittle melted into gooey." DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 18:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Not a copula, since it requires a preposition. I don't see this as any different from "The company closed as a successful experiment." It is the preposition into that carries the sense "producing, becoming", which is already given in that entry. --EncycloPetey 21:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
In the second example the putative preposition "into" was followed by an adjective, which is why I thought it was possible that it was a copula. One would have to infer a noun that was "understood" (a word from grammar classes long ago) or that "gooey" was functioning as noun. I'd be surprised if there were no scholarly work on the concept of "phrasal copulae". ;-)) DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 23:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
But there are plenty of examples of adjectives functioning substantively, and it's easy to fabricate examples: "The rich turned into the poor." "The happy bled into the sad." "Light dimmed into dark." In all of these situations, one quality is transforming or grading into another. By definition, it's not a copula if there is a conjunctive word in addition to the putative copula. --EncycloPetey 23:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
It is not as easy to fabricate examples with bare adjectives, which would seem to be the minimal requirement for a copula. I was careful enough to avoid any determiner before "gooey". I'm not trying to be difficult: I just want to make sure that I've pushed this as far as it can go or have somebody buy me a really good English grammar (either cgel or the previous best one) to shut me up or raise my quality of discourse. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 00:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing about a copula that requires a bare adjective, or any adjective at all. A copula can work with any subject complement, whether adjective, noun, noun phrase, or any nominative compound construction. --EncycloPetey 04:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but the bare adjective test is a potential test for discriminating. A bare adjective cannot be a substantive, can it? A preposition cannot "take" a non-substantive, can it? DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 12:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
In fact, a bare adjective can be substantive: "Meek wins." And a preposition can take a non-substantive (sort of). However, the prepositional object becomes a substantive automatically, in every case I can conceive: "She wrote the book on clean." ... even when the object is an adjective. --EncycloPetey 19:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. NOT a phrasal verb, for all the above reasons. The definition should be at melt. -- ALGRIF talk 18:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
If necessary RFV second sense, which seems more like a mistake than anything, or just delete along with everything else. Not a phrasal verb, idiomatic meaning is for melt. DAVilla 04:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

make clear

Same as above. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 00:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete the transitive sense; it's just making something clear (SoP), no better than make unhappy or make worthwhile. I don't understand the intransitive one (is it an error?). Equinox 00:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
It seemed erroneous to me but English often surprises me. I put in the intransitive tag to clarify and distinguish. If you can suss out some other reading, good on ya. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 11:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
So sussed. :-)   —RuakhTALK 14:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Merge into clear. (Specifically, make clear distinguishes two very different senses of clear that clear lumps together very vaguely as sense #5.) —RuakhTALK 14:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Weak delete. Reflexive sense could possibly be at make myself clear. Not sure that it works in any other person. DAVilla 06:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Mais si ! The first person singular is admittedly the most common, but other persons and numbers get well over a thousand b.g.c. hits, even without considering variants like "make oneself quite clear" (which gets another several hundred). —RuakhTALK 19:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Weak keep reflexive sense only. DAVilla 07:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

little boy

Given that little girl has been deleted, this should probably follow suit. -- Visviva 07:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 10:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete. See also the "little girl" discussion.—msh210 18:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmm… But should little girl have been deleted? Can this sense of little (very young) be used to modify any noun other than boy, girl, child, kid (child)m &c.? If it can be used widely enough, then both little boy and little girl ought to be deleted.
Also consider the similarly-used small boy, small girl, &c.; are they idiomatic? If so, they ought to be created; if not (because this sense of small (very young) can be used to modify a broad enough range of nouns), then the additional sense ought to be added to the entry for small, per the resolution to the little girl RfD.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Little also modifies lamb in a nursery rhyme. At least I think it means "young" there not "small in size". And one of the example sentences we have for it is "Did he tell you any embarrassing stories about when she was little?".—msh210 21:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Can one attest "little boy/girl" as definitely meaning "young" and not "small"? I think not, but perhaps it should get its 30 days on RfV. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 23:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
We sometimes use other dictionaries to support meanings. I think there is a case here to state that most/all main dictionaries include little = young. Another example we could use is My little sister. where little = younger. If we accept this defenition into little, then this entry becomes definitely SoP. -- ALGRIF talk 14:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC) I really should have looked at the entry for little before writing this. Doh. Algrif.
I think little boy refers to a fairly specific age-range and should be kept. I don’t know if the age-range varies with the country. I would say that in the U.S., a little boy is a boy between the ages of 2 and 10. It belongs in the category that incluces teen, teenager, young man, adolescent, baby, toddler, youngster, pre-teen, pre-schooler, old man, etc. —Stephen 23:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. little boy and little girl (as well as petite fille and petit garçon in French) should be kept. They are set phrases. But, of course, not little boat, little bird, etc. Lmaltier 18:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me if I'm being pedantic. But doesn't the "growth chain" logic mean we can allow puppy, little dog, adult dog (or adult dog)? Ditto for all the other animals I can think of. And, yes, including little bird. -- ALGRIF talk 12:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
But I think that little dog, adult dog or little bird are not set phrases at all (except little bird with its special meaning). Lmaltier 20:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Similarly, jeune fille should obviously be accepted, not jeune chien. Lmaltier 20:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I see four deletes (Visviva, DCDuring, Algrif, and myself) and two keeps (SGB and Lmaltier). I don't feel qualified to delete this on such a slim majority of which I'm a member, so I'll leave it and hope someone else deletes it.  :-) msh210 17:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Delete per little girl --Duncan 20:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC).
Delete as SoP. — Carolina wren discussió 20:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep per Stephen and restore little girl. DAVilla 05:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep — it’s more common nowadays than boykin (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete as SOP, especially per Algrif. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep, and restore little girl. Algrif has pointed out that my little sister means "my younger sister". But note that little girl does not mean "younger girl"; it means "young girl", so we have two different possible ways that little might be interpreted, but only one of those interpretations applies. This is one of the hallmarks of an idiomatic phrase. --EncycloPetey 18:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
But our entry at little has {{context|of a sibling}} for "younger", so that makes it clear, doesn't it? --Duncan 19:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
No, because boy is not a sibling term. We are discussing "little boy" and the associated "little girl". --EncycloPetey 19:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
But that's my point: "boy/girl" aren't sibling terms, "little" as "younger" applies to sibling terms, so "little boy/girl" doesn't mean "younger boy/girl" - according to the "little" entry, without any need for repeating it under "little boy/girl" entries. --Duncan 20:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Your point does not make sense. In the phrase little boy, "little" means ony "young" or "immature", as in "He cried like a little boy." It does not mean "small". The combination therefore always relies on a specific meaning out of the many that could potentially apply. That makes this an idiomatic construction under the CFI guidelines. --EncycloPetey 19:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. EP: "Little can mean young or younger, but little girl can only mean young girl, not younger girl." Dnc: "But we say at little it only means younger when reffering to siblings." EP: "That's irrelevant as girl isn't a sibling term." Dnc: "Exactly, that's why the younger sense doesn't apply." EP: "That argument doesn't make sense, because little girl cannot mean small girl." I'm afraid this kind of arguing is too subtle for my simple brain.
Notwithstanding if little girl really can't mean small girl (I didn't know that), that would be a reason for keeping the entry, so I'm striking my previous "delete". --Duncan 20:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Addendum: I have found a quote with attributive use (and there are many more found easily): --EncycloPetey 02:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • 1959, Robert Chester Ruark, Poor no more: a novel‎, page 65
    "I didn't realize it until I looked at you in those little boy pants. You look like a grown man playing kid."
I think that the reason why litte boy and little girl are set phrases is that girl and boy cover too many senses and ages, making more specific phrases necessary. Also note that Wikipedia has a little girl page (a redirect) and that TheFreeDictionary defines little girl (but not with a good definition, in my opinion). Lmaltier 17:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


This is not an acceptable alternate of playwright according to the OED, nor can it be found in any other dictionary source. Thanks. -Sketchmoose 15:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

  • No - it is a totally different word. the OED has this (under "play") - playright n. Obs. an author's proprietary right of performance of a musical or dramatic composition. SemperBlotto 15:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
keep. At worst this entry needs the obsolete legal sense. The RfD once more raises the question of what makes a spelling a misspelling vs. an alternative spelling and may also raise the queston of what makes a misspelling a "common" one. There are many current uses of the term in edited works where "playwright" might be preferred by some (like me). In any event, no speedy deletion. DCDuring TALK 17:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I have inserted "common" misspelling and given it an "rfd-sense" tag to take advantage of any attention this entry may have so far received to get more attention to the alternative/mis-spelling question. DCDuring TALK 17:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
This is fine with a proper definition. Before, all that was there was "alternate spelling of playwright" which is simply not correct, and I had never heard of it used in the "proprietary rights" sense so I didn't know to correct it to that (nor was it turned up in any of my dictionary searches, presumably due to its obsolescence). Thanks for looking in to it. -Sketchmoose 22:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
It may well go back to being an alternative spelling based on being fairly common in edited works. DCDuring TALK 23:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
This is weird... When I search for "a playright" to filter out most (but not all) of the legal uses, I get 0.5% of the hits for "a playwright" on the web (~548,000:~2,500). But when I switch to Google Books, "a playright" jumps to 9% (5,420:504). Forcing the issue [18] brings this down to 374, or 6.9%, which is still astronomical. Only a small fraction of those seem to be legal uses; scannos don't seem to be a factor. WTF? Is the web suddenly better-proofread than print? -- Visviva 02:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe that all(?) Google searches for "playright" will count hits for "play right" and "playright", though only the latter are emboldened. I have taken to doing separate "playright -play-right" and "-playright play-right" searches to get what I thought I was getting with searches for "playright" and "play right" alone. I also get significantly different results for "playwright" and "playwright -play-wright". DCDuring TALK 12:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The problem with that is that it also throws out any pages that have, for example, "play" and "right" in addition to "playright" (as will often be the case in a discussion of the legal concept).
Google's handling of quotes has been a little inconsistent lately, but the "+" operator seldom lets me down. If you're suspicious of the results from a simple quoted search, you can for example search for '+playright "a playright"' to make sure that all searched pages actually have the word in question, not just an approximation. (That search actually gives me the same results as above, at this writing.) -- Visviva 14:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Just to make clear the effect of the search methods as I understand it:
"AB" yields hits of "AB" and "ABs" (and includes "'A-B'" (and perhaps ""A-B"" etc)), but emboldens only "AB"
"ABs" yields hits of "ABs"
"A-B -AB" yields hits of "A-B" "A B" (as well as "A/B" "A>B", etc) without AB on the same page.
"AB -A-B" yields hits of "AB" without "A-B", "A B", and their fellow travelers on the same page.
I have not examined all of the possibilities raised.
Because I haven't yet found documentation of this, I suspect that Google is:
  1. not committed to keeping it working just this way and in every search domain;
  2. not desirous of providing much evidence to SEOers who game their system; or
  3. not desirous of facilitating searches that are more resource-intensive. DCDuring TALK 12:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Also "a+playright" gives me many times more hits than "a-playright", which gives the same as ""a playright"". DCDuring TALK 12:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
On the digression which generated the methodological subdigression, I get 880K web hits and 5500 bgc hits for "a-playright"; 596K (66%) web hits and 536 (10%) bgc hits for "a-playwright", more in line with expectations. DCDuring TALK 12:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


Sense 5 = "A ritual reversal of a social hierarchy". Makes little sense to me and suggests no meaning of "carnival" that I know. -- WikiPedant 04:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That refers to what the annual festival Carnival is about. It's more of a description of the spirit of the Catholic carnival festive season than a definition. --EncycloPetey 18:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

IP in IP

This entry hasn't been salvaged seen its RFC in October. Suggesting an RFD discussion to see whether this can stay. --Jackofclubs 18:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep now that it's cleaner. Conrad.Irwin 18:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept: cleanup has been done, and nobody objected in several months. Equinox 18:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


  1. rfd-sense: adjective - Related to the family.
    The dog was kept as a family pet.
    For Apocynaceae, this type of flower is a family characteristic.

Seems to be an attributive use of the noun. --Dan Polansky 15:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Move to RfV. The usage examples are consistent with attributive use. But I think that this forms a true comparative and therefore should be presented as an adjective too. It would be worth citing as adjective. DCDuring TALK 15:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep and expand definition, but delete these cites. Family has a meaning of having traditional values, being conservative, even old fashioned - for example "family values". The examples are clearly wrong, and are attributive uses of the noun.--Dmol 09:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Moved to RFV. Equinox 00:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Messerschmitt 109, Focke-Wulf 190

User:Sawbackedeagle added these in good faith before he was aware of the CFI. While we have (and probably should have) the likes of Messerschmitt, I think that these very specific designations are probably no-nos. (Compare Xbox and Xbox 360.) Equinox 00:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Move to RfV. It is not very hard to find attributive use of Messerschmitt 109 (with "pilot", "squadron", for example). It would thereby meet our standard for such entries. Focke-Wulf 190 might also. DCDuring TALK 00:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Where are you seeing that in the CFI? Seems to me at first glance at least that these are not idiomatic, nevermind whether they're attested (in attributive use or otherwise).—msh210 19:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I has thinking that these are product/brand names, like Concorde. Mind you, I am not sure that the collocations do qualify. DCDuring TALK 20:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I would recommend that we delete these, but keeping (or creating) the individual parts such as Messerschmitt and 109,, and Focke-Wulf and 190. There is a tendency for the company name to indicate these models if no other context is mentioned. The numbers were commonly used on their own. A more likely method is to use the common abbreviation such as ME 109 etc.--Dmol 05:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, delete (or move to ME 109/FW 190). Not idiomatic regardless of whether they can be attested, much like Xbox 360. DAVilla 06:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Move to the abbreviated forms per DAVilla. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

steam engine

Redundant senses, would normally steam ahead, but am I missing something? DAVilla 06:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

To me the definitions 1,2 and 4 are variations of the same theme. They could all be combined into this:
  1. An engine that converts thermal energy of steam into mechanical energy, especially one in which the steam drives pistons in cylinders.
Turbines should not be completely excluded from "steam-enginehood", since they utilize the same physical phenomenon (work produced by expanding steam) as "true" steam engines, and many sources, including Wikipedia, count them as steam engines. --Hekaheka 21:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Possibly, yes. However, if some people would use steam engine to mean something that is specifically a piston engine and never a steam turbine, then 1 and 2 should be left distinct. DAVilla 07:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
They're not truly distinct, but they are different. The first definition only applies to something applied with external steam, like a steam hammer. The second only applies to a piston engine (special case of first definition or a restricted sense of the 4th). The third is a locomotive only. The fourth is the general definition, and includes the boiler and applies to steam power generation and everything. So I don't see that any of it is redundant, although a casual look may suggest that. But they do appear to be all in use.Wolfkeeper 12:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Could this use cleanup? If not, some examples. DAVilla 07:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that normally the term "steam engine" would refer to a piston-type engine that uses steam as its working fluid. This may be due to the fact that piston engines were the dominating type of steam engines for about 100 to 150 years after James Watt. Especially in theoretical treatise one may group piston engines, turbines and probably some other devices together because they exploit the same thermodynamical phenomenon called Rankine cycle. However, in practice one would seldom call a steam turbine "steam engine", because it would be confusing. I think that senses 1 and 4 were essentially the same, and I have edited the entry in a way that would combine them to the sense #1. With this change, I think sense #4 could be deleted. Btw, the steam source is always external to the prime mover and it does not matter whether the steam source (boiler) and prime mover are integrated into same structure or not. --Hekaheka 21:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Pidgin English

Huh? If this is kept, it needs some serious work. However, I think it should not be kept, as it is clearly SOP (that is, unless it refers specifically to some particular English pidgin). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete as SOP, but the definition is inaccurate anyway. PE is a general term for the many English-based pidgins (about 20 or so). Even if corrected, it's still SOP. --Dmol 01:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
But isn't "Pidgin English" the origin of the term pidgin? I thought it originally referred specifically to the Chinese-English pidgin. See e.g. w:Pidgin#Terminology. I'm still not sure if it meets CFI -- the OED's cites mostly spell it Pigeon English -- but SOP doesn't seem quite right when the sum precedes the parts historically. -- Visviva 02:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems necessary to have the original Pigeon English then, and so this entry would at least need to be an alternative spelling. It doesn't matter to me which is the main entry, quite frankly. For clarity we should probably give Pigeon English the original meaning, if that differs from the current (and refer to Pidgin English if the meaning has extended under the older spelling as well). DAVilla 07:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

by committee

1 SoP; 2 tendentious definitions. DCDuring TALK 01:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sense 1 is either redundant or wrong, AFAICT. I mean, committee proceedings aren't necessarily protracted, and if I said "it was done by committee" I wouldn't necessarily mean that it was done slowly. If the entry is kept in some form, we should include the truly SoP sense (currently lacking), since "by committee" usually just means "by committee".
I would merge senses 2 and 3, though I'm not sure of the exact wording. -- Visviva 07:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
ok what do you think of the entry now? -- Thisis0 19:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I like it. The wording could be more concise, but I think these are both senses that we should have. -- Visviva 15:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Weak keep for sense 2. I think it could be (and has been) used humorously when there's clearly no actual committee involved. Sense 1 feels like SoP. (Actually, when a word or phrase has a non-literal meaning, like sense 2 here, people often seem to put the obvious literal meaning as sense 1. I'm never sure about that: do we have to spell out a clear sum of parts merely because there's a secondary sense that isn't the same thing?) Equinox 22:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I could have no greater hope for this term than it be defined by committee. DAVilla 06:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Hahaaahaaaha!!! :D -- Thisis0 17:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

by sail

See sail#Noun sense 2. DCDuring TALK 01:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

These do seem quite SoP-ish. Still, I'm of the opinion that, if reasonable people can disagree about whether a phrase for which we have an entry is sum of parts, we should keep the entry. That is, I would rather have 100 well-formed entries for phrases that might be sum of parts than miss 1 entry for a phrase that is not sum of parts. Polywords and proper nouns are the two greatest gaping holes in our English coverage, and no-one will ever bother to work on them if each entry is liable to be deleted.
This entry and the two following were created by two intelligent, reasonable editors, and were nominated for deletion by another intelligent, reasonable editor. To me, this seems like prima facie evidence that reasonable people can disagree as to whether these phrases are suitable for inclusion. Thus, without any actual consideration of the merits, I will happily vote keep.  :-) -- Visviva 07:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep per Visviva. —RuakhTALK 15:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Then we should change WT:CFI, which does not read that way. If we want to continue to increase the quantity of English entries there is literally no end to what we can achieve by exploiting the combinatorial explosion of compound and multiword entries. As more and more corpera are deemed durably archived attestation can be less and less of a barrier. I would be happier if we worked on entry quality, especially for highly polysemic words, and on Proper nouns than pushing in the direction of non-idiomatic collocations. DCDuring TALK 16:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
To put it another way, if I might: the editors who created these entries are familiar with CFI, and from what I have seen I am reasonably sure they would not deliberately flout Wiktionary's standards. Thus, I am inclined to assume that they could/would/did compose a reasonable argument in favor of the idiomaticity of these phrases. It is not too hard to see how such an argument would run; I would say the argument is relatively strong for by accident and somewhat weaker for the others. But where there are grounds for reasonable dispute over whether something is or is not idiomatic, it only makes sense to err on the side of inclusion. IMO this isn't a matter of CFI itself -- no one is questioning that phrases that are indisputably sum of parts should be deleted -- but of our implementation of CFI. Implementation naturally varies depending on practical concerns; specifically, I think the actual threat of the project being flooded with sum-of-parts phrases is quite small compared to the threat of our being overrun with protologisms or brand-name spam. -- Visviva 16:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I would vastly prefer a "rule of law", largely because it allows us to be more welcoming of contributions by non-experts. That means to me statute, not precedent (especially not hard-to-find precedent). Still less does it mean rule by judges.
I, too, believe that some prepositional phrases are close to idiomatic (eg, by accident, though I'm not sure why). I am not at all convinced that the de facto rules that seem to be emerging are desirable. In particular, I am troubled by the rule that a phrase combining two low-frequency (in the unsupported opinion of one or three senior contributors) senses of common words makes an includable collocation. I am bothered that it seems to lead to the failure to include senses at the individual word level (eg, sail and steam). The problem is particularly pernicious for prepositions, where missing senses may be used in many phrases.
I would be very surprised if adding these "multiwords" and "phrases" helped us in the slightest in our competition with the other on-line dictionaries. DCDuring TALK 18:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it doesn't have much effect on our competitiveness, but then not all contributors are motivated by competition with other dictionaries, and their contributions are no less valuable for that. Personally, I'm not very concerned by other dictionaries' competition, although I do look forward to the day when we flatten them... as we will, unless something flattens us first.
Back to the point at hand, I'm not sure if you're objecting to 1) the assumption that the creators of these articles would make plausible arguments in their defense, 2) the principle that if a plausible argument can be made for non-compositionality, the entry should be kept, or 3) both. I can understand the objection to 1) -- it is a bit ad hominem -- but I only meant it as a time-saving device. I mean, why wait for an argument to actually be made, when it can so easily be foreseen? ;-) My intent with 2) is actually to reduce the amount of arbitrariness in these decisions. When an RFD is decided solely on the (often rather erratic) judgment of the (often very small sample of) editors who weigh in, many entries end up being deleted/kept that might have had the reverse outcome if the discussion had happened a month earlier or later. This is untenable, and ends up discouraging useful contributions and contributors. So IMO this sort of "reasonable doubt" principle actually reduces the weight of our "judges" (if you will) vis-a-vis our "law."
At any rate, I didn't mean to drive this particular discussion so far off-course. Perhaps we could discuss this further on the BP. -- Visviva 15:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the rub with these terms comes in the bent or method through which you want to define them. When certain phrases have an idiomatic meaning, do you want a separate noun sense at the main word (sail ...5. A sailing vessel or vessels. We traveled by sail.) or take it as an idiomatic phrase by defining 'by sail'... [or both... the breadcrumb theory?]. For accident (below), you would at least have to add at least one more idiomatic sense to the main word (accident ...5. Chance; fortune; lack of intention. I ran into an old friend by accident.) In cases where the idiomatic sense exists only in the phrase, it should have an entry, which as far as I can tell is true for that specific sense of accident, and this sense of sail. Can anyone think of any other uses where the specific idiomatic sense of these main words exist in other phrases, or alone? It would be a good way of understanding the way each of these break down on a sense level, and if any of them have uses outside the phrase. -- Thisis0 18:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think sail means sail-boat so much as sail-power. A person can go by sail, which means he's on a sail-boat, but a boat can also go by sail, which means it is a sail-boat. In days of yore, a single boat might travel sometimes by sail, and sometimes by steam, depending on circumstances. I don't think that's very common any more, but this b.g.c. hit for "using sail" suggests both (1) that it does still happen and (2) that the exact words "by sail" are not necessary to evoke this sense. And that's ignoring variations like "by solar sail" and "by steam or sail" which have the "by" and the "sail" but don't put them together. (All of which are arguments for deletion; my "keep" vote is based entirely on the Visviva Principle.) —RuakhTALK 20:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Idiomatic phrases are not necessarily fixed. A pin in an enormous stack of hay; rain felines, canines, and pachyderms; have your retirement cake and eat it too. DAVilla 06:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I suppose I am a breadcrumbian, with a further belief in "all senses for all words". My particular sect would favor three kinds of breadcrumbs, but view advocacy of the fourth as heresy. The favored ones are:
  1. senses at each component word for every sense of the word used in any idiom (indeed any collocation). This would include senses for the current existence of which we had no evidence except in phrases that are currently idiomatic;
  2. idioms; and
  3. usage examples, which provide a natural means to get a user searching for a common collocation to an appropriate entry.
My disfavored fourth class of breadcrumb, non-idiomatic collocations, is the one that seems wasteful. It can be positively harmful if its presence leads to neglect of the others. DCDuring TALK 16:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Well I can't of course speak for all non-natives, but I myself see very few things more unuseful, nay, counterproductive (because confusing) for a non-native than lists of senses which appear in only one or two set phrases under separate definitions for the word, rather than under their own headings (cross-referenced with the word's heading of course). Moreover, it increases the danger of the warning "only in this phrase!" being omitted, thus leaving the user under the delusion that the definition is applicable generally (adding an example sentence doesn't solve this at all); and with respect to prepositional phrases (probably some others too) it's bound to make even the Translations tables much less user friendly, as many easily translatable phrases would be turned into intranslatable definitions. --Duncan 18:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep (with minor reservations) I disagree. I believe that entries that are eligible for Category:English prepositional phrases are extremely useful and not at all confusing. Many (not to say all) Eng L2 learners are encouraged to investigate and learn these idiomatic preposition + noun (phrase) collocations. BTW, I hope this Category answers your above question, Thisis0. Nearly all prepositional phrases are adverbial or adjectival and somewhat idiomatic, such as by accident below, (which is why DCDuring is having trouble seeing what makes it different). Phrases such as by sail, rail, road, air, sea, etc I believe should have an entry, as their meaning is idiomatic despite being easily understandable. Whereas phrases such as by car, train, boat, bike, plane, etc. should be catered for under by as these are non-idiomatic SoP's. -- ALGRIF talk 16:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete. This is standard use of by (by car, by horse, by boat, by ferry, by jet) with a metonymic use of sail to stand for the whole boat. --EncycloPetey 16:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Precisely, it's always metonymic, not literal. Keep. DAVilla 06:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
So which is literal: "by road" or "by car"? "by train" or "by rail"? "by ship" or "by sea"? Travel statements using "by" use metonymic nouns as a matter of course. --EncycloPetey 16:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
What's metonymic about "by car", "by train" and "by ship"? --Duncan 22:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

by steam

See steam#Noun sense 4,5. DCDuring TALK 01:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Which you just added. Please exemplify in a phrase that does not use "by". DAVilla 06:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • 1845, Frederick Knight Hunt, The Rhine: Its Scenery, and Historical and Legendary Associations [a/k/a The Rhine Book], reprint, ISBN 1421266377, page 5,
    The traveller who decides upon visiting the Rhine will do well to take steam to Antwerp.
msh210 17:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Note, though, that take steam seems to have been an idiom meaning be tugged or something like that. So maybe that's the idiom being used in the quotation I just posted, and it's not an example of "steam" (per se, in the senses required).—msh210 17:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009


Sense "(transitive) To place on a hook" redundant with previous "(transitive) To cause (something) to be suspended". I mean, it's a subset of the previous, but I don't think anyone uses "hang" to mean "place on a hook, to the exclusion of suspending it by other means": no one would say "I said to hang it, not to suspend it, so why didn't you put it on a hook?".—msh210 23:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox 21:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
lol, agree with msh; delete. 50 Xylophone Players talk 21:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom, unless it can actually be cited -- which, per nom, seems quite unlikely. -- Visviva 12:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I asked you to hang your coat, so why is it still hanging on the chair?
Keep. DAVilla 12:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Fwiw, the sense was added in this diff.—msh210 20:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Merge definitions. --EncycloPetey 17:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

rate adjustment cap

SoP.—msh210 21:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

delete No, wait! How is the user supposed to know it's not a type of headgear? DCDuring TALK 23:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
As a non-financial-type person, I would have had no idea that this referred to a limit on one day's rate adjustment, rather than over (say) the entire period of the loan. If the definition is correct, I would be inclined to keep the entry as more specific than the sum of its parts. -- Visviva 03:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
No, no. As with almost any long-term contract, there are unsurprising conventional intervals at which the rate on an adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) or other variable-rate loan can be adjusted: monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, annually, biennially; possibly starting after some initial period. A very large business loan might have more frequent adjustments. It is just a "cap" on the amount of the "adjustment" of the interest "rate". There is plenty of business jargon to include, but I can't see this. DCDuring TALK 04:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
If some mortgage broker told me "this loan has a rate adjustment cap of 2%" without further explanation, I would probably assume that applied to the lifetime of the loan, rather than a single adjustment period. That would be a rather serious, perhaps bankruptcy-inducing, mistake.
That said, I'm not sure the definition is strictly accurate; "rate adjustment cap" is quite rare in use, and about 90% of the time it appears with some modifier ("annual", "period", "lifetime", etc.) which makes the specific meaning clear. I suspect the remaining cases would be clear from context. On the other hand, it seems clear that we should have an entry for adjustment cap, which is fairly common, and clearly has a more precise meaning than the sum of its parts. Compare google:"a rate adjustment cap of" (1 hit) and google:"an adjustment cap of" (28 hits). Perhaps this entry could be redirected to that one? -- Visviva 04:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

alphabetical order

Per asciibetical order RFD above. You can (and people do!) order by practically anything, e.g. numerical order, ASCII order, ANSI order, Unicode order, Hebrew alphabetical order... Equinox 22:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

