Wiktionary:Requests for deletion

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for deletion

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

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

Scope of this request page:

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

Templates:

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

See also:

• Criteria for inclusion
• Page deletion guidelines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oldest tagged RFDs

• No pages meet these criteria.

November 2010

herbei-

This is not a German prefix. -- Prince Kassad 19:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

How so? Do you also say that hervor- is not a German prefix? Is it because it is her- + bei-? --Dan Polansky 22:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, all derived terms are simple compounds using the word herbei. This is evidenced by the fact it's possible to split up the derived term into its constituent compound parts and it will retain its original meaning, i. e. herbeiführen may be alternately written as herbei führen. The same applies to hervor- as well. -- Prince Kassad 22:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW best definition ever. fr:herbei- says this is a particle, whatever that is. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I see. But there are not going to be many German prefixes left: most can be declared prepositions or particles. Consider, for example, ab-, auf-, an-, and aus-.

One consequence of denying prefixhood to these is that most German verbs with separable prefixes (the term "separable prefix" is contradictory per your exposition) are going to be compounds (Komposita), which seems really strange to me.

Which of the prefixes in Category:German prefixes do you consider prefixes worth keeping? (BTW, I don't consider kardio- a prefix but a combining form. See also de:Kategorie:Präfix (Deutsch).) ---Dan Polansky 22:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

On another note, google:"herbei führen" gives 38,100 results hits while google:"herbeiführen" 1,510,000 results. The former seems to be a rare form that does not really prove anything. If herbei- is not a prefix per the existence of herbei, I do not see how auf- is a prefix given the existence of auf. --Dan Polansky 22:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Separable prefixes are already treated as independent words in Dutch (as adverbs to be precise), and the words that have them are listed as compounds. It doesn't seem like such a strange idea to me. —CodeCat 22:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

A consequence of this treatment is that there are very few prefixes left in Dutch, at least native ones; those that are left would be mostly Latin-based or Ancient Greek-based. See Category:Dutch prefixes. I wonder whether this treatment matches Dutch linguistic works. --Dan Polansky 23:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You cannot split up the word aufhören, for example, while conveying the same meaning. "auf hören" does not make any sense. Therefore, these are true prefixes, like ab-, an-, aus-, be-, ent-, ein-, ver-, zer-, etc. -- Prince Kassad 23:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, "aufhören" is a separable verb, as in "Hören Sie mal auf". Why can't I argue that "aufhören" is a compound made from "auf" and "hören"? Yes, I cannot meaningfully write "auf hören", but that alone does not prove prefixhood of "auf-" if prepositions are allowed for compounding.

What about the following: herab-, heran-, heraus-, herein-, herum-, herunter-? --Dan Polansky 23:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

And "herbeiführen" behaves as a separable verb: "Dadurch, daß wir gewisse Dinge tun, führen wir andere herbei" (Example found in Google books.) --Dan Polansky 23:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You can combine the last batch of suffixes with *any* verb you want. You can create words like heruntergießen, herabschauen and hereinsprühen. This makes them anything but prefixes. -- Prince Kassad 23:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The readiness for combination of a candidate prefix has nothing to do with prefixhood, if you ask me; it does not detract from prefixhood. --Dan Polansky 23:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

German allows for an arbitrary amount of adjectives, adverbs and prepositions to be combined with verbs to form new compound verbs. Compare for example schnellöschen, which is composed of schnell + löschen and means "to speedy delete". It certainly does not turn schnell into a prefix. -- Prince Kassad 21:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

(<) The term schnellöschen is a rare form whose infinitive is not even attestable in Google books, so I wonder why you pick this as an example. Furthermore, schnell is an adjective rather than a preposition, which makes all the difference: I would argue that prefixes often correspond to prepositions and certain adverbs. You still have to explain that "auf-" is a prefix, given with how many verbs it combines, and given the existence of the preposition "auf". I argue that "herbeiführen" is morphologically analogous to "aufhören". --Dan Polansky 09:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm quoting here a response made by User:Atelaes in response to the deletion of Wander- a few pages above:

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

auf- is a prefix simply because its meaning is not identical to the standalone word auf. You cannot write "auf hören", it makes no sense. -- Prince Kassad 14:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but for the record — I don't think you're interpreting Atelaes' statement the way that he intended it. —Ruakh_TALK 21:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(<<) de:W:Zusammengesetzte Wörter#Typisierung nach den beteiligten_Wortarten (compound words#classification by the part of speech of constituents) does not list any of the terms derived from herab-, heran-, heraus-, herein-, herum-, herunter- as compounds. OTOH, it says that „Fast alle Wortarten können miteinander kombiniert werden“ in a quotation, meaning that almost all parts of speech can be combined.

On another note, it is unclear that "herbei" is really a separate word. If "herbei" always occurs as part of a separable verb, then it may look as a separate word whenever the separable verb is in the separated position, but it is unclear that this alone suffices for the separateness of "herbei". I admit that "herbei führen" can be found in some old German works in Google books.

The terms herbei-, herab-, heran-, heraus-, herein-, herum-, and herunter- are listed in http://www.welt-im-web.de/?N%26uuml%3Btzliches_in_Dateiform:Deutsche_Vorsilben, although the website is no academical reliable resource.

Unfortunately, I do not know of external reliable authorities to check with, or else I would post some links. --Dan Polansky 09:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

One more link: http://www.dwds.de/?kompakt=1&qu=herbei-.

For a list of terms derived from "herbei" or "herbei-", such as herbeizaubern or herbeireden, see also de:herbei.

As an aside, I do not boldly vote for anything in this thread. I do not claim to understand what a prefix is. --Dan Polansky 14:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I am also not an expert, but IMO "herbei" is not a prefix, but part of a compound, because it is a separate word (according to the Duden), which functions as an adverb. It is true that it is rarely used standalone, but this is true for all adverbs. A standalone usage would be the interjection "Herbei!" to call people to come to you. As for the general definition of prefixes, I would use the term prefix only for something that does not also exist as a separate word with exactly the same meaning. Therfore "ent-" (englisch: de-) would be a prefix, but "auf" and "ab" not, because they exist as adverbs with the same meaning (don't confuse them with the prepositions "auf" and "ab" that have a different meaning). --Zeitlupe 09:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Just noting that canoo.net treats words such as herbeiführen as adverb+verb compounds (as opposed to aufhören which they call a prefixed verb, see [1] and [2]. I tend to agree with that view, but I'm not so sure either. Dan Polansky's objection that herbei etc. might not be unbound words at all seems legitimate, though all dictionaries I know do treat them as adverbs and thus words. On the other hand, canoo.net also treats elements such as zurecht in zurechtbiegen as prefixes which I don't quite understand. Longtrend 14:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Standalone uses are easy to find, I've just added one; to find others, search for "herbei, herbei". Standalone use only proves it's an adverb, not that it isn’t a prefix, but like PK, Zeitlupe and Longtrend, I have the feeling that it isn't a prefix. De.Wikt has de:herbei, not de:herbei- (contrast de:ver- and de:über, de:über-). On the other hand, the Duden has it as a prefix (and adverb). - -sche (discuss) 06:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Delete it seems there just aren't very many prefixes in German and this is not one of the few.Lucifer 23:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

December 2010

command-line interpreter

Something that interprets a command line. Anything further is an encyclopaedic red herring. Equinox ◑ 20:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not something that interprets "the text prompt presented to the user in a command line interface". Either command line needs a new definition, or your statement is wrong.--Prosfilaes 00:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The former, I suppose. The command line can be the text a user types at the prompt. Equinox ◑ 00:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Could it be that the multiple meanings of interpreter make it difficult to parse as sum-of-parts? See, for example, parts interpreter. ---> Tooironic 07:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Not here. I'm not sure how to define it, command line or command line interface (and I'm definitely uncomfortable with the definition for the last), but interpreter in this context is obviously the definition tagged computing.--Prosfilaes 22:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. The command line interpreter is interactive, which the definition at interpreter does not clarify. Apparently it's also called a command-line processor. DAVilla 06:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

{{look}}

kept, no consensus -- Liliana • 15:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

part

Sole preposition sense:

1. (often as “part (something), part (something else)”) partially composed of
   • 1919, Henry Seidel Canby, Ph. D., Making of America Project: New Books Reviewed, page 711:

     “ We cannot make a plodding and sensible community—a Holland or a Pennsylvania—out of a national personality which, whether by harsh circumstance or native tendency, is now part genius, part fanatic, and part hard-headed materialist.”

I think is is more readily interpreted as an adjective. DCDuring TALK 22:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds more adverbial to me. Can be defined as partially. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 23:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Based on the usexes they provide, most dictionaries call it an adjective when it is part of a predicate NP and an adverb only when it modifies a true adjective. But "partly" and "partially" both seem like acceptable synonyms in US English at least. DCDuring TALK 18:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Or noun. Essentially short for "one part genius, one (not necessarily equal in size) part fanatic, one (possibly different in size again) part hard-headed materialist", like a recipe for a cocktail.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think of hypothesized ellipses as cheating, suitable only for such more speculative realms as etymology. DCDuring TALK 18:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't really mean it's short/elliptical for what I wrote. Hence "essentially". I meant only that part can be understood here as a noun as in a recipe for a cocktail: "part genius, part fanatic" is like "this cocktail is one part Kahlúa, one part rum". I don't know, though: I can't imagine anyone using that construction with any other unit of measure (contrast "three acres corn, one acre soybeans" with *"three acres corn, acre soybeans").​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

(deprecated template usage) all and fractions do the same thing: "he's half man, half ape"; "he's all ape"; "he's one-third man, two-thirds ape". I agree with Jamesjiao that it's adverbial, though I'm not sure if it's an adverb per se, or just an adverbial noun (as msh210 says). I'm leaning toward the latter. —Ruakh_TALK 20:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Almost all OneLook dictionaries have the adverb sense usually illustrating it with an expression using an adjective: "It is part red". RHU, MWO, AHD, WNW, and Encarta have the adjective sense illustrating it with a noun: "He is part owner". The PoS label seems hard to assign and limit and yet people speak such expressions without hesitation or objection from others. For us to add the possibility of "preposition" seems to be a needless and unjustified addition to the mix. DCDuring TALK 22:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm crazy, but I see (deprecated template usage) part as an adjective qualifying "genius" (in that example), so the sense to me is "a partial genius" and not "partially a genius". Consider that "part-man" often has a hyphen and can itself be a noun phrase in a sentence: "The part-man, part-genius, has done it again!" Ƿidsiþ 09:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

north

This sense:

2. Template:meteorology Of wind, from the north.

seems wrong to me. We frequently describe winds by their source direction, but it doesn't "feel" to me like that's a property of all the various possible source directions ("north", "north-northeast", "land", "sea", "desert", etc.). —Ruakh_TALK 16:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think it's OK, except for the meteorology tag. Historically though you're right. In OE, the word was just an adverb. It appeared either alone as an inflected adverb, or as a stem-form in compounds. So (deprecated template usage) north wind as a set term is attested much earlier than other more obviously adjectival uses (although there are plenty of them). Another way of looking at it, though: this could be kind of interpreted now as almost an attributive noun – "wind of the north", just like "wind of the desert" and your other examples. Ƿidsiþ 16:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. A good place to put a usage note on this would be nice, but I don't know where. Maybe at all the nouns that collocate with the direction words: wind, breeze, etc.​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

good health

Rfd sense: a state of living without illness, both mental and physical; healthy. --Mat200 14:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to challenge the entry as a whole. The second definition seems to be completely redundant to the first one. -- Prince Kassad 15:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Are toasts an appropriate sense as an ordinary entry? For the phrasebook? to the Queen? Our country...may she always be in the right, but right or wrong, our country!? to the bride and groom? DCDuring TALK 15:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Delete all current senses.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Get rid of the noun senses (they're SoP) but keep the interjection sense, though I would imagine it should be tagged as dated perhaps. ---> Tooironic 20:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Noun senses deleted. Interjection sense tagged. Discussion below should be about the latter.​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Good health is a common toast in the UK, especially by the upper class ('U'). Why delete it?

full-charge bookkeeper

Sum of parts. A bookkeeper who has full charge of the accounts of a business. SemperBlotto 10:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps - citations would be a fine thing, as I've never come across the term. What really counts is how it is used in running text. Hopefully Google Books won't throw up too many citations, and I can read all of them. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Not really seeing SoP, though not seeing a clear undisputable idiom either. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I really think full charge could be an entry, making this deletable as SoP. Otherwise I would wonder if it's a bookkeeper who didn't give any discount on his servies. DAVilla 12:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I have edited the entry (since I was the writer of it) - to solve some (most) of the issues mentioned above. Note: a "full-charge bookkeeper" is a job listed (advertised for) in multiple cities in the U.S.!

Deleted as a sum of parts. Please add an entry for full charge instead.--Jusjih 15:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Peabody

The w:Peabody Award. Consensus on including this kind of proper noun. If so, why? If not, why not? DCDuring TALK 15:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

If we delete this, we really ought to delete Nobel Prize as well. While the latter is much more well known, in linguistic terms they're no different. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Also Oscar and Emmy. Equinox ◑ 17:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Google Book hits for "the Peabody of", I would say that if anything we're missing senses. DAVilla 17:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

When we had the attributive use rule it was relatively easy (IMHO) to distinguish between proper nouns that had usage that implied meaning beyond the original referent itself. Opponents, however, deemed it too hard to understand and apply. Any thoughts about some basis for discriminating or are we to duplicate the content of Wikipedia articles, which increasingly have translations/transliterations into multiple languages/scripts? DCDuring TALK 17:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"the...of" is an easy wrapper to use for discovery of metaphorical use, the basis of my earlier proposal mentioned above. DAVilla 18:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

January 2011

veto

rfd-sense: Latin interjection "I forbid it! I protest!" Isn't this just the verb form? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's distinct (and vote keep), if the definition and usage note are accurate. - -sche (discuss) 03:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

ae

The senses:

• Country code for the United Arab Emirates.
• At the age of; aged.
• (mathematics) Almost everywhere.

The first one is obviously bad caps. The last one is already at a.e., where it belongs. The second one I think is incorrect as well. -- Prince Kassad 22:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The second one is rubbish AFAICS; the third is duplicate; that leaves the first sense. Going by fr, perhaps this should be replaced with

{{also|Ae|AE}} {{only in|{{in appendix|ISO 639-1 language codes}}}}

This, that and the other (talk) 09:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, I resolved this -- Liliana • 17:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

M and M boys

Not dictionary material. I have a sneaky feeling (with no concrete evidence behind it) that this is actually a protest entry by DCDuring (talk • contribs) in an attempt to show ridiculous our criteria for inclusion actually are. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep; I think famous nicknames are includible, just not the actual people of their referents. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 02:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know this nickname, but it could be more acceptable than Mickey Mantle: a definition can be provided and help readers, while Mickey Mantle is any Mickey with Mantle as his surname. Note that Charlemagne, too, can be considered as a nickname. Lmaltier 06:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Is your point about Mickey Mantle#Proper noun or Mickey Mantle#Noun or both? DCDuring TALK 11:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

the proper noun (and the common noun because I think that the figure of speech does not make it a common noun). Lmaltier 17:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If DCDuring is sincerely in support of the entry, I am too. If not, I probably would be anyways in the absence of specific criteria, but I could support strict criteria that would not allow this as well. DAVilla 02:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

My sincerity is in believing that this low-quality entry is consistent with our current policies and practice, which I sincerely believe ought to be uniformly applied or modified in broad terms which can be uniformly applied. I think this entry is a typical consequence of our rules and practice. I also sincerely believe that we would be better served by rules and practices that were vastly more restrictive of the definitions of terms that are proper names, along the lines of our treatment of personal given names and surnames. DCDuring TALK 16:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Amen. Equinox ◑ 10:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete per DCDuring. --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep under current rules. DCDuring TALK 14:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Christofascist

Was listed at RFV with the comment, “Needs attestation of use as true adjective. See Wiktionary:English adjectives.” However, AFAIK there's no policy requiring such attestation. In general it's good to apply this sort of test, but I think this might be an exception.

The issue is simply that (deprecated template usage) Christofascist is rare — b.g.c. gives less than twenty hits — and the majority of the b.g.c. hits are formally ambiguous between noun and adjective readings. (In some cases the noun readings are a bit, um, implausible — "christofascist people" clearly doesn't mean "people of christofascists", and a "philosopher kings"–type reading seems far-fetched — but Wiktionary:English adjectives makes no concessions on that point.) A few hits are predicative and therefore clearly adjectival, but these are secondhand — things like “those right-wing Christologies to which Dorothee Soelle has referred as ‘Christofascist’” (mention) and “Some of the pluralists speak derisively of the high Christology of trinitarian dogma as christofascist and […] ” (arguably use, but basically mention IMHO), “It would be unfair to apply the term “Christofascist” to this approach, […] ” (mention, and also hard to definitively prove as adjectival, though IMHO an attributive noun couldn't be mentioned this way).

I say keep: there are plenty of reasons to think this is an adjective, and no reasons SFAICT to think that it isn't.

—Ruakh_TALK 19:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, the question becomes whether we want to keep forms which are correct constructions but not attested. I don't have an opinion on that. - [The]DaveRoss 19:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

drill in

This doesn't look like a phrasal verb to me. --Downunder 21:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Debatable, to drill does mean in sports, to hit the ball/puck hard. So that could be drill + in. How about the sense drill something into someone? That would surely meet CFI. So... not sure. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

In sports one could "drill a ball/shot/puck/serve/ace/liner/line drive/drive/spiral/pass/rocket/fastball", all with a sense that seems basically the same to me, whatever the sport. Usually this would be followed by a prepositional phrase with an adverbial function. But one-word adverbs like "fair", "foul", "out" (out of bounds). I find it hard to see how "in" is different or that any of these cause a semantic change. Delete. DCDuring TALK 23:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Definition is inaccurate, you can drill the ball in and not score - it might be saved or blocked on the line. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a phrasal verb because in doesn't have an object. Keep but correct definition. DAVilla 06:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Is that a sufficient condition? That would seem to indicate that any verb followed by any word that can be both adverb and preposition is a phrasal verb. We have never had the benefit of any adequate definition of what a phrasal verb was, let alone criteria. DCDuring TALK 10:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If in is an adverb in this case, then which sense applies? DAVilla 18:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

in#Adverb sense 2 is the best wording we have for it. DCDuring TALK 21:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In that case I'm not so sure. DAVilla 06:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep. --Dan Polansky 08:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Why? DCDuring TALK 10:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete. The sense of drill used here does not require the word "in," and neither does "in" change the sense. Pingku 14:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

So how do you explain the existence of that particle? The up in grow up, tear up, wake up doesn't do anything either, nor out in trying out something new. DAVilla 18:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I would explain it away as an optional adjunct in this case, adding some precision to "drill". "Out" and a vast number of prepositional phrases could also add analogous precision. I would argue that (deprecated template usage) up changes the meaning by changing the lexical aspect of the associated verb in at least (deprecated template usage) grow up and (deprecated template usage) tear up. There is an element of completion (telicity ?) to the growing in the phrasal verbs not present in the verbs without the particle, just as in the use of explain away vs explain in the first sentence. DCDuring TALK 21:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

beat

Rfd-redundant:

(impersonal): It beats X Y = X cannot understand Y, where Y is an indirect question.

(said by Fred Dibnah): It beats me how she [= the Queen] keeps tabs on everybody

This seems to be a particular use of the "overcome"/"defeat" sense and/or it is idiomatic in beats me/it beats me. DCDuring TALK 18:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the latter: it's idiomatic in beats me. (Not in it beats me, though, as "How he did that beats me" works well. It can redirect, though.) (I'm reminded of why transcripts, which don't include tone of voice, are, well, lacking: Attorney: And what does your husband do every night at nine o'clock? Witness: Beats me.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Fox

RFD sense: An epithet for Michel Foucault. --Downunder 00:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Under our current policy isn't this an RfV matter? DCDuring TALK 12:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. There whould be a page WT:RFX for things we're not sure whether we want to delete or we doubt we can verify (which, if not, would lead to delete). --Downunder 22:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

moved to RFV -- Liliana • 00:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

be

Rfd-redundant: Used to indicate temperature. Tagged but not listed, see the previous discussion at rfv (on the talk page) for details. Also, people in the chat think that sense 5 isn't really any distinct from sense 4, either, but I haven't tagged it so far. -- Prince Kassad 22:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