But can't this be used specifically to mean the standard human-readable alphabet sequence (A,a,B,b), as opposed to asciibetical order and other technically "alphabetical" sequences? I mean, asciibetical order is alphabetical, but it specifically is not what is meant by "alphabetical order". -- Visviva 17:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes ("data is sorted in ASCII collated order rather than alphabetical order"), but that's still a matter for alphabetical versus asciibetical; the fact that it's an order is still SoP, isn't it? By the above token it seems we should also have alphabetical sort and asciibetical sort; alphabetically arranged and asciibetically arranged, etc. etc. At some point we have to give the reader credit for being able to put two words together. Equinox 17:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict):
IOW, even so, isn't the distinction/semantic relation in each case entirely in the adjective alone? DCDuring TALK 17:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
It should be kept, as a set phrase (but probably not the other phrases mentioned above). And how could you guess what alphabetical order means from alphabetical and order? It seems impossible, you can guess that the order is related to the alphabet, that's all. Lmaltier 17:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Keep In English, we usually use alphabetical order to mean in the order of the English alphabet, and not of just any alphabet. At the very least, we need this entry with a usage note to indicate such. The "alphabetical order" of Hungarian, Estonian, and even Spanish will throw many English speakers. Additionally, as Lmaltier notes, this is more than sum of parts. Alphabetical means "pertaining to the alphabet", but alphabetical order means that items have been sorted in sequence according to their initial letter. This is more information than is contained in the components. --EncycloPetey 17:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
But the same initial-letter implication is equally true for constructs like alphabetical listing, alphabetical sort, alphabetical catalogue, alphabetical index... do you support such entries as well? Equinox 17:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
No. An alphabetical listing is "a listing that is alphabetical". An alphabetical index is "an index that is alphabetical". But alphabetical order is NOT merely "an order that is alphabetical". Part of the reason for that order has so many meanings, but part of it is the slight idiomaticity and use as a set phrase. The correpsonding meaning of alphabetical is a back-sense from alphabetical order (as Visviva notes below). --EncycloPetey 17:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Then how is this — { Hebrew, Cyrillic, English, Spanish } — not an "alphabetical listing"? It's a listing of alphabets! Equinox 17:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
It would be an "alphabet list", not an "alphabetical listing", except for the fact that Cyrillic is a script, not an alphabet. There is more than one alphabet in the Cyrillic script, and these don't all include the same letters. --EncycloPetey 16:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
EP seems to believe that, for multi-word entries that include even one polysemic word, the potential for confusion among benighted users is sufficient to warrant inclusion, even though this is not to be found in WT:CFI. Until such time as this criterion is in WT:CFI, I would have thought such argument would be a mere make-weight, not determinative. DCDuring TALK 18:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
You neglected to read this sentence in WT:CFI (under Idiomaticity): "Compounds are generally idiomatic, even when the meaning can be clearly expressed in terms of the parts. The reason is that the parts often have several possible senses, but the compound is often restricted to only some combinations of them." Since this argument is in CFI, I assume your position is now to support inclusion. --EncycloPetey 06:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but I've always thought of the "alphabetical" in phrases like "alphabetical sorting" as being derived from alphabetical order, and basically meaning "of, pertaining to or following alphabetical order". That's certainly the way the concepts are structured in my benighted little brain; whether it corresponds to the actual historical derivation I don't know. -- Visviva 17:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Of the nine OneLook dictionary entries I looked at 4 had only the "order" sense and the balance had the two senses that our entry now has (thanks, EP). No other dictionary includes alphabetical order as a related/derived term, though it appears in a few of the usage examples. I think that does indicate that most lexicographers view it as SoP/non-idiomatic. DCDuring TALK 18:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
To make clearer what I mean: in an alphabetical order, you give priority to the first letter then, if needed, to the second letter, etc. This is essential to the meaning of alphabetical order, and cannot be deduced from alphabetical, nor from order. Lmaltier 07:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Right. The list
a I am an be he is we are has she the was you been have they were
is ordered according to the sequence of the alphabet, but is a numerical rather than lexicographical ordering. The question is if alphabetical conveys this information. If one of its definitions should include the idea of established orderings, then this term could be deleted'. On the other hand, a lot of these collocations would make great phrasebook entries. DAVilla 12:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Even beyond that, in English alphabetical order for surnames, Mc / Mac is treated separately from M, so there is actually more than one alphabetical order in English, one of which does not follow the sequence of the alphabet. --EncycloPetey 07:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete.msh210 16:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete  This is a lovely sum-of-parts phrase, where part B clearly points to sense 2 of part A. Michael Z. 2009-03-24 17:25 z


Rfd-redundant. Video game sense seems to be some kind of special case of first sense or an idiosyncratic usage, but I leave this to specialists in this context. DCDuring TALK 17:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. Look at the example sentences. Whether they are typical and reasonable I don't know, but if so it seems (for the noun) we can "perform a glitch", as though it's a technique or skill; for sense 1 we would say something like "cause a glitch". Same applies to the verb, where we have "glitch into" and glitching appears to be a deliberate process or action rather than a momentary tweak. Equinox 17:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
If we had citations of real usage in that sense, I could agree. I was hoping that someone could vouch for the usage. DCDuring TALK 14:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Did you even look? http://www.google.com/search?q=%22he%20glitched%22&sa=N&hl=en&tab=pw gives lots for just one form, http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22he+glitched+into%22&btnG=Search has really precise examples. The old form of the word was used to reference a thing that malfunctioned, now is used to reference a person doing a specific action. --Connel MacKenzie 02:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

hippie movement

SoP, like feminist movement, antiwar movement. Even its creator wasn't sure about it :) Equinox 18:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I dunno. Not all "hippie" "movement"s are the "hippie movement" (fried egg). Meets the oh-so-rigorous two-sided polysemy test. The eight senses of "movement" have to be laboriously checked to see how they correspond with the two senses of "hippie", requiring as many as 16 efforts to construct phrasal meanings and compare to the user's source or intended meaning. Although there isn't a WP article with the exact title, there is w:History of the hippie movement. It's also a whole populated (99 members, 7 subcategories) category on Wikipedia. No question as to its attestability. I'm sure it would meet the single-word translation test in a quorum of languages. Doesn't it seem like a set phrase to you? DCDuring TALK 19:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
This isn't an attack on you by any means, but IMO that's ridiculous. Suppose I speak of "castle walls", a very common phrase; well, it's not the sense of "castle" as in "move the king in chess", so do we need an entry for that? How about "lentil soup"? Well, it's not the figurative sense of "soup" as in primordial mess, so we need an entry. "Cow's milk"? Because the cow isn't an ugly woman. Just madness. Equinox 22:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I am interested in discovering some rules that would allow us to include worthwhile multi-word, not obviously idiomatic, noun-noun phrases. This entry is as good a single test case as any as to what entries we find worthwhile and what rules might permit them. As far as I can tell it doesn't meet any of our idiom criteria, but it does meet all of our proposed relaxed criteria that have been bruited. I really don't know what folks think about this one. It seems not harmful and neither useful nor useless to me. DCDuring TALK 00:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
It puzzles me that you can say this doesn't meet any of our idiom criteria just after saying that it meets the fried egg test. -- Visviva 05:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
But it isn't technical, unless nostalgia or sociology count. DCDuring TALK 19:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
History isn't a technical field? -- Visviva 05:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
There are many movements in which hippies participate, even today, yet there is no longer a "hippie movement". Thus, as DCDuring notes, it is significantly more specific than the sum of its parts. Note that it is also generally the hippie movement; if it weren't usually written in lower case we would not hesitate to treat it as a proper noun. By the same token I think a useful definition could be written for "feminist movement" and possibly even for "antiwar movement" (though that one is trickier). All that said, the entry as written is not particularly helpful. Neutral. -- Visviva 05:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Frankly, I thought that I had mispoken when I said that it had met the "fried egg" test. I sometimes think there is a difference between the "fried egg" test and mere one-sided polysemy. Nobody has found it necessary to clarify this for me. But one narrow reading of the "fried egg" test would require:
  1. two distinct attestable uses of the term, eg:
    1. "egg that is fried" (SoP) and
    2. "an egg that is shallow fried" (whatever that means, I think a photo might be necessary at the entry).
  2. the more common one (2) being a subclass of the other, and
  3. the sense of the modifier (shallow-fried) as used in the phrase not attestable with other nouns.
Is this what the "fried egg" test means? DCDuring TALK 11:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
That is basically my reading of it, yes; the key thing being that a fried egg is not strictly fried+egg for any combination of senses. Thus, there is no risk of the reductio ad absurdum to which the polysemy criterion is subject (per Equinox above), which means we can dispense with shades of gray: something either meets the fried egg test, and therefore merits inclusion, or it doesn't. But interpretations of the test seem to differ from one Wiktionarian to the next. This is not particularly surprising; how often do more than two Wiktionarians agree on anything?  :-D -- Visviva 12:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The [[fried egg]] vs. RfD nom decision is a bit hard for me to grasp in part because the definition is/was worded using the UK term shallow-fry. I'm still not sure I know what fried egg in its non-SoP and non-golf sense really means. Is the picture right? Or does the term just exclude deep-fried eggs?
Assuming the Visviva/During reading of the "fried egg" test is the sense of the entire court, then don't we have to attest that "hippie movement" is actually used in some other way(s), using the just the applicable senses? DCDuring TALK 12:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
My understanding comes from w:Fried egg: "Scrambled eggs, though fried, are not considered 'fried eggs'." That is, I take the "fried egg" test to apply when the resulting term is more specific than its parts, even if you choose the right senses for the parts, provided that this specificity is linguistic (the term could logically have other meanings, but doesn't) rather than natural (there's only one item that could be described by the term, and it just happens to be fairly specific).
The problem is that fried egg then fails the "fried egg" test, because one of the senses of fried is "Lua error in Module:labels/templates at line 32: The parameter "lang" is required. Being a fried egg. / He always ate his eggs fried, never scrambled." We were missing said sense until just now, but that's a fact of Wiktionary, not a fact of English.
RuakhTALK 14:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it would meet the Visviva/During interpretation, because the sense of "fried" at fried is "fried egg"-specific. Of course, as currently defined at [[fried egg]], it is SoP because scrambled eggs and omelets are shallow-fried. The test can't be that all fried eggs are "shallow-fried", not "deep-fried". If we are going to rely on the "fried egg" test right, we need to make sure that the case is accurate and well written. Is the correct definition: "An egg, fried, with an unbroken yolk."? DCDuring TALK 16:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

first cousin three times removed

Sum of parts, potentially infinite set. -- Visviva 04:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree. Delete SemperBlotto 08:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Endless permutations, all SoP.--Dmol 08:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looking at the translations at first cousin once removed and first cousin twice removed it seems likely that by abolishing this entry we also lose the connection to other languages which go into more detail using idiomatic terms which cannot be derived from a simple scheme such as the English. We should at least retain the present level of detail. __meco 09:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
    I was about to cite maternal uncle as a counterexample, but then I noticed that a) that RFD is still open, b) there is no apparent consensus to delete, and c) I myself voted "keep" for roughly the same arguments presented by you and Lmaltier. Huh. :-o -- Visviva 09:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
    Still, I find it implausible that there are many (if any) languages for which this is a useful translation-hanger. Most languages will either use gender and direction-specific terms (as German does) or more generic terms (for example, in Korean the same word would be used for a first cousin thrice removed as for a second cousin twice removed or a third cousin once removed). Kinship terminology is extremely idiosyncratic, and one-to-one correlations are the exception rather than the rule. Once we get away from very basic terms (perhaps including "maternal uncle" and the like), it seems like it would be more useful to have a set of "language X kinship terminology" appendices. -- Visviva 01:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
    Also, note that first cousin once removed and first cousin twice removed currently make completely specious distinctions between "senses" for the sole purpose of organizing translations. I thought that was something we specifically don't do. -- Visviva 01:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sum of parts? Which parts? Personally, I had no idea of what this phrase could mean (it looked like vandalism). For potentially infinite sets (e.g. numbers), the easy solution is to require the inclusion of a few quotations as examples, for each page created, in such cases (when somebody insists and wants to include them). Lmaltier 09:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Very hard to understand this phrase, even for native speakers. Keep (and improve the definition). —Stephen 18:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
delete until cited. It's hard to understand mostly because kinship is of diminished importance to us. It is "technical", like a "N-barrel carburetor". And it is subject to exponential increase: "X-cousin, Y-times removed". I wonder whether it is citable outside of specialist literature. DCDuring TALK 18:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete for want of any mechanism to represent these infinite sets properly. I don't see how "three times removed" is any more defensible than "third root" (i.e. cube root), and both could take any numerical value. Equinox 21:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
It’s not an infinite set. Standard terms are first or second cousin once removed, twice removed, and three times removed. I’ve never heard of one more distant than that and certainly nothing from five all the way to infinity. —Stephen 00:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
How are they "standard"? Who mandates this standard? If I mentioned my "first cousin four times removed", you would presumably know what I meant, and equally (though you might raise a disbelieving eyebrow) if I mentioned my "first cousin ten times removed". You can slot any number in there. The fact (if it is a fact!) that "three" is attestable and "four" isn't doesn't seem terribly material, but perhaps I just need to re-read CFI. Sigh! Equinox 00:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Everything up through "eight times removed" is readily attestable. The dropoff in frequency is surprisingly linear. It looks like anything about 10 would be impossible to cite, so perhaps this set is less infinite than I feared. -- Visviva 01:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Data points. There are two Books and one Scholar citations for "seventeenth cousin twice removed" (albeit some with a comma and some without), and three Books citations for "five hundredth cousin" (albeit some with a hyphen and some without).—msh210 21:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete, not helpful in any way. Mglovesfun 02:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Equinox 01:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
It looks to me as though there was no consensus to delete this. Improperly deleted. —Stephen 17:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Editors supporting deletion: Visviva, SemperBlotto, Dmol, DCDuring, Equinox, Mglovesfun. Editors supporting retention: Meco, Lmaltier, Stephen G. Brown. Unless I'm missing something, that's 2:1 in favor of deletion, in which case I think the deletion was quite proper. —RuakhTALK 00:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Restored and Voting Keep. Not an infinite set - it depends whether it can be cited (which this one can be). --Jackofclubs 18:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Empire State Building

WT:CFI#Names_of_specific_entities This is specifically listed as an example of something we should not include. Genius. Equinox 00:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is in WT:CFI. It's been cited in attributive-type use, mostly with citations of "an Empire State Building". See the citations page. DCDuring TALK 00:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Oops, my fault. The example at WT:CFI prompted me to have a look, and so I compiled citations:Empire State Building (I see I was too lazy to format them correctly). I don't know if they're all suitably attributive, but all invoke the reader's understanding of what an Empire State Building is. Also, the theme of building one out of toothpicks seem to be pretty common. Never thought of updating the guideline after that. Michael Z. 2009-02-23 01:24 z
I'm a little unclear as whether the "an Empire State Building" citations have won acceptance as indicating attributive use. I think they should. I have just cited Eiffel Tower with great ease using http://corpus.byu.edu/. It allows a search for a word or phrase followed by a particular PoS, eg "Eiffel Tower" followed by a noun, to find attributive use as an adjective. DCDuring TALK 01:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe they have always been accepted as such, in that no entry with a sufficient number of such citations has ever been deleted. This is as it should be IMO; whether considered strictly "attributive" or not, such citations show that there is something useful for us to document, beyond the simple encyclopedic facts. Keep as cited, and let's mention its use as a byword for a large, impressive structure in the entry. -- Visviva 15:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Unlike the precedent one this is no wonder of the world. Bogorm 14:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
"Membership in the set of wonders of the world (ancient, modern, or natural)", is not a member of the set of criteria for inclusion, but is in the set of red herrings with respect to inclusion. DCDuring TALK 14:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Bogorm, compare the respective citations pages. I did a bit of work to show that Empire State Building is part of the language, in a small way. Can you add some quotes which shows how Statue of Zeus at Olympia is used in English? If not, then it should go, because this is not an encyclopedia. Michael Z. 2009-03-24 16:17 z
Keep and change CFI. DAVilla 06:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

dummy node

1. Definition is wrong: a dummy node is not a "programming technique"; it is a node. 2. Sum of parts. It's a node (any kind, in any data structure) that is a dummy. We can also have (in various other data structures) dummy elements, dummy keys, dummy values, etc. ad infinitum. Equinox 20:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete. 04:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

graphics engine

Again, sum of parts. Even the definition says nothing more than "an engine that does graphics". We can also have a physics engine, a music engine, a conversation engine, etc. ad infinitum. Equinox 20:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep idiomatic - there is no physical engine. --Connel MacKenzie 19:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
That is irrelevant. Look at what engine means in computing terms. Anything of this kind can be a ___ engine. You might as well argue to keep car engine because there is no engine in the computing sense. Equinox 22:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The fact that car engine should also be a valid entry here is irrelevant. Again, the premise of nominating this only because it can be sum-of-parts is an error. That alone is no justification for deletion. Even if that ill-conceived notion had currency, this specific case goes far beyond that. The term graphics engine is idiomatic. That alone, is reason enough for it to be kept. --Connel MacKenzie 13:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I think physics engine might be worth having because it's a bit abstract, but I'm not sure if there's a good enough reason to keep graphics engine, as common as it is both in the programming world and the video game world. "Technical term" isn't convincing to me, seems like a cop-out in this case. Certainly the other examples are not inclusion worthy. 04:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep  The meaning is not self-evident – we can see this because the definition expands software engine.

By the way, both software engine and application are jargon, and the definition totally depends on words in the term. How about An independent part of a computer program that processes information for visual display, or some such? Michael Z. 2009-03-24 16:56 z

Kept per consensus --Jackofclubs 12:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

tool-assisted speedrun

SoP: it's a speedrun (playing through a video game as fast as possible) where the player is assisted by the use of tools (such as the ability to rewind to a previous point when recording, or something that handles jumping or firing automatically — it can be any tool). Equinox 21:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete. 03:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

video game cartridge

A cartridge on which is stored a video game. SoP. Compare Nintendo cartridge, Atari cartridge, software cartridge, microdrive cartridge. Equinox 21:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete.msh210 21:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete. A cartridge is more than just a container when it comes to video games; it's understood to be a game itself. However, this use has a line at cartridge that would make the meaning clear. It will be rewritten to incorporate the definition to be deleted. DAVilla 13:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted --Jackofclubs 12:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

automotive industry, software industry, chemical industry

Per user:Msh210 and others above, including me. Feel free to split this section if you think the various terms need separate discussions. Equinox 21:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

delete all. Encyclopedic. DCDuring TALK 23:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Keep - as they refer to real things, that, say, a politician might refer to as a whole (accurately or inaccurately.) --Connel MacKenzie 19:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Bit of lint I found under my big toe refers to a real thing. Equinox 22:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm happy for you, I think. But your intended-to-be-humorous phrase isn't used widely in the English language, while these are. Further, they each are inseparable parts that refer to a specific (widely understood) thing. --Connel MacKenzie 13:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete all. X + industry = the industry involved with the making of X. bd2412 T 23:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't feel compelled to delete these, but at the same time I don't see any reason not to. Note that this is not blanket endorsement. The film industry for instance is not involved in the manufacture of film but in its production as media. 03:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted - this is enough consensus for me --Jackofclubs 12:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

let's go

Sense 2: "Hurry up, be quick." I think that's an implication: "let's go [literally: let us depart, let us be on our way); I am ready to go; hurry up so that we can go". I don't think it's an actual sense of the phrase. As a footnote, if sense 2 fails, then sense 1 no longer merits an entry because it's SoP, like let's eat; here, its literal meaning is only useful to contrast with the less literal sense 2. Equinox 21:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

But it's missing the sense of I suggest we start (any activity) asap. As in Let's get on with it. -- ALGRIF talk 14:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Again, let us go (the sense of go that means start). Let's begin. Equinox 22:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, given the huge number of senses of the word go and the limited extent of let's go I think this makes it less than SoP and something quite specific. Egyptian pyramid perhaps? -- ALGRIF talk 17:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Ugh. That argument suggests we should have go to the shops because go doesn't mean "a player's turn in a game" and shops doesn't mean "turns in to the police". Equinox 00:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
No, it does not, because a pragmatic assessment of go to the shops would easily suggest the correct meaning of go. 03:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Go is not used in the most obvious sense, so this is a keeper, and a strong one at that since let's go is commonly used as a command when it's more about "you" than "us". 03:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep, not just the sum of its parts. Mglovesfun 02:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep. I think the differences in the translations make the point well. Ƿidsiþ 09:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep. It also occurs to me that "let's" + any verb is a suggestion, except for this entry, which is more like an order. -- ALGRIF talk 17:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Question: Is there an additional sports-related sense, as used in chanting "Let's go!" for sports teams? It doesn't really seem to mean "hurry up", but seems to mean "let's win" or "let's rally". --EncycloPetey 18:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

But doesn't go have that same sense in "Go, team!", and maybe also in "Way to go!"? —RuakhTALK 20:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Kept per consensus --Jackofclubs 12:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


Supposedly some kind of free-for-all video game. The word does appear on Usenet (though not to any extent in Google Books), but it does not seem to have this sense at all. Mostly it seems to mean whacking or snipping (removing posted content to make a reply smaller). Equinox 00:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably doesn't belong on Wiktionary, but should be listed on WT:RFV. 02:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
True. Moved to RFV. Equinox 18:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


Supposedly some kind of free-for-all video game. The word does appear on Usenet (though not to any extent in Google Books), but it does not seem to have this sense at all. Mostly it seems to mean whacking or snipping (removing posted content to make a reply smaller). Equinox 00:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably doesn't belong on Wiktionary, but should be listed on WT:RFV. 02:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
True. Moved to RFV. Equinox 18:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

romaji (Japanese)

As the entry says, misspelling. But merely being a misspelling does not warrant an entry. Needless to say, it is not listed in the first five Japanese dictionaries at hand, nor do their corresponding entries at rōmaji say anything about "common misspellings":

  1. Nihon Kokugo Daijiten
  2. Daijirin
  3. Daijisen
  4. Shinmeikai Kokugo Jiten
  5. Meikyō Kokugo Jiten

Should be removed. Bendono 09:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

We’ve discussed this issue several times. It isn’t a misspelling, it’s an alternative spelling. The macron is difficult to type for most people and it is common to use ou, ô, or simply o instead. Keep Japanese romaji with a link to rōmaji. But if you consider it to be a common misspelling, we do keep common misspellings with links to the correct spelling. Keep in either case. —Stephen 09:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
If anyone can show that this is actually used in writing Japanese (outside of the limited contexts in which all languages are occasionally transcribed into another writing system), then that would certainly change the debate. But so far no such evidence has been presented even for the legitimate romaji forms (despite a great deal of bloviating from people whose opinions I would normally respect), let alone for these debased ones. -- Visviva 09:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I will have to disagree about being alternative spellings. However, I will agree that typing diacritics can be difficult for some. Redirects (or See...) are generally frowned upon here, but I would support them for the purpose of usability.
If my original comment was not clear, the corresponding ろまじ and ロマジ for which this romanization gives as romaji are equally unattested. Bendono 10:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete this and any similar cases. The English entry (which should sail through RFV) ensures that anyone who lands on this page will find the information they need , whether directly or indirectly. The farce of "romaji" entries is bad enough without including ad hoc forms that don't even comply with the standard romanization scheme. If we keep this, I should get to upload 10 different romanizations for every Korean word. -- Visviva 09:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
That’s fine for this particular case, but most of these are Japanese only and do not have English entries. Native Japanese-speakers know the spelling and know how to type not only the kanji and kana, but also the romaji...but English Wiktionary is not for them, it is for native English-speakers, few of whom can type kanji or kana, and most of whom don’t know how to type macrons or even when a macron should be typed. The spelling without the macron is to make it easier for English-speakers to access the Japanese words that they are interested in. We should keep all the spellings without macrons just as we do with Latin and Old English.
Korean now has a very nice standard transliteration that uses no diacritics and that anybody can type, and that is enough to make Korean accessible. Likewise, there is no need to have any of the other many spellings that many Japanese words can have. We don’t need roumaji or rômaji, lomaji, loumaji, and so on. Having the one common spelling that most English-speakers use, which is romaji, is quite enough. —Stephen 10:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I could agree with that, but only if I was convinced that the others would be removed. If a specific policy were enacted which did away with diacritics altogether, and only allowed for non-diacritic entries, then that would be something. However, while I know little about Japanese, I think that there would be some folks who would disagree with that. Note that Latin and Old English do not lack macrons and such in entry titles to make them easier to find, but rather because they are an academic convention which did not exist in native writings. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 11:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
'Delete, per Visviva. This is completely untenable. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Keep as macrons and such are not used in all forms of romanji, some forms use no macrons at all. It is a non-Hepburn and stripped-Hepburn spelling. As shown in this travel blog: [19][20] - it is used in written form. This translation chart also does not use macrons: [21]. There's also this that explains IME Romaji [22] 09:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete It is a misspelling. Noone is denying that. It is disturbing to think that such discussion needs to be done to correct this. All forms of romanization (Hepburn, Kunrei, and Nihonshiki) distinguish between short and long vowels. It is crucial to the understanding of the word. As Hepburn is the most common, as well as being used here, the macron too is required. This misspelling must be removed. 04:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


Intensifier sense: "a particularly vast number". Same as sense 1 ("too many to be counted"), even if figurative. Equinox 00:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Consider some examples of usage:
"as uncountably many as grains of rice in a dinner bowl."
2007, “Hippie and redneck show is equal parts insane, inane”, in Boston Globe:
Stories of road travel in the United States have taken uncountably many forms, from John Steinbeck's "Travels With Charley" and Jack Kerouac's "On the Road" to []
1990, “Unplugging A Diverse Bit Of Cable TV”, in New York Times:
a host of other producers fear that a vital link to New York's uncountably diverse populations is about to be cut.
1997, “Vapors And Serenity”, in Newsweek:
... of disproportion comparable to the planet-wide vapors occasioned by one of the year's uncountably numerous automobile accidents, this one in Paris.
1988, “Systems Easily Tripped in Error Bring Death in a Lake, Warning Us of...”, in Los Angeles Times:
And the dimensions of death that can result from such systems tripped in error, or through misperceptions of reality, are uncountably greater than those
I think these illustrate a fairly vague intensifier use of the term, though something less specific than the RfDed sense or possibly a sense like "too impractical, boring, or gauche to count". DCDuring TALK 01:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I dunno. Compare unplayably: you might call an old computer game "unplayably slow for a modern impatient gamer", and of course it wouldn't literally be slow to the degree where it was impossible to play. That's just typical hyperbole, not a separate sense. Equinox 18:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

infinite recursion

SoP, not idiomatic. (Note: I also just removed a secondary computing sense, since the first sense says it all for computing as well.) P.S. Is this a reasonable sort of RFD nomination? Connel has been remarking (1, 2) that SoP isn't sufficient as a nomination, whereas quite a few such RFDs went ahead before without question. Where I say that, I do also mean to suggest that it's not idiomatic (cf. CFI's "this is a door" example). Equinox 21:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Since this is a technical term I think it should be kept. I found SB's computing definition much more informative than the generic definition that remains. If it were just the generic definition that were required then of course, delete it, but being a technical term the other makes it worth keeping. DAVilla 02:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Even though it's just a recursion (usual computing sense) that happens to be infinite? Whether you're a programmer or not, these two words together are still an adjective qualifying a noun, just like recursive loop, infinite loop, recursive method — not an inextricable two-word phrase. The description might have been useful encyclopaedically but that's Wikipedia's area. Equinox 02:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm reconsidering. DAVilla 13:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
It isn't "recursion without limits", infinite recursion is the endless repetition of a specific instance of recursion. I had to think for a bit on this one too, but I think the combination is specific enough compared to the breadth of the components that it qualifies under CFI. This specific conecpt is very important in both computing and mathematics. --EncycloPetey 18:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't think it has to be a specific instance. Why do you say that? On what evidence do you base it? I think it usually refers to a repeated specific instance, but that might well be something you take from context and domain-specific knowledge; it doesn't necessarily rule out other possibilities. Equinox 00:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
But if we have no evidence that those "other possibilities" are ever intended, then the point is moot. Our entries describe how the words are actually used, not how they might be construed. --EncycloPetey 05:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay. How do you feel about This recursion is infinite, or recursive in an infinite way? Do these indicate the same sort of thing as infinite recursion, and if so don't they suggest that it's a sense of one word or the other, and not this specific two-word combination? Equinox 22:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
It's taken me some time to think this over. I have to conclude that "This recursion is infinite" does not mean the same thing to me as infinite recursion (in the mathematical sense), but I'm having a difficult time articulating why that is and how the two constructions differ in meaning. I can say that the sentence seems very awkward to me. On the other hand, "recursive in an infinite way" seems to describe the same concept, and "This recursion is infinite" does seem to convey the computing sense of infinite recursion. I wish we had more mathematicians active here. --EncycloPetey 05:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep. The difference is that infinite recursion applies to a single construct or occasionally a tight system (such as two interdependent functions) which never exits, but typically doing some repetitive, misdirected calculation at the same time, whereas a program can continue without end for other reasons, such as never receiving any input. Also, this is generally seen as a fault (unless the meta language is specifically designed to handle it, but those languages are more mathematical than the usual iterative style), whereas a program that is designed to run forever, though it recurses infinitely, by doing useful work is not an infinite recursion in the same meaning, only in a broader sense. DAVilla 13:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering what happened earlier today with {{context}} does anyone else think this discussion is somewhat ironic? — Carolina wren discussió 05:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