5 ("Used to indicate that the subject and object are the same: Ignorance is bliss") from 4 ("elliptical form of "be here", "go to and return from" or similar: The postman has been today, but my tickets have still not yet come; I have been to Spain many times.")? Really?​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoops. What I meant is the senses: (transitive, copulative) Used to indicate that the subject and object are the same. and (transitive, copulative, mathematics) Used to indicate that the values on either side of an equation are the same., where I really fail to see the difference. -- Prince Kassad 00:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Redundant to which? 18 ("Used to indicate weather, air quality, or the like: It is hot in Arizona, but it is not usually humid; Why is it so dark in here?")?​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Quote from that RfV discussion, which I think is what you might be looking for: This seems like it might be converted to an "rfd-redundant sense". The last five senses all seem to be instances of using "be" with a bare number (not exactly a noun or adjective) to indicate a count or measurement. The senses above (5 and 6, I think) that give non-gloss definitions of "be" as link a subject to an adjective or to a noun phrase. Is what is needed here {{non-gloss definition|Used to link a subject to a count or measurement}}? DCDuring TALK 17:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC) -- Prince Kassad 09:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I now tagged all relevant senses with {{rfd-redundant}} (or at least I think I got them all) -- Prince Kassad 22:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Tagged are "14. Used to indicate age", "15. Used to indicate height", "16. Used to indicate time of day, day of the week, or date", and "19. Used to indicate temperature". Of those, I agree that 14, 15, and 19 can be combined into one, perhaps with the wording quoted above from DCDuring. As to 16: Its usexes are "It is almost eight" and "Today is the second, so I guess next Tuesday must be the tenth", of which the first uses the impersonal it and the second does not, so either (1) it should be split into two senses, one of which uses the impersonal it and the other of which should be subsumed into "9. Used to indicate that the subject has the qualities described by a noun or noun phrase: The sky is a deep blue today" or (2) we include impersonal-it senses with others so that "18. Used to indicate weather, air quality, or the like: It is hot in Arizona, but it is not usually humid" is redundant to "8. Used to connect a noun to an adjective that describes it: The sky is blue". Or is there difference I'm not seeing between the issue of splitting current-16 into theoretical-smaller-16 and subsumed-into-9 and that of splitting theoretical-larger-8 into current-8 and current-18?​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This refers to the senses "Used to indicate X" where X is "age", "height", "time of day, day of week, or date", and "temperature". I agree: there is no end to these. (For example, it could indicate weight: "I am 75 kilograms".) So delete. Equinox ◑ 19:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

gener sororis

(deprecated template usage) gener + (deprecated template usage) sororis to mean "son-in-law of the sister". Mglovesfun (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

sotto voce

Rfd-redundant. The music senses are exactly the same as the others AFAICT, but tagged {{music}}. I think the senses should be removed, the tag should be converted to an explicit categorization, and the etymology should mention that the term was originally used in music and is still more common there. Thoughts?​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the term, but if sotto voce is fairly widely used outside of music, I would do exactly that. If it's almost always music, I would use {{chiefly|music}} and combine the sense, unless they are distinct in a way I don't know of. Like I say, I don't know the term so I will trust others' judgment. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It definitely isn't used only in music, and more surprising (to me, when I looked it up), it wasn't even used first in music. I think two senses are justified, because in the non-musical sense it means ‘in a low voice’, ie only of speech, whereas as a musical term it doesn't only refer to singing but anything – you can play a piano piece sotto voce, for example. Which I never realised. Ƿidsiþ 20:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

social ecology theory

w:Social ecology + theory. NISoP. Also, the kind of entry to which WT:BRAND ought apply. DCDuring TALK 23:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Delete (we should probably have (deprecated template usage) social ecology though). Ƿidsiþ 13:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
• But our definition of this term doesn't match WP's explanation of social ecology at all AFAICT.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  As a dictionary we are supposed to be focused on usage. I am not entirely sure what WP's choice of terms and definitions reflects. Possibly the weight of all authority, possibly just select authority. A dictionary is not an abridged encyclopedia. DCDuring TALK 18:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably SOP, but the point is moot until social ecology is defined. DAVilla 06:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

rainbow

Rfd-redundant: "Having, or shining with, the colors of the rainbow: iridescent." redundant to "Multicoloured". Am I missing something here? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

-ium

Latin section (not English), taken from rfc. EP thinks these are not formative suffixes in Latin. -- Prince Kassad 18:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If it's not proper Latin, then I agree, it should not be in the "Latin" section. But let's not delete the content, let's move it to "English". So, I don't think this should be a deletion request, it's more of a reorganization. And one that a proper authority should just go ahead and do. PatrickFisher 18:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Please leave here as many users will look here.

Although I'm not sure if it's productive, there are plenty of nouns formed this way. e.g., artificium (< artifex), auspicium (< auspex), arbitrium (< arbiter), etc. These are all of the form <person who does something> + ium → <thing person does>, but that might not be the only thing -ium is used for. My Latin isn't amazing, so I could be missing something obvious about this, but it seems to me it should be kept under Latin, maybe with the note that it isn't productive (unless it is - I don't know). 124.169.231.62 03:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

countable noun

uncountable noun

Sum of parts. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if it is the reverse of SoP, are countable and uncountable used to describe anything other than nouns within the scope of grammar? I know they can be used on their own, but do those usages imply while eliding the word noun or are they truly independent? - [The]DaveRoss 19:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Even if they are only used for nouns, you could still say "this noun is uncountable"; you are not bound to saying "uncountable noun". —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 02:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Note, translations could be at mass noun and count noun if these two got deleted. Most of the translations seems to be SoP anyway, I think one of the French ones is wrong to the point where I couldn't get three citations for it. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Unfortunately I don't see how this is keepable under our current CFI. ---> Tooironic 03:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Not idiomatic, but I don't see what would be so terribly wrong with keeping the most common collocations for words like countable in this sense. DAVilla 06:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, this may be idiomatic; you can count "money", and it's a noun, but it's not a countable noun (at least, not normally). ---> Tooironic 06:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep or merge. "Count noun," "non-count noun," "countable noun," and "uncountable noun" are very definitely terms used in ESL textbooks, and in the classroom, as well as on Wikipedia The fact that they are essentially professional jargon as far as most native English speakers are concerned does not make them illegitimate. And no, they are not idiomatic. See the Wikipedia article. "Money," isn't a count noun, but "dollar" is. A merge is probably a better idea, but I don't know which would be the better title. "Countable/uncountable" seems to be more common, based on Google, and is definitely more grammatical, but it seems like the official linguistics terminology is "count/non-count." It could be that "count/non-count" is the linguistics term and the one I use in my ESL classes. --Quintucket 06:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge into what? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

water

rfd-sense: (UK, in combination, capitalised) Particular lakes in the Lake District.

If this is only used to form proper nouns (i. e. only occurs in uppercase), it should be at capitalized Water. Otherwise, I can't quite figure out what it's supposed to be. -- Prince Kassad 10:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, delete, it's a just a use of the existing ‘body of water’ sense. Ƿidsiþ 10:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delete, but create at Water. Part of the name and should be caps.--Dmol 11:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, it's just an opinion but those "classical element" senses somehow strike me as unnecessary. Though that may be just me. (they aren't tagged yet) -- Prince Kassad 15:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Delete. I wouldn't create water unless you also want to create Stadium (in English) for Wembley Stadium, Bridge for Standford Bridge and Tower for things like Tower of London, Leaning Tower of Pizza and Willis Tower. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep somewhere. This seems an unusual use of water or Water. I don't think, for example, that it is ever used in the US. DCDuring TALK 22:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

DCDuring, there is a countable sense for water meaning 'body of water' per Widsith. That's what it refers to in the title of various lakes. In fact their not lakes at all - they are waters. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the definition inaccurate, in that there are "waters" outside the Lake District that have proper names that include "waters"? Is there anything in real life about the "waters" of the Lake District that is distinctive? Is this use of "waters" something regional, so someone from the Lake District would call "waters" bodies of water of similar characteristics that had a proper name not including "waters"? DCDuring TALK 16:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No, the Lake district "Waters" are usually just called "lakes" by everyone except local pedants. I've never heard Windermere or Bassenthwaite Lake or Tarn Hows called a "water", except in the general sense that they contain that liquid. Dbfirs 13:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(later) Quote from The Westmorland Gazette (the main local newspaper of the Lake District) November 3rd, 2011 Page 43: about Wast Water " ... depth of 258 feet , making it easily the deepest lake in the whole area." Dbfirs 11:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep until such time as someone adds a "body of water" sense that would account for this. Preferably with a cite or two. Note that we do currently have a "body of water" sense, but it's tagged as "in plural", and its sole cite is not terribly convincing IMHO. —Ruakh_TALK 01:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I have copied a sense from MW 1913: "A body of water, standing or flowing; a lake, river, or other collection of water.", with a citation. This might subsume the "plural" sense mentioned above. DCDuring TALK 03:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I definitely don't think we should keep it. Reword it, ok sure, but not an outright keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

There exists a plural-only sense that means something like, "water that is in a body of water"; see google books:"the muddy waters of the * River" for lots of examples of it. Our current "in plural" senses seem like failed attempts to capture that sense. —Ruakh_TALK 23:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you are onto something. Some OneLook dictionaries have something like it, but don't seem to quite duplicate what you suggest. I don't think your sense includes the other plural senses though. DCDuring TALK 01:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete, as redundant and don't create Water per the recent deletion of Age. --The Evil IP address 12:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Delete now that DC has added the more general sense (8) that includes this. While we are deleting such interpretations, could we also delete the sense at lake where "lakes" could mean any collection of lakes (including the Great Lakes) and not just the Lake District. We might possibly replace it with an entry at The Lakes, but I'm not sure it's necessary. Dbfirs 12:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

͵Α

Extended content, or what this means for other Greek numbers

͵ series	, series
͵Α	,α
͵Β	,β
͵Γ	,γ
͵Δ	,δ
͵Ε	,ε
͵Ζ	,ζ
͵Η	,η
͵Θ	,ϝ
͵Ι
͵ΙΑ
͵Κ
͵Ρ
͵ΣΤ
͵Ω
͵α
͵β
͵γ
͵δ
͵ε
͵ζ
͵η
͵θ
͵ι
͵ια
͵κ
͵ρ
͵στ
͵ω
͵Ϛ
͵ϛ
͵ϝ

Greek number SoP series, listed into the thousands. Presumably, if one knows ͵ (thousand) and Α (one) then one should be able to construct a Greek number 1000 by putting them together easily. (If this is kept perhaps the ones beginning with commas should be redirected as alt-forms-of this ͵ symbol and a usage note put at the end of the appropriate entry.) TeleComNasSprVen 16:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

keep. Are 10, 100, 1000, etc. SoP as well? -- Prince Kassad 16:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I think 10 is SoP in linguistic terms as 1 then 0. Part of an infinite series indeed. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I recognize ten and thousand as legitimate, separate idiomatic terms, but its other variations are SoP, that is, 1000 = one + thousand, 4000 = four + thousand, 2468 = two + thousand + four + hundred + sixty + eight. TeleComNasSprVen 17:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

降C调

Looks sum of parts to me. -- Prince Kassad 20:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC) (addendum: it's not attestable either.)