Not apparent to me that the given citations are anything other than "secret and/or sacred", which would be sum of parts and not plausibly idiomatic. But perhaps this does have a specific use in the Australian context? -- Visviva 18:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hyphenated form seems somewhat common: [23] This caught my eye in particular (from the Charlesworth book): "The term 'secret-sacred' is well known in the literature on Aboriginal Australia and is used to designate either men's or women's religious knowledge." Equinox 19:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

online transaction processing

Based on a WP article. Not, IMO, a suitable dictionary headword. Equinox 00:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a specific technical term to me. As such, keep. —Stephen 20:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Really? Seems like rubbish to me, just an obvious term defined in business speak. Of course, it could be technical, but I'd like to know for sure. 03:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete processing transactions online ("in real time" - we should have that def?). Used to distinguish it from the old method of processing transactions in batches. Conrad.Irwin 00:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete, as above. No real meaning in English. Mglovesfun 16:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

tell a lie

Um...tell + a lie? Tell lies was already deleted, so why should this be kept? -- Frous 00:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The RFD for tell a lie doesn't seem to be available (it's not on the talk page and didn't appear with a quick site-specific Google) but I dare say this is deletable for identical reasons. In the absence of those reasons, delete because it doesn't suggest anything beyond tell + a + lie. The person who's about to suggest that it might be something about William Tell and a sunken part of a golf course can eat a cancer. Equinox 00:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Special:Whatlinkshere/tell lies leads one eventually to the previous RFD. It appears that at least one participant would have been more inclined to keep this entry than that one. -- Visviva 05:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
As the creator of the page, I added it because the antonym of tell a lie is tell the truth - this perhaps couldn't be assumed from just knowing the words tell, a, and lie. Hence Keep --Jackofclubs 09:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete, per my argument at the previous rfd. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete, per Atelaes. Although "tell lies" had a very small amount of merit worth discussing, "tell a lie" does not. -- ALGRIF talk 14:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep. I don't think the differences between "he lied" and "he told a lie" are predictable from their literal meanings. —RuakhTALK 22:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
May I ask what that difference would be? The only distinction I'm picking up is the latter seems to imply a single incident, while the former could be a bit broader. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I think there are at least two differences. One is that "to tell a lie" is usually more abstract — the instant you're lying to someone, it's just "to lie". Another is that "to tell a lie" is a bit more childish/child-directed; adults don't "tell a lie", they just "lie". —RuakhTALK 12:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Not really. You can "tell (someone) a lie", and it's just as adult to "never tell a lie". Out of everything suggested here and in previous RFD, the only thing I see that's clearly worth keeping is tell stories which has a least one meaning distinct from tell a story. 02:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmm....I must admit there is something to that. It's incredibly subtle, but it's there. However, I just don't know if it's specific to this construction. I admittedly can't think of a good example off the top of my head, but I wonder if these distinctions are in the grammar, and that there are parallels. I'm sorry, but it's just not convincing enough for me to change my vote. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to I tell a lie for the aid of those who may look it up s.v. tell a lie (or delete). (Redirection summary should indicate RFD failure, "do not re-create".)msh210 17:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete, as above. Mglovesfun 16:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

swordbearing and sword-bearing



What's the idiomatic significance of that phrase in English? Just because Latin has ensifer doesn't mean that the English translation is a similar word needing an article. I mean, it's like as if you wrote an article steam-producing sauna stove just because Finnish has one word kiuas for that. :D -- Frous 01:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not idiomatic, but (in my view) as soon as it's attestable as a single word, it becomes a sort of word-particle that belongs in a dictionary. If you've got a hyphen (sword-bearing) you can easily look up the two words and assemble them, but in its absence you might (in theory) not know which words are being put together; there might even be an ambiguity (imagine dog-eared vs. do-geared). This does mean we end up with a lot of annoying things like nonmusician and antifeminist, that might have been hyphenated in the past (hyphens are unfashionable these days), but for me the "single-wordedness" gives them instant importance. Equinox 01:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
But the article says "bearing or carrying a sword" (i.e. the word means exactly what the parts indicate separately), so that's pretty much unidiomatic, so where's the significance, why do we need this? To me, that's similar to the articles tell a lie and tell lies. -- Frous 01:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that sword-bearing could (should?) be deleted, but swordbearing could (should) not. If you don't have a hyphen, you can't tell what the "parts" indicate because you might not know where the parts begin and end (see my example above). I think that German, Finnish, etc. are happy to run many words together to create new longer words, but traditionally English uses a space or a hyphen. Until we drop that convention, I feel that all attestable single words in English deserve an entry. (Once again: this is just my opinion and not Wiktionary policy.) Equinox 01:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep both. The one is a word, and the other is an alternative spelling of that word. Google Books yields dozens of hits for the unhyphenated combination - compared to zero for the plausible "shieldbearing", one unreadable hit for "cheesebearing", and two readable hits for "knifebearking". bd2412 T 01:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a bit of a paradox here. If there were no single-word compound "swordbearing", "sword-bearing" would be ripe for deletion as sum of parts, correct? Yet it appears from a cursory check that "sword-bearing" is actually more common than "swordbearing". The Google results are contaminated for the usual reasons, but are nonetheless highly suggestive at 723:91 on b.g.c.; likewise COCA has 2 hits for the hyphenated form against 0 for the single word. So following normal procedures, it seems that the lemma entry should be at sword-bearing. (Even if that's not the case here, there are a great number of such hyphenated compounds for which it is true.) But then we have a sum-of-parts entry that is tolerated only because one of its alternative forms is written as a single word. This seems problematic, and becomes more problematic the rarer the single-word form is. -- Visviva 13:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
When have we ever looked at the frequency of alternative forms of a word in order to determine if it belongs in the dictionary? The CFI has no out for words that get more Google hits when a hyphen is stuck in them, nor should it, since people who see the entire word will tend to look it up as an entire word. bd2412 T 16:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, exactly -- and to my mind, this is why we should delete sum-of-parts phrases even when they are alternative forms of valid words. I mean, if "sword-bearing" and "swordbearing" are merely alternative forms of each other, with no difference in meaning (which seems to be the case), and if "sword-bearing" (as an adjective) is more common/standard than "swordbearing" (which seems to be the case), and further if "sword-bearing" is eligible for inclusion (as many participants, including you, seem to agree), it is indefensible to have the lemma entry anywhere other than sword-bearing. But in that case, either "sword-bearing" is somehow not the sum of its parts (which no one seems to believe) or it is included solely because it has an alternative form that is not sum of parts. (sorry for all the italics, semantics is just so exciting!!) -- Visviva 17:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Because swordbearing is an attested word, we should have alternative forms of that word. It is the attested word that pulls its alternatives into the dictionary. I would, frankly, support having a redirect in this situation, but we don't do redirects from alternative forms. bd2412 T 05:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
So we put the main entry at the most common form unless that form happens to be sum of parts, in which case the main entry goes to whichever non-sum-of-parts form is most common? If that's supported by the community, we should really codify it somewhere; it makes a certain amount of sense, but it's not exactly intuitive. -- Visviva 06:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep both. Pardon me but thousands of compound words we take for granted are in dictionaries, and as far as we are concerned as long as we could prove 3 reputable citations they belong (see WT:CFI) - even if they mean exactly what you think they would mean..."jumprope" (jump + rope) and pancake (pan + cake) come to mind. My humble opinion is that keeping hyphen version are useful when they're known to exists, so readers look up words they want and get the meaning if needed through a redirect to the lemma purist form. I know compounded "ing words" gets abused in sports today but this is a historical and mythology term not a sports term. Goldenrowley 04:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    Ha! I'm surprised you haven't RFD'd ice cream yet. A pancake is a cake shaped like a pan, and jump ropes are what they used in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon to get the actors really high in the air. DAVilla 09:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep swordbearing because it is a single unitary word, with no clitics or other funny business involved. Weak delete on sword-bearing. I would prefer if we simply listed these sum-of-parts alternative forms unwikified in the single-word entry. They will then show up in search without appearing to suggest that every hyphenated phrase is welcome. -- Visviva 04:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep both, for the reasons well stated by user Equinox above.--Dmol 07:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep swordbearing, delete sword-bearing per Vivviva. It ought to be or become policy. DCDuring TALK 10:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep swordbearing with def {{alternative form of|[[sword]]-[[bear]]ing}} Lua error in Module:form_of at line 60: The parameter "lang" is required.RuakhTALK 18:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    So in your view, having an alternative form that is not sum of parts is grounds for keeping? Or is there another reason? I'm just trying to get the rationales straight here; there are many thousands of similar cases, and it would be good if we can agree on the general principles that should apply (or failing that, at least understand the various potential principles and their effects). -- Visviva 06:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    Sorry, misread that somehow. I have to say, that seems a teensy bit unhelpful. Perhaps we could have a specialized template for these cases? -- Visviva 06:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    Keep and define per Ruakh’s proposal or have two “main” entries (per the resolution to the façadefacade controversy), thus making that part of this discussion moot.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 12:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    I'm not understanding the rationale for keeping "sword-bearing" in any form. Can you elaborate? -- Visviva 14:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Why is it unhelpful? If we're saying that this term is absolutely straightforward and SOP, provided only that the reader can tell where one P ends and the next begins, then we don't need to provide any more help than that. (Even clearer would be =[[sword]] + [[bearing]], but people have objected in the past to this sort of "wordless" explanation.) —RuakhTALK 12:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, at least for me, when I see "alternative form of X", I assume that "X" is a single term and that when I click on the link I will be taken to the main entry, not to the entry for one or another component word. In fact, for me personally, this assumption was so strong that even looking at the bare wikitext with the separate links in plain view, I still didn't parse it properly (see stricken-through comment above). So at the very least this violates the principle of least astonishment IMO. More generally, if something is worth having an entry for, we don't really save any effort by not having a simple definition like "[[bear|Bearing]] a [[sword]]", which at least has the potential to be helpful to someone somewhere at some time. -- Visviva 14:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep swordbearing per RFD for Dutchman. Weak keep sword-bearing as alternative spelling, could always be listed as sword-bearing. DAVilla 02:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep swordbearing, seems open and shut: it's a word. Delete sword-bearing as instantly understandable from its parts, per the CFI. Link as alternative spelling from the entry [[swordbearing]] to [[sword]]-[[bearing]].—msh210 17:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

So far swordbearing kept. DAVilla 02:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

collective investment scheme

Seems like collective + investment scheme (which may also be SoP). Can anyone provide cites showing otherwise? DCDuring TALK 15:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Or (collective + investment) + scheme, or some obvious mixture of the two. Delete. 01:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Did you know that, per WP, investment funds, managed funds, mutual funds come under the head of "collective investment scheme"? I did not. I still do not know what exactly comes under the head, which is why I think the head is worth having a definition. Anyway, here comes a quotation that suggests a need for a definition, even if not the present definition:
    • 2003, Jonathan Fisher, Jane Bewsey, The Law of Investor Protection[24]:
      The definition of primary importance is of course the definition of "collective investment scheme" itself. That is to be found in s.235 of FSMA 2000.
Looking at Google books shows further occurrences of "collective investment scheme" that suggest that the phrase is a set one, with a meaning that can decide the result of a trial at a court.
Some of the Google books actually define the term.
In the quotation above, "FSMA 2000" refers to "The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000", a UK act. --Dan Polansky 19:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


All uses shown are blends, not stem+suffix. Perhaps another def.? DCDuring TALK 18:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I can see that for Reaganomics, Clintonomics and Nixonomics; but Thatchernomics, Obamanomics, and Rogernomics seem more plausibly affix-like (though they are also plausible as blends). OED has this sense and an older one from -nomy with derivations like pyronomics. Color me neutral on the economics sense; it seems bogus, but on the other hand the morphology of these compounds is rather imponderable and this can be found in multiple reputable dictionaries (at least the OED and Webster's New International). -- Visviva 04:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
"Standardized" blends (you'll never see a blend of economics that goes -onomics unless the master word ends in -on or a similar syllable) tend to evolve toward a very strong suffixlike quality. Compare eco-, which one could argue actually evolved from blends with ecology, not the actual Greek root (I'm dubious about that purported French etymology... In any case, my Robert marks it as "extracted from écologie"). Circeus 05:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

leeward coasts

leeward coasts as SoP. (note leeward coast does not exist). RJFJR 02:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom. If there is a set phrase or idiom here, it would surely be leeward shore or lee shore (as in "th' impervious horrors of a leeward shore"). "Leeward coast" is uncommon except as a capitalized toponym in Hawaii. -- Visviva 03:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


Moved from RFV. DCDuring says "Five senses that seem to me included in two real senses." DAVilla 05:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that only the two uncontested senses are worth keeping, but would this mess up the translations? Perhaps the sociological and ecological ones are different words in some languages. Equinox 15:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I would not worry about translations. The tagged senses have currently only two translations. If other languages need several words to cover a sense, they should simply be all listed, and explanations given in appropriate foreign-language entries. --Hekaheka 23:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, you're quite right. Delete. Equinox 22:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm okay with deleting these without prejudice. I don't doubt the definition could be more finely splintered, but I would want to see examples to make sure that the way it was divided was appropriate. 02:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

gone winchester

No citations are provided; the citations I found ('A fighter which has gone "Winchester" (ie, expended its air to air ordnance)' 2002: Brassey's Modern Fighters), ('By that time, Langston had gone "Winchester," naval aviator parlance for being out of ordnance' 2007: Inside the danger zone) imply the actual phrase is simply Winchester, and should be added to that page, instead. (really, User:JesseW/not logged in) 03:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

DeLancey Faction

Seems purely encyclopaedic, since it refers to something from history: there is no general sense. Equinox 03:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep, useful entry. Good dictionaries include terms such as this. If it’s a historical term, it’s likely to appear in literature and we should have it here. —Stephen 17:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete. I note that the accompanying Wikipedia and the vast majority of googled occurrences use the capitalization DeLancey faction which indicates rather strongly that this is just a SoP entry rather than a formal name attached to a particular group. Nor do I see any evidence that DeLancey name has entered the lexicon as has Benedict Arnold from the same period. As for other dictionaries, let me note that Webster's Second didn't think this guy was important enough to even include in its supplemental pronouncing dictionary of biography. I can't see this as being anything other than encyclopedic. Carolina wren 01:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete per Carolina wren. (And anyway, this doesn't seem to be all that common.) —RuakhTALK 11:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Move to DeLancey, in which case this entry title would be SOP... or RFV if DeLancey cannot be attested independently of the entire phrase. 01:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete purely Wikipedian. Mglovesfun 23:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete per Carolina wren.—msh210 23:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


Perhaps this is just a thing outside of the Christianity I was raised in, but I fail to see how this would qualify as a general proper noun. I can certainly see the Holy Spirit being given the epithet of "comforter," and I can see it being given the divine capitalization, but I still don't think that qualifies it as a genuine proper noun. Some good cites or a nice article or something might dissuade me. Thoughts? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I’m not familiar with this usage either, but I find a few Google hits. —Stephen 21:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
NOAD has this, capitalized, as a subsense of one of the senses of comforterMichael Z. 2009-03-22 21:56 z
It looks attestable to me: http://books.google.com/books?q=comforter+spirit&as_brr=3 DCDuring TALK 00:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, the Holy Spirit being called a/the comforter is certainly attestable.....and in caps, as we can see from the quotes. However, I still feel that this is merely a regular noun, like father, savior, or teacher (all three of which I'm sure could be easily attested, among a myriad of others), which is applied to God (or one of his......manifestations? I don't want to get in a theological war over this) and is capitalized, because God and anything applied to him is always capitalized (a fact also well evidenced by the quotes). So.....it seems to me that this is not merely a matter of attestation, but....of something else....not quite sure what. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
In most OneLook dictionaries one way or another as "the Holy Spirit". DCDuring TALK 03:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
If we include this, will we not also have to include The Tremendous, The Creator, The Rightful, The Fashioner of Forms, The Ever Forgiving, and the other 94 of the 99 names of Allah? bd2412 T 22:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
No, each of those would only be included if it is also adequately attested. See WT:CFI#Attestation vs. the slippery slopeMichael Z. 2009-03-24 04:17 z
Exactly. Now there are certain epithets which are basically only epithets (as often happens in Ancient Greek), but epithets (even common ones), which mean nothing more than their standard meaning (i.e. in this case, comforter means "one who comforts") should not get their own separate entries. Their are plenty of common epithet collocations, and if we tread down this path [[Satan]] will also have to have George Bush and Adolf Hitler (among multitudinous others) senses. This is not helpful. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Move to RfV. There is a distinction between "Hitler is Satan" and "I beseech thee, Comforter." For each "NP1 is NP2" we are not obliged to add a sense "NP1" to the entry or "NP2". I see no particular reason to distinguish religious context. Perhaps there is a need to make sure that the term truly conveys meaning and is not always used in constructions like "Holy Spirit is the Comforter" or "Paraclete, Comforter". DCDuring TALK 23:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
No need to transfer the discussion. I quote John 16:7 of the KJV "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." This demonstrates use of the proper noun in a well-known work, so only a single citation is required. --EncycloPetey 05:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
No, it most certainly does not. It shows the use of a common noun (which we already have an entry for) given the divine capitalization. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
When a noun only refers to a particular being, then it is a proper noun, no? This is how capitalized Comforter is defined in the NOAD and online Merriam–Webster,[25] Random House, American Heritage and Webster's.[26]
The Easton's definition at dictionary.com is interesting. Comforter is one attempt to translate paracletos, but Easton's maintains that the more correct translation is actually Advocate, for a concept which Paul refers to in different words. Not only does Comforter represent a particular being, its use has a specific etymology rooted in a specific concept. It is clearly distinct from the plain noun comforterMichael Z. 2009-03-24 23:25 z

Comment: Redeemer is perhaps the closest analogue we already have. Equinox 23:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine, fine, I will relent on this, as so many other dictionaries seem to see this as a special case. However, note that this is only to follow suit with other respectable dictionaries. I fiercely maintain that no one has given any other criteria for distinguishing proper proper nouns from divine epithets (an important distinction, in my opinion). I believe this will come up again. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


RfD of two senses:

  1. A motor car made (some time ago) by Ford in the United Kingdom.
    Keep, we have Honda, Ford, Toyota, Fiat, Mini, Mini Cooper, Jag, VW, Vauxhall, Chevy, even 98 Oldsmobile. There's plenty of others. --Dmol 01:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
    "Otherstuff" doesn't apply - we have a very specific CFI for brand names. bd2412 T 22:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  2. A small town in India.

If we accept these, then præsumably we shall also have to accept many of the other senses catalogued by Wikipedia.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Move to RfV. DCDuring TALK 01:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, RfV. bd2412 T 22:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
RFV the first and delete the second along with any other "small town" definitions that aren't significant for reasons of etymology. 00:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


Sense 1: "The first four letter on the home row on a QWERTY keyboard, and the start letters for a one's left hand when doing touch typing." This is not a dictionary definition of asdf as a word. It is a mention, not a use, just as the scale CDEFGAB — while familiar to musicians — is not a dictionary word. Contrast qwerty, which is actually used as a word to denote a style of keyboard. Equinox 22:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I can find a (very) few attributive uses such as “resting on the ASDF row of the keyboard”,[27] but I think it passes CFI. Michael Z. 2009-03-24 17:16 z
Isn't "resting on the ASDF row" rather like "filed under the Flowers category"? Again, a mention rather than a use. Equinox 22:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Not unless you have a very unconventional keyboard. The flowers category contains all of the flowers and none of the non-flowers. So that could be an analogy for “resting on the asdfghjkl;, row.” Michael Z. 2009-03-24 23:05 z
No, the Flowers category might not contain every possible flower. It merely contains at least some of them. Likewise, we could probably talk about the "Q side of the keyboard" (only one Google match, admittedly, but perhaps someone can come up with an equivalent but better example); it doesn't mean that the entire side consists of one huge Q key. Equinox 23:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I can't follow your analogy, unless you mean that the flowers category includes flowers and giraffes and flathead screws, just as the asdf category includes a's, s's, d's, f's, and also g's, h's, j's etc.
asdf is an attributive adjective derived from a representative subset of the contents of the referent, just like qwerty; asdf row is like qwerty keyboard. Three cites meets CFI, and we've only counted ones with the phrase asdf rowMichael Z. 2009-03-24 23:49 z
RFV looking for cites like this, use not mention. DAVilla 08:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Quick cites for consideration:
  1. “Keep shoulders relaxed, upper arms by the side of the trunk, and forearms level with the ASDF row of the keyboard.” (1 occurrence on p 509).
  2. “The height of the desk or table should be such as to allow the forearm to be horizontal when the fingers are resting on the guide keys - the asdf row of the keyboard.” (1 occurrence on p 139).
  3. “Wrists should be straight when fingers are resting on the ASDF row of the keyboard.”[28]
  4. “In contrast to QWERTY, the most frequently used letters – AOEU – are placed in the QWERTY ASDF home row where typists most often go to rest their hands.”[29]
In the last one, “QWERTY ASDF home row” is actually referring to the position of letters on a Dvorak layout – so ASDF is a name for the physical row, with reference to the conventional type of keyboard, where the actual corresponding letters are AOEU (followed by IDHTNS_).
Admittedly, the use of this as a name is rare, it's very common to see “place the fingers of your left hand on the a s d f keys,”[30] or “Introducing the Home Row with ‘ASDF’.”[31] Michael Z. 2009-03-26 18:11 z
All of these citations are for ASDF row. DAVilla 02:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Sum-of-parts in each, I think, since the attributive occurs with either row of the keyboard or home row. Even if it weren't, the meaning of row would be self-evident from the context of typewriting tutorial. So perhaps we add a restrictive label typewritingMichael Z. 2009-04-08 02:43 z
Found a different one, but only one occurrence: “There are some software available in the market which teach you how to master the keyboard, but the old asdf method of typing would be sufficient.”[32] CFI doesn't say the author has to write well... Michael Z. 2009-04-08 02:59 z
ASDF keys, ASDF row, ASDF method looks like it's good enough to pass attestation. I'm not sure if it has to be considered idiomatic in each case. I'd guess some of the people here would say yes. A solid quotation for "ASDF keys" may be different enough from "CTRL keys" to make a case, and the Dvorak quotation abstract enough to require some prior knowledge. But this is right on the line. 01:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

super colossal

The noun doesn't appear to exist at all, like a few of this user's super- creations (e.g. original wrong definition of supercelestial). As far as the adjective goes: supercolossal, fine, but when we split it into two words aren't we dealing with a sort of adverbial super? (I see that our adverb entry there is wrong too: it's an adjective. Curses.) Anyway, you can say "super X" for basically any adjective "X", so I see this two-word form as non-idiomatic sum of parts. Equinox 00:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Supercolossal NEVER was a noun. It's literally two adjectives or one prefix and adjective put together into a word. Somebody must have put the wrong definition when is should be SUPERCOLOSSUS. Steel Blade 01:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I apologise if the noun wasn't yours. I thought you'd created the article. Equinox 01:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Still RFDing on the basis that "super colossal" is the adverb super plus the adjective colossal, regardless of the separate existence of the single word supercolossal. Equinox 21:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete per Equinox and common sense ;-). --Duncan 22:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

certificat de travail

not idiomatic. DCDuring TALK 20:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  • It's not a ‘work certificate’. It's proof that you're in a job. Ƿidsiþ 20:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep but change the definition: this is a set phrase but, in its commonest sense, you get this certificate when you leave your job. Another, very different, sense is about candidates to immigration: this certificate proves that they have found a job, and they will be able to work once in their new country. I think that the proof that you're in a job is called an attestation de travail. Lmaltier 22:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like the British P45 perhaps. Equinox 22:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
That was my first thought. If it's a set name for the document then it should stay with a correct definition. I don't speak French so I won't vote either way.--Dmol 23:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
We certainly have entries like [[1040]] and [[W-2]]. Is it a legal/administrative term? Is there an appropriate wikipedia entry? DCDuring TALK 23:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
legal/administrative term? Yes (in France). See the Licenciement article (French Wikipedia). Lmaltier 08:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep, not just the sum of its parts. It has a cultural meaning. Mglovesfun 23:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


Does the acronymic sense belong on this page, or is it "LULU"? Either way, the formatting and capitalisation are unnecessary. If it does not belong here, then the terms in the "see also" section need to be moved out too. — Paul G 10:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This term long predates the common use of acronyms, so the above must be in error. Or perhaps what was meant is that there is also an acronym "LULU", but this is not mentioned in the article. Surely this is a useful article, but I was hoping to find the origen(sp) of the term. David R. Ingham 06:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


Clearly a nonce word. April Regina 16:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless I think it's molestable. Uh, attestable. Equinox 16:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I think we need to take a no-nonce-sense approach. Is the DSM portion (now a separate sense) a copyvio as written? Is the DSM sense appropriate for this UK spelling? In the US, pedophilia also commonly refers to overt sexual acts, not just feelings. Is something similar true for this spelling? DCDuring TALK 17:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it has all the same senses as pedophilia: thoughts and actions. Equinox 23:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

reasonable doubt case

A (legal) case based on reasonable doubt, often written "reasonable doubt" case. Non-idiomatic SoP. Equinox 23:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If it were SoP, then your definition would be correct. Assuming the definition in the entry, keep. DAVilla 00:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
What Equinox wrote is what the entry has (now at least).—msh210 20:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Not quite, not by my understanding, which may be wrong anyway, but Equinox says the case is based on reasonable doubt, which may be one of several strategies used, whereas the definition says this can be the only strategy used when calling it such. Actually I more doubt the definition listed than Equinox's, and anticipate having to change my vote because of that. EP's RFV makes sense in that light, but I would be satisfied to hear from a knowledgeable contributor. 01:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Move to RfV. --EncycloPetey 04:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete SoP.—msh210 20:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
fried egg is SoP as well. DAVilla 13:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete (or clarify WT:CFI to allow all attestable units of meaning whether or not idiomatic). DCDuring TALK 20:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete, as above. Mglovesfun 16:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted per consensus - a 4-1 consensus is good enough for me. --Jackofclubs 12:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


No hits in Google ... for all I know, not really a word in use. --Eivind (t) 08:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved from rhinotillexomaniaic to rhinotillexomaniac (and changed header so the thread wouldn't get archived). Still needs some verification, as this looks like a classic "fancy word which appears in lists, but never in actual language." -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The root, rhinotillexomania, does see actual use, so rhinotillexomaniac looks to me to be a candidate for RfV rather than RfD if anyone is so inclined.— Carolina wren discussió 16:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

live music

Non-idiomatic sum of parts. Equinox 03:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s SoP. The music isn’t alive, nor even necessarily lively. It means that it is supplied first-hand by the musicians, on-site, in person. That is, not reproduced from a recording. —Stephen 16:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Our conventional SoP discussions are getting into the grey areas. This incorporates the defined idiomatic sense of live used in live album, and live recording (which is different from live broadcast, and “coming to you live”).
Is it SoP if it forms an idiom by incorporating an idiom? If we take this to its extension, then we either add idiomatic senses for most simple terms and strike all of the idiomatic compounds. Or conversely, every compound is declared idiomatic because some component has more than one definition. Michael Z. 2009-04-05 18:51 z
Well, I think it's SOP (as you can have a live concert as well), but I think that live is also missing the sense in question. We probably should correct this before deleting this entry. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hm, I just added the sense of live recording, but that is not the same as live band, live performanceMichael Z. 2009-04-05 19:10 z
Doesn't "live" in "live music" mean "not recorded, performed in real time" and not "not performed in a studio, unedited"? In television it means "unedited", but might include the very short delay for bleeping. The essence is "in real time or as if in real time, warts and all", isn't it? I'm pretty sure that "live music" does not ever refer to any recording. I'm not sure that the word "live" is used the same way with all the different kinds of performance and media. DCDuring TALK 00:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Live, live album, live recording, recorded live are pretty common set phrases specifically referring to recordings, touting their spontaneity and genuineness – It includes recordings of performances in concert halls or TV studios with audiences, and I think also single-take studio recordings, with or without an audience. It implies a minimal amount of mixing and effects, but is not guaranteed to be free from such. It's also used for titles alone – see w:Live (album) – or in combination, as w:Live at Budokan, etc.
However, I think live music is different – more likely to be found on an advertisement for a night club, touting live performers as opposed to canned music. We need attestations. Michael Z. 2009-04-06 05:49 z
Are there any non-attestation issues? It is unfun to get quotes when the resulting term shouldn't be considered as meeting WT:CFI. DCDuring TALK 10:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The more I look at it, the more it looks like sum of parts. It's a particular sense of live, used in live music, live band, live performance, live at the SandsMichael Z. 2009-04-06 15:38 z
Delete as SoP. The senses 2,3, and 4 of the adjective live plus any suitable noun, in this instance music. Other sources seem to agree with this. -- ALGRIF talk 18:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, delete. DAVilla 02:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
If it is possible to determine the meaning pragmatically from the constituent terms, then it is sum of parts, even if one of the constituents has multiple meanings. As I see it this term is SoP because I can look at the list of adjectives and find the meaning that would make most sense. However, SoP is not a criterion we use. The term must be idiomatic, which it would clearly be if it were not sum of parts. This term, even being SoP, might still be idiomatic by some other reasoning, in which case it should be kept. We did wind up keeping, for instance, empty space apparently on account of multiple definitions. DAVilla 02:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete. This is a meaning of live, per "live television", "live radio", "live program", "live concert", "live album", "live recording", etc. --EncycloPetey 19:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

deleted per unanimous consensus --Jackofclubs 12:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