• The definition of 调 doesn't even say it can be used to mean "flat". From just the sum of its parts, I wouldn't know if it meant C flat or C sharp or C an octave up. Rspeer 07:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, that's because 降 means flat. (see w:zh:降音符) Though our entry currently only subtly suggests it, so it should be fixed. -- Prince Kassad 10:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I dunno how to judge SoPness in Chinese languages; on the other hand there are 4 Google Book hits for it. Just, I can't read them. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

beacon interval

beacon + interval. -- Prince Kassad 15:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 22:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

expunge

Rfd-redundant: to eliminate completely = to completely remove leaving no trace. I should probably have "speedied" this but whatever. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 00:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Done it boldy, but tagged the computing sense with rfd-sense "To completely erase a file, document or directory from a computer system." which just seems like the above sense in a computing context, with no deviation whatsoever. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

-craft

Is this a suffix? Ƿidsiþ 13:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hard to say actually. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a suffix. Compare the two: starcraft (star + craft; = a craft/vessel of outer space) and starcraft (star + -craft; = astrology/star-ology); also statecraft (--for demo purposes. --there is actually no such term to my knowledge) =state + craft "a craft of the state"/"state-sanctioned craft" and state + -craft "art of statesmanship", which is a word. It's not necessarily literal. It's analogous to other suffixes which began as combining forms, like -ship (=shape). There were other forms in Middle English, such as -creft, as in wicchecreft, stefcreft, and had we chosen this form we might not be having a discussion. However, it's been reanalyzed in form in Modern English due to (deprecated template usage) craft. Leasnam 00:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

touché

Rfd-redundant: An acknowledgement of the success, appropriateness or superiority of an argument, sometimes used sarcastically to mock one's opponent's absurd logic = Used in a conversation or debate to concede a point as true, often in response to a successful counter of one's own logic. An anonymous user on the talk page suggests that these senses be merged. The difference seems to be that one is used against oneself and the other is not. Also, one mentions sarcasm while the other does not. These two senses don't seem to be very distinct. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 03:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

They are, in my opinion, very distinct. One touche is sarcastic/mocking, and is also said during an argument to acknowledge superiority of an argument. Another is completely different; it's the acknowledgment that your opponent has won the discussion that is at hand. I find it completely unnecessary to merge these two definitions. Keep Zamoonda 21:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:archived Taken from below, this was a duplicate section. I'd have removed it outright if people hadn't voted already. -- Liliana • 19:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No way - keep it you Philistines!!! I've used it in this sense many times

But is it the same as the previous sense? If it is and we delete it, we'll still cover your usage with definition #2. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

abarbeiten

Rfd-sense: to work hard. Redundant to the sense to work off, which I corrected because it's not restricted to debts but is used in all kinds of contexts. -- Prince Kassad 19:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"To work off" is restricted to debts, at least in my mind. I don't see "to work hard" being a subset of "to work off" at all.--Prosfilaes 22:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Then I guess the sense needs improving. abarbeiten can be used in quite a lot of situations, such as working off hours in a job, processing a to-do list, etc. The reflexive sense is really just an application of the other sense, but if it's written that badly, of course nobody will understand it. -- Prince Kassad 22:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The way it's currently worded (that is, the English translations), I can't see how it can be redundant. But I don't know the German word. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Just for reference, my dictionary has this: abarbeiten (Verb) 1.) work off (Schuld), work (Überfahrt, Vertragszeiten), run (Computerprogramme), execute (Befehle) 2.) slave away. -- Prince Kassad 23:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

After de:-ab this seems to be a differnet meaning of the prefix: [2a] ganz und gar, bis zur Erschöpfung, bis zur Untauglichkeit, bis zur Tilgung - to do something completely until exhaustion, incabability, extinction.Matthias Buchmeier 09:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

sideways

Rfd-redundant: "askance, sidelong". Seems the same as the "towards one side" sense.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete, please. --Pilcrow 16:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, Nelly. We lack the figurative sense of askance as a meaning of "sideways". Check OneLook for MWOnline's, AHD's, RHU's, and other views before jumping on senses. Our definitions often don't cover meanings very well compared to what professional lexicographers have. — This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talk • contribs) at 30 March 2011.

Oh, is the figurative sense of askance what was meant here? That's... unclear. Perhaps it just needs a rewrite, then. (If such sense exists.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the literal sense of askance is even current. Encarta, for example, doesn't include it. DCDuring TALK 18:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

google books:"glanced askance" gets a fair number of recent hits, most of which seem to be literal. —Ruakh_TALK 19:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

¶ Perhaps that etymology is required, firstly? --Pilcrow 18:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

queen of hearts

Rfd-sense: A character from Lewis Carroll's book Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. I don't think we want these as definitions. -- Prince Kassad 20:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Delete. (Wrong caps, too, incidentally.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete especially per msh210. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This is an empirical question, not suitable for a vote. DCDuring TALK 21:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right! "With respect to names of persons or places from fictional universes, they shall not be included unless they are used out of context in an attributive sense." Sorry! Keep here and move to RFV if citeability isn't obvious.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

So, it is correct caps? -- Prince Kassad 21:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Queen of Hearts

Delete also.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This is an empirical question not suitable for a vote. DCDuring TALK 21:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right! "With respect to names of persons or places from fictional universes, they shall not be included unless they are used out of context in an attributive sense." Sorry! Keep here and move to RFV if citeability isn't obvious.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete proper noun sense, delete the common noun as just queen of hearts with unneeded capitals. See one of the citations for pæninsula with a capital letter that we accept for the lowercase form. Oh and it's not yet cited. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete them all, and also I'd like to see more entries solely based on movie characters gone. --The Evil IP address 18:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

quadriga

Sense: A sculptural form featuring a representation of the subject riding a quadriga.

I did not read the citations as referring to the figure of the person, rather than the chariot, the team of horse, or both together. Whether it also clearly refers metonymically to the charioteer as well would be unsurprising, but hardly entry worthy. Further, quite apart from the apparent circularity, which could be remedied, to include this as a separate sense would be a precedent for including additional senses for every noun used to refer to something represented in an imagined or represented world (painting, sculpture, computer game, advertisement, film). Thus (deprecated template usage) man. DCDuring TALK 23:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC) IFYPFY.​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, delete. --Hekaheka 13:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Weak keep - this refers to a class of scuplture known after a particularly famous one. I would normally agree with deletion completely, along the lines that "lion" defined as "a scultpure of a lion" is an unnecessary definition. But a quadriga seems to be a special case of a class of sculptures, like nudes, busts, etc. I say "weak" keep because (offhand) I can't think of another class of scultpure so narrowly focussed ("landscape" comes to mind in painting), but in modern English "quadriga" more often refer to a sculpture than to an actual chariot team, which is the reverse of most other concrete nouns that might be rendered in art. --EncycloPetey 20:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Weak delete: this seems like (as I recently mentioned re (deprecated template usage) catgirl) having a sense for tree meaning "a model of a tree made of metal, plastic, etc.". My vote is "weak" because I don't really know the word and EncycloPetey seems to know something we don't. Equinox ◑ 21:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

fuck me

rfd-senses:

1. Used imperatively when one wants a partner to have sex with oneself, often in a rough manner

And rfd-redundant, 2&3 are the same

1. Template:vulgar An expression of dismay at undesired events happening to oneself.
2. Template:UK expression of surprise, contempt, outrage, disgust, boredom, frustration.

My first though seeing the first definition was to add this to Category:English phrasebook which I suspect would have met with opposition. Nevertheless, I don't object to a "used literally" definition with the phrasebook cat, while vulgar I can see why this would be useful to holidaymakers in anglophone countries; I'm merely sensing that this might not be uncontroversial enough for me to do with without further consequences. --Mglovesfun (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

neuro-associative physiology

SoP, physiology associated with neural synapses. TeleComNasSprVen 00:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Unsure. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

pseudounipolar neuron

pseudounipolar + neuron --Hekaheka 08:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete, now that pseudounipolar is actually defined. ---> Tooironic 22:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this is SoP by reading the definitions, but if neither of the definitions is wrong I could still be missing something. DAVilla 15:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

squaring the circle

Noun, both senses. This would seem to be a form of the lemma verb (phrase) square the circle. I could not find the putative plural "squarings the circle" on the Web. DCDuring TALK 20:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, presumably it's uncountable if a noun. I doubt it is one, but I'm not sure what criteria to apply.​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Modification by adjectives (but which ones?) or determiners (the ones appropriate for uncountable nouns: "some", "any", "much", "enough", "more", etc. I'm not sure about "no".). It is possible that we should have quantitative criteria comparing "squaring the circle" with "squaring of the circle". Note that "squarings of the circle" would be attestable, though not entry-worthy. DCDuring TALK 04:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

organic matter

One sense: The residues of dead plants and animals in various stages of decomposition. This seems to be wrong. Linseed oil or my sandwich are organic matter whether decomposing or not. If one tries to correct the definition, it seems to become the mother of all SoP's. --Hekaheka 09:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was just matter that's organic. Inorganic matter google books:"inorganic matter" gets 368 hits, suggesting this isn't a set phrase either. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This might be a keeper. It looks like organic matter is more commonly used in this specific sense of decomposition. Of course there is the broader sense you both speak of, the antonym of inorganic matter which is not at all idiomatic, but if this phrase implies a certain state in the life cycle then that's worth noting. DAVilla 06:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

keep common scientific term.71.142.73.25 20:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

fairy-tale hair

Apart from anything else, the Google image results ([3]) seem to suggest this refers to all kinds of things. Ƿidsiþ 16:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

But... it doesn't seem very sum of parts. Does it mean this? I've certainly never heard of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

A quick search shows that it is used in hair-extension adds (along with Rapunzel hair), but also in many other contexts. I'll say it's sum of parts (hair like in a fairytale).--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 17:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

But there are lots of types of hair in fairy tales. If this is the correct definition, keep.​—msh210℠ (talk) 07:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

ranching

Adjective and noun senses — This unsigned comment was added by 75.104.157.95 (talk) at 18.48, 5 June 2011.

Move to RFV. There does seem to be a countable sense of ranching which we lack, meaning either a ranch, a farming area or something similar, evidence by a couple of valid hits for ranchings. Some of those hits are scannos or not English. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think more than 2 are "valid" (not, eg, scannos that missed an apostrophe). The really seem mistaken. DCDuring TALK 02:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

善意第三人

Delete. Sum of parts. 善意 ("good intentions") + 第三人 ("third party"). ---> Tooironic 23:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• I can't pretend to be any kind of expert on Chinese law, but from what little I know, my sense is that this is a set phrase, i.e., that other combinations appearing to have the same meaning would be seen as incorrect. bd2412 T 20:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Google hits: "善意第三人"

Google Books: "善意第三人"user:ddpy

limiting adjective

Defined as "an adjective that limits a noun".

The definition would seem to be NISoP. It seems to exist to be a hyponym. DCDuring TALK 15:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

big fat

No non-wiki reference at OneLook has this. It looks like big + fat to me. Even if the spelling bigfat is attestable, I'd bet it's pronounced with stress on both syllables and is arguably a misspelling of "big, fat". But, I could be wrong. DCDuring TALK 18:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I would delete it, but I got my knuckles rapped for deleting (deprecated template usage) big phat! SemperBlotto 08:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

As a note speedy delete big phat if this fails

As a reply, I don't see this as sum of parts. A 'big fat liar' is usually a childish way of calling someone a liar. The person doesn't have to be big or fat, even in figurative senses of big and fat. I don't see how this could ever be sum of parts. My question to DCDuring and SemperBlotto is what meanings we would need to make these sum of parts? --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of Talk:fat-ass. Equinox ◑ 10:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The sense of big in this collocation is about the same as that in the even more common collocation "big old" or dialect "big ole". This spoken citation from w:Dan Rather shows productiveness of "big" in this intensifying adverb use: "RATHER: That would strike a lot of people as big ugly." This transcription is an interesting contrast of adjectival and intensifying adverb use of "big": "I mean, sometimes it's a big, huge, big huge moment in your life.".

As to "fat", I think it is the sense shown in google books:"fat liar" -"big fat liar", excluding the odd scanno and the occasional literal use. "Fat" seems to be be an intensifying pejorative adjective that occurs with negative valence nouns.