Just because one guy writes a word backwards doesn’t make it suitable to be in a dictionary. H. (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete: a nonce word, and not in any hugely significant work. Equinox 21:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The quotation provided from Google Books seems reasonable to me, and it’s an interesting usage. —Stephen 12:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
RFV. DAVilla 00:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


Wrong script. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, it seems to be listed (as English) in one of the Webster's dictionaries; see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/yom, http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/Yom. (But, for some reason, not http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=Yom&use1913=on&use1828=on.) —RuakhTALK 01:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. If someone wants to write an English section, I'll happily rfv it, but this rfd is for the Yiddish section. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
That entry Ruakh links to defines this as "a Hebrew word used in the names of various Jewish feast days", i.e., a word that appears in English only in a phrase and, by itself, is merely a transliteration. We don't do these as English, do we? (Cf. [[runcible]] for words that appear only in phrases.)—msh210 20:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, at least as Yiddish. I'm not convinced that even יום is a word of Yiddish by itself (as opposed to an element of compounds like יום טוב); the usual Yiddish word for "day" is טאָג. Angr 11:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a clear delete case. Also, what Angr said.—msh210 23:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete then add the English yom which is indeed in the Websters. Mglovesfun 16:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Please don't add it unless it meets our CFI, regardless of what other dictionaries may do. They may be including this as a catch-all instead of listing actual compounds in use, because of space limitations in print. We don't need to use such expedients.
Is it ever used by itself in English, apart from transliterated Hebrew or in direct reference to itself? Michael Z. 2009-04-28 21:23 z
As far as I know, it is only found in certain set phrases in English such as Yom Kippur. —Stephen 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
It is valid in Scrabble, which means (I think) it's in the Collins English Dictionary, where it is "a Jewish day" with plural yomim [33]. Whether it's really English, I don't know. Equinox 22:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

extenuating circumstances

Was a poorly formed IP addition. Was tempted to simply delete as SoP, but thought I'd bring it here for discussion instead to see if people think it is a specific enough legal term to warrant keeping as it is being linked to. — Carolina wren discussió 01:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep, commonly used law term, as far as I know. If it doesn't warrant its own entry, an appendix of words related to law should include it. — [ ric ] opiaterein — 12:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Is it listed in legal dictionaries? Then it passes the lemming test. DAVilla 01:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, in 3 OneLook "legal dictionaries". DCDuring TALK 22:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep, however I don't think you can have just one extenuating circumstance, but I'd have said I hear this phrase quite often in a legal/political context. Mglovesfun 22:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I've just pressed preview and it's coming up in blue. Crap. Mglovesfun 22:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Is the death of a family member an extenuating circumstance? —Stephen 22:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

his nibs

Shouldn't this just be at nibs with usage examples or redirects for "his/her/my/your/their((/our?) nibs"? DCDuring TALK 02:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well it is an awkward way to refer to someone, kinda like Your Majesty. It should probably be redirected, to nibs or where else I'm not certain. DAVilla 03:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep as a set phrase. It's quite common in speech, but as it's informal it might be hard to cite in print. I don't think I have ever heard anything other than his, and would challenge her/my/your/their etc.--Dmol 04:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
This is not RfV. It is easy enough to cite, just as one could cite "his holiness" or "his car". One could also cite "her nibs", "my nibs", "your nibs", and "their nibs" (but probably not "our nibs"}. All might warrant a redirect to nibs, which has the appropriate sense. I don't think an entry at [[one's nibs]] has much value. DCDuring TALK 09:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
There's a world of difference between "his holiness" and "his car". You don't talk to your car, much less address it with a proper title. I'm sure Dmol means he's never heard anything other than "his nibs" as a form of address. 00:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
That's exactly what I meant. I have never heard "her nibs", "my nibs", "your nibs", and "their nibs" or "our nibs". But "his nibs" is common, and means exactly what it says in the definition.--Dmol 11:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
That you haven't heard of them is a useful datapoint. Perhaps "nibs" is no longer productive, like "word" in my word.
But my preliminary research seemed to show "her nibs" to be almost as common as his nibs. The other forms also would probably be attestable, if not common. Dictionaries don't seem to choose to waste their users' time (clicks) showing any of such phrases as "Your Majesty", "His Majesty", "Her Majesty", "Their Majesty", "Our Majesty", "My Majesty" and some attestable plurals and capitalisations thereof, instead drawing the user to "majesty". The analog seems possible here as well. DCDuring TALK 15:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


This seems to fall foul of the Fictional universes exclusion to me, as does treknology below. Delete and maybe add to a new Appendix:Star Trek. — Carolina wren discussió 18:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The word is never used in that fictional universe. Think of it this way: the character Mr. Spock would never use the word "treknobabble". --EncycloPetey 19:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Careful. That's not true. The citations must be (I quote) "independent of reference to that universe" — not merely spoken by non-characters of the universe. Equinox 22:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that EncycloPetey is right, and that you're misunderstanding his argument. The relevant sentence is this one:
Terms A→originating in fictional universes←A which have three citations in separate works, but B→which do not have three citations which are independent of reference to that universe←B may be included only in appendices of words from that universe, and not in the main dictionary space. [emphasis removed]
EP is saying that (non-finite) clause A doesn't describe treknobabble (since it doesn't originate in the Star Trek universe, but rather is an external reference to Star Trek itself), such that that entire section of the CFI doesn't apply. You are saying that clause B does, or may, describe treknobabble. But since clause A doesn't, clause B is irrelevant. Do you see what I mean?
RuakhTALK 14:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that explains my argument in a more detailed way. We had a similar discussion over X-Phile, which is another term pertaining to a particular TV program, but not originating within that fictional universe. You can see Robert's opinion in the matter at Talk:X-Phile. --EncycloPetey 17:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per EncycloPetey. Exactly correct analysis. We're not talking about a tricorder or a lightsaber here. bd2412 T 17:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Move to RFV and keep if cited as normal. Ƿidsiþ 18:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
    • For the record, it's now cited (so far as the usual CFI requires). bd2412 T 19:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


This seems to fall foul of the Fictional universes exclusion to me, as does treknobabble above. Delete and maybe add to a new Appendix:Star Trek. — Carolina wren discussió 18:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The word is never used in that fictional universe. Think of it this way: the character Mr. Spock would never use the word "treknology". --EncycloPetey 19:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that's the rule. See my comment at treknobabble above. Equinox 22:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I've done a fairly deep search, and I doubt this would muster enough cites to pass the CFI anyway. bd2412 T 19:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

pass opp for lommetyver

Without knowledge of Norwegian, I assume this is a simple Sum-of-Parts phrase. Is this wanted for the Norwegian phrasebook? --Jackofclubs 17:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


English + language in hyphenated adjective form DAVilla 05:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

In case it matters, the current definition is inadequate. There are distinct senses:
  1. Written or spoken in English. (E.g., English-language literature, English-language websites)
  2. Communicating in English (speaking, reading, writing, conversing, etc). (English-language speakers, English-language readers, English-language writers, English-language publishing houses of Germany which conduct business in German and write about architecture)
  3. Of or relating to the English language. (English-language study, English-language policy in France, Diccionario de Ingles, English-language skills)
There may be more. I'm not sure if the last one actually defines the sense in English-language learnersMichael Z. 2009-04-13 22:13 z
Delete SoP.—msh210 23:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


English + speaking in hyphenated adjective form DAVilla 05:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Means “able to speak English well”, which might account for the English-speaking world, but does not mean “speaking English (at this moment).” The entry speaking doesn't help, but a reader might guess that speak (5) applies. Me, I'd certainly define it in a dictionary for ESL learners. Michael Z. 2009-04-13 23:56 z
I don't know if that argument holds water. If I say I'm a writer, that doesn't mean I'm necessarily writing at this moment. In most contexts it probably means that I write for a living, but in general it means that I sometimes write, and that somehow that writing is important to who I am. Similarly, just because English-speaking doesn't mean speaking English at this second, I fail to see how that makes idiomatic. I think that English-speaking could use any of the five senses at speak. Additionally, I find it kind of funny that we have a picture of the creepiest guy to ever exist at that entry. Delete -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I see a qualitative difference. Writer and speaker are people with particular vocations, or in particular roles (say, writer of a movie, or speaker at a conference). English-speaker is a person with an ability. Writing and speaking are present participles, used to point to someone who is writing or speaking at the moment. English-speaking is an adjective, used to attribute the facility of speaking English to someone.
(Besides that, its meaning is not defined by any sense found at speaking, so “English + speaking” doesn't define it for a reader using our dictionary. I don't think we should delete something as sum-of-parts, until our dictionary supports that assertion in the most practical sense.) Michael Z. 2009-04-14 04:40 z
Delete as SOP. I'm not sure if the parts are "English" and "speaking" or "English" and "-speaking", or what, but it's obviously SOP, since "<language>-speaking" works equally well, and has the same meaning, for any spoken language (and even "ASL-speaking" gets some b.g.c. hits). —RuakhTALK 02:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep An interesting one. While it appears to be SoP, Michael makes an undeniable point. Until there is an adequate definition at speaking, SoP cannot be called. And I think it would be almost impossible to make a case for the definition required without calling for the structure "<language>-speaking" to support it. I see this entry in other dictionaries, so why not here too? After all, an English-speaking Frenchman does not mean that he is spouting forth in English at all times, nor at this very moment. Whereas an accordion-playing Frenchman would actually mean that he is playing at all times, or at this very moment. -- ALGRIF talk 14:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I looked at w:Participle#Participles_in_Modern_English for guidance, but that article doesn't list all of the functions of the present participle, apart from “modifying a noun, with active sense: Let sleeping dogs lie.”. But I guess attributing an ability is one of them, as in dancing bear, flying monkey, etc.
If the correct sense were added to speaking or -speaking, then this entry wouldn't be SoP, but I still wouldn't feel compelled to delete it. By the way, should these be participles or adjectives? Michael Z. 2009-04-15 14:48 z
For English entries, we don't use the POS header "Participle". We use "Adjective" for participles that function like adjectives, and we use "Verb" for the verb form definition. English partiicples do not inflect, have no number or person, and (as can be seen above) the present participle doesn't even imply current action. In short, English participles don't have the features that make participles interesting in other languages, so there is no reason to label them as a separate part of speech. For other languages, practice varies. --EncycloPetey 19:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
No, accordion-playing Frenchman can mean either a Frenchman playing an accordion at the moment, or a Frenchman who knows how to play an accordion. DAVilla 08:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete SoP.—msh210 23:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep. References an ability, not a characteristic. bd2412 T 20:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I added a sense and subsense to speakingMichael Z. 2009-04-21 20:55 z

I agree with your entry, and I have even blue-linked -speaking. But I still think that English-speaking should be kept. Translations at -speaking are difficult. In Spanish, for instance, I can't put anglófono nor anglohablante although I wonder if -hablante would be allowable. I'm sure there are similar problems in most other languages also. -- ALGRIF talk 13:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

business English

business + English DAVilla 05:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The term business is finely broken down into 16 senses, and I bet some but not others are used in this compound.
Is business English the subset of English that is used in business, a specialized business jargon or dialect, the register of English speech and writing appropriate for business, or a field in foreign-language education (the latter is implied in w:Business English)? Is use of the term restricted to the field of language education? Michael Z. 2009-04-13 22:32 z
Delete on the grounds you have have Business German, Japanese, Chinese whatever. Is someone suggested that we get a bot to create one of these for each language? Mglovesfun 16:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

en space

The entry title is the thing “[[ ]]”, not the term en space denoting it. Recently discussed at WT:RFV# , and currently redirected to en space.

en space is a term denoting a thing, while an en space (“ ”) is an instance of the thing, and not a term or even a symbol representing the thing. It is a tool of the typographer, and not something that appears in print, so it is not attestable per WT:CFI (i.e., the blank created by an en space is not distinguishable from a regular double space in print, whether it was set in letterpress, phototypeset, or set digitally). While keeping it as a redirect isn't a major problem or anything, it ignores the distinction of what belongs in a dictionary and what doesn't. Michael Z. 2009-04-14 18:14 z

This width of space frequently occurs after cola and semi-cola in archaic texts, so in that sense we can show its being used. What’s the problem?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
This is exactly why we shouldn't try to add non-words to the dictionary. You can't attest the word en space in a 1,500-year-old manuscript any more than you can attest the word dinosaur to 230 million BC. An en space is a metal object used by a letterpress compositor, or its digital analogue; it is not a gap between words on a page. We must keep a firm grip on what is a thing and what is its name, or the dictionary will plotz. Delete! Michael Z. 2009-04-14 20:06 z
The problem is in including both things and their names in something devoted to names. It's seems just an empty mind-game of little or no utility. DCDuring TALK 18:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you trying to maintain the principle (with which I think I agree) or do you really want to delete it? I haven't entirely gotten my head around including both the various non-letter symbols we include and their names. After all we don't include pictures of bricks, bricks themselves, or "bricks"; we just include [[bricks]]. DCDuring TALK 18:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
My take is that our entries describe lexical units. Most of those lexical units are words like "bricks", but some are typographical elements, like the letter B whose entry is [[B]] and the en space, whose entry should be [[[[ ]]]]. Our entry [[en space]], on the other hand, is for a word commonly used to refer to that typographical element. —Rod (A. Smith) 19:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
At the end of the day, [[[[ ]]]] is not used to signify any thing, unlike most of the other typographic elements. Any standard road sign would have more basis for inclusion as a signifier. Typographic elements, like wikijargon, are a kind of inside baseball that has no value to our user base, the supposed beneifciaries of our efforts, but seems of importance to us. DCDuring TALK 19:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The en space is used to indicate something. Each instance of it indicates that the preceding word has ended, that the subsequent letters start a new word, and that the visual space between those words should be a specific width. Typographical units are valid dictionary entries, distinct from the words that refer to them. B (the letter bee) is distinct from the word “bee”. 1 (one) is distinct from the word “one”. The Korean letter (giyeok) is distinct from the word 기역 (giyeok). We document lexical units, including words bee, one, 기역 (giyeok), and en space and the typographical units they name, with entries at [[B]], [[1]], [[]], and [[[[ ]]]]. —Rod (A. Smith) 20:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Lots of things indicate something. The radiation symbol, the sign of the cross, the phrase “let's try to get to the beach before Marty,” a strip of yellow police tape, an Apple logo, a woodsman's blaze hacked into a tree, a frown, a turnstile, a cupholder. None of these belongs in a dictionary.
But an en space isn't even a symbol. An en space is a metal object which is strapped into a letterpress, or an analogous 8-bit character in a text bytestream. The gap between words is just a gap between words, and a reader without a pair of calipers doesn't distinguish the gap left by three thin spaces, an en space, a quad, a tab character, two mid spaces, or the right-alignment of a very long line.
The encyclopedia explains the function of “typographical units.” The dictionary defines words (or “lexical units”, if you like). Michael Z. 2009-04-14 21:03 z
Yes, but how many of those things are Unicode codepoints? –I’d be fine with entries for Lua error in Module:links/templates at line 65: The script code "unicode" is not valid. and Lua error in Module:links/templates at line 65: The script code "unicode" is not valid. (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 22:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The Unicode consortium is maintaining a spec describing their encoding scheme. All words in all languages is a very different thing. Michael Z. 2009-04-14 23:33 z
Dictionaries document lexical units, of which words are only one class (the largest class, sure, but just one class). Every decent English dictionary contains an entry for the letter B. Typographical characters are a type of lexical unit whose documentation belongs in a dictionary. —Rod (A. Smith) 21:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I notice that our entry for lexical item and Wikipedia's entry w:Lexical item disagree with my use of that phrase. I meant something like, "units of language", but now I'm hard-pressed to find a phrase that means just that. Rephrasing my point above, I believe dictionaries document units of language, of which words are only one class. A decent English dictionary contains an entry for the letter B, with facts like the origin of the letter, its position in the alphabet, its pronunciation, etc. Similarly, a dictionary seems like a great home for documentation of typographical units, like [[1]], [[]], and [[[[ ]]]]. —Rod (A. Smith) 21:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Which dictionary, decent or otherwise, has an entry for an actual en space, and not just its name, en space? Does it have two entries for italic B and roman B? Headwords or subsenses for serif and sans-serif B's, blackletter B's, and B's set in a Swiss humanist face? I think your dictionary probably just has entries for B, and b. Periods, commas, semicolons, dashes, etc belong to orthography, not lexicography. These are all part of writing, but they are not “lexical units.” A space is not a word, it is the empty spot between written words.
But be that as it may, you are still confounding text with the technical means used to represent it. An en space is not a “typographical character”, and it is not a gap between written characters. An en space is a concrete object, a kind of metal slug, which can make a bigger gap between other types by being bent or padded with a bit of chewed paper.[34] An en space is also a Unicode character with the value U+2002, which can produce an en-width gap in displayed or printed text, but, for example, can also make a bigger gap if the text is set justified left and right. Michael Z. 2009-04-14 22:25 z
So an en space is not a “typographical character”, but it is also a Unicode character with the value U+2002? Now I'm even more confounded. —Rod (A. Smith) 22:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
That's right. It's a digital character, a byte, a code point – it's not a typographical character, letter, or symbol, or a glyph at all. It's a typographer's tool, not a part of the lexis. It defines a range of behaviours for the adjacent characters, which behaviours may be modified by software which lays out or displays text on a screen or printer, but doesn't display anything or have inherent meaning. It's a block in the press or a piece of data in the computer file, but it only leaves a blank on the screen or on paper. Michael Z. 2009-04-14 23:03 z
A dictionary defines words. No matter how loosely you want to define what constitutes words, spaces will continue to be the empty bits between them. Michael Z. 2009-04-14 23:08 z

Forgive my obtuseness, but I don’t see the difference between Lua error in Module:links/templates at line 65: The script code "unicode" is not valid. and Lua error in Module:links/templates at line 65: The script code "unicode" is not valid., Lua error in Module:links/templates at line 65: The script code "unicode" is not valid., and Lua error in Module:links/templates at line 65: The script code "unicode" is not valid., apart from the fact that the former lacks black bits; what’s the significant difference in lexicographical terms?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 22:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Unlike bricks or dinosaurs, we are dealing here with something which can be sought for via our search box as a single Unicode graphic character. I don't see it as being outside the remit of an electronically-based dictionary to deal with such things, even if a paper-based dictionary would be unlikely to do so. The question therefore is whether Unicode graphic characters meet the standard of “Terms” to be broadly interpreted. A loose interpretation of the sixth bullet point: "Characters used in ideographic or phonetic writing such as 字 or ʃ." would favor allowing an entry for every Unicode graphic character.
DC is arguing in favor of a strict standard under which characters that exist solely as typographic tools would not meet CFI's standard of a “term”. If “[[ ]]” and “[[ ]]” were deleted, logical consistency would seem to call for also deleting “²” and “³” since those too are simply tools of the typographer to produce superscript 2 and superscript 3 respectively, and likely quite a few other existing entries would need to be deleted under that strict standard.
I see no reason to discriminate against non-printing graphic characters, and no reason to not have suitable entries for each and every one of them. Getting those suitable entries is likely to be the problem, though for some them, such as “”, a redirect should suffice. — Carolina wren discussió 22:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
You're using a pretty loose interpretation of loose interpretation. If it meant any Unicode character, it would say any Unicode character, and then we would have to change it so that this remained a dictionary. Fortunately, none of these things is true. Michael Z. 2009-04-14 22:29 z
I didn't say any Unicode character, I said any Unicode graphic character. There is a difference and I agree that combining characters such as U+0305 COMBINING OVERLINE or format characters such as U+200C ZERO WIDTH NON-JOINER don't merit entries. — Carolina wren discussió 22:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Let me try again, less glibly. Don't treat our representation of language as language itself. Unicode doesn't define language or lexis, it's merely an attempt to represent it. Let's delineate our dictionary's scope in terms of language, not code points. Michael Z. 2009-04-14 22:51 z
And yet those code points are how the Wiktionary is accessed, not simply letters as is the case for paper dictionaries. To a certain extent, function must follow form.
Let me make certain that I understand you and the full scope of your point of view on what should be included and excluded as a “term”. In addition to “[[ ]]”, you would favor eliminating everything that does not fit a highly restrictive definition of lexical, such as, but not limited to -, ², ·, , , , and most of Appendix:Unsupported titles (including of course the entry on “ ”). If not, please explain why you feel any of those merit being included as terms while “[[ ]]” does not, for what you have propounded so far does not support making such a distinction. (In my opinion, that spaces don't have black bits does not of itself constitute a reason to exclude them.) — Carolina wren discussió 00:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The design adage is actually “form follows function” rather than the reverse. The function of this dictionary is to define terms, not to duplicate the Unicode Consortium's specification.
But this is off topic. If you have a specific proposal to change CFI, then write it up at the Beer Parlour and maybe you can learn more about my full scope. For now I'll just say that “characters used in ideographic or phonetic writing such as 字 or ʃ” certainly does not declare or imply that “ ” is a term in any language. Michael Z. 2009-04-15 19:03 z
I'm aware of the way the adage is usually structured, but the converse was appropriate to my point. I don't see the need to rewrite CFI to include “ ” within the scope of what we cover except possibly for added clarity. The list given of what constitutes a term in not written in manner that indicates exclusivity. To quote the relevant section: “A term need not be limited to a single word in the usual sense. Any of these are also acceptable:”. If that list were prescriptive instead of illustrative, the language should instead be something like: “A term is not limited to a single word in the usual sense. The following and only the following are also acceptable:”
Now let me repeat my question, MZ, and this time I'd appreciate an actual answer instead of blithely declaring it off topic. You are arguing that “[[ ]]” should be deleted because it does not meet what you consider to be the scope of “term”. I do not agree that it does not meet the scope of “term”, and have explained why I feel is does. If “[[ ]]” (and “[[ ]]”) are deleted, your interpretation of what is a “term” is likely to govern future discussions and therefore knowing clearly what that interpretation is on topic. Therefore let me repeat for hopefully the last time: Do you favor eliminating everything that does not fit a highly restrictive definition of lexical, such as, but not limited to -, ², ·, , , , and most of Appendix:Unsupported titles (including of course the entry on “ ”)? If not, please explain why you feel any of those merit being included as terms while “[[ ]]” does not.Carolina wren discussió 19:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but each case has its own merits, or hasn't. I won't satisfy your demand for me to write an essay to “govern future discussions.”
This is not a term in any sense, not even a written character, except purely in the jargon of digital representation. Spaces are the bits between terms and their components. It's also not attestable. The half-em gap left between terms by this code point could have been created by a half-dozen other means. This doesn't meet our CFI. Michael Z. 2009-04-17 22:32 z
Not much sense in hashing this further, since it is clear we disagree on the termitude of “[[ ]]” and that we won't resolve our difference of opinion here. White space can be shown to affect meaning as doggone and dog gone aren't even remotely related in meaning. (Indeed, a dog gone would elicit a Yippie! from me.) Given a refusal to discuss the broader issue, I will have to take the position that this deletion, if it goes through, sets no precedent except for other white space characters. — Carolina wren discussió 01:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete; not verifiable. We don't index orthogrpahic variants where the spelling does not change. This is akin to discussing cat versus cɑt. --EncycloPetey 19:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
While the example is problematic, since cɑt could be a distinct word from cat in Fe'fe' or some other African language that uses Latin alpha (Ɑ ɑ) as a letter, it certainly is a more cogent argument than the one given by MZ. While I still think that we ought to have entries or redirects (to either another entry or an Appendix) for each Unicode graphic character, if only to avoid the inevitable attempts at (re)creation by anons, until such time as a systematic effort to make such entries is undertaken, I won't be insistent on keeping this, tho I still don't support deletion. — Carolina wren discussió 22:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
It's a good example, even if italics are used in Fe'fe' leetspeak. Many fonts have a unicameral italic small a, that does not make it a small Latin alpha, any more than a zero is a capital o, or a capital el a small i.
Perhaps redirects to an appendix would serve to prevent recreating such entries. Or a redirect with explanation, as at WiktionarianMichael Z. 2009-04-18 14:28 z
What italics? There is some use of Latin alpha outside of IPA as a distinct letter from Latin a, which is why Latin Capital Letter Alpha (U+2C6D) was added in Unicode 5.1. One can argue the wisdom of making that distinction, but it isn't dissimilar in nature to separating u and v or i and j. — Carolina wren discussió 02:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Based on EP's point ("We don't index orthogrpahic variants where the spelling does not change."), I'd be satisfied with a simple Mediawiki redirect to whatever entry we have for whitespace. —Rod (A. Smith) 22:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Strong keep for both this and em space. We have entries for Translingual graphical symbols (e.g. "," and "-") and entries for their names in (hopefully) all languages (en:comma & hyphen, es:coma & guión, etc.). “[[ ]]” should be treated no differently. We should not have a Translingual symbol be a redirect to an English term. And the entry should have its Unicode codepoint. In the context of symbols, this information is not encyclopedic. It is necessary information that clarifies easily confused and hard to decipher symbols. Perhaps if we could separate names for things (that should go in dictionaries) from the actual text we use, then we wouldn't need to have this entry. But we can't, so we should.
EP, perhaps a better example of your point would have been bedroom & BEDROOM. But while true for whole words, we make obvious exceptions for single character entries (e.g. G & g and Γ, γ). --Bequw¢τ 09:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Those aren't exceptions. The letters G and g serve different lexical functions and have separate etymologies. The capital and lower case were developed at different times and in different cultures. --EncycloPetey 17:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a good position is that we ought to have an entry for [[ |« »]], but not for something like en space (written with the en space, resulting perhaps from paragraph justification) as an alternative for en space (written with an ASCII space); just a thought…  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep per Bequw. EncycloPetey's analogy is apt, and we shouldn't have entries for things like cɑt and hot dog; but we should have entries for things like ɑ and [[ |the en space]]. (And in fact, we already do have an entry for ɑ.) —RuakhTALK 15:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we have an entry for ɑ as an IPA character, but that is irrelevant. We do not have entries for cɑt or ɑpple, or other English words using that character in the spelling, despite the fact that some publishers use that typography. Likewise, we dont have separate entries for the two forms of lowercase g that can appear in different font sets. --EncycloPetey 17:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
But we should have entries for the two forms of the lower-case g, in my opinion.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a purely stylistic difference, and carries no lexicographical meaning. The (near-)exception is in IPA, which prefers an “open-tailed g”, presumably for consistency, but allows a bicameral g – Unicode provides a code point for this, U+0261 (ɡ). In my opinion, this is a preferred style, like asking for a sans-serif font, and the letter remains a g. Michael Z. 2009-04-19 01:08 z
Whatever difference or lack thereof there is between ‘g’ and ‘ɡ’, we’d still have separate entries for both, wouldn’t we? The difference is that we would not have separate entries for, say, gold and ɡold (though the latter might be kept as a hard redirect to the former).  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I would say keep only if we are to distinguish glyphs like italic and serif variants. In fact, I would very much like to see this. A vertical line is a single glyph but can mean lowercase L or uppercase I, except that in writing an word-initial I usually has the bars on top and bottom. The line can also mean the number 1 in the US but the British write that differently. The Arabic numeral 5 when written by the Chinese always has the left stem extending noticeably above the horizontal bar. This is true despite looking the same in type as we would see it, just as in the U.S. the dollar sign is written with two vertical strokes although the typed symbol commonly has only one, sometimes going through and sometimes not. It is proper for dictionaries to document this kind of information. However, seeing as we do not yet, delete. DAVilla 08:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
And in countries which use the Cyrillic alphabet, a figure 4 is always closed, so it doesn't look like a letter Ч (che). Where a figure 1 starts with a prominent upstroke, the figure 7 is distinguished by a crossed stem.
But these typographic or calligraphic variations of letterform don't belong in a dictionary, nor do Roman or Cyrillic type styles like serif, italic, or boldfaced. They don't represent differences in spelling or even orthography, nor in pronunciation, nor any other lexicographical feature. They might be summarized in an encyclopedic appendix, but we have the biggest appendix in the world, the English-language Wikipedia. Michael Z. 2009-05-18 16:39 z
Sure they belong here. It is for precisely these reasons of division in linguistic evolution that we don't have just one Roman alphabet or one Cyrillic alphabet, these inventions often reflecting phonetic deviation, and why words borrowed from similar languages take on very different pronunciations (or similar pronunciations and different spellings), and why letters have come to represent multiple phonetics over time. It may feel like documenting this is a static snapshot, but it is an entirely linguistic topic and subject to change as with any other, just over a larger span of time. DAVilla 04:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Huh? So there should be separate entries for the different “terms” italic, italic, and italic (and italic?). Separate entries for style, style, and style? One for closed figure 4 and another for open-topped 4? Not only is this impossible to do in Wikimedia, but there is no dictionary precedent for any such thing. This is not lexicography. Michael Z. 2009-05-26 04:28 z
No, only for glyphs, some day in a separate namespace possibly but starting in the appendix, just as usage notes for the different alphabets and such. Once you know that a glyph stands for a 1 or an I or an l, then it can take on the lexical meaning, and the different "terms" you name above would all be under the same title, italic or style, and not also in small caps or with an initial capital as at the beginning of a sentence or other obvious variants.
And am I mistaken? I thought the unabridged dictionaries did catalog the evolution of letterforms. I've seen a few places where we do already. DAVilla 05:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I see, but this is part of the encyclopedic supplement, I think. We can already link to this kind of info at w:A, w:Latin alphabet, w:1 (number), w:Hindu-Arabic numeral system, w:Italic type, etc. Michael Z. 2009-05-26 12:34 z
Oh, and a redirect makes no more sense than redirecting “0” to “zero” or listing “exclamation mark” in see alsos at the top of “!”. A “[[ ]]” is not just English! DAVilla 12:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

advance fee scam

SOP? —RuakhTALK 01:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep, wide-spread long-term use as a set phrase. I think it is the standard term used by legislators in the USA, and perhaps elsewhere.--Dmol 07:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The more standard term seems to be "advance fee fraud". —RuakhTALK 15:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
advance fee fraud is under "See Also" and it's a red-link for now. -- 17:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

em space

Similar to the #en space above, there's a redirect from the whitespace character “[[ ]]” to the entry em space. Per CFI, this is not a term. Michael Z. 2009-04-15 19:07 z