IOW, I think "big" and "fat" are productive in the relevant senses. DCDuring TALK 16:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

keep but move to big fat-, i.e. big fat liar, big fat phoney, big fat idiot.71.142.73.25 20:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

-fier

Ignoring the fact the definition doesn't make any sense, I think this is SoP of -ify an -er. The only derived term is quantifier which is surely quantify + -er and not quant + -ifier. --Mglovesfun (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right, this should be deleted. —CodeCat 18:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this is productive in a sense in English. Though "logically" it is clearly as MG says, I think that individuals produce nouns ending in "fier" by suffixation of (deprecated template usage) -fier to adjectives and especially nouns, rather than a two-step suffixation process or necessarily thinking of the verb ending in "fy". Following w:Anatoly Liberman, the most telling evidence of productivity would be rare instances (even hapax legomena) of forms ending in "fier" (or, better, "fiers") without corresponding forms ending in "fy", "fies", "fying", and "fied". Unfortunately, I know of no tool that allows wild-card searches of big fat (?) corpora (or even Wiktionary !). DCDuring TALK 17:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

public sex

public + sex. NB we don't seem to have a sense at public#Adjective to cover this. Nevertheless, SoP. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• No strong feelings on the term in question, but I have added the relevant sense at (deprecated template usage) public. Ƿidsiþ 11:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Certainly seems non-idiomatic. I doubt that it is a set phrase. DCDuring TALK 21:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It would seem to fail the set-phrase coordination test, often appearing in expressions like "private/semi-public and public sex". DCDuring TALK 21:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this a legal term in any way? DAVilla 19:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It may appear in legal glossaries, the same way that paracetamol may appear in medical glossaries. However paracetamol is the same thing in and out of medical glossaries, and I suspect the same is true for public sex. Furthermore for countries that do define it in a statue or statutes in English, the definitions likely aren't identical anyway. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

deleted -- Liliana • 05:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

have a funny feeling

Looks sum of parts to me. And the definition given seems to be only one possible interpretation of the meaning behind a "funny" feeling. ---> Tooironic 02:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. But "funny feeling" should probably appear in usexes at [[funny]] (strange) and [[feeling] (intuition). DCDuring TALK 03:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

In my experience (deprecated template usage) funny feeling means “a suspicion” (perhaps “a sneaking suspicion”), and (deprecated template usage) have a funny feeling means “to suspect”. I think we should have an entry for the former, at least, if not the latter. —Ruakh_TALK 19:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, "funny feeling" appears in no OneLook reference. DCDuring TALK 20:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

My experience matches Ruakh's. The CFI don't mention Onelook.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

CFI doesn't mention OED either. But I generally have respect for the fact that professional lexicographers have made judgments about includability words. OneLook includes idiom dictionaries and glossaries which are highly inclusive. Introspection by amateurs is a poor substitute for such judgments, let alone for some corpus-based evidence. We still don't have as many English lemmas as AHD, RHU, and MWOnline. We might have as many as WNW. If you subtract our flaky and erroneous entries, we are farther behind, despite our alleged advantages. [BTW, Encarta is no more.] DCDuring TALK 19:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Definitely cites rule. Impressions don't, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Really you didn't. The value of "authorities", aka lemmings, is that, at least for common collocations, their lack of support for what someone has proposed as a term might give us pause. This is also true when the term falls within the purview of a reference that purports to cover idioms or use of a term in a particular field. Lately our biggest RfD problem is probably collocations common in some context (readily attestable in the sense given) that involve an unusual word or unusual sense of a relatively common word, that may have been heard by and been memorable to more than one contributor, especially not en-N. I still have trouble noticing some "mild" forms of idiomaticity, so a non-native perspective is useful. But forming a judgment is not always easy. So the opinions of authorities/lemmings has some evidentiary value. DCDuring TALK 22:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English glosses "funny feeling" as "strange feeling"^[4] — which may be evidence of SOPness, insofar as one sense of funny is "strange". (Indeed, DCDuring recently added a "have a funny feeling" usex to [[funny]] under just that sense.) To this I'll add that "odd feeling" and "weird feeling" also seem to have roughly the same sense. There's something funny/strange/odd/weird going on here, but maybe it's some figure of speech rather than actual idiomaticity. —Ruakh_TALK 20:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it has more to do with (deprecated template usage) feeling. Delete. DAVilla 06:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

keep a foreigner would find this useful to understand this in a way an SOP search would not be helpful. — This unsigned comment was added by Gtroy (talk • contribs). in this edit

happener

I would have deleted this immediately, but I'm not sure if this word isn't used at all. I am quite sure the definition is wrong, though. —CodeCat 10:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added a sense that reflects the meaning in all of the first 10 bgc hits I found. The sense challenged should be at RfV if there is no a priori reason to delete it. DCDuring TALK 11:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

More added, though not all may be be sufficiently citeable to be safe from RfV. Regarding the disputed sense, the verb sense of happen collocated with on/upon looks the only likely interpretation. The hyphenated forms happener-on and happener-upon are possibly the more common, though still hard to find, and I'm not completely sure how (i.e., where) they should be documented. — Pingku^dimmi 10:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw that usage. If it is attestable it would seem to be (deprecated template usage) happener-upon. It is awkward and therefore not common. Other similar phrasal-verb/agent-suffix terms exist and are similarly uncommon for the most part. If someone had a good reason why such awkward expressions don't meet CFI, I wouldn't miss them. DCDuring TALK 17:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

anejo

Adjective: aged; usually in reference to cheese or liquor

Is this ever used to modify any thing other than a Spanish noun, so that it represents a part of a Spanish phrase embedded in English text rather than English. Also I don't think that we have Spanglish as a language code. We would not treat Spanglish as either Spanish or English would we? DCDuring TALK 16:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

On the last point, all words in all languages means that if it's a word that's used, then it's to be included. If (deprecated template usage) anejo composes Spanish phrases then why isn't it in any of the Spanish dictionaries? If it occurred in a Spanish context then it would be a Spanish word. Since it occurs in an English context, it's an English word. You may not delete it just because you find its use objectionable. DAVilla 16:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Without getting into a long technical discussion, I came looking for this word because I encountered it in an English context, and had no idea what it meant. It was very useful to me to find it here, since I don't know where else I would have looked. — This unsigned comment was added by 98.30.112.138 (talk) at 17:20, 18 September 2011.

@DAVilla --

The word (deprecated template usage) anejo isn't listed in any Spanish dictionaries as "aged" because the correct word for that in Spanish comes with the tilde -- (deprecated template usage) añejo, from (deprecated template usage) añejar.

@Everyone --

I strongly recommend that any English term (deprecated template usage) anejo meaning "aged" be moved to (deprecated template usage) añejo, unless folks can find strong evidence of it being spelled in English without the tilde (and not just because someone's typing with a limited input method and can't be bothered to call up a character list). -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 06:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Concur with Eirikr but with a see also in the entry for anejo (Spanish, adj.). Since añejo (Spanish, adj.) article does not yet exist, this should be created as a first priority. Donama 23:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I have just created an entry for añejo. Please revise/correct as necessary. Donama 23:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

anti

Adjective sense: against, opposed to.

The defining terms are both prepositions. The usage example shows it complemented by a noun, in the manner of a preposition. There already is a preposition L3 section. DCDuring TALK 16:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

midwinter

X 2: Adjective and Adverb

1. Adjective: Happening in the middle of winter.
2. Adverb: In the middle of winter.

Almost all time nouns can be used in each of these ways. For whom does this add value? It certainly subtracts from the utility of the entry for someone who wants a good English monolingual dictionary. OTOH, all such time nouns could use good usage examples and possibly a usage note. DCDuring TALK 04:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, if the word has several meanings, including all of them won't "subtract from the utility of the entry". Clear widespread use for both, keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Those aren't meanings, they are PoSes for the same meaning.

This is about the difference between what it is in the lexicon and what is part of grammar. It is a grammatical feature of all nouns that they can be used attributively without necessarily behaving in any other way as an adjective.

It is a grammatical feature of time nouns that can serve as an adjunct. How would you characterize "Wednesdays" in: "He races Wednesdays."? or "June 23, 1988" in "He last raced June 23, 1988"?

We usually don't subject our definitions to the rigors of "substitutability". That we happen to do so here is possibly part of a desire to inflate some counts of lemmas. DCDuring TALK 21:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete the adjective as an attributive use of the noun as in "midwinter night", unless someone convincingly argues otherwise. Delete the adverb per DCD and his "He races Wednesdays" and "He last raced June 23, 1988". As regards the speculation on the motives, the senses were added in diff on 17 November 2004 by Paul G, and I doubt he had an ulterior motive to inflate anything; it just looked like a good idea to him back then. The rigor of substitutability is what I try to apply, though, finding definitions of adjectives that start with "Describing" worth rephrasing. --Dan Polansky 08:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

drunk as a cunt

Sum of parts. Nearly shot it on sight, but thought better of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Why delete this and not drunk as a skunk and drunk as a lord? Are there quantitative or other criteria to distinguish them? DCDuring TALK 21:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair point, though that illustrates my sum of parts argument, as opposed to refuting it. Counterargument: cunts, skunks and lords aren't necessarily all that drunk. --Mglovesfun (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

McGraw-Hill idioms and Cambridge Advanced Learner's have drunk as a skunk and drunk as a lord. "Drunk as a cunt" seems older, but we aren't ageist, are we? DCDuring TALK 22:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I would be happy if we simply had a rebuttable presumption that a simile is not an idiom. DCDuring TALK 22:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That means a lot of deletions, though. For the moment I think we have to keep it. DAVilla 18:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

last sixteen

This just seems to be last X where X is an integer. Last 64, 32, 16, 8, 4 and 2 are most common just because that's how knockout tournaments work; you can be in the last three as well (the gap between one semi-final and the next one, there are three competitors remaining). SoP, delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

IMO this ought to be at RFV, where it would need to be cited as defined (a particular round in a tournament) distinct from the number or group of competitors that make up the round. Equinox ◑ 22:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

clucking

Adjective. Doesn't seem to behave like an adjective, except for attributive use. DCDuring TALK 19:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally I think there's another sense where it's used as a euphemism for (adjectival) fucking. "That clucking bastard!" Equinox ◑ 19:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

Gramophone

"(obsolete) A brand of phonograph that introduced disk records." So it's the w:Gramophone Company? Ultimateria 00:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Might now be attestable in accordance with standards for company/brand names, because of genericized gramophone. DCDuring TALK 13:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I only know it as a classical music magazine. Would that be OK? SemperBlotto 13:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That's still a brand. Maybe that sense would meet brand attestation in some context. DCDuring TALK 14:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, the Grammies are (or were) short for Gramophones Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 02:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

MiniDisc

Needs to meet brand name standards. DCDuring TALK 13:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Note there is a lower-case minidisc entry as well. Equinox ◑ 14:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That might even meet "widespread use" as the standards are lower for the genericized word, which may or may not be derived from the brand name. DCDuring TALK 21:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

plywood saw

The existing definition is encyclopedic. Of OneLook references only we and WP have entries. Very many configurations of physical objects might be called a "plywood saw". If we had images, we would find how different they all were, an encyclopedic fact. What they have in common is that they are "saws" for "plywood", a language fact that suggests that "plywood saw" is compositional. DCDuring TALK 15:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