As I noted above, the list of what is a term given in CFI is written in an illustrative fashion, not a prescriptive one.— Carolina wren discussió 19:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
As I noted, none of these examples illustrates anything like the gap created by U+2003 EM SPACE. Its lexicographical vacancy is identical to that of the gap left by U+2001, or a pair of U+2002's or U+2005's in a row, or a metal quad in the letterpress, or a tap of the space bar in a mechanical typewriter. It is not a term, it makes the voids between them. Michael Z. 2009-04-17 22:41 z


If we're going to discuss deleting “[[ ]]” and “[[ ]]”, then we should also discuss the entry for “ ” in Appendix:Unsupported titles. Nothing that would apply to the first two entries does not also apply to that entry. Personally I feel all three should be kept for the reasons I have given at #en space above. — Carolina wren discussió 19:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Although we have had the entries in Appendix:Unsupported titles, and linked from Template:punctuation, these don't meet our own CFI. They're not terms, abbreviations, acronyms, or initialisms, etc. We end up with “definitions” which are actually usage, descriptions, or just names: “An ASCII symbol which covers the functions of...,” “a glottal stop”, and “The right parenthesis symbol.
Maybe they're better off collected in a single, well constructed appendix. A table or list may be more effective than the current long page of redundant “Translingual” headings pretending to be dictionary definitions. Michael Z. 2009-04-18 15:04 z
Hm, just thinking aloud — well, on screen — about the appendix idea. You think it should list all characters that don't otherwise have entries... which should probably be all Unicode characters (since why do we need to define even A#Translingual?)... and it should define them as "symbol representing a glottal stop" or "the right parenthesis symbol" or the like. So basically we should have a copy of the Unicode table, but augmented by etymology (how did the parenthesis get its form, and when?), related terms ([ is related to (), and the like. Is that what you had in mind?—msh210 15:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
No, the Unicode consortium already documents each version of their standard. I wish people would stop implying that Unicode had some authority or precedence over language. But we can supplement the dictionary with some encyclopedic lists of symbols, the kind of stuff you used to find in tables at the back of a large print dictionary.
I would start with some basic categories of symbols which don't meet CFI: punctuation, math and numerals, proofing marks, etc, and create an appendix for each. In a table or list, each symbol should probably have its most important English name or names. Since the names will link to dictionary entries, it may not be necessary to list any additional names, or descriptions, or translations. I see these as minimal lists of links, visual indexes for symbols the reader may recognize but might not be able to name. I would also link to a related Wikipedia topic at the bottom of the page, but not for each symbol; the focus should remain as an index to dictionary entries, which may link on to Wikipedia and elsewhere. Michael Z. 2009-04-21 19:14 z


surely this should be دیر (with Farsi and not Arabic ya), not? -- Prince Kassad 12:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Brahui 'ya' is the same as Persian Template:ur-Arab, not Arabic Template:Arab. Besides that, Brahui uses the unusual letter Template:ur-Arab (lhām). Brahui in Pakistan uses most of the Urdu letters, but Brahui in Afghanistan often substitutes Pashto letters for the Urdu ones. For example, standard Brahui Template:ur-Arab, Template:ur-Arab, Template:ur-Arab, Template:ur-Arab may be written Template:ps-Arab, Template:ps-Arab, Template:ps-Arab, Template:ps-Arab in Afghanistan; —Stephen 15:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorted. —Stephen 02:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


Submitted for speedy delete, along with 7s, £s, and €s below. (“s and (s and )s were also requested for which I did grant the request for a speedy delete.) All were added as French plurals by Keenebot2, but these four might be salvageable as French abbreviations (or indeed as as English abbreviations), so I'm bringing them here. — Carolina wren discussió 15:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep all, as it is not intuitively clear how to pluralize numbers and symbols. Some people would be inclined to think that it should be done with an apostrophe-s as is often done with letters. bd2412 T 17:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I thought it could be done with numbers as well - or does it only apply to years like this and this? --Duncan 17:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it is formally incorrect to pluralize years with an 's - but it's done all the time anyway. Hence the need for an entry. bd2412 T 16:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Surely any symbol or nonword can be pluralised in s (with an optional apostrophe for those who think it looks horrid). Delete, and its cousins below. Equinox 21:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep just as we do with other plurals. Although most symbols and abbreviations make a plural with apostrophe-s, a simple s is often preferred, especially in display ads, for esthetic reasons (the same reasons that formally required hyphens are usually left out of such texts). —Stephen 10:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep iff a French entry (and not just a Translingual one) is created at 3.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If it is a French abbreviation, that wouldn't be needed, since it would be an abbreviation of trois Lua error in Module:links/templates at line 43: The parameter "1" is required. Template:p. — Carolina wren discussió 20:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
In which case the entry defines it incorrectly and the entire discussion hitherto is moot.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete: anyway, French does not add an s to pluralize symbols and initialisms (unlike English). Lmaltier 20:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete the French as this is impossible in French (des 2, des 3, des L) but keep for the English. Mglovesfun 16:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete per Francophone Lmaltier. Same for the similar nominees below.—msh210 20:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


See 3s above. — Carolina wren discussió 15:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


See 3s above. — Carolina wren discussió 15:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


See 3s above. — Carolina wren discussió 15:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


Adjective: of, or pertaining to a marsupial. Isn't this just a regular attributive adjective? We don't accept these, right (although there are some translations thereunder which could be worth a keep) --Jackofclubs 13:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It has a limited amount of use as a true adjective. Consider the following cases, respectively, of gradable, comparative, and predicate use:
2002, Fiction Fix: First Injection, page 58:
But there's this pouch just below my belly button, very marsupial, where the kangaroo lives.
1952, The Motor‎, page 520:
It seemed to me, meandering around Earls Court, that motors should be more marsupial.
1892, The American naturalist‎, page 125:
Showing that this animal is marsupial, consists of the following characters.

DCDuring TALK 16:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Great. Maybe there should be a(nother) definition as having a pouch or similar. --Jackofclubs 06:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
    Would that be the attributive use of the noun sense, as in marsupial mouse? Beats me whether we are supposed to include that as an adjective sense. Michael Z. 2009-04-23 14:49 z
  • The reason I troubled to find and provide the particular citations above is that predicate, graded, and comparative use are three markers of true adjectivity. (BTW, I am not sure that the usage in the "more" quote is comparative, though certainly graded.) DCDuring TALK 16:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
    Good info. This kind of thing should be recommended in WT:ELE, or in subguidelines for particular POS headings. Michael Z. 2009-04-23 16:53 z


Someone hid the adverb sense with a comment that it made no sense. I've heard the phrase "bored silly" before, and it is easily cited, and there silly seems to be an adverb. Does this warrant an entry, or move to bored silly? --Jackofclubs 06:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not an adverb. It's the same sort of construction as "painted red". Equinox 14:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

floor tile

Basically any tile that goes on a floor. Is there any other reasonable way to interpret this or any reason to have it in the dictionary? Equinox 14:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome, roof tile should be IMO treated the same.--Duncan 14:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
OED's definition of roof-tile (quotes include roof tile) implies that it used to mean ridge-tile, but has come to mean roofing tile, so it doesn't seem to be SoP historically. Michael Z. 2009-04-25 16:46 z


Encyclopedic, no use in a dictionary. Mea culpa, got carried away by the Xmas Comp. Hopefully my only sin of that time. --Duncan 22:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Phew, I thought it might be some horrid Internet adaptation of UML. But it's just a radical political party. No harm there. Delete. Equinox 22:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


Wetter + Lage -- Prince Kassad 21:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

But run together as one word. Most English speakers will not realize that the German is a compound; how to split it; or to look up Lage instead of lage. --EncycloPetey 21:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I thought that in German, whenever one noun is used as an attributive modifier for another, it's always written solid? (So, like if we wrote "Biologytest", "Kitchentable", etc. in English.) I don't think we want entries for all pairs of German nouns, do we? (Disclaimer: I don't speak any German at all, so I may well be wrong. If so, please correct me.) —RuakhTALK 03:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
P.S. BTW, I'm not voting "delete", because Google suggests that this is incredibly common — possible a set phrase? — and that it might pass the lemming test. I just dislike the "most English speakers can't ____" rationale for keeping entries we shouldn't have. Our audience is speakers of English, but it's unrealistic to expect that someone with no knowledge of German could really make good use of a German-English dictionary. If we had the wherewithal to write custom language-specific software to help users out, that would be great, but within the MediaWiki framework, if our only "solution" is to add redundant entries that have no business in a dictionary, then we have to accept that we simply don't have a real solution, and probably never will. —RuakhTALK 03:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Wetterlage is listed in my Cassell’s. It’s a common term and should be kept. I believe that few beginning or intermediate students of German would come up with a good English translation of it simply by looking at Wetter and Lage. In any case, it’s a set term in German and good dictionaries have it. —Stephen 03:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Really? A set term? I don't think so. There's also Verkehrslage (traffic situation), Finanzlage (finance situation), Sicherheitslage (safety situation), etc. which are composed the same way. -- Prince Kassad 04:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
So Wetterlage could mean "storm situation"? --EncycloPetey 04:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
That's an erroneous sense which simply does not exist and should be removed from Wetter. I don't know who added it. -- Prince Kassad 11:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
It was translated "storm situation" and marked masculine by a not-very-good-German speaker, based on its individual parts. I have already corrected it. —Stephen 05:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: it's a German word. The German wiktionary already has Inversionswetterlage, and Wetterlage is a red link in a few other pages... Of course, we don't want to accept all possible pairs of German nouns: the use of the word must be attested (e.g. we don't accept Wetterfinanz). Also have a look at the Wasser page in the German wiktionary, with its numerous derived terms there is no reason to dismiss. Lmaltier 12:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree that we don't want to accept all double (or more) -barreled German nouns: the use of the word must be attested. But all attested ones, yes, keep. This is English Wiktionary, and Anglophones treat such things as one word, whatever German speakers may treat them as.—msh210 20:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The word is listed in the Duden. Also, I think that the specific meaning cannot be derived from the parts. It is the predominant conditions of the weather in a larger area over a specific time period. keep Zeitlupe 16:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Weak keep. I understand the core of the discussion as a phantasy consideration in which we ask: would we include the word in Wiktionary if it were written as "Wetter Lage" in German? Under this phantasy: While it seems to be sum of parts to me, it is also a set term, per its high rate. I would equally support Verkehrslage and Finanzlage. However, still under this phantasy, I see little support for my position in WT:CFI. Specifically, WT:CFI has an allowance for idioms but not for set phrases and set terms. Also, it is worth considering how the English term "financial situation" fares under the same set of criteria: google:"financial situation" finds 3,180,000 hits for me. If the decision were up to me alone, I would refuse to step into the fantasy, and, by doing so, I would include the term per its being syntactically one word, and an attested one. So much my thoughts, for what they're worth. --Dan Polansky 15:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, not so much as a supporting argument in terms of WT:CFI but rather as a statement of a benefit, it is nice to know that Wetterlage is natively translated as "weather conditions" rather than the literal "weather situation". That, however, suggests to me that "weather conditions" is in a way a set phrase in English: it is the standard way in English how to capture the idea, unlike "weather situation"; compare google:"weather situation" and google:"weather conditions". --Dan Polansky 15:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
A relevant case: the English "headache"--a pain or ache in the head--seems to be a sum of parts, but is included, possibly for its being one word. Similar cases include "toothache", "earache", etc. --Dan Polansky 14:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

computer mouse

Non-idiomatic SoP, like computer keyboard or computer speakers. Equinox 00:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I dunno. There is a MUCH more significant difference between the senses that an unqualified mouse can have vs. a computer mouse than between a computer keyboard and a keyboard. To wit, a computer mouse is certainly not a type of mouse, whereas computer keyboards and speakers are types of keyboards and speakers. There is also an interesting question as to whether mouse (computer sense) should be defined simply as "a computer mouse" (as we might do with page -> webpage), but we'd need to dig into old informatics document to determine which term might have come first (though "computer mouse" would certainly be a curious type of retronym). Circeus 05:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Computer mouse is only used when the context doesn't make the sense clear, just like computer keyboard.
OED's quotations:
  1. 1965: “a device called the ‘mouse’”
  2. 1967: “a device called the ‘mouse’”
  3. 1977: “a pointing device called a mouse”
  4. 1982: “a hand-held device known as a mouse.”
  5. 1997: “people inside clicking on mouses”
OED also includes nine compounds with mouse, each with quotations, but the phrase computer mouse only appears once, in the definition of mousematMichael Z. 2009-05-04 23:36 z
It looks like this should be deleted although there's a lingering question. Isn't this how one would be less ambiguous in naming the item? How do we denote on mouse that "computer mouse" is a synonym? DAVilla 08:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Like this, perhaps? --Duncan 09:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Revise. I think any term for which we can say, "this is what the thing is commonly called" and unambiguously so, should be kept (edit: weakly, minimally) as a phrasebook entry at the very least. DAVilla 12:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that computer mouse is used with significant frequency? We don't add bold-italic notes screaming computer port to the entry port, computer keyboard to keyboard, or computer console to consoleMichael Z. 2009-05-27 01:52 z
It shows up 74 times in COCA. MIT's Technology Review had it in 2007, referring to Ideo having designed the "first mass-market computer mouse". It might seem funny to refer to designing the "first mass-market mouse", especially in an article that mentions cloning and genetic engineering as well as computer animation. (See other mass-market mouse.) DCDuring TALK 02:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Google Books: 956 for computer mouse, 688 for computer port, 1,424 for computer keyboard, 964 for computer console. --Duncan 09:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, computer keyboard is certainly not unreasonable, but I could only consider such a collocation for as a phrasebook entry. Idiomaticity is a highly refined and stable rule and one that I should be more reluctant to bend. DAVilla 08:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, compare the hits of "mouse click" to "computer mouse click" (or mouse pointer, mouse pad, etc.). Can't really do it with COCA because computer mouse is too rare. I think the combinations “computer x” are not idiomatic at all, only used when the context requires disambiguation. Michael Z. 2009-05-27 12:24 z

Locational Based Marginal Pricing

Seems like [[location]]-[[based]] [[marginal]] [[pricing]] or [[w:LMP]] et al. DCDuring TALK 00:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep as a set phrase in a specific industry. Its meaning is impossible to establish from sum of parts. Evidence of worldwide usage on web and in books. However, not sure it needs to be caps, as some of them are lower case, also hyphenated between locational and based.--Dmol 03:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
It is only capitalized in second-rate glossaries. It should not have any capitals. I have no idea what it means, based on the individual words, so keep. —Stephen 05:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Is there any objective evidence behind either of these assertions or is this just a Vote? DCDuring TALK 09:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Where in the title do you say any mention of electricity? Move to lowercase. DAVilla 12:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

A quick Google Books search shows locational marginal pricing (LMP) as the most common term (248 results), with a few instances each of location marginal pricing (9), location-based marginal pricing (7), and the practically illiterate locational based marginal pricing (4). Per Wikipedia, it is also called nodal pricing (903). Michael Z. 2009-04-30 01:50 z

One could take any four-word compound (especially an ill-formed one like this) out of a native context in which it is used (and understood in general without definition), and define its use as limited to the context. Moreover one could add senses as it gains traction in other contexts. Interdisciplinary terms would be perfect for this. Variant forms will be abundant. Wiktionary 10 Million! Let a thousand jargons bloom! time-of-day pricing, congestion-based pricing, peak-load pricing, demand-charge pricing, real-time congestion pricing. I might want more than 10,000 words on my watchlist. DCDuring TALK 16:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

zoom past

sum of parts? --Jackofclubs 15:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think so, but see the ongoing discussion at WT:TR#zoom. My "technical" defence of zoom in has weakened since I imagined a camera zooming past something in the scene. Equinox 16:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


sense: single-mindedly. Should just be a misspelling of rapt. DCDuring TALK 01:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's a reasonably common eggcorn it should be listed as a common misspelling. Circeus 05:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

plastic scouser

It speaks or itself. DCDuring TALK 09:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Cited, but I think it should not be capitalised — at the very least plastic shouldn't. Equinox 10:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Moved. DCDuring TALK 11:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Attestation isn't the primary issue. "Plastic" is used to mean "ersatz", "second-rate", "wannabe" all the time. This seems just another instance of the miracle of logocombination. DCDuring TALK 11:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Does plastic mean this of people as well? DAVilla 12:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
It certainly has had the meaning. That meaning was part of the resonance for the career advice given to Dustin Hoffman's character in w:The Graduate. I note that our definition doesn't have that sense. DCDuring TALK 15:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
This] work discusses the meanings I have in mind. DCDuring TALK 15:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I had wondered whether the sense was dated. It doesn't seem to be. The application to people may have been somewhat out of fashion. I have in-line cites at plastic which should mostly be moved to citations:plastic when the discussion is done. DCDuring TALK 16:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, delete. DAVilla 11:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009


I'm just wondering what the source for this is? I've never heard of it, nor as any dictionary I can lay my hands on. Interesting for something to be proscribed and virtually inexistant at the same time. Having said that, I should try a few Google searches before I make any more comments. Mglovesfun 23:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually strong delete now, google.fr returns 66 hits for "tu tuses" all of which seem to be misspellings of tu t'uses. "Que tu tuses" (as in Spanish, most subjunctives follow que) gets erm, zero hits. Mglovesfun 23:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
My French isn't very good, but if this is "first and third-person present subjunctive", why would it take tu (second person)? I found for instance on the Web (referring to Hitler): "qu'il tuse des millions de gens pour en sauver des milliards", but it is a rare aberration and probably an error. Equinox 23:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Not at all, it's VERY strongly marked (low slang) Quebec form where a "theoretical" (you would not normally pronounce final "e") vowel hiatus is eliminated. Here are a few examples (none of which are citeable, something that would be eminently hard to find, but still): CRISSSSS. Faut que je la TUSE! (talking about a spider), attend que je le tuse ton chien a la con (being told "my dog could have done better), (rapeller moi quil faut que je le tuse). The TLFQ Database actually manages to dig quite a few citations. Want me to collect those? Circeus 23:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
You're not wrong Equinox, I worded that quite badly, so here goes. On Google.fr with "include French results only" and in quotation marks:
  • Que je tuse - 1
  • Que tu tuses - 0
  • Qu'il tuse - 2
  • Qu'elle tuse - 0
  • Qu'on tuse - 1
  • Que nous tusions - 0
  • Que vous tusiez - 0
  • Qu'ils tusent - 0
  • Qu'elles tusent - 0
So that's 4 Mglovesfun 23:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay I just read that. So why can't you do that with any verb? Makes me think of the old -in' problem that any verb can have a form ending in -in'. Mglovesfun 23:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not that you can't, it's that few very common verbs (i.e. verbs basic that a strongly proscribed process would affect them), end in -uer or -ouer. You'll find example for tuer and jouer, possibly louer (here's one), but not verbs like rouer or éberluer. It's a context thing. It's the same reason a verb like "engueuler" does not, in fact, have a subjunctive imperfect (I dare you to find literary quotes!): a wroter that uses that verbal tense is at best highly unlikely to use the word, just as someone who writes a text in which joue -> jouse is unlikely to use the verb "allouer" (they'd use "permettre"). Circeus 00:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Haha, I'll have a go at that. Foutre doesn't have a past historic or an imperfect subjunctive in any (paper) dictionary that I know, but you can find it a lot on the web (je foutis and je foutus). Oh by the way, this. Mglovesfun 00:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm quite willing to revise the entries (gotta make one for tusent, too), but I'm not going to back down from believing they warrant listing. Circeus 00:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Shall we wait for someone else to contribute then? Mglovesfun 21:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
It is definitely not valid French. Perhaps some Quebec slang, but what is the difference with bad spelling ? In the quote "rapeller moi quil faut que je le tuse", do you want to create rapeller (rappeler) too ? I think we should delete tuse and tuses. We are not a normative dictionary, but it is too rare and close to bad spelling in my opinion. Koxinga 22:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
As an ex-Marseillais Parisian, I'm against Template:trad, Template:trad and Template:trad without a relevant dialect specification. JackPotte 03:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
These are irrelevant to the point in that they don't affect pronunciation. As mentioned above, I can dig up several written quotes with dates ranging from at least 1930s-70s. I won't bother if the thing are gonna get deleted anyway. I wouldn't object to losing louse, though, for which I can hardly find actual quotes (although there seem to be a slangy homonymous verb borrowed from English lose in use in Europe, whice complicates things). Circeus 06:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Mglovesfun, and for the record: The consensus in the past was that we do have entries ending in "in'" if attested. If someone wants I can dig up the conversation (I think). Because this is off-topic in this conversation, and to make sure I see your request (I'm not always at a computer that can bring up the huge RFD page), please ask me at my talkpage rather than here if you want me to dig it up.msh210 15:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Added quotes for all three forms of tuer (not sure why there are much more available in the TLFQ database for the plural than the singulars), and adjusted the tags: it's much more nonstandard, even for slang, than proscribed (which maps to "disputed"). Circeus 06:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)



See above. Mglovesfun 23:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

no chance in Hell

One can also say "no way in Hell", "no reason in Hell", etc.; and conversely, one can also say "a chance in Hell" (in negative polarity contexts), etc. I think we need entries for no, for chance, and for in Hell, but not for no chance in Hell. —RuakhTALK 19:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree.—msh210 15:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
delete (But some of the words are polysemic: It might be a proverbial warning about the hereafter.) DCDuring TALK 20:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete. DAVilla 12:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted per consensus --Jackofclubs 12:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

compassionate conservativisms

This is just a weird one. The plural of a misspelling, and even for the correct spelling, wouldn't that be an uncountable noun? When do people ever use conservatisms and fascisms (etc.). Mglovesfun 21:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

For particular flavours or instances: "War and imperialism were intrinsic in German and Italian fascisms". Not sure about this one, either, though. It's almost non-existent in the plural. Equinox 21:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
It's more the fact that in the singular, it's listed as a misspelling. It would be a bit like creating iritate (reasonable) but then creating the conjugation as well ; iritates, -ed, -ing. Hmm, this needs some thought. Mglovesfun 22:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I see that conservativism is only glossed as an "alternate spelling", though. Equinox 22:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
For the moment, the " correct" spelling is listed as uncountable (I didn't write the articles) while the misspelling has a plural. I don't insist on deletion if it can be avoided, but clearly it's a problem that needs fixing in some way. Mglovesfun 22:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Mac OS

Seems to be sum-of-parts to me: Mac + OS. --EncycloPetey 03:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Sum of parts.,--Dmol 04:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The phrase is a proper name and trademark. Of course you can't infer this from the sum of its parts. Mac OS has a status and significance which Mac operating system lacks. Michael Z. 2009-05-05 13:51 z
Exactly, and this leaves us with the attestation part. Move to RfV -- Prince Kassad 13:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Is that necessary? It'll be easy enough to find plenty instances of “Mac OS desktop,” “Mac OS apps,” “Mac OS systems,” “Mac OS machines,” “Mac OS market” (these are actual quotes from americancorpus.org) Michael Z. 2009-05-05 14:33 z
Those would usually not be good cites (except perhaps the "market" ones): See WT:CFI#Brand_names and the more detailed Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Brand names.—msh210 23:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
It is a trademark for a specific brand of OS. Keep for the same reason as Windows: it's common and does have attributive usage. Equinox 16:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Send to RFV.msh210 23:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
This sets a bad precedent. A term shouldn't be considered idiomatic only because it is a brand name. Clearly this is Mac + OS, probably attestable, even by brand name criteria, but not idiomatic. Delete. DAVilla 08:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe. I don't know about idiomatic, but we have separate heading for proper names, and separate entries for significant capitalization (the latter can be problematic).
It looks like the phrase “Mac OS” may have been used rarely as Mac (“Macintosh,” informal abbr., attr.) + OS (“operating system,” abbr), techie shorthand for “Macintosh operating system.” But when Apple adopted this as an official name in 1995, then Mac OS took on a new meaning, or at least new connotation, used in a different context and register. The OS part was now capitalized as part of a proper noun, rather than just as an initialism. The term went from jargon to the new proper name for software separated from its hardware (Apple introduced this name for their OS when it started to ship on non-Apple clones, first in the splash screen and later as the official name). If this usage doesn't warrant a definition, then why isn't Windows just an alternate capitalization of windows? Michael Z. 2009-05-11 04:30 z
Mac OS was SoP even before Apple adopted it. Windows doesn't have any parts to sum. DAVilla 12:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Then shall I file RfD's for Academy Awards, Mercedes-Benz, Sesame Street, Victoria's Secret, Häagen-Dazs, Pan-Cake, Tetra Pak, etc, citing lack of metaphorical citations? Michael Z. 2009-05-25 23:21 z
Judging from Google Book hits, most of these would pass an RFV, Häagen-Dazs barely so. I'm not at all sure about Pan-Cake due to the difficulty of searching, and Tetra Pak I have the least confidence in. But the others would just be a waste of someone's valuable time. DAVilla 04:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Adding good quotations is certainly not a waste. I'm just trying to pin down the principal, and on which side of it these terms fall. Michael Z. 2009-05-27 03:36 z
Revise: Conditional delete. To be admitted I would want to see metaphoric use per the suggested CFI on specific entities. DAVilla 19:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
In other words, I guess I would RFV after all, but looking for specific citations. Metaphoric use counters the non-idiomatic sum-of-parts argument. DAVilla 04:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

hexadecimal notation

The definition is fine, but I think this is non-idiomatic sum of parts. Compare the more or less equally common binary notation, octal notation, etc. (for different bases), and also similar constructs like shorthand notation. Putting the two words together doesn't, as far as I can see, say anything unique and dictionary-worthy. Equinox 21:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete or improve. The definition seems wrong to me - it describes it as a number system, whereas it is actually the representation of that system. SemperBlotto 21:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete SoP.—msh210 22:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, hexadecimal covers this already. SoP. Mglovesfun 15:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: it's SoP according to hexadecimal, but hexadecimal should be corrected: by itself, it doesn't convey the idea of using 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E,F, just as decimal does not convey the idea of using 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 (other symbols are used as well in some countries). And I think that hexadecimal notation does convey this idea (unless I'm wrong). Of course, the same applies to octal notation, etc. Lmaltier 16:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think hexadecimal notation conveys that.—msh210 18:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Improve hexadecimal and hexadecimal notation. Our definition at [[hexadecimal]] is ahistorical, not having the original and most general definition of the adjective ("relating to the number 16"). The noun "hexadecimal" is almost certainly a shortening of "hexadecimal notation", though I don't know the point of splitting the etymology in the entry. And any symbolic representation of a base-16 number system would still be "hexadecimal", though obviously the most common use is as (poorly) defined in the entry. DCDuring TALK 18:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Re: "The noun 'hexadecimal' is almost certainly a shortening of 'hexadecimal notation'": Given that there are so many synonymous phrases of the form "hexadecimal + <noun>" (hexadecimal notation, hexadecimal form, hexadecimal representation, etc.), how can you tell which one it's a shortening of? My own experience doesn't lead me to feel that it's a shortening of any specific one of them, but I'm definitely open to that possibility, if there's evidence for it. —RuakhTALK 19:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Right. My point should have been hexadecimal#Adjective (original meaning) > use in phrases (with "system", "form", "notation", "format", "code", "number", etc) with meaning like what's in entry > hexadecimal#Noun > hex. To not have a representative of the intervening step would make it difficult to present such evolution, should we wish to, without either redlinks or links to WP.
hexadecimal notation seems to me to be the best representative. Looking at OneLook, 37 references have "hexadecimal"; 11: "hexadecimal notation"; 9: "hexadecimal system"; 4: hexadecimal number and hexadecimal digit. Only Wordnet and Collins among the non-copycat dictionaries have hexadecimal notation, but it the only compound term that any lexical authorities have included. DCDuring TALK 20:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete. This is a general occurrence with "X notation", it's hard to define X on it's own - it seems (on my highly huge guesswork/not really understanding scale) to be a noun describing a type of representation that is often used attributively for clarification: "Numbers are given in hexadecimal", "I wrote the number in hexadecimal notation", "I used hexadecimal format to write the number", "I can read the hexidecimal representation of a number". I had the same problem trying to define dotted decimal. Conrad.Irwin 09:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Change from delete to weak delete, what you've said above is true, however if you want to know the definition you can still look up hexadecimal and notation and voilà! Mglovesfun 14:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I have added #hexadecimal number, driven by my hobgoblin. DCDuring TALK 20:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

chocolate chunk

Pretty SoP. What says the comunidade? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 18:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

delete But: both terms are polysemic (5 senses each). By our current arguments, which seem to be offered and accepted in good faith, this might be included. The results of this seem preposterous to me, both in general and in the instant case. DCDuring TALK 18:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Consider someone who bakes a mammoth chocolate-chunk cookie, say some yards in diameter, so as to get into the record books. I would accept the ingredients as "chocolate chunks" even if they were mammoth also. Thus, chocolate chunk is not "a chunk of chocolate of a particular size" but rather simply "a chunk of chocolate that cannot be better called by another name (such as 'chocolate chip' or 'chocolate bar')" — and so a sum of its parts. Delete.msh210 18:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Weak keep, as per chocolate chip. Mglovesfun 12:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete This is just a chunk of chocolate, with no defined shape or use (while a chocolate chip is actually not chipped from chocolate). Michael Z. 2009-05-07 15:02 z
Weak keep Chocolate chunks have a peculiarity that they hardly exist outside of other things. Only chocolate chunks things (chocolate chunk break, cookies, cake etc.) are easily found in real life. Also noticeable that commercial chocolate chunks (those used in 90% of these chocolate chunk things anyway) are actually molded or cut to a defined size, rather than broken the way "general" chunks are. In fact, they remind of "chocolate squares", a more-or-less standardized size references used for cooking-grade chocolates (a "square" being a rectangular broken piece along the lines molded in the piece). Circeus 01:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
We break up slabs of baker's chocolate to make the cookies (I recommend adding pecans). I haven't even seen pre-packaged chocolate chunks. Wouldn't they be in the grocery aisle next to grated cheese and baked pizza crustMichael Z. 2009-05-11 03:29 z
That wouldn't be practical on a commercial, much less industrial scale. That's why you can buy them from many chocolate makers. Note that almost all of them are square/rectangular, and that in the first case, they are qualified because it is clearly NOT expected that they would be irregularly shaped by default. Circeus 02:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
My point is that chocolate chunks aren't only an industrial product, and perhaps mainly not one. I looked at the first 10 Google Books results for "chocolate chunk" OR "chocolate chunks": (all are recipes) of 7 with previews, five called for chopping up baker's chocolate, two simply called for unqualified “chocolate chunks”.
Going by this very tiny corpus, chocolate chunks are just chunks of chocolate. Michael Z. 2009-05-12 17:57 z
Delete per Michael Z. et alii.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Chocolate piece(s) cookies, chocolate bit(s) cookies, chocolate square cookies... this seemed like it could be a set phrase at first, but I'm having a hard time justifying it in my mind, maybe because it's still a neologism that is not well enough defined to be idiomatic, as chocolate chips are with their well-known conical shape. DAVilla 14:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

humble abode

humble home

Both SoP.—msh210 19:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete both Being a cliché isn't one of the CFI. Michael Z. 2009-05-07 15:04 z
Yeah, should delete these I think. Equinox 15:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

chip butty

bacon butty

These are defined as "a sandwich with butter and [bacon|chips]". Really? Our entry butty just says a sandwich, no mention of butter. if all our definitions are correct and complete, then these entries are not SoP — but I doubt that that's the case. Any Rightpondians wish to chime in here, please?—msh210 19:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

  • "A rightpondian responds" - I think that our definition of butty is not good enough. I'm pretty sure that it (originally?) means a slice of bread and butter (or equivalent spread), with or without something else spread on top. It has acquired the meaning of sandwich as it moved south. When I make a bacon butty, I don't put any butter (etc.) on the bread as the bacon is fatty enough. (chip butties are beyond my personal ken, but would seem to be treated the same) SemperBlotto 08:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
As above, you can put almost anything in a butty, particularly chips, egg and bacon. Probably a weak delete' because chip butty is a set phrase in the UK, albeit it's a butty with chips in it. Mglovesfun 12:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep. In the U.S., we don’t know what that is. Probably needs a Common misspellings redirect from bacon booty, which is how I think most Americans would try to spell it. chip butty needs work. I assume it doesn’t mean American potato chips, but probably french fries. —Stephen 13:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
bacon buttie and chip buttie are attestable as well I think. I'm pretty sure that we have buttie. Oh we don't, hang on I'll find a citation. Mglovesfun 14:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
No, in the U.S. we don't know what a butty is. If I know what a butty is, then I know what a bacon|chip butty is. Or am I misunderstanding what you wrote, SGB?—msh210 18:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

gravitational convection

Encyclopedic. RfD tagged in Feb, 2009; not yet discussed here. DCDuring TALK 01:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Mostly needs a good whacking of the trimmer, but probably worth a definition. Circeus 05:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree, keep. Mglovesfun 14:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep. I wasn't aware gravity convects. Actually it doesn't intransitively, only transitively. I.e. the fluid is convecting, and gravity causing it. Not entirely obvious. DAVilla 08:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Is our new procedure to take a vote as whether anyone is unfamiliar with the term? Is that in WT:CFI? Is WT:CFI a dead letter? Why isn't this just an "only in Wikipedia" entry? DCDuring TALK 11:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
You're confusing "having too much encyclopedic content" and "not satisfying CFI". The former is ground for trimming, not deletion. I have no idea where in WT:CFI you can read it is. Circeus 01:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
My comment was tongue in cheek. I wasn't aware gravity convects because gravity in fact does not convect (itself, i.e. intransitively), but it does effect convection on something else. Or maybe it does convect, in some sort of wave phenomenon? But that would have nothing to do with liquids or the sense in question.
Two nouns like snow train can have different interpretations depending on how you think the parts might fit together. Does it carry snow? Is it made of snow? Does it plow the snow aside for a regular train? Sometimes you have to forget you know what the term means, and see if the correct answer is attainable and certain, if it jumps out at you. This one does not, as it would seem to pertain to the gravity field itself.
I did not mean simply that I was unfamiliar with (the science of) gravitational convection, and I would find those terms shaky if used to decide these matters. (Stephen's comments are excused on the basis that he almost always votes to keep.) DAVilla 13:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep and trim. I don't see what makes this any less valid than forced convection, free convection or natural convection. It just has a lot more words. The entire description of what gravitational convection is doesn't need to be there, just the most important parts. Summarize. Concisely. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein
I'd be happy to run the other convection terms through the process for "fairness". Each entry should be standing on its own, however.
Is this an idiom? Can a dictionary definition do it justice? Does it make sense to someone who "understands" gravity and convection? Would template {{only in}} be more helpful or less misleading than a two-line definition? DCDuring TALK 03:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

application domain

def seems wrong. But also probably SoP. DCDuring TALK 01:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I can’t guess the meaning, so it isn’t SoP. It it’s really a term, it should be defined by somebody who knows what it is. —Stephen 13:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Confusingly, WP has two separate articles that don't link to each other: w:Application Domain (the Microsoft .NET software concept, which is what this entry was defining) and w:Application domain (unrelated broader term where a "domain" is a sub-discipline). I have rewritten the def (in the given Microsoft sense) to try to make it a bit clearer. Equinox 15:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
As I understand it, in programming, an "application domain" is the (virtual) space in which the application rules as reserved by its liege, the .NET framework. This does make us into a bit of a shill for Microsoft. How does it work in other realms? Would this be a good use of {{only in}}, pointing at Wikipedia? DCDuring TALK 15:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this term exists only in the .NET world. Mind you, I think the same thing applies to delegate, and I'd be sorry to lose that. Equinox 15:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The closest in IBM mainframe programming is the "problem state" - the state in which application programs run, as opposed to "supervisor state" in which the operating system runs and can execute more powerful op-codes. SemperBlotto 15:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that's entirely the same. The "application domain" isn't a restricted domain for applications only, like userland: it is per application, so you might have Excel, Word and Notepad all running in separate application domains (supposing they were .NET applications). Equinox 15:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. This really just seems like a metaphor to an outsider, but it must have a life of its own. Can the use of a metaphor by a single vendor and its minions be deemed independent use? Is Microsoft like IUPAC for chemical names and the French Academy for French, the authority on language within its domain? DCDuring TALK 17:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, Microsoft dictates the language of its own technologies, yes — not only because you must use their terms to be easily understood by other .NETters, but also because the languages tend to enforce the terminology. (For example, if you want to do something to an application domain in your source code, you are likely to have to instantiate the AppDomain class: that's its built-in name.) IMO, the real question is whether we consider the technology (.NET generally, and app domains specifically) broad and important enough for inclusion in a dictionary. I would say this is a relatively obscure term and I expect some proportion of professional .NET programmers haven't had to care about them. Equinox 21:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

moot point

An important collocation whose quotes are worth salvaging for moot, but a SoP nonetheless that offers virtually nothing that cannot be covered in moot. Circeus 05:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep, SoP yes but it's a set phrase rather than two words put randomly together. The example above would be chocolate chip -- that's just a chip made out of chocolate, but it's also a set phrase. Mglovesfun 14:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete. I don't think it's much of a set phrase, since I equally often see "The point is moot." Equinox 15:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep In 3 OneLook legal dictionaries, Websters 1913, and AHD. Also a contranym that users probably need help with. See WorldWideWords. DCDuring TALK 15:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it moot that's the contranym?—msh210 15:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd love to keep this, since, per DCDuring, people may look it up. So let me try to see whether we can somehow get it to fit into the CFI  :-) . Here are some options:
  • Keep as a redirect to [[moot]]. WT:REDIR seems to forbid this, but is not quite explicit.
  • Keep under the "Once one goeth black" test, since moot used to mean only "debatable" whereas moot point means only or largely "undebatable point".
  • If moot point means only "undebatable point", then keep under the "fried egg" test.
That last is the strongest argument for keeping imo, assuming its hypothesis is met.—msh210 15:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
In the 99 uses of "moot point" at COCA, only 1 (academic) use seemed to me to be clearly meaning "open to/worth further discussion", as opposed to "no longer worth serious consideration/good only for idle discussion". So, it would all depend on what the meaning of only is. DCDuring TALK 16:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe moot point is idiomatic, but I can't find anything in CFI about set phrases. (A chocolate chip is not chipped out of chocolate, nor shaped like a chip. It's not S-o-P.)
Why don't we list common or set-phrase S-o-P compounds and derived terms under the component entries without linking? Then “moot point” could be easily found under both moot and point by searching. Michael Z. 2009-05-07 16:40 z
If you mean a chip like a small stone, yes it is! Mglovesfun 20:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Naw, a stone chip is typically a small, angular stone fractured or chipped from a larger (as opposed to a round pebble, perhaps). Similarly, wood chips are the result of chopping, cutting, carving, and so on. Chocolate is often chipped, for example when you break a bar of it, but the small bits resulting from that are not what we conventionally call chocolate chips. Chocolate chips are formed from hardened droplets, with flat bottoms. Michael Z. 2009-05-08 06:35 z
The reason might be to keep our entry as short as possible. DCDuring TALK 16:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to keep it, per being a set phrase. Which brings me to the point that WT:CFI should IMHO better be extended to allow set phrases. The only problem I can see with this is how to recognize a set phrase using a verifiable and easily decidable rule, other than the commonality of the collocation. A provisional solution is to let set phrase undefined, and let people argue about what is and what is not a set phrase per case-to-case basis. This arguing is going to provide candidate differentia from which a definition of set phrase for the purpose of WT:CFI can be built. There is at least one axiom that constrains the meaning of set phrase: a term may be a set phrase and yet be a sum of parts or border on being sum of parts.
Once we allow set phrases, the fact that certain dictionaries have the term will support, though not prove, the hypothesis that the term in question is a set phrase.
One criterion showing that "moot point" is a set phrase, along with the commonality, is that "moot" does not combine freely with other nouns, but only with "point", provided I am correct in this assumption. For contrast, "blue cup" can be also common, just that, unlike "moot" in "moot point", "blue" combines freely with nouns denoting physical objects. --Dan Polansky 21:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be an easy case. COCA has 226 uses of "moot" followed by a noun. 19 are single instances, some possibly erroneous; 4 involve Proper noun "Moot". 100 are of "moot point(s)"; 47 are of moot court(s), nearly 75% of the core usage. But "case" (23), "issue" (10), and "question" (18) also get significant usage, though "case" seems to be mostly from a single academic article. It is not yet unproductive, at least in written works, especially in a legal/legislative context. DCDuring TALK 00:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I should have done my research first; thank you for the COCA numbers. So the criterion of lack of free combination is not so simple as I had wished. Yet, the other combinations of "moot" that you mention may be further candidates for set phrases. Like, for "moot case", there is this quotation:
'The term "moot case" has been used on various occasions to describe issues that are or ...'[35]
suggesting to me that the term is in need of explanation. The same term is used by [36]:
"The old prohibition on the decision of moot cases is now so riddled with exceptions that it is almost a matter of discretion whether to hear a moot case."
--Dan Polansky 09:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, if we use the broader context form: you get 140 use of moot within four words of "point". "Issue" returns 50 hits, "question" is 55, and "problem" is 11. Yes it's a set phrase. So are silent film and picky eater. Neither of these three has any sort of elements that cannot be deduced by looked at the two words separately in a dictionary. Circeus 03:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The term "silent film" should get an entry. In Czech, it is called "němý film", literally translated back to English as "mute film" or "dumb film", as "němý" stands for "mute, dumb (not having the power of speech)"; in German, it is Stummfilm. "Should" of course means not with reference to the non-SoP criterion; it is this criterion that I am criticizing for being too stringent, ruling out too many entries.
The German case shows that per the non-SoP criterion, whether a term makes it into Wiktionary depends on such happenstances as whether it is written together as one word. Like, there is a potential discussion about "silent film", but not about "Stummfilm" and "headache", which is but an ache of head.
One more note on the non-SoP criterion: the criterion asks whether the meaning of the term can be derived from its parts. But there is the other direction, which asks whether the term can be derived from the meaning. It is this other direction that likely fails for non-native speakers, as is the case with "silent film". Once you present me with the term "silent film", I correctly estimate that it means "film accompanied by no sound, as produced during the early times of film". But when you present me with the definition "film accompanied by no sound" before I have seen the term "silent film", I have difficulties coming up with the term "silent film"; based on the Czech and German terms, I would probably improvise "dumb film". This is not the case will freely combining adjectives such as "blue" in "blue cup".
This criterion of the other direction, from definition to term, also applies to "headache": while I can estimate the meanining of "headache" from the meanings of "head" and "ache", I cannot estimate "headache" from "the pain in the head" unless I already know the term "headache". --Dan Polansky 09:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
While I see the argument (I actually made the same with regard to cherry blossom~), this opens the door wide to a multiplication of increasingly improbable entries (i.e. "talk with irony", "be ironic" for ironiser) based on whether the foreign word is a set phrase or not. Circeus 16:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that terms like silent film should have an entry. That particular combination implies many things not present in the simple combination of the two words, such as a range of dates, a style of acting, the fact that it will be black-and-white, etc. That said, moot point does not carry such additional connotation. I can say "That is a moot point" or I can say "That point is moot." This entry ought to be deleted, as far as I can see. --EncycloPetey 21:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
These are encyclopedic facts about silent films, not defining characteristics of the word “silent film”. Although mentioning some of them may help the dictionary reader, it may not. I've seen silent films made in the 21st century. Michael Z. 2009-05-11 05:41 z
Delete unfortunately. I do like the collocation, but there's just no way to measure their worth. Idiomatically, it fails. DAVilla 08:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Delete as per EP and DAVilla. While we're about it, I would approve the creation of "silent film". -- ALGRIF talk 12:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I should have read DCDuring more carefully. The meaning has changed over time, to be the opposite of what it once was. An almost certain keep. DAVilla 13:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Except that it hasn't, the evolution is that of moot, "moot point" has not "evolved" by itself by any definition of "evolved". Circeus 03:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Their histories seem intertwined. Moot could have derived its modern meaning from the use in this very phrase. DAVilla 19:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, important common collocation. Ƿidsiþ 21:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

E. aenea

Sorry, when nominating L. varians, I. justi, and D. diraspes above I overlooked this one. Same thing. --Duncan 19:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

delete DCDuring TALK 19:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, striking. --Duncan 13:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

hexadecimal number

See #hexadecimal notation. DCDuring TALK 20:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete. ("especially by an even number of such digits"? What in the world?) Equinox 10:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete. However, sense 2 at [[number#Noun]] could use some work. (In one sense, 32 and 0x20 are the same number, but in another sense, one is a decimal number and one is a hexadecimal number. Our sense 2, especially given its example sentence, makes it sound as though "number" in this latter sense means "digit", but obviously it's less specific than that.) —RuakhTALK 18:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete hexadecimal number, but keep #hexadecimal notation. —Stephen 23:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted - amid no protests --Jackofclubs 12:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

North Queensland

Not an official term for any part of Queensland, so North Queensland is just sum-of-parts.--Dmol 08:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Presumably created from the WP article, which does capitalise it as though it were a single unit. But perhaps they just wanted to give the northern part its own article? Equinox 10:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
But there is no place named North Queensland. (With capital letters). Nor is there a South, East or West, as proper nouns. It's just a vague reference to the undefined northern part of the state, like saying north Utah or southern Manitoba. Having an article in Wikipedia does not mean there should be Wiktionary entry for the same name. --Dmol 10:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Vagueness is not a criterion. "Appalachia", "the w:Adarondacks", "Scythia", and the City (part of London) are all vague. WT:CFI makes no special provision for gazeteer entries. We are in "common-law" mode relying on precedent. Who remembers and can find the cases? If you can't, you have to rely on those who can. Nice system. DCDuring TALK 11:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep - This nomination is ridiculous, the term "North Queensland" is often used to describe a portion of Queensland. There is an article on it at Wikipedia w:North Queensland and a Google search comes up with Results 2,760,000 for "North Queensland". (0.42 seconds) WritersCramp 13:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep. See also Northern Europe, Central Europe, Southern Europe, Eastern Europe, Southern European, Central European, etc. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 13:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Like North America. Queensland is very big and has distinct regions usued in government planning and general reference —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).
Looking through Google Books,[37] and americancorpus.org, I see that this is capitalized both ways. Someone should examine the results to see if there's any difference in meaning. Michael Z. 2009-05-08 16:54 z

I’ve made some significant changes and think they should pass scrutiny. Firstly, I’ve taken out the category “States of Australia” as North Queensland is not a state. It is just the northern part of the state of Queensland. I’ve removed the Related Term, as it listed the Northern Territory as a part of Queensland. It’s not, and I had already corrected this. And I have changed the definition, removing - The group of northern territories in the state of Queensland in Australia – which implies there is a set of defined territories, which is not the case. I have put in - The northern part of the state of Queensland, loosely defined as being north of either Rockhampton or Mackay – with an informal tag.

This should cover the fact that there is no official definition of North Queensland, it is always informal. If no-one objects to these changes, I'll take out the RFD. (Will wait for consensus)--Dmol 02:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

My problem with this is that there is an apparent difference between "north Queensland" (a generic term for the northern part) and "North Queensland" (capitalised and apparently a geographically noteworthy region, as North America is). The whole basis of this RFD was that "North Queensland" is not a unit, or not a particular district. Of course you can put "north" on any place, even the tiniest village, but for it to be a dict entry there should be some evidence of the term being a unit. I think my one weak citation suggests that this is true, but I'd really like to see more concrete evidence. Equinox 03:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that there is some usage of North Queensland, which incorrectly gives the impression that it is an official name for the region. Better to have an accurate definition which at least defines the rough boundaries of the region, than to have a definition that consisted of inaccurate info and related terms. I still don’t think it belongs, and fear opening the floodgates to all sorts of new entries.
But I'll wait for this to run its course. Cites are needed.--Dmol 05:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
For inclusion in the dictionary, it doesn't matter whether this is an official administrative or government subdivision, or whether its boundaries are defined at all. These are encyclopedic qualities of the referent.
It matters whether the usage of the term meets our lexicographical CFI. Whether north Queensland is different from North Queensland also depends on usage, and we should cite some quotations which either support or deny this. Michael Z. 2009-05-09 14:33 z


  1. The second sense says it means "very"; I think it means "as a dog"/"like a dog".
  2. The "as a dog"/"like a dog" sense (as in "dog-eared", "dog-faced", etc) is missing, in any event.
  3. If it does not mean "very", it is a combining form, not a suffix, I think, and, therefore, not includable under our current prevailing practice. DCDuring TALK 18:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Sense 2 should go. Equinox 18:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The "very" sense is colloquial. Do we not have dog-tired? (preview) Yeah, see? As such, sense two shouldn't go. The difference is probably regional, subtle. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 14:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Is there any evidence of use as "very" in another term? (Suggestions: dog-weary, dog-cheap, dog-end, dog-poor) Is the meaning "canine-free"? DCDuring TALK 15:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete, it's not a prefix it's just the word dog used in combination with another word. What would you say to -stealer as in sheep-stealer, dog-stealer etc. It's not a suffix, just dog + stealer linked with a hyphen. Mglovesfun 15:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete. This isn't a prefix; dog is a word in its own right. Words formed from dog are thus compounds in the form "word + word" or "word + suffix", not "prefix + word". --EncycloPetey 15:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Not even Affixes (from WorldWideWords), which seems more inclusive than we are with regards to what it calls a suffix or a prefix, includes this. DCDuring TALK 16:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Further comments on the use of the dog for similes:
Dyce (Remarks, &c., p. 105) appropriately quotes from the Water Poet :—
Many pretty ridiculous aspersions are cast vpon Dogges, so that it would make a Dogge laugh to heare and vnderstand them : As I haue heard a Man say, I am as hot as a Dogge, or, as cold as a Dogge ; I sweat like a Dogge (when indeed a Dog never sweates), as drunke as a Dogge, hee swore like a Dogge; and one told a Man once, That his Wife was not to be beleev'd, for shee would lye like a Dogge.— Workes, The World runnes on Wheeles, p. 232(1630).
Thou dogged Cineas, hated like a dogge, / For still thou grumblest like a nasty dogge, / Compar'st thyself to nothing but a dogge; / Thou saith thou art as weary as a dogge, / As angry, sicke, and hungry as a dogge, / As dull and melancholly as a dogge, / As lazy, sleepy, idle as a dogge. [38] DCDuring TALK 16:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello World

Although I'm well aware of the "hello world" program, this feels rather too encyclopaedic and misplaced. 1. The common noun is "uncountable" and "attributive", which suggests it's really just a name being stuck onto "program", as I might say "Code Cracker program" or "Wikipedia Vandaliser program". 2. The proper noun, then, I must agree with, right? Well, no, because I don't think the titles of individual programs are dictionary material, even when it's a common sort of program. Opinions? Equinox 21:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, google books:"the hello world of" suggests that it merits inclusion. —Rod (A. Smith) 21:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow, good find, even though most of them are in self-conscious "coinage" quotes. But since it's a separate sense (a sort of nerdy synonym for ABC, the fundamentals) it doesn't change my feeling about the invalidity of what we already have. Equinox 22:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

law of diminishing marginal utility

See WT:RFDO#Transwiki:law of diminishing marginal utility. DCDuring TALK 10:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

What's next, second law of thermodynamics? "Only in WP" (where it redirects to a section) would be appropriate. DCDuring TALK 10:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep, definitely not just SoP and not easy to understand even by looking up the individual words. I'd rather that we improve the article than delete it. Mglovesfun 16:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
That criterion is not in WT:CFI. It's not easy for me to understand why it always rains on weekends, but that doesn't make it includable. What you say is what encyclopedias are for: concepts that fit into a framework. DCDuring TALK 16:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I have to admit you have a point... hmmm. Mglovesfun 18:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I may be wrong; I may be overruled or out-argued. I am not especially biased against technical terms, especially in economics and business. For example, marginal utility seems like a good term for us. DCDuring TALK 18:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't have to know what the law is, I just have to know that it is a law about a particular something we already define, to be sum of parts. Delete. DAVilla 08:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Delete. Equinox 11:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
On the other hand it SoP is not sufficient grounds for deleting. Could this be kept on the prior knowledge principle? I just think it's strange that the title says it all. DAVilla 11:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know. The term is not just SoP; it refers to the law of diminishing marginal utility, which can be succinctly stated to fit into a dictionary format. However, this opens door for all kinds of terms denoting particular entities, including the mentioned "second law of thermodynamics". I wonder how Murphy's law would fare, and under what policy item from WT:CFI. There are some eponyms, definitely not SoP, but also laws: Bragg's law, Kepler's laws, Metcalfe's law, Coulomb's law, Murphy's law, Boyle's law, Charles's law, Hooke's law, Hubble's law, Kirchhoff's current law, Kirchhoff's voltage law, Newton's first law, Newton's second law, Newton's third law, Ohm's law. --Dan Polansky 11:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
...Poincaré conjecture.—msh210 17:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
why it always rains on weekends is not a specific, real thing. If law of diminishing marginal utility is a specific, real thing, then keep. I have no idea what it is and I can’t deduce a definition from its parts. If I wanted to know the meaning, the only way I could would be to look up the term, not the parts. —Stephen 18:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I am trying to understand your interpretation of or replacement ‎for WT:CFI. As‎ I understand it, no "specific, real thing" unfamiliar to you (presumably limited to the attestable) should be excluded. I assume that for "you" we can substitute "any person". What would be the status of items not real and/or not specific?
In any event, I cannot find this in WT:CFI and consequently take this to be a proposed replacement therefor. I look forward to BP discussion of this at your earliest convenience. DCDuring TALK 21:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Which parts? [[law]]? [[diminishing marginal utility]]? [[marginal utility]]? [[marginal]]? utility? The set of concepts are elementary parts of economics that make little sense without the whole apparatus. IOW, encyclopedic. I could see an entry for [[marginal utility]], but the others seem to be of no utility. DCDuring TALK 21:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you think "diminishing marginal utility" is clear in what the utility of an item is diminishing with respect to? Maybe it's not, yet I'd rather have this law that that phrase alone, since "diminishing marginal utility" by itself, even if it is idiomatic, is superseded in significance by this law as statement of fact. This is what makes the opposite "increasing marginal utility" nonsensical. Those are not good grounds to keep, they are fuzzy concepts that make me worried to let this slip by. I think it's better to err on the side of caution and keep what our gut says is right. Keep the law as used in economics rather than nonsensical antonyms. On the other hand, I'm not entirely convinced we have to keep any of it, and I'm not particularly fond of lemmings. DAVilla 04:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I think even marginal utility is somewhat suspect, but it affords the opportunity to provides links to the encyclopedic discussion that is required and clarify the sense of marginal involved. This RfV is just about the five-word headword, which had seemed so OTT that I would have been inclined to delete it on sight at Transwiki. This is not exactly widespread. The RfV'd term does not appear in COCA; "diminishing marginal utility" appears once. marginal utility appears 10 times, only 4 of which are academic. DCDuring TALK 16:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