For example, a panel saw is a commonly used device for cutting plywood, but also other kinds of boards of similar dimensions. Also, a circular saw or table saw or radial arm saw fitted with a certain type of blade. I'm sure plywood factories have very large special-purpose plywood saws. It is also quite possible that there have been various designs of hand saws for the purpose. The changing variety of technologies is probably what makes it seem obviously encyclopedic to me and to the lexicographers of the OneLook references. DCDuring TALK 16:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Finnish-Canadian, Swedish-Canadian, Danish-Canadian, among others

None of these "Nation-Nation" words are useful and don't convey any additional meaning when compounded together, and some possible combinations seem implausible and unattestable (e.g. Nauruan-Luxembourgian, etc.) Full list available at Special:Contributions/Hans-Friedrich Tamke. Delete as sum of parts. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not against deletion of those mentioned in the header, but shouldn't we at least name beforehand those that will be deleted? I would think there are words formed according to this pattern that we want to keep, such as African-American, Anglo-Norman or Anglo-American, and probably also Hiberno English, just to name a few quick examples? --Hekaheka 22:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm voting specifically against those created by Special:Contributions/Hans-Friedrich Tamke. I do agree there are certain very famous compound examples that need to be kept, but surely not these. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised that anyone would object to adding adjectives such as: "German-Canadian/German Canadian", "English-Canadian/English Canadian", "Italian-Canadian/Italian Canadian", "Indian-Canadian, Indian Canadian, Indo-Canadian" to the English-language Wiktionary. There is often a difference in spelling or form between the adjective and the noun when translated into other languages. Also in English we may say or write English-Canadian or French-Canadian when we actually mean "English-speaking Canadian", "anglophone Canadian", or "English-language Canadian" "this or that". (cf. de: deutschkanadisch/deutsch-kanadisch, Deutschkanadier, Deutschkanadierin; englischkanadisch, englisch-kanadisch, anglokanadisch, anglo-kanadisch, anglophon kanadisch; fr: canadien-allemand, germano-canadien, Canadien allemand, canadien anglophone, etc.) We need to add more words such as these (and their multilingual translations), instead of deleting them. Hans-Friedrich Tamke 00:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The pages mentioned in the title of this section seem useful to me, and I don't see how they could be considered as harmful to the project. Of course, such compounds should be included only when attested. Lmaltier 17:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

With all respect, how are they useful? And is it practical to try and attest them on an individual basis? To me it seems a standard sum of parts, i.e. several words that say just what they seem to say when combined. It appears similar to phrases like "quasi-[any adjective]", "semi-[any adjective]", etc. The biggest value I can see from these are for translation purposes, but I'm not fully convinced it's worth keeping them for that reason. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

They are useful for definitions given. These definitions are not obvious at all. But we must check these pages, and improve them: the WP page is spelt w:Finnish Canadian: are both spellings used ? for both senses? I don't know. These questions show that useful linguistic data can be provided.

Of course, paper dictionaries don't include these words, and they are right: they lack space, and they use space available to them for more useful definitions. But this does not mean that these definitions are not useful. Lmaltier 19:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree that the compounded forms are clear as-is. This is perhaps a bit of a strawman, but: would Nauruan-Belgian or Monegasque-Tasmanian strike you as being useful at all, even if attestable for some bizarre reason? There are literally thousands of possible combinations to be formed. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Assume that somebody reads it on a website, and wants to know what it means (it's clear that the sense is not obvious: he might imagine at least two possible senses). He might select the word and use WikiLook to get a definition. But only if the page exists! I feel that you think that there are more useful entries still missing, and you are right. But why do you believe that the site would be better without these pages? Lmaltier 19:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The pages just seem unnecessary. Anyone with a decent grasp of English would probably think to search for Monegasque and Belgian separately. I've seen not infrequently the combination of two adjectives via a dash. E.g.: "the architecture was quasi-baroque" ... "I'm sorta-okay today", etc. The terms do not change their meaning when combined into a pseudo-compound word via a dash. They are still separate words. And if they're separate words, they should not be listed under the same combined entry in Wiktionary. That's called "Sum of Parts". That's my reasoning, anyway; feel free to disagree or attack my not infallible logic. I'm a minimalist, so that might influence my opinion. :-) Tempodivalse [talk] 00:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You're influenced by the fact that English is your native language. In addition to senses already given, you could imagine two other senses: person with a Finnish father (or mother) and a Canadian mother (or father). Or person with both nationalities. Yes, I can tell you that these pages are useful to people reading these words. And you don't answer me: why do you believe that the site would be better without these pages? If you don't think so, then why do you propose to delete them? Lmaltier 06:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually am natively bilingual, although my userpage wouldn't indicate it (not enough practice in the "passive" language lately to be comfortable labelling myself with the native template. I may eventually switch it back). Why I think the site would be better without the pages? Not because it's necessarily "harming" the project (they aren't), but because I don't think they fit the project mission and are redundant. In all the languages I know, these compound words can be easily figured out by looking up each half individually (i.e., канадо-финский, or kanada-finlanda). I do see your argument and I think it's a good one, I'm just not sure whether I support it. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

superstar

Adjective. I can't imagine it meeting any test for a true adjective. DCDuring TALK 01:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete this POS. These "senses" merely describe attributive usages of the noun. · 05:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe RfV. A possible citation here, though the "more" looks italicised. — Pingku^dimmi

Citations and other facts are allowed here. It is quite conceivable that there is some usage, preferably not in quotes, possibly in entertainment-oriented articles in News. DCDuring TALK 15:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Citations and other facts are encouraged here! Pingku's citation ("The more superstar they are, they harder they are to get to because they're so protected by agents, bodyguards, managers, […] ") is interesting, because there "the more superstar they are" clearly means "the more they're superstars", such that superstar there means "being a superstar". That doesn't accord with either of our adjective senses, and it's hard to imagine anyone using superstar as an adjective with that sense in a more typical syntactic frame: *"she's superstar", *"she's so superstar", etc. ("She's superstar" does get one relevant-at-first-glance b.g.c. hit, but it's in "she's superstar enough to […] ", where I think other nouns work as well: "she's fool enough to […] ", "she's liar enough to […] ", etc.) So I'm inclined to chalk Pingku's citation up to speech error caused by complex syntax. Even after thinking about it, I don't know a great way to "fix" that quotation to not treat "superstar" as an adjective — I suppose "the more of a superstar they are", but it's awkward because the they there is a true plural they, not a singular they — so it's not surprising that the speaker failed. —Ruakh_TALK 15:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps "too|very superstar" at News. "That dress is so superstar" seems plausible. DCDuring TALK 15:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

But not in the same sense as Pingku's citation. —Ruakh_TALK 20:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

lots and lots

Just a form of (deprecated template usage) lots? Needs formatting if OK. SemperBlotto 06:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

To me such reduplication seems to merit a usage example at lots and possibly a redirect to lots. This seems distinguishable from others of the form "X and X" in Category:English reduplications and/or Category:English lexical doublets. DCDuring TALK 12:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Dubious. There are parallel constructions like hundred and hundreds or thousands and thousands. But is this "not idiomatic"? --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not idiomatic, yes. Delete. Cf. also "scads and scads", "loads and loads", etc. Also "more and more", "[comparative] and [same comparative]", and "[adjective], [same adjective]".​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

deleted -- Liliana • 15:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

make it

NISoP: To reach a place. This is make#Verb sense 12 + it. (Other senses seem idiomatic.) DCDuring TALK 03:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah redundant to {{&lit|make|it}} (sense #1). Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure any more, though the idiom may be "make it to" and/or "make it as far as". DCDuring TALK 11:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't feel right to me to say that it is the place you've made it to. If I was running into work at the time I was scheduled but didn't get there quite fast enough to punch that time on the card, I would say that I had not made it on time. If it isn't the place, is it the punch clock, or the act of punching the card, or something else? I say none of these. It's just part of the expression. DAVilla 05:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep. "Hey, come on in. I'm so glad you could make it." Seems to mean arrive at this place, my house, this party, etc. But you could never substitute and sound natural. I think this sense should stay as it is. It seems to be somewhat greater than its SoP. I think deleting this one sense would impoverish the entry. -- ALGRIF talk 12:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

"I'm so glad you came." "I couldn't make the party".

The idiom is much narrower and often more figurative in its application. One can say "I couldn't make it to the party." for which the "it" must not be anaphoric. Meditating on this, my problem with the definition may be that the idiomatic use is not in reference to any place, but rather is further restricted to an event (at a place). I think that addresses what both Algrif and DAVilla are saying.

There is another usage, nearly synonymous to a sense of "get": "I couldn't make it to a TV in time for kickoff.", but I don't think the time element can be omitted. DCDuring TALK 15:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Abbott and Costello

"A famous American comedy duo through the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s." Encyclopaedia topic. The entry offers nothing lexicographical. Equinox ◑ 20:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Strong delete or add Laurel and Hardy, Penn and Teller and the like. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

After preview, Laurel and Hardy exists :o(. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

See #Fat and Skinny. This looks like a consequence of the nihilistic/anarchistic elimination of the much-reviled, but sorely missed, attestable-use criterion for proper nouns: Nobody seems to want to delete such entries, develop criteria for including them, provide a rationale for definitions of them, or just clean them up. DCDuring TALK 21:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Ƿidsiþ 10:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Google Books has 72 search results for "the Abbott and Costello of". Bob Zemeckis and Bob Gale "were the Abbott and Costello of junk cinema — forever riffing back and forth on this or that piece of pop culture minutiae." Keep. DAVilla 06:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

℩

Nominating both definitions. The first definition listed does not define the term, it is rather an etymology. The second definition is plain wrong, it should be at ɿ. -- Liliana • 13:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Not the most useful comment, but I have absolutely no idea. If it doesn't mean what it says it means, what does it mean? --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I added a third definition which should be correct, conversely I tagged the other two senses with rfd-sense. -- Liliana • 17:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

de

rfd-sense: Translingual, "Germany". Should be uppercase DE I think. -- Liliana • 13:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Lowercase "de" stands for German (the language). Just correct the entry. —Angr 17:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

But language codes don't meet CFI, see Talk:jv. -- Liliana • 17:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

What about Internet domains? Or is the period considered part of the domain, so it should be .de? —Angr 06:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you just answered the question yourself, just check .de... -- Liliana • 02:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

moufu

Tagged but not listed. I'd delete it but I don't know enough Japanese. -- Liliana • 14:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Essentially -ou- is sometimes used to replace -ō- because it's easier to type on a keyboard. So the 'correct' form is mōfu. --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Move to mōfu. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like (deprecated template usage) mōfu already exists, and is basically a carbon-copy of (deprecated template usage) moufu with only the romanization different. All that remains is to delete (deprecated template usage) moufu. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleted: typo of mōfu. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

you can't always get what you want

This is not a proverb at all, but pure SoP. -- Liliana • 15:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, delete. We shouldn't include phrases merely because they are common. Otherwise we'd start getting stuff like (deprecated template usage) what languages do you speak — oh, wait. Equinox ◑ 15:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, would that someone, somewhere would host a meaningful phrasebook ! DCDuring TALK 01:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It certainly is common, and I found two books that describe it as an "old saying", another as a fortune cookie "proverb". I say keep. DAVilla 05:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep. It does seem to meet all the basic requirements for being a proverb, except for great age (about which I don't know and which isn't on my personal list of requirements anyway). Proverbs are either advice about courses of action or observations about general states of the world that amount to advice. DCDuring TALK 13:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

My personal view is and has been that SOP proverbs should not be included. That is, those that mean more than the sum of their parts (a rolling stone gathers no moss, which is metaphoric) should be, but literal ones (like the one in question here) should not. For that reason alone I say delete. I do know others disagree with me, though.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

A large fraction of proverbs don't seem to have any metaphorical interpretation whatsoever beyond whatever metaphors are built into the constituent terms, eg, forewarned is forearmed. Sometimes the prosody seems to make an expression seem like a proverb, so maybe the Rolling Stones made a valuable contribution to making this a proverb. DCDuring TALK 17:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete, commonness alone does not a proverb make. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

What does? DCDuring TALK 12:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree (with DCDuring, 17:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)) that "[a] large fraction of proverbs" are literal a/k/a SOPs. I didn't say otherwise: I merely said that such should not be in the dictionary.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Wiktionary should be a bit more liberal when it comes to proverbs, because what may seem obvious there isn't always as obvious. But in this case there really doesn't seem to be anything particularly special about the proverb, suggest delete. --The Evil IP address 17:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

first innings

fourth innings

First, second, third and fourth is simply the order of the innings chronologically. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Not according to the definitions. SemperBlotto 21:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

  Like in baseball, each side bats once each innings, the follow on issue just changes the order that the sides bat. And like in baseball, sometimes the final innings isn't needed as one side has already won. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

up the middle

The unhelpful definition is "being hit up the middle of the field, usually around the second base area.", which is entirely correct. Sure a ball hit up the middle is just hit + up + the + middle. By way of comparison, would we want an entry for in the corner for a ball hit, um, in the corner? --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoever entered all the {{cricket}} definitions clearly had a better ability to skirt WT:CFI. In contrast with this and some other {{baseball}} definitions, those definitions carefully avoid any obvious NISoP wording, no matter how NISoP or vacuous they actually are. See, for example, the cricket sense at [[middle]], which unwarrantedly enshrines what is either an ellipsis or a fused-modifier-head construction. DCDuring TALK 19:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually we are missing a second cricketing sense of (deprecated template usage) middle. See, as an example from Google books "... Little Dando, who took middle, patted the ground, and looked round at the fieldsmen ...". SemperBlotto 21:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Also down the line (in baseball) up the line (in tennis), neither of which we have. Down the line has a different, idiomatic meaning. Referring to baseball pitches, you could have down the middle or on the corner. All of these I've just cited, seem to me to be just literal use of the words, but in a sentence. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

1.0

3.0

Oh c'mon, please tell me you're joking. -- Liliana • 21:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete, quite funny though. --Mglovesfun (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

See google news archives "Obama 1.0 OR 2.0". It looks to me as if the construction is used as a postpositiive adjective. I might stop at [[2.0]] though and do usage notes for both. DCDuring TALK 22:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep. They have meaning beyond the sum of their parts. Especially the way the decimal is placed, they are not intuitive to non-native speakers. ---> Tooironic 22:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep. I'm not sure that older native speakers quite get it either. But is this Translingual? It would certainly qualify as English and would seem to meet CFI as meaning "version X.Y of" what is modified. Rather than having entries in non-intuitive "X.Y" format, having the two most common forms seems adequate to me, however logically unsatisfying or unsystematic it might seem or be. DCDuring TALK 22:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete: formed according to a set pattern, and not language, merely a certain use of numbers; we do not have or need entries at 1 and 2 saying "number for the first, second house in a street". Does the creator not realise how versioning works? The zero can be meaningful and is not always zero, e.g. Windows 7 is version 6.1. Equinox ◑ 20:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

But numbers are a part of language too. And quite often the things which are described as "2.0" are not the things a reason person would expect to have different versions, e.g. Obama 2.0. ---> Tooironic 21:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The RFDed definition is purely for technology version numbers; your proposed additional sense is not there. (Incidentally it's just struck me that the defs are wrong: 3.0 is the third major version; the first three might have been, say, 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0.) Equinox ◑ 21:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete per Equinox.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I have withdrawn my "keep" vote above. I have added and cited English (postpositive) adjective entries at [[1.0]] and [[2.0]] that seem valid to me. DCDuring TALK 16:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It's no longer clear to me what's nominated for deletion, and which sections the above comments refer to. I think it would be a good idea to delete the translingual sections though. As to the English definitions, it hardly makes sense to define changes in a person as a “second major version”. DAVilla 19:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep 1.0 and 2.0 in any case, as they heve bled out of the engineering world and into ironic commentary. bd2412 T 15:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep at least 2.0: it has a certain meaning that is not transparent, it has good references, and I have seen it several times personally. It is clearly a part of modern English and not a joke at all. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

fire storm

Tagged but not listed. Unless I don't understand something here, delete as redundant to the first definition. -- Liliana • 12:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This RFD misses the point a bit; DCDuring added {{alternative form of|firestorm}} and decided to use {{rfd-sense}} instead of straight deleting the other definition. Probably because our definitions at firestorm are inadequate. Ergo, delete the challenged since and improve firestorm. --Mglovesfun (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

pass stool

SOP. One can pass stool, blood, etc.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

We do have pass water and pass wind. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Both of which have now been tagged with an {{rfd}} tag linking to this section. Delete 'em all, I say.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it conceivable that a non-native speaker of English might think that a person having difficulty in passing water had a psychological problem with walking past a lake? SemperBlotto 21:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

And sometimes it does mean that: [5]. But if he looks up (deprecated template usage) pass he'll know another meaning of that verb. But I take back my "delete" for pass water, as water doesn't mean urine. (I'll keep the nomination, since it's here already.) I maintain pass wind and (especially) pass stool should be deleted as SOP.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: "water doesn't mean urine": Actually, it does. (Our sense 9.) It seems to occur most often in (deprecated template usage) pass water, (deprecated template usage) make water, (deprecated template usage) pass one's water, and (deprecated template usage) make one's water, but a b.g.c. search for "the patient's water" finds cites like this one and this one. —Ruakh_TALK 13:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks. Delete that one, too.​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ambivalent about the term in question, but definitely keep pass water and pass wind. Ƿidsiþ 08:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Note that we have this sense for (deprecated template usage) wind, with a usex with pass.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There seems to me to be a semantic difference between passing water/urine, gas/fart/wind, and stool, etc. and (deprecated template usage) passing something (blood, poison, indigesta, etc) in those media (or other excreta such as vomit, hair, perspiration, exhalation). The latter sense views the excreta as a sort of container vehicle for the object. Also, the latter sense is medical or nearly medical in its context, whereas the others are perhaps euphemistic, but in general usage. DCDuring TALK 17:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the difference you point out here, and couldn't figure out whether it was inherent in the word (two senses) or not (two referents, same sense, like how brown refers to many different colors which don't get their own sense lines). Still can't, in fact.​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It is only because there might be a context difference that the modest semantic difference might be worth recording. I won't lose any sleep over combining these putative subsenses. DCDuring TALK 22:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

As a non native English speaker, I looked for the expression "pass wind" and have found it in the dictionary. I have found it useful, so why should it be deleted?--93.32.52.65 23:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hesitant delete for pass stool. DAVilla 03:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• keep pass wind as I just looked it up to see if we had an entry here. --Rockpilot 21:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Fantasyland

"A section of several Walt Disney theme parks noted for containing imagery relating to fairy tales." Equinox ◑ 21:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete, a section of a theme park, way off topic. --Mglovesfun (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• I believe I created this to distinguish the proper noun usage of the term from fantasy land and fantasyland. There are actually some sourced that capitalize "fantasyland" in its generic usage, for example:
  • 2009, John C. Maxwell, Put Your Dream to the Test: 10 Questions That Will Help You See It and Seize It, p. 50:

    If your dream depends a lot on luck, then you're in trouble. If it depends entirely on luck, you're living in Fantasyland. ... People who build their dream on reality take a very different approach to dreams than do people who live in Fantasyland.

  • 2007, Colleen Sell, A Cup of Comfort for Writers, p. 28:

    Yes, I escaped into Fantasyland. However, I could just as easily have become a serial killer, a prostitute, a child beater, or a politician.

  • 2003, Richard G. Lipsey, Christopher Ragan, Economics, p. 327:

    On a scale diagram, with the percentage of households on the vertical axis and the percentage of aggregate income on the horizontal axis, plot the Lorenz curve for Fantasyland.

  • 1999, John Clute, John Grant, The Encyclopedia of Fantasy, p. 341:

    A typical Fantasyland will display - often initially by means of a prefatory MAP - a selection, sometimes very full, from a more or less fixed list of landscape ingredients..."

  • 1997, Jay Gummerman, Chez Chance, p. 174:

    Maybe this Fantasyland, as the egg woman called it, would counteract all the weirdness that had been accumulating since. ... Once this Fantasyland had kicked in, he would be on autopilot: all the necessary motivation would be provided for him.

  • 1986, Elma Schemenauer, Hello Edmonton, p. 15:

    Now leave Fantasyland and go back to the days of fur traders.

• Maybe this can be resolved with a usage note at fantasyland, but we need to do something to inform users that the term most often references the fairy-tale part of Disney parks, but sometimes just means a land of fantasy. bd2412 T 21:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you could put a link to Wikipedia's piece on the Disney park under See also. Equinox ◑ 09:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, the earliest use of the capitalized, undivided version of the word does not seem to come until after the establishment of the Disney element, which was first written about around 1952. bd2412 T 14:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

loaded

Tagged but not listed: a whole four adjective senses:

• Burdened by some heavy load; packed.
• (of a projectile weapon) Having a live round of ammunition in the chamber; armed.
• (baseball) Pertaining to a situation where there is a runner at each of the three bases.
• (gaming, of a die or dice, also used figuratively) Weighted asymmetrically, and so biased to produce predictable throws.