vintage car

This seems to be a car which is also vintage. At the very least if it's kept it needs to be verified, because of its definition "A motor car built between 1919 and 1930." So if it's built in 1918 or in 1931, it's not vintage? Mglovesfun 20:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Definition looks correct to me. I believe earlier ones are veteran cars and later ones are just old. SemperBlotto 21:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep as a set phrase, but I am not sure about the definition. It may be correct in a strict sense, but I think we should define words by usage, not by some sort of rule from motoring organisations. This is the first I have ever heard of vintage car having an early cut-off date, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. We need either another definition outside the listed date, or perhaps a usage note explaining the wider use of the term for all older cars.--Dmol 23:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete [see below] SoP, incorporating vintage (3) verbatim. How does “as set phrase” justify keeping this? – it's not a WT:CFI.
Vintage does need re-jigging, but even OED mentions (different) dates for vintage cars, but without a specific sense just for cars. Michael Z. 2009-05-12 18:09 z
I don't know whether the disputed entry is a set phrase, but when a multiple-word entry is called a "set phrase" here, that means that it qualifies for inclusion because it's the only way (or one of a limited number of ways) native speakers describe the referent, even though there are other short combinations of words that logically would mean the same thing. The idea is that people don't just use dictionaries to look up the meanings of things, but also to learn how to speak like a native. —Rod (A. Smith) 18:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
What I really want to know is, does being a set phrase actually qualify a term for inclusion? I don't see it in CFI. Do you mean a Category:Phrasebook entry?
How do we determine what is a set phrase? Vintage car is common, but we also have old car, antique car, classic car, heritage car, vintage automobile, vintage auto, vintage motorcar, vintage truck, etc. Are you thinking most of these should be set-phrase entries, or that this one has a special quality? Michael Z. 2009-05-12 22:17 z
As I said above, I don't know whether "vintage car" is a set phrase, but if it is one, then yes, it qualifies for inclusion. The CFI isn't terribly explicit about it, but I don't think it needs to be. It does say that "multiple-word terms" merit inclusion. One way to determine whether something is a set phrase is to search a corpus for other ways to express the same concept. If the entry in question is used much more freqently than any of the alternative ways to express the concept, that's a clue that the multiple-word term is a set phrase and merits inclusion. Try comparing google books:"vintage car" with google books:"old car", google books:"antique car", etc. Filter out the hits that don't refer to the meaning in the disputed entry. If one of those phrases appears much more frequently than the others, it may be a set phrase. —Rod (A. Smith) 22:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that clarifies the concept for me. But I am skeptical that anything in CFI implies that set phrases are qualified for inclusion. Certainly multiple-word terms may qualify, but if they are SoP then we usually don't include them. Vintage (3) is written so it can be part of various phrases, like vintage car, vintage auto, vintage station wagon, vintage fire truck, vintage Ford, etc, rendering all the compounds SoP.
But the inclusion of common set phrases for English learners has merit, and I believe ESL dictionaries pay a lot of attention to such collocations. I don't think our current guidelines support or accommodate this, but for now I'm changing my vote:
Keep [see below] We are many dictionaries (etymological, historical, of synonyms, for learners, etc). We need to sit down and list the requirements of each, and make sure we can fulfil them. Michael Z. 2009-05-12 23:02 z
Delete. We have a definition line for vintage as it pertains to a car. DAVilla 12:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep The fact that in order to justify the SoP argument, we have to have a special sense at vintage that pertains to just car and its synonyms and hyponyms is the strongest possible argument for having this entry instead of a special sense at vintage. — Carolina wren discussió 01:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete You're right. If we keep this, then we'd have to add entries for every red link I listed above, as well as vintage four-door, vintage Beetle, vintage bug, vintage '69 chevy nova, vintage jalopy, vintage rust-bucket, vintage three-wheeler, vintage beater, &c ad infinitum. This kind of collocation should be listed as examples in definitions, demonstrated in citations, or described in usage notes, instead. Michael Z. 2009-05-16 23:39 z
Delete Considering that the definition as given excludes some of those possibilities, I think you are being a bit overwrought. It also had no effect on my decision to change from keep to delete on this entry. Rather, given what I've looked at, it looks like the only place such a hyperfine distinction is being made is over at Wikipedia, so I'm going to chance to delete here, and send the two specialist definitions of vintage to RFV. — Carolina wren discussió 01:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
We have a definition at vintage because the sense is used outside of this phrase. DAVilla 11:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete per DAVilla. —RuakhTALK 17:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Didn't we alrwady have a discussion about this one, and chose to keep it? I don't see any new arguments being made so Keep again. --EncycloPetey 17:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Where was the discussion? Why did you vote to keep that time? Michael Z. 2009-05-25 23:06 z
You know we haven't seen any other discussion, and we're actually expending some energy discussing this in good faith. Instead of just writing off our efforts as meaningless, if it's so much trouble to actually find and link this other discussion, the least you could do is say why you think it should be kept. Michael Z. 2009-05-30 02:36 z
What's the point? This is the fourth time we've discussed this entry, with the same arguments being dragged out each time. Yet none of the previous discussions have been archived with the entry to keep this from happening. As far as I'm concerned, no new arguments means no new discussion is needed. --EncycloPetey 06:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment, I did check the archives before proposing this, but I couldn't find it so I went ahead with it. Mglovesfun 13:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why EP is being so superior about this. The one and only time it was discussed before, three years ago, the discussion was totally based on something called Pawley, which appears to have disappeared from our consciousness. It was inconclusive, and EP happened to vote for deletion that time. Since he's choosing not to contribute meaningfully to this discussion, let's just ignore his empty vote.
Previous talk was at Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Archives/2006/05#vintage_carMichael Z. 2009-05-30 14:59 z
Correction: ' There were three previous discussions involving vintage car. In two of those discussions, the non-removal of the term was used as justification for the keeping of other terms. If I maintain that Mzajac is not contributing "meaningfully" for dismissing previous discussion and the opinons of others, does that mean we can discard his vote too? --EncycloPetey 15:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, the rest of us losers know of this discussion and the one other I found, EP. I'm not dismissing anything that I can read, as you appear to be by refusing to participate here except to poo-poo the whole thing. If there are other discussions so precious to you, then why do you continue to keep them hidden, instead of pasting a link here? Michael Z. 2009-05-31 00:24 z
Thanks, Mzajac, for that link. It looks like a five editors there (HT, Ƿ, EP, Vild, Richardb) voted "delete", four editors voted "keep" (Connel, Rory096, Enginear, DAVilla), and since no one ever deleted it, Vild eventually archived it into a "kept" section. That's hardly a decisive conclusion, and I see no reason we have to respect it. (I don't think immediate re-nominations are appropriate, but after three years, surely we can stand to re-evaluate cases that once seemed borderline.) However, if EP wants to vote "keep", that's his right. I don't think anyone should be in the business of disregarding anyone else's vote. —RuakhTALK 15:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a discussion. EP's refusing to discuss why this should or shouldn't be kept, just citing a made-up point of order about some other discussions. The only substance to his so-called “argument” is that we have no right to discuss or decide this, unless we hit upon some new argument (but God forbid we should be allowed to read all the old ones). Looks like total BS to me. If you ever find me shooting down someone's ideas without any reasonable explanation, please tell me the same. Michael Z. 2009-05-31 00:24 z
I don't agree with EP's reasoning either, but I would not dismiss his vote. Judging from the way EP generally argues these terms, I think he would be likely to vote for deletion based only on the merits of the term itself. However, I'm not sure bullying him is the best way to get him to change his mind, and may work counter-purpose, besides the unnecessary hostility as an undesirable side effect. DAVilla 01:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I would have to agree with that last. Thanks everyone for staying cool. Regards. Michael Z. 2009-05-31 03:42 z
Yes, thank you for the link. At the time of that discussion it wasn't quite clear what type of rules we would use to judge whether a term was idiomatic. Inserting words and giving synonyms were common ideas. The first has translated into the in between test, but there are many other reasons to include a term, and not every phrase must meet this test. As far as I can tell there is no reason to keep, but one can certainly be proposed. For instance, it is the most common collocation that uses the given sense. Other examples of this would be active volcano and oblique leaf. Since we have consistently voted to eliminate those terms, I made my vote consistent with that, but in truth I don't think there's any harm to keeping such terms. To satisfy my own curiosity, I would just want to know the reason. DAVilla 01:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
AFAICT, there were multiple discussions in which "vintage car" came up, but there was only one RfV. In the others "vintage car" was used as an important illustration of the then-emerging criteria for including multi-word terms.
"Vintage car" does not seem to be idiomatic. It is not a set phrase, at least in any strict definition. It does not even rely on obscure and hard-to-grasp senses of its constituent parts. OTOH, I am sure that we could produce people who are quite culturally removed from the phenomenon and therefore might not know what it means and want to. By that criterion, in the WT:CFI's introduction, almost anything could be included. But, because that phrase is so rarely invoked, that it seems that we have made of those words a dead letter. DCDuring TALK 01:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Mapudungun alphabet

Seems like a simple sum of parts. "Mapudungun alphabet" just means the alphabet of the Mapudungun language (despite the fact that multiple possibilities exist). Dominic·t 21:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I would never figure out what this article describes just by looking up the individual words. Concise and informative, keep. —Stephen 23:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep, based on the fact that there is currently no one "Mapudungun alphabet", and on my assumption that someone is more likely to search for that term than Raguileo alphabet, Unified alphabet or Azümchefe alphabet. Maybe not main-namespace appropriate, but not something that should just be deleted. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 01:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete or RFV, since I don't think it will pass there. The only Books result is this crappy speculative one: "There are three proposals for a Mapudungun alphabet". Equinox 11:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete "based on the fact that there is currently no one 'Mapudungun alphabet'", so this is SoP, meaning any Mapudungun alphabet. I would "figure out what this article describes just by looking up the individual words", since Equinox' cite uses the indefinite article, so I know from context that this is not the name of an alphabet. More, even if some cite uses the definite article, so context does not give away that the meaning is "some alphabet for Mapudungun", since the author actually means a certain one, our entry doesn't help, since it doesn't specify which one.—msh210 17:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete.RuakhTALK 01:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Sum of parts. The alphabet of the Mapudungun language. The fact that there isn't one is encyclopedic. We don't have temperatures below absolute zero either. Delete. DAVilla 12:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Move to Appendix. --EncycloPetey 15:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

X one's Y off

Then why not "go to X, where X can be any of various places like town, bed and school"? Equinox 01:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

delete. We should have an appendix (and/or, perhaps, categories?) for grammatical structures. This kind of thing recurs from time to time. It would need to be in some kind of accepted notation ("V one's NP off"). It is not really consistent with user expectations for a dictionary. It certainly wouldn't seem to meet current WT:CFI. DCDuring TALK 15:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Speedy delete for reasons above (and common sense). Mglovesfun 23:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
At some point we went on a deleting spree against these X–Y entries. I guess we missed one. Delete.msh210 23:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Abstain. However, the inward links towards this (e.g. at work one's butt off etc.) should be dealt with. Deleted or commented out? --Jackofclubs 15:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

sweet shop

A shop that sells sweets. The UK equivalent of a candy shop. --Jackofclubs 14:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Why are you RFDing it? Do you not like this form with the space, or don't you like sweetshop either? If you just want citations (RFV), let me know and I'll add some. Equinox 15:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Sum or parts. It's SoP like a shoe shop, fruit shop, music shop, toy shop, pet shop, sport shop. --Jackofclubs 15:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
This is possibly complicated by the fact that a "sweet" can also be a dessert/pudding in UK usage, but a "sweet shop" would not sell desserts, even though that is a plausible sort of shop. Equinox 16:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the SoP alternative spelling should appear without a wikilink at sweetshop, along with "sweet-shop (in attributive use)" (or "mostly in ..."). DCDuring TALK 15:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep for reasons listed by Equinox. Sweet means different things around the English-speaking world, but sweet shop has only one meaning.--Dmol 08:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep, as above. Mglovesfun 15:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Kept. Bad nom. not thinknig straight--Jackofclubs 18:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete or add all attestable "shop" collocations involving any polysemic terms in attributive-noun slot, including all those redlinked above. DCDuring TALK 20:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
But what else could e.g. pet shop mean? No other sense of pet is anything one would expect to find in a shop. That isn't the case with sweet shop. Equinox 21:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Well it actually can mean two things (before it get my inventive juices working for the really exotic):
  1. A place that mostly sells pets (especially non-aquatic animals)
  2. A place that mostly sells things for pets, but only a limited range of living things (like fish).
There are 2 senses now at pet and at least one missing noun sense. There are 4 etymologies shown (one seems redundant). There are 5 senses at shop#Noun.
An English learner could easily be confused especially if institutional arrangements were different in the learner's experience. Once we allow for including collocations based on the standards that are being advocated with their flimsy connection to WT:CFI, there is hardly a redlinked related term that would be rejected and there are many more to be added as well.
Of course, another interpretation is that some of the potential for user confusion is attributable to the poor quality of meat-and-potatoes entries like [[pet]] and [[shop]], which, just maybe, might in some small way be attributable to the proliferation of entries for non-idiomatic compounds and encyclopedic terms well covered in other WMF projects. DCDuring TALK 22:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete  This is just a combining use of sweet#Noun (sense 2, not 3). Sum-of-parts, plain and simple.

The collocation sweet shop is probably important for foreign-language learners, but inclusion as an entry is a not supported by our CFI. This comes up again and again. We should either expand the CFI to include “combining form of X” entries, or allow run-in mentions by listing non-linked compounds and combinations under Derived terms subheadings. Michael Z. 2009-05-16 23:28 z

Keep per Equinox. DAVilla 19:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently kept by nom. DAVilla 04:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


This is not a suffix; it is/should be covered at dimensional. DCDuring TALK 15:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

More examples in an ongoing discussion at WT:TR#-footed. Equinox 16:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
No, it's a combining form. — Paul G 15:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If we delete such things, they should redirect imo.—msh210 17:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. There are just too many, and if you search for "-blah" you will find "blah" in the suggested results below anyway. Equinox 23:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The redirect doesn't bother me, but it's not a suffix, so delete. Mglovesfun 23:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep It is not a suffix, but it is a combining form. It allows the formation of terms such as three-dimensional and n-dimensional. —This comment was unsigned.
Should we have all attestable combining forms, eg year- in "year-old", -year in "five-year plan", and -year- in "one-year-old child? Because hyphens are often recommended to clarify the interpretation of compounds in attributive use, almost all nouns, most adjectives, and many adverbs would probably have attestable use for combining forms. This could be the opportunity we've been waiting for: hundreds of thousands of potential entries. DCDuring TALK 16:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep -dimensional. Should also have -year-old, but not year-, -year-, or -year. —Stephen 18:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

in front of

Sense "facing (someone)": I'm not convinced that this sense is any different from "in the presence of" — at least, the examples suggest they are identical in meaning. If I am in front of a large group of people, I needn't actually be facing them — I could have my back to them — but I am still in their presence. — Paul G 15:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the definition was no good, but I changed it because I think "in the presence of" doesn't cover the implication of being the antonym of behind (as regards the 3rd def, I may be wrong but I was taught before can't be used in expressions like "in front of the house"). --Duncan 16:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep. good rewrite, except the example sentence should be moved - consider "in front of the hotel/theatre/cinema" (the hotel/theatre/cinema doesn't really have a presence). A front door/back door--Jackofclubs 19:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
You're right. I changed the example sentence as well. --Duncan 20:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Good fix, but now how is the third sense any different from the first one? — Paul G 09:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As I was saying, I may be wrong, but according to what I was taught the "before" in the third def implies a queue, a sequence of events etc, so that you couldn't say "Both parties met before the castle [...]". But I admit that (even if I'm right) I'm not certain whether this would warrant the third def, or whether it's covered by the first one. --Duncan 10:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


Compare with dog- and -dimensional above. Not a suffix, just a combining form. In fact surely overridden is not over suffixed with -ridden, but the other way around! So delete Mglovesfun 23:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a strange one. Look at bedridden#Etymology for what I think is a singular case. Words like priest-ridden, angst-ridden, guilt-ridden, hag-ridden, pest-ridden, and war-ridden clearly differ from overridden. I'm not sure that ridden properly conveys the meaning. DCDuring TALK 00:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The same goes for overblown and flyblown, for example. I don't think we need the hyphenated-suffix entry just because the suffix can have more than one meaning. Equinox 21:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure we shouldn't add ridden-, as in ridden-over? Haven't found any examples of -ridden- -- yet. DCDuring TALK 21:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we need any of these things! But if "ridden-over" means anything in itself, and isn't just a hyphenated way to describe something over which somebody has ridden (like a bridge!), then tell me; as you see, we don't have an entry. Equinox 22:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps were "to ride over" to be deemed as meeting WT:CFI. The time-wasting aspects of including true entries for combining forms (in the overwhelming majority of cases) seems clear. I could imagine the case for entry where the combining form was currently or recently productive and the unhyphenated (stand-alone) term was not in current or recent use in the same sense. DCDuring TALK 23:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I've added ridden#Adjective which is sometimes used outside of combing forms in the same sense as it is in combining forms. DCDuring TALK 21:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep -ridden, either as a defined entry or as a redirect. —Stephen 18:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


Translingual entry.

Moved to RFV per request. --Hekaheka 22:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Uncle Scrooge

Disney character; unlike Mickey Mouse, very unlikely to have any generic sense. Equinox 14:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Found cites and corrected the definition. Michael Z. 2009-05-16 16:43 z
New sense looks fairly promising, despite a couple of citations with quotation marks, but the 1977 cite refers to an "Uncle Scrooge Money Bin" (a specific thing from the cartoon series, not something belonging to a "rich miser"), so perhaps that one should go. Equinox 18:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Move it to the citations page rather than just deleting. Even if it is not a perfectly qualifying citation for CFI, it may demonstrate how the term is used or contribute to the history of its adoption (or that of another term). You'll notice that in Schraeder 2005, it appears once in quotation marks, but later without, demonstrating that the author introduces it self-consciously, but then just uses it. In the “Money Bin” citation I would argue that Uncle Scrooge is used to introduce the Money Bin, so readers who don't understand the direct reference to the second term would still get the gist of it from the mention of the first. Also notable is that the very first citation may be a transcription of speech. Michael Z. 2009-05-16 22:19 z
Well, I won't kick up a fuss about the one citation. Closing my own RFD, because the newly created sense seems dictionary-worthy. Equinox 22:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Good rewrite--Jackofclubs 18:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Michael Z. 2009-05-16 22:19 z
Keep as rewritten and cited. --Dmol 21:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
This is good too (okay, excellent), but what's wrong with the original definition? (edit:) Why not keep that as well? DAVilla 18:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Good question. I don't know if it is possible to find citations which meet CFI's requirement for attributive use and also support a definition of Uncle Scrooge as the cartoon duck. The subject sounds encyclopedic and non-lexicographical to me. In my opinion, the etymology and Wikipedia link already have all the encyclopedic details we need. But only the quotations will tell for sure.
Should we RfV all of the Disney characters for consistency? Michael Z. 2009-05-21 14:47 z
I think they would all pass, that is, the major characters that we already include. I don't know what to make of attributive use, but it is cited according to both that and the proposed criterion of metaphoric use as well. DAVilla 03:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Unstruck after adding back original sense. Keep. DAVilla 03:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh? There are no quotations concerning cartoon ducks. Michael Z. 2009-05-26 04:40 z
What good would that do? Do you really doubt this is what it means when not in metaphor? The only question is if it's "noteworthy" enough to keep, in the sense that it has entered the lexicon. Clearly it has. DAVilla 04:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Noteworthiness doesn't enter into WT:CFI#Names of specific entities. It says “attributively, with a widely understood meaning,” which describes sense 2, not 1. Barack Obama is noteworthy too, but the person and and the duck don't belong in the dictionary. Michael Z. 2009-05-27 03:27 z
Thank you for stating the complete obvious. I though that a term entering the lexicon would be a compelling reason to include it, but you've just forged a rock solid rationale on what must be the most contested, ambiguous, and outdated section of CFI. I feel it almost a complete waste to make arguments that aren't taken into consideration in the slightest, other than to be dismissed out of hand. You position I will grant you is totally consistent with itelf, but not consistent with the fact that there are a great number of specific people, characters, and the like on Wiktionary already. If you disagree with this then please vote against my proposal and be done with it. Oh, and you might have to ignore Google Book hits like "Barack Obama supporter" and "Uncle Scrooge comic book". I'm not sure why you might find those sorts of quotations the least bit interesting, but they do meet the holy criterion of CFI section 32 verse 1. DAVilla 07:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The last two are direct references to the specific entities. An Uncle Scrooge comic book is a comic book about Uncle Scrooge. It is a mention of the actual (fictional) duck, not the use of a word stemming from the duck's name; it's as useful for CFI as “Uncle Scrooge said ‘quack.’” A person being mentioned, even a lot, is not the same as their name “entering the lexicon,” that is becoming a word in the language. Michael Z. 2009-05-30 02:31 z
I agree completely (and not being sarcastic as I partly was above). Although I believe Uncle Scrooge has entered the lexicon, the quotation of "Uncle Scrooge comic book" does not support that assertion. It does however illustrate the literal sense that you disputed, and attributively so, where by attributive I mean in the grammatical sense of modifying a noun. I don't think this is a very good way to judge terms, hence the vote. If you can exemplify another use of attributive then by all means suggest that instead. The examples we have though are not applicable to the types of information we do include. As noted elsewhere, Empire State Building was given as an example of what we do not include until we voted to keep it after all, and you should also know that there are many types of fictional characters included besides just Disney. DAVilla 01:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I certainly do know. That guideline needs clarification, but perhaps not any substantial change (at least if we can agree on what it means). Also, the examples aren't helping with this.
“A name should be included if it is used attributively, with a widely understood meaning.” I believe this means something like “with a widely understood meaning, independent of its referent.” I think it is often applied this way. Does that sum it up? Is that an improved wording? Michael Z. 2009-05-31 04:19 z

USB flash drive

USB + flash drive. Compare USB floppy drive, USB printer. Equinox 15:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Next you'll want to delete USB port. Within the context of computing the meaning of all the compounds derived from USB is fairly obvious, but some seem to insist that it be obvious even without prior knowledge, which would allow inclusion of vast numbers of attestable collocations without regard to any test of true idiomaticity. DCDuring TALK 17:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
You are right: I don't like USB port very much (again, compare things like printer port and MIDI port; would you have us add those?), unlike, say, serial port, which can't necessarily be deduced from its parts. USB flash drive seems almost as silly to me as e.g. double-sided floppy disk. Equinox 21:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Assuming special translations. Maybe "serial bus standard" could be redefined. --Jackofclubs 19:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Improper invocation of translation consideration not part of WT:CFI. Needs BP discussion and Vote. DCDuring TALK 20:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep. It’s a specific thing, and, as far as I know, it cannot be precisely denominated with a single word. —Stephen 18:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Centronics printer and infrared mouse and broken fax-modem whose light is blinking are specific computing things that cannot be precisely denominated with a single word. They are not dictionary material. Equinox 03:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
"Centronics printer" is not a specific thing, it’s a printer. And "broken fax-modem whose light is blinking" just shows that you don’t grasp what this is about, and it is far too complex for anyone to explain it to you sufficiently in a few paragraphs. —Stephen 17:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
""Centronics printer" is not a specific thing, it’s a printer." In that case, USB flash drive is not a specific thing, but a flash drive. Equinox 19:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I too evidently don't grasp the point you are trying to communicate. And I have had the same problem in other instances. To me each of the three terms mentioned by Equinox are as much "specific things" as USB flash drive. But none of them are actually specific things; they are labels. The referents in each case are specific things that fall into classes described by the labels. I also have serious trouble connecting specificity and thingness to anything contained in WT:CFI, which reflects the best efforts of a fairly intelligent population of Wiktionarians. But I also assume that the words you've selected don't do justice to your views. If you would have the patience to reword and try again? DCDuring TALK 18:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete. I think Stephen's point would make more sense if a USB flash drive weren't also called simply a flash drive. DAVilla 19:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Theis is just flash drive with USB used as an attributive noun. --EncycloPetey 17:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

dub over

A sum-of-parts application of dub (etym. 2, sense 3), which also combines in dub in, overdub, and possibly others. Michael Z. 2009-05-18 19:12 z

Delete. Equinox 03:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Sum of parts, not a set term. --Dmol 05:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Doesn't seem like a phrasal verb, based on what I've induced from Algrif's selections thereof. DCDuring TALK 18:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Huh? "Dub the tape" vs. "dub over the tape"... Why isn't this a phrasal verb? Because it has the same meaning?
Are you saying overdub shouldn't be included either? DAVilla 18:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, since my induction has been faulty, perhaps someone could be induced to characterize what makes some but not all verb + preposition collocations phrasal verbs, since that evidently is a specific type of idiom, which thereby meets WT:CFI. We lesser lights might then be able to deduce from the characterization whether a given term was a phrasal verb rather than taking on it on faith. DCDuring TALK 19:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't vote because I'm a lesser light on this as well. I used to understand the difference very plainly, but I've come to confuse myself over time. So my questions were for the most part sincere, not as rhetorical as the last would make it out to be. DAVilla 19:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I voted to try to get an explanation! I have agreed that some such constructions are really idiom-like, but I've never really understood how to discriminate between phrasal verbs and verbs merely non-idiomatically collocated with prepositions. I was further confused by the addition of adverbs to the mix. I seem to recollect that Algrif was going to write something up in his copious free time. Like some of my projects here and in real life. DCDuring TALK 20:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
"Phrasal verb" basically means "idiom composed of <verb> + <preposition/adverb/particle>". Some phrasal verbs have interesting properties; for example, we say "I ran up it" if "it" is a slope (and we therefore mean literally "run" + "up"), but "I ran it up" if "it" is a bar tab (and we therefore mean "cause it to go up"). In that instance, run+up is SOP, meaningwise, in both cases (e.g., we can also say "I ran down it" and "I ran it down", though in the specific case of a bar tab that might be unlikely); and the interesting properties are explainable in terms of the parts ("in I ran up it", "it" is the object of "up", and "up it" is an adverbial complement (or adjunct? I'm not sure) of "ran"; whereas in "I ran it up", "it" is the object of "ran", and "up" is an adverbial complement explaining which metaphorical direction I ran it in). But you can see that it would still be very tempting to include run up as a set phrase with interesting properties. (As you note, Algrif has been a strong proponent of doing so.) Personally, I can rarely decide, and this case is no exception. I abstain. —RuakhTALK 20:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Clarifying my deletion vote — and this may be more opinion than policy, so correct me if I'm clinging to something discounted — it may be that overdub and dub over are synonyms, but overdub has the unassailable property of being a single word (and perhaps the person looking it up doesn't know the component words, or where to split it up lexically); dub over can be pretty much unambiguously deduced, I think, from its elements. Compare other twins like outburst and burst out (1922: "She murmured something, and he burst out, Oh yes, they do!") and outbreak and break out (which is entry-worthy for having various senses, one of which is additionally important to document for being "idiomatic"). Equinox 19:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
No other OneLook dictionary has found this worth including.
On phrasal verb: In a quick review of OneLook definitions, w:Phrasal verbs, the text at Category:English phrasal verbs, and WP's external link, I was distressed to find that the adverb/particle/preposition seemingly need only have a figurative sense in the phrasal verb to merit inclusion in the category. This would seem to allow for most collocations to be called phrasal verbs. It seems to leave open the question of whether the collocation is idiomatic for purposes of WT:CFI. OTOH, we could mark those senses of prepositions and adverbs that we view as "literal" and presumptively allow collocations that use any of the non-literal senses to be included subject to some other knockout criteria. DCDuring TALK 21:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • When this has run its course, can a copy of it or a link to it be put in some appropriate place like Category:English phrasal verbs, especially if the result is "delete" ? DCDuring TALK 21:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course overdub gets an entry just because it's a word. No problem with that.

But why need so much explanation? You can dub over, in, into, onto, from, to, between, etc, all combining the same way. I would also dispute the overly specific definition, because you can dub over an actor, dub over his voice, dub over a track, dub over a movie (movie standing in for its soundtrack), dub over a sound effect, dub over a section, dub over 00:12 to 00:48, dub over a glitch, and any number of other things. Even the sense of over is not limited: you can also dub a track over to the other deck, or dub over to the left channel. Michael Z. 2009-05-20 22:27 z

I've created Wiktionary:Phrasal verbs by taking over the text from Category:Phrasal verbs, on the assumption that pages in the Wiktionary namespace are easier to move around and that category pages should contain as little text as possible. Correct me if I'm wrong. --Dan Polansky 09:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete, it seems more like the verb dub followed by the preposition over. Not really a phrasal verb IMO. Mglovesfun 18:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Something tells me "dub over" is a phrasal verb, but such a hunch is not very useful for a discussion. I think I tend to see English candidates for phrasal verbs that would be rendered into Czech and German as one word as true phrasal verbs. The odd thing is that verbs created by a prefix-addition are often sum-of-partish but are still included per being written as one word: overdub, outburst, etc. It is the space that is entered between the core verb and the right-flying preposition that is the culprit responsible for sending the poor phrasal verb wanna-be for a trial of idiomacity.
In the sentence "David Prowse was dubbed over with James Earl Jones for the voice of Darth Vader", what stikes me as suggesting phrasality is that the preposition (or particle) "over" does not take an object; it is preposition "with" that does.
I see "burst out" as a phrasal verb, and am missing "carry over" in the sense "transfer", in Czech "přenést", and in German "übertragen".
In "burst out", what strikes me as suggesting phrasality is that the particle "out" does not take an object; instead, it modifies the meaning of the core verb, even if the modification is kind of sum-of-partish. See also google:"burst out laughing. "burst out" would be translated into Czech as "vyprsknout", where the prefix "vy-" has much the same meaning as "out": "in the outward direction".
By contrast, in "to smile at", "at" is just an object-taking preposition that does not modify the meaning of "smile"; the same for "walk into the bar" and "put the cup on the table", but not "put the clothes on" where "on" is not object-taking. In "zoom in on", I see "zoom in" as a phrasal verb while "on" as an object-taking preposition; "in" tells me that I am increasing zoom level while "on" tells me at what location.
More on sum-of-partness: consider "speed up" and "slow down": the meaning of "speed up" is clear from "speed" and "up", isn't it? If "speed up" is idiomatic, then not by virtue of its not being sum of parts AFAICT.
What results from this half-organized consideration is that whether the preposition is object-taking could be a key criterion of phrasality, an alternative to the criterion of idiomacity AKA non-sum-of-partness. --Dan Polansky 15:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
An afterthought: I see the addition of a preposition to the right to form a phrasal verb as an alternative combinatorial mechanism to the addition of prefix to the left. In English, addition of prefixes seems less common than in, say, Latin, Czech and German, so the construction of phrasal verbs seems in part to replace prefix addition. In Czech, I say "zapsat" while in English I say "write down" and in German "aufschreiben"; in Latin, we have no phrasal verbs (correct me if I'm wrong) while we have those that form the roots of English "describe", "inscribe", "circumscribe", etc. This suggests to me that, in English, phrasal verbs should get similar kind of inclusion that non-English prefix-made verbs get. --Dan Polansky 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Your voice of Darth Vader example has a direct object in a way, namely the subject, because it is passive voice. In active voice, someone dubbed over David Prowse with James Earl Jones. DAVilla 02:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
That's a tenuous line of argument. Often, one language will have a single word (or what looks like a single word), while another language will express the same meaning using a SOP compound. This does not mean that the SOP compound warrants inclusion. For example, many languages have synthetic (one-word) passives (e.g. Hebrew נֶהֱרַג (neherág, to be killed)), but this doesn't mean that English analytic (multi-word) passives, such as be killed, should be included. —RuakhTALK 17:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I've had a look at some Google books (listed at User:Dan Polansky/Phrasal verbs), and the topic of phrasal verbs seems to be delicate. Like, I would take get down to be a phrasal verb just like hang out, but not get down with and hang out with; in these cases, "with" is just an object-taking preposition no different from "with" in "I go shopping with my girlfriend". One of the books mentions that phrasal verbs are idiomatic by definition while another says that phrasal verbs are frequently not sum-of-part, implying that the SoP condition is not necessary. I was suprised what terms are classified as phrasal at Chambers Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs, like account for, agree on, agree to, and agree with; while I consider documenting the use of prepositions important, I was surprised to see the terms classified as phrasal. --Dan Polansky 17:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
My business sense tells me that one of the least reliable ways of determining what "is" a phrasal verb is to see what is included in a book of phrasal verbs. If a prospective purchaser of the book doesn't find a verb-preposition or verb-adverb collocation in the work, the book may not sell. Few people would not buy the book because it was too inclusive, although perhaps some if it were too thick.
The pronoun-placement test Ruakh had mentioned earlier seems ambiguous for "dub over". I found it hard to relate phrases like "dub it over to the other tape" and "That's OK. We'll just dub it over" [dub it again???] to the entry under discussion. DCDuring TALK 18:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
This instances I see are mostly of the form "dub NP1 over NP2", not "dub over NP1 preposition NP2". That doesn't seem like a phrasal verb. DCDuring TALK 18:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that inclusion in one book is an insufficient hint to inclusion. I was just trying to show that the scope of "phrasal verb" may vary with the author using the term.
Specifically on "dub over", I find the following quotations:
  • "When you're selling overseas, the buyer will want a copy of the soundtrack without the dialogue so that they can dub over in their own language."[39]
  • "You can preset the portions on the tape that you want to dub over so you do not inadvertently record over portions that you want to leave intact"[40]
    Not unlike the above, this is essentially "you want to dub over portions of the tape". DAVilla
  • "Suppose that we want to dub-over a segment of the window stream."[41]
  • "The four tracks of 12-bit audio mean you can record and dub over in stereo."[42]
Also of interest: notice the binding dash in "dub-over" in the third quotation. --Dan Polansky 20:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Dan, please forgive my getting picky about this, but I'd very much like to make sure we have a good entry.
  1. I think that we should not necessarily have the cinematography tag for this so as not to limit the range of applicable citations. I think one can have dubbing on an all-audio recording.
  2. The usex for the sense defined shows it to be transitive. As I see it, two (1 and 4) of the citations above are for intransitive uses which .
  3. 2 seems to be the perfect citation for the sense under consideration.
  4. In 3 I don't understand from what's given whether the "window stream" is the target medium of the dubbing or is the content being recorded on another medium. Though I would prefer that all the quotations have identical spelling, I know that hyphens don't mean much, often being used like salt -- to the taste of the user.
In quote 2 it seems that we do not have an evidence that shows that it would meet the pronoun-placement test that Ruakh describes above, because the second object that might fit in that position is missing. "You cannot dub it over protected portions of the tape" is probably how one would say it. However a full noun phrase could be substituted for "it" in the same location: "You cannot dub the new material over...." and cannot go anywhere else. If (a BIG if) I have this right, this sense would fail an important phrasal-verb test.
I think the real point is that we need to have a sharp definition and grammar to run this kind of test on in the absence of support from a good general dictionary or a definitive modern grammar. It might be easier to accept the likely bias of the makers of phrasal verb reference works and just accept their inclusion of a term as disposative of the matter for us. DCDuring TALK 21:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
No problem with being picky: we are using the "dub over" entry to gain a better understanding of phrasal verbs, which justifies more thorough discussion, and if I provide inconclusive quotations, I should be told so.
Importantly: As regards the separability test ("pronoun-placement test"), not all phrasal verbs are separable: come accross, see to.[43] Still, while this test is not a condition necessary, it could be a condition sufficient, but I don't know whether it is.
I agree that the quotations that I have given seem to be an exception; I have found "dub over" to be used in the pattern "dub over object" and "subject was dubbed over" in an overwhelming majority of cases.
I agree that in the quotations 2. and 3., the object can be identified, so they do not properly demonstrate phrasality.
Thus, I agree that there is insufficient evidence of phrasality of "dub over", and I am having hard time finding more quotations serving as proper evidence. I am giving up on "dub over". --Dan Polansky 07:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Over is being applied two different ways:
  1. Audio is dubbed over other audio on some medium. Over top of; to cover; to obscure or obliterate.
  2. Audio is dubbed from one medium or device over to another. Across.
You can substitute copy for dub into either of these, and the meaning doesn't change one iota. Michael Z. 2009-05-23 17:40 z
I like the quotations "dub over in stereo" and "dub over in their own language" because dub over really doesn't have a direct object, used intransitively with over as a particle (an adverb). Again, I'm not sure about the transitive use, and I think Mglovesfun's simple comment is probably the most apt. But if it has intransitive use, then because of its indirect meaning I vote to keep. DAVilla 02:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The only sense that is in play is the transitive one in the entry. If someone believes that there is an attestable intransitive sense, they should enter the sense. DCDuring TALK 04:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Not exactly. This is not an RFD-sense, it is an RFD for the entire page (there being only one language section). If the one definition has to be altered by substituting "intransitive" for "transitive" in order to be valid, then that's a fairly minor change. DAVilla 04:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Just one believer. DCDuring TALK 12:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
There would be more if we had started this conversation with just those two quotes. DAVilla 05:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


Fictional universe? DCDuring TALK 23:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge into Concordance:A Clockwork Orange, which already has the singular. —RuakhTALK 15:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd tend to agree. One or two of the Clockwork Orange words have gained currency outside of that one work, but not this one. Subjectively, I see I don't consider Burgess as significant as Joyce and Shakespeare when it comes to nonces. Equinox 19:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

with no

A preposition. Original contributor justified it as a translation target, but doesn't "without" cover even that irrelevant justification? DCDuring TALK 16:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete. SoP. --Duncan 22:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete  I don't see anything about “translation targets” in the CFI. with no would be just as good. Michael Z. 2009-05-25 23:02 z
Delete, as above. Mglovesfun 00:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. DAVilla 02:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


rfd-sense: (in conjunction with verb be) In existence or in this world; mention of unspecified location, somewhere.

there is something amiss.

This doesn't seem right. Other dictionaries call this kind of usage a pronoun, which seems better to me. See there#Pronoun. DCDuring TALK 18:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Not really a pronoun, either. I'd lean towards calling it a preposed adverb. Consider:
There is something I'd like to say.
In the letter is something I'd like to say.
This helps (a little) to show that there is not functioning as the subject in the first example. It's merely a sentence order inversion from:
Something I'd like to say is there.
--EncycloPetey 18:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
It definitely originates as a preposed adverb, as you say, but its current usage seems to me to have spread out a bit. Firstly, there's certainly been semantic bleaching (consider e.g. "There's something odd here" — or for that matter, "In the letter there's something I'd like to say"); secondly, it's used in cases where I think any other preposed adverb would sound odd (consider e.g. "I expected there to be a problem", "He demanded there be an inquiry"); thirdly, many speakers have granted it singular status regardless of its complement (e.g., "there was an apple and a clock on the table"), and in AAVE it can sometimes (always?) be replaced with "it" (e.g., "people tell me it ain't no way", which I heard on the street last night). —RuakhTALK 18:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
And all of that can be explained by adverbial status, yes? The additional sentences you've given are still inversion of normal sentence order ("I expected there to be a problem." vs "I expected a problem to be there.") Contraction with the verb is not limited to one part of speech: "The boy's insane!" (noun); "Larry's gone home." (proper noun); "He's not here." (pronoun); "Now's the time to act." (adverb); "Clean's better than dirty" (adjective); "Never again's my motto." (phrase).
The question of "always singular" can be interpreted as "invariant because it's an adverb". Incorrect verb agreement is not limited to this expression, as I often hear manglings such as "We was late," or "None of you walk away now!" Using a singular verb when a plural form is traditionally used is a general phenomenon independent of the use of there. --EncycloPetey 23:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
So you would argue that in each of the following pairs, both versions are equally acceptable (or equally unacceptable, in the case of the last one)? :
  • There's something odd here. vs. Here's something odd there.
  • I expected there to be a problem. vs. I expected here to be a problem.
  • He demanded there be an inquiry. vs. He demanded here be an inquiry.
  • [pointing at a photograph] There's us. vs. We's right there.
If so, I suspect that you and I must spend time with very different sorts of people. (Note: I'm not specifically saying that it's not an adverb; I don't know for sure. It seems almost meaningless to apply terms like "adverb" and "pronoun" to a single use of a given grammatical word, when no other word shares its grammar. What I am saying is that I think that for many speakers of Standard American English, this usage is simply an expletive subject with delayed semantic subject, just like "it" in "It's well known that the sky is blue." This makes it very tempting to label it a pronoun, since English's only other expletive subject is a pronoun, and it definitely feels more natural to classify a subject as a pronoun than as an adverb.)
RuakhTALK 00:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
If we permitted English words to be classified as "Particle", then that's where I'd prefer to see this go. Failing that, I prefer "adverb" (which is a very nebulous category) because it is so closely tied to the verb, and because the label of "Adverb" permits a broader range of functions than does "Pronoun". Oh, and yes, I have indeed heard people say "We's right there," or "There's us," although fortunately not so often now that I live in a different area. --EncycloPetey 01:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that "particle" would be best. And yes, I've also heard both "we's right there" and "there's us", but I really don't see how you can view them as equally (un)acceptable. To me "there's us" is semi-acceptable in some instances and completely acceptable, albeit informal, in others ("Who all is coming?" "Well, let's see … there's the Smiths … there's the Joneses … there's us, of course … and … um, I'm not sure who else."), whereas "we's right there" is always quite unacceptable. (If I were a prescriptivist, I think I'd call "there's us" something like "O.K. in colloquial speech", and "we's right there" something like "please retake kindergarten".) —RuakhTALK 01:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
So I've thought about it further, and I think you may be right that insofar as we can't use "particle", "adverb" is more accurate than "pronoun"; there's not a clear line between usages like "there you are", where "there" is clearly adverb-like (specifically, I think it's an intransitive preposition), and usages like "there's many books there", where it seems to have ventured off the worn path of any POS. I mean, these two uses are very different from each other, but you can devise a fairly continuous walk from "there you are" to "there’s the book I was reading" to "there's the book I was reading" to "there's a book I was reading" to "there's a book there" to "there's many books there", and it's really impossible to say where on this path it stopped being an adverb and started being a pronoun. Or rather, it's too possible: any step seems reasonable, but none seems convincing. —RuakhTALK 18:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Is "it" also a "preposed adverb" by this logic? Somehow the etymology seems more important than usage in this classification decision. And we seem to be in disagreement with prevailing lexicographic practice. DCDuring TALK 18:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really referring to the etymology, but rather to the entire range of current uses, which includes everything from original and obviously-adverbial (or whatever) uses to ???!!!-ial uses that, according to your comment below, cispondian dictionaries call pronominal and transpondian ones adverbial.
As I said above, usage doesn't really support any POS very well. There is no POS that exhibits this sort of behavior. AFAIK English has exactly two expletive subjects: it (otherwise a personal pronoun), and there (otherwise an adverb/adjective/preposition/something). Neither one's expletive use is really predictable from its non-expletive use; and this would hardly be the first time that words of two different parts of speech have overlapping grammar (cf. adjectives and attributive nouns).
Overall, I really hate our need to discretely identify a word's languages, parts of speech, etymologies, etc. These things are not always discrete.
I'm happy to follow cispondian dictionaries in including a pronoun sense — that's certainly more convenient, as it gives us more room in which to explain the range of uses — but I don't see why we can't also follow transpondian dictionaries in listing it as an adverb. ("In existence; see pronoun section below.")
RuakhTALK 19:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
That would be fine. I see that some "there [copula]" usage can have more than a hint of adverbial "placeness". Longmans DCE strikes me as a leader in grammar and usage presentation in a dictionary. That they choose to have the pronoun PoS is meaningful and makes it less of a cis-/trans- thing. DCDuring TALK 20:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Longman's also has an "in existence" sense under adverb, with these three clearly-non-pronoun example sentences:
The chance was there, but I didn't take it.
The countryside is there for everyone to enjoy.
Three months after the operation, the pain was still there.
These share the semantic bleaching, but not the grammar, of the "there is ___" uses.
RuakhTALK 20:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
It wouldn't have occurred to me to try to call those usages pronominal, related though they are semantically. They seem to me to behave more like most normal, boring adverbs. DCDuring TALK 22:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe you've mis-read Ruakh's comments. Those instances are marked as "adverb" in Longman. --EncycloPetey 17:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Longmans is a leader, yes, but that does not mean that they always make the best choices. I've been trying to decide why the "semantic coloring" argument does sit well with me, and have finally figured out why. Consider the reversibility / non-reversibility of the following parallel constructions:
* "There is an old house on the hill." / "An old house on the hill is there."
* "It is an old house on the hill." / "An old house on the hill is it."
* "Green Gables is an old house on the hill." / "An old house on the hill is Green Gables."
* "Decaying is an old house on the hill." / "An old house on the hill is decaying."
* "Scary is an old house on the hill." / "An old house on the hill is scary."
The first of each pair only sounds right for the first three. The fourth pair's first half sounds odd, and in the fifth pair, the first half of that pair has grammar that would only be found in a fortune cookie. So, an adjective or participle doesn't work for reversibility. In similar fashion, the latter half of the second and third pairs sound wrong. Neither a pronoun nor adjective works properly in the predicate position.
The question, then, is whether the first pair is a reversal in which the meaning is truly preserved, or whether there truly is a shift in the meaning and/or emphasis. I haven't fully decided how I come down on that issue. I can see both as having the same meaning, but perhaps not. Sometimes the second half of the first pair sounds normal, but it can also come out like Yoda-speak. It does seem a bit of an archaic form to me. --EncycloPetey 17:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I understand, but I'd like to. I think I agree with your readings of the naturalness of all of the sentences above. As to "there": to me the "place" senses could be considered adverbial in all cases. The usages that don't seem to fit are most clearly seen in: "There is a certain something about him that I really like." There_(!!!) could be pointing involved, but not plausibly. "Something there is that doesn't love a wall."
In some of the real cases involving what I consider the quasi-pronominal usage of "there", ambiguity remains because the sentences can be read with a "place" sense. But many cases have left behind even the most virtual kind of spatiality.
In "There is an old house on the hill.", "there" could be about "place", but it is more likely about existence. For it to be about place, it would need extra stress on "there". Then it might be equivalent to "An old house on the hill is there.", which doesn't seem very natural unless "there" is accompanied by physical pointing or is read as equivalent to "An old house-on-the-hill is there." (or "An old-house-on-the-hill is there.") DCDuring TALK 19:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Could there have been a pondian cleavage in labeling this. Tellingly, Cambridge American calls it a pronoun; Cambridge Advanced Learners shows the same usage as adverb. Oxford shows adverb. Longmans shows pronoun, as does Collins. Webster's 1913 shows both, but is reticent about calling it a pronoun as was Webster's 1828. Webster's 1828 expresses a somewhat reluctant acceptance of this "meaningless" usage. The other American dictionaries show pronoun, if they cover it (as WNW does not). I suppose that the label doesn't much matter, but keeping it an adverb gives more weight to etymology and Chaucerian usage than to the nature of current usage. DCDuring TALK 19:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wiki markup

Wiki Markup
Note: this discussion was previously at Wiktionary:Requests for verification.RuakhTALK 13:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this just our jargon? DCDuring TALK 23:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think so, but I'd question both the capitalization (I believe wiki markup is more common) and the idiom-ness; while I do get the impression that most references to "wiki markup" are about MediaWiki markup, I think that's simply because most references to wikis are about MediaWiki wikis (especially Wikipedia, and to a lesser extent the other Wikimedia projects). I can't imagine anyone saying, for example, "MeatballWiki markup is very similar to wiki markup." —RuakhTALK 01:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that wiki should not be capitalised. I'd also RFD this as sum of parts (it's the markup used on a wiki, and nothing more), but I won't confuse matters by doing that during an RFV. Equinox 21:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that RFV requires time and effort. This is not hard to cite from google books:"wiki markup", but what editor would want to spend time doing so if the result of the RFV is likely to be an RFD (rendering the citations worthless)? The shadow of a looming RFD could well cause this word to fail RFV. —RuakhTALK 02:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why, as long as the person finding the citations believes the RFD can pass. If nobody wants to cite it for months and months when it's trivially citeable, they are giving their implicit approval to any deletion request. Surely anyone who thinks it's worth keeping would now hurry to find citations to get it at least out of RFV and onto the next stage, to defend it against the (inappropriate) deletion? Equinox 03:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
But isn't that basically treating abstain votes as delete votes? Especially since it would take time and effort to vote keep? "Trivially citeable" means it's easy to find b.g.c. hits in the right sense, not that it's necessarily easy to choose representative quotations both early and recent, and track down correct metadata for them (which is often a lot harder than it might sound). Even in the best of circumstances, citing words properly is rather tedious. Admittedly, the rules of RFV don't actually require that words be cited properly, only that they be cited; but fairly few editors ever cite words here, and I think the ones who do, all put a lot of effort into doing so. —RuakhTALK 12:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
So does anyone thing this is idiomatic? Chatting about votes takes time too, and if there's no point in that then let's go right to RFD.
To me wiki markup is the text markup used in any wiki, regardless of which software is in use. No more idiomatic than HTML markup, etc. “Designed for an encyclopedia” doesn't sound true to me, and anyway is encyclopedic, not defining – if it were pared down to a good definition, then it may be clearer that there isn't much to it. Again, if no one wants to put any time into this entry, then it goes away—that's how we work. Michael Z. 2009-05-27 13:02 z
For the record, several people have put time into this entry. This includes admins who saw it, made improvements, and never RFD'd it; you can take that as you will. If this passes RFD, I'll happily return it to RFV for citing; I'm just saying it seems demanding to ask people to cite a word that's on the chopping-block anyway. —RuakhTALK 14:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved to RFD.RuakhTALK 13:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete.RuakhTALK 13:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Cited, FWIW.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, even if our English entry is deleted, Wiki Markup / Wiki-Markup would still need (a) German entr[y/ies] (from Google Books: [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]).  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Bah, you just had to prove me wrong, didn't you. :-P   —RuakhTALK 14:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
;-D   We’ve the German now.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wiki markup moved to Wiki Markup by me for this reason: “The English entry may be deleted very soon; a German term exists as homographic with this alternative English spelling; this page move will preserve the entry’s history.”; both Wiki markup and Wiki Markup have {{rfd}}s.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete  The second quotation really demonstrates how wiki is used attributively. What is with moving it to the German capitalization? It stays or goes. Michael Z. 2009-05-28 04:11 z

Keep at the complete lowercase for English, apparently. While HTML stands for the markup language, wiki does not. In fact wiki means any "collaborative website which can be directly edited" so it's not apparent that there is a specific wiki markup, namely one based on double-brackets to connect pages. DAVilla 05:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Not apparent because it's not the case. "Wiki markup" in fact refers to any wiki markup. (BTW, I don't understand your statement that "While HTML stands for the markup language, wiki does not." It seems like this argument would also justify an entry for web-page markup, a putative synonym for HTML, since web-page doesn't stand for the markup language. What am I missing?) —RuakhTALK 18:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
You're not missing anything, if in fact my premise was wrong as you say. It still feels like a keep to me, but I'm going to have to consider it some more. I don't feel confident voting that way without a good reason. DAVilla 01:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
If wiki markup means “markup used in a wiki”, then it is simple sum-of-parts, and needn't be defined. If capitalized Wiki markup means “markup used in WikiMedia sites” or “in Wikipedia” or whatever, then it is a straight attributive mention of a proper entity, and shouldn't be defined. Let's forget about this one, and consider adding wikitextMichael Z. 2009-05-31 04:32 z

phrasal preposition

SoP.—msh210 17:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

See also talk:phrasal preposition.—msh210 18:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to the delete position. Although the term locuzione preposizionale exists in Italian, it is quite rare and I only found it by researching it. All the translations are best translated as two words phrasal preposition rather than the single term. SemperBlotto 07:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
locution prépositive, however, is very common in French (Because french dictionary define strictly graphic words, we are obsessive what is a word and was is a "locution") and I'd be inclined to say it's not SoP, but it certainly is in English. Circeus 22:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Needs a better definition, but keep. Hardly anyone will understand what it means from the separate words. —Stephen 19:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Why isn't this called a "compound preposition" in analogy to compound noun? (And why are we missing the latter when we do have compound word?) Easily confused with prepositional phrase as well, which is no less SoP in my opinion. I think it's safer to keep. DAVilla 05:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete. As DAVilla almost points out, the term compound preposition exists as well, with the same meaning (and, in fact, is several times as common). If phrasal preposition were a term of art that had driven out other potential synonyms, then perhaps it would be worth including; but as it is, it seems to be just one SOP way to express this idea. (Of course, I welcome any contrary evidence that would force me to reconsider.) However, we do need to improve our entry for phrasal. —RuakhTALK 17:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Sense now added to [[phrasal]].—msh210 20:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Tend to say keep; rare yes but it does exist. Mglovesfun 09:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


Not Arabic or wrong script.—msh210 18:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

  • No usable content. Deleted. SemperBlotto 07:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


Seeing as birthday party got deleted, this should also. --Jackofclubs 15:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

X circles around

See comments at #X one's Y off. Equinox 17:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

As below, we don't allow "X" to act as a filler in article titles, do we? I sort of think there's some merit in it, but not much. I'm in favour of a delete but it does highlight problems with have with article titles. Mglovesfun 09:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll see your X and raise you Y

See comments at #X one's Y off. (This one also has some old discussion on its talk page.) Equinox 17:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep The second snowclone-related definition puts it firmly into the realm of idioms. Circeus 22:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete, unless we want to add a policy that allows X and Y in the titles of articles. Although I do see the point that some of these merit an article, but it's not easy to come up with a title for them. Mglovesfun 09:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Idiomatic phrase. kwami 22:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
"I'll see your X and raise you Y" is not an idiomatic phrase and I doubt anybody has ever said it. You might have an argument for "I'll see your", or for "and raise you", but not for this X-Y entry. Equinox 22:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

call out

rfd-sense: To call (a professional) for a site/home visit. Seems quite SoP compared to other senses. DCDuring TALK 19:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge with #2, it seems to be a specific case of #2, so it does exist but they can easily be merged. Plus, why a professional? Surely you can all anyone out without them being professional. Mglovesfun 09:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

levered firm

If you know what a firm is and you know about "lever" or leverage, you would know this. Main sense of firm#Noun. Main business sense of lever#Verb. DCDuring TALK 00:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I know what a firm is and I know lever and leverage. Let me guess: a company that has special controls (handles, levers)? Or a company that has special powers, such as a department for lobbying Washington (to exercise leverage)? It’s hard to think of a reasonable definition, and impossible to know if one of my wild guesses is right without looking at the proper definition. —Stephen 16:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment. Logically, "levered firm" does not seem to fit our definition for "lever"; it seems to mean basically "levering firm". I'm guessing that the correct action is to delete [[levered firm]] and add the correct adjective sense to [[levered]] — unlike Stephen, I think it's quite likely that "levered firm" means "firm that is levered", for some sense of "levered" that we don't have — but as I'm not familiar with any of these, I can't say for sure. —RuakhTALK 19:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
In the US the verb leverage#Verb has exactly the meaning in the form I am familiar with. I think that lever#Verb has a synonymous sense, perhaps more non-US, but I haven't put in the time to confirm. Both "leveraged firm" and "levered firm" have more than 400 raw b.g.c. hits, "leveraged" being a bit more common. With other appropriate financial terms "leveraged" is much more common. We are the only OneLook dictionary with this term, but they also don't have the right sense of "lever", except for one invisible specialized investor glossary. About 20 OneLook glossaries have the right sense of "leverage" (usually as a noun). Some regular dictionaries, too (sometimes the verb). DCDuring TALK 21:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
If we’re the only one, that makes us superior. I can’t figure out what it means unless I look it up somewhere, which is something that I have not done yet. —Stephen 22:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know. google books:"firm is|was levered" suggests that this is SOP; but until we've actually defined the Ps, I don't feel comfortable deleting their S. I guess my vote is to merge into [[levered]]. No deletion of "levered firm" without representation at "levered"! :-P   —RuakhTALK 13:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
One of the most productive things about compound entries and the RfD process is that they compel us SoPers to validate our assertions by improving the definitions of the components, whatever the outcome of the RfD. DCDuring TALK 14:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

coal mine

Defined as "A mine from which coal is mined." Classic sum-of-parts entry. --EncycloPetey 13:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete and move definition to coalmine, I suppose. Unlike gold mine and (apparently) salt mine, this has no figurative sense. Equinox 14:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Improve the definition and keep. Not all coal mines are mines. Good dictionaries (including as the Random House) have it and so should we. My Random House has coal mine, but not coalmine. I don’t think coalmine is a common American spelling. —Stephen 15:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Which coal mines aren't mines? --EncycloPetey 22:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
coal mine is 50 times more common than coalmine on COCA, but the 5 appearances of "coalmine" would make it attestable in the US.
  • Move to RfV. I'd be interested to find any attestable figurative use of "coal mine".
There's an extra complication in the word "mine". When most people say "mine", they mean an underground mine. An open-pit mine requires the extra qualification (except where there is a specific referent individual or class). DCDuring TALK 16:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Is that relevant here? All coal mines I've ever seen (even in film) are underground mines. Both the Welsh and Appalachian coal mines are subterranean. Even if some of them are above ground, wouldn't it still be a mine for coal, and thus sum of parts? --EncycloPetey 22:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Many (most?) of the big coal mines in Australia are open cut, which means that the synonyms colliery, meaning only an underground mine, is incorrect in this instance. --Dmol 00:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
That just means the synonym is wrong. An open-cut mine is still a mine. It's not a reason to keep, is it? Equinox 00:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
No. I didn't mean to introduce a red herring. I have added an "especially" clause at mine: "especially underground" that addresses the complication at the appropriate place, I think.
The reason to move this to RfV is to allow for the possibility that there is a sense of "coal mine" that is analogous to the figurative senses of gold mine and salt mine that justify their inclusion. It seems to me that it might exist even though I can't recollect it now and may never have been exposed to it. It might be worth 30+ days in RfV to determine it. DCDuring TALK 01:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

ground beef

SoP.—msh210 21:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

An important food item, keep. Not so SoP as earth poultry or air pork. —Stephen 22:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Here it's called minced beef. In either case, it's clearly beef that has been ground (minced); ground chicken for example is easily attestable but equally unnecessary. The "air pork" argument, although it sounds delicious, relies on the reader not having the common sense to work out which sense of "ground" could apply to beef; see WT:CFI section that reads "With such clearly wrong interpretations weeded out..." Equinox 22:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


Despite my best effort, I cannot seem to find any use of this word anywhere outside of dictionaries. Even the TLFi only manages to describe it via its appearances in dictionaries (compare the equally technical and also fairly rare abarticulaire). Circeus 03:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

si vivo

Meaning is strictly sum of parts: "if" + "I live", to mean "if I live". --EncycloPetey 13:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)