I guess one would need to show how they're actual adjectives, rather than being the past participle of load. -- Liliana • 01:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Pingku has already found cites supporting adjectivity (for the first and fourth senses) that look good to me. DCDuring TALK 01:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Move to rfv. I'd instinctively say that loaded has at least one adjectival sense. Apparently that's already supported by citations, so I'll shut up now. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

gegründet

Adjective section. These are just applications of the verb form. -- Liliana • 12:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This topic is currently being discussed here. Longtrend 13:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine

Unlike the German case, this can be easily analyzed as sum of parts. It is bad enough that we already permit almost one million number entries in German (a bot to upload all of them is currently underway), and we should not allow the same for English as well. -- Liliana • 20:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. No discernible need. Delete. DAVilla 03:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete per nom.--Dmol 05:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think most of the million German entries should be deleted, too. Instead an appendix discussing the rules for formulating numerals could be written for each language. If a robot can create an endless number of formally correct entries, they are not dictionary stuff. If there's no rule that says so, it should be written. We need to define a standard set for numerals allowed for all languages. It might consist of numerals for 0 to 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 1000, and thereafter the numbers of the form 10³ⁿ. In addition to these, only numerals which do not follow the standard rules should be accepted. We might also rely on appendices. We already have this: Appendix:Cardinal numbers 0 to 9. --Hekaheka 19:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you, the problem is that the majority of people think they're useful for whatever reason, so nothing can be done about it. -- Liliana • 19:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Clearly I'm in a minority here, but I would keep. Ƿidsiþ 16:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. We are not going to run out of space. Also, in some regions, this would be written as ninety-nine hundred and ninety-nine, and for clarity's sake we should explain that they mean the same thing. bd2412 T 19:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Pretty strong keep. I don't know why numbers written as words should be excluded from "all words in all languages". — [Ric Laurent] — 13:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think for the same reason that sentences written from words are excluded from "all words in all languages", people just seem to agree that they aren't very useful to have around. - [The]DaveRoss 19:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete: it is definitely a word, but it is a sum of parts and not special. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

experiential advertising

Tagged but not listed. -- Liliana • 16:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess the question here is why was it tagged :). Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 22:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

how one rolls

Probably just how + one + rolls. Can be re-expressed as "the way one rolls", "how does he roll", "how can you roll like that"?, etc. ---> Tooironic 12:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it can be altered that much and retain its meaning. It barely works with nouns instead of pronouns for "one". The question is whether "roll" has this meaning outside this expression. We have forced out a sense at [[roll#Verb]], but I'm not convinced by the made-up usage example. The quotation has "how we roll". DCDuring TALK 13:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I do hear "X [do]'nt [roll] that way", which is a specific transformation of the core idiom. DCDuring TALK 13:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Also with auxiliaries. DCDuring TALK 13:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

leave everything on the road

This is the cycling version of the snowclone "leave X somewhere". The X can be "it", "it all", "everything", or some specific emblem of effort. "Somewhere" is usually a prepositional phrase referring to an arena of competition, such as "on the field". The prototype is probably "leave it all on the field".

If we keep this, we should certainly have the readily attestable expression leave someone on the field, meaning to "lose to death a member of one's military unit in battle". DCDuring TALK 21:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

gristle

RfD-sense: 1. (by extension) Anything hard to accept. 2. (possibly metaphorical) Bone not yet hardened by age and hard work.

These senses seem like rare or uncommon literary metaphorical uses of the basic sense ("cartilage"). They don't seem to me to rise to the level of being understood in any other way than as metaphors. The reader has to resort to the literal sense to determine what meaning the author might intend. DCDuring TALK 21:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The unhardened bone sense I thought might be from an outdated, perhaps popular theory of the relationship between gristle and bone (presumably implying a rudimentary at best understanding of anatomy). One of the citations is from a non-fiction work, less likely to be dealing in metaphor, but possibly indulging a pop theory. — Pingku^dimmi 16:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we should try to word our general context definitions so as not to be dependent on any but naive theories, but not ones that are "obviously" wrong. Metaphors sometimes reflect those naive theories.

The first sense above seems to build on a "chewing"/"digesting" metaphor for incorporating (metabolizing?) facts into one's mindset/worldview, "gristle" being hard to chew. This does not involve much of a reach beyond everyday experience, except for the very rich and vegetarians. But it still seems like an optional, occasional extension of the more basic metaphor of chewing/digesting than a meaning in itself.

The second does not seem to fit with the popular experience of embrittlement of bones with age. It also relies on what is neither observable directly nor supported by a social system of broad effect, like a religion, or a knowledge community.

Not every metaphor makes it into the lexicon. DCDuring TALK 00:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep, I think. I'm a bit confused by Pingku's comment. It is in fact literally true that most of the bones in our body, including for example the major bones of the arms and legs, develop from cartilage that is slowly replaced with bone tissue, and that this process isn't totally complete throughout the body until late adolescence or early adulthood. (See w:Bone#Formation.) This is why children's bones are generally much more flexible than adults'. That said, this literal anatomical fact clearly took on a life of its own as a figure of speech, a symbol of the softness of youth; and it's often even applied to non-physical firmness, e.g. in "Persecution and controversy wrought her [Christianity's] gristle into bone." It's no coincidence that all three of our cites are speaking of men; literature of the time did not portray women in a way compatible with the gristle-to-bone symbolism. (Don't get me wrong, you can find uses on b.g.c. that apply the metaphor to women, but they are clearly in a tiny, tiny minority, and the ones I've found are all of the non-physical-firmness type.) —Ruakh_TALK 02:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I sheepishly rescind sneering rights with regard to anatomy. Perhaps I was thinking of sinew, which has much the same constituents as cartilage, but in different proportions, and has different functions. I gather that cartilage acts something like a matrix, out of which the bone develops, with the matrix disappearing by the end of puberty. In any case, the metaphorical usages don't match the established reality and seem to indicate a different model. — Pingku^dimmi 12:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this an example of the differences among definitions based on popular/naive theories, dated "scientific" theories, and current scientific theories? The first may be also considered simple metaphors. The latter two (also often built on metaphors) seem to me to require context tags and non-topical categorization. The latter two especially also run the risk of becoming encyclopedic. (I use the existence of more than one sentence or more than two or three clauses as an indication of an encyclopedic definition.) DCDuring TALK 12:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It's perhaps influenced by Aristotle, from such as: "The ears proceed from a dry and cold substance, called gristle, which is apt to become bone; ..." I suppose that would make it a dated "scientific" theory. — Pingku^dimmi 15:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Quebec

Rfd-sense: (military, history, Canada) any of several military battles in and around Quebec City.

Why should we have this, and not say, Battle of Berlin, Battle of Stalingrad or Battle of Kharkov? -- Liliana • 17:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete, SoP, battle + of + any city name. --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete · 20:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete: Now that's overly encyclopedic Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 01:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Udupi district

looks like SoP to me -- Liliana • 03:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Move to ಉಡುಪಿ ಜಿಲ್ಲೆ (uḍupi jille). —Stephen ^(Talk) 05:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

No strong feelings. Is it the official name? I suppose since Udupi is a city, this would be about equivalent to Washington State, to distinguish from Washington, DC. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

make friends

Pilcrow nominated for deletion on the grounds that it is a bad title and not very useful. Seems okay to me. —Stephen ^(Talk) 05:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have expanded the definition (separated transitive and intransitive senses). Keep. SemperBlotto 07:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

  I like the senses and usage examples, but don't we restrict "transitive" and "intransitive" to grammatical rather than semantic (in)transitivity? "Make friends" accepts as complement only a prepositional phrase headed by "with". Arguably make friends with is itself an idiom, as AHD (idioms), MWOnline, and RHU agree. Is it US? DCDuring TALK 10:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The with-less usage seems SOP to me; we say "make a friend", "make a new friend", "make a bunch of new friends", and so on, and this is just one instance of that. It should be documented at [[friend]]. The with-ful usage is trickier; semantically it doesn't have anything that's not implied in "make friends" (SOP) + "friends with" (cf. "become friends with", "be friends with"), but I don't totally understand the grammar. Create [[friends with]], weak create [[make friends with]], weak delete or redirect [[make friends]]. —Ruakh_TALK 14:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

From a quick search via gbooks, make friends used bare may predate use with prepositions (unto, of, with). "Riches may make friends many ways" appears in a 16thC proverb collection by John Heywood. — Pingku^dimmi 14:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

McGraw-Hill and AHD Idioms and WordNet have make friends. [[make friends]] could be a redirect to [[make friends]]. I'm not sure that a "with"-headed PP is really a complement rather than an adjunct, though it is by far the most common PP head after "make friends". DCDuring TALK 15:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, a "with"-headed PP is a complement of "friends", as in "I have been friends with her since childhood.". This argues for not having make friends with and making sure that we have the complementation at [[friends]] (not [[friend]] !). I have added usage examples at friends. Does it need a sense? If so, I cannot think of wording. DCDuring TALK 16:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you decide, don't delete both make friends and make friends with. --Hekaheka 11:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Current configuration of entries with my best efforts:
  1. New sense at [[friends]]. (which seems to me distinct from simple plural by strongly implying a two-way liking relationship).
  2. Redirect from [[friends with]] to [[friends]].
  3. Entry at [[make friends]]
  4. Redirect from [[make friends with]] to [[make friends]].

-- Review welcomed. DCDuring TALK 13:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

· I don't think that the sense that you added to [[friends]] is idiomatic, or at all different from the simple plural of friend. The two-way liking relationship can be just as strongly implied using the singular; if person A addresses person B as friend, or describes or refers to person B as his friend, then person B might object by saying, "I'm not your friend! I don't even like you!"; and if person C asks person B, "who's your friend?", then person B might object by saying, "He's not my friend! I don't even like him!" The grammatical roles are reversed, but the meaning is unchanged.
· I do think there's an idiomatic sense of friends: the sense that can be used with either a singular or a plural predicand, as in "I became friends with him in college" or "we became friends with them in college". (Your fourth example sentence exemplifies this sense, but it's not ideal: we really need examples with singular predicands, IMHO, for it to be clear why it's idiomatic.)
· Also, both of your examples that use "make friends", use it to mean "make friends with each other". I wasn't sure about that, and [[make friends]] implies that it doesn't exist, but it seemed plausible (since "we're friends" can mean "we're friends with each other"), so I searched Google Books. It does seem to exist, but it's quite rare compared to other uses; "we made friends right away", for example, does not get nearly as many hits as "I made friends right away", and even of the hits it does get, about a third mean "we immediately formed friendships with other people", not "we immediately formed a friendship with each other". So while I think we should edit [[make friends]] to indicate that this usage exists, I think it's too atypical to be a good choice for example sentences in other entries. I dunno.
—Ruakh_TALK 23:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

kept -- Liliana • 19:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

drab

My interpretation of erroneously placed {{rfgloss}}: Rfd-redundant: "(dated) A slut" seems redundant to following sense: "(dated) A lewd wench; a strumpet; a prostitute." DCDuring TALK 17:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• It's OK, for the relevant value of (deprecated template usage) slut, i.e. "untidy or dirty woman". I'll have a look at the entry. Ƿidsiþ 08:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

public library

Is it sum of parts? Does it mean anything beyond a library which is public? Note we have public school, though not public hospital or public park. ---> Tooironic 08:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

or public garden, which could merit entry --Boody Roody 21:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Public school is at least set aside by the possible difference in intonation. There are a lot of things to know about what makes a library public, the free borrowing of books principally, but I think this is covered by the meaning of public. Weak delete. DAVilla 16:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Technical term, see: w:Category:Types of library. --Chris Boston 05:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

This not Wikipedia. Wiktionary does not include terms which can be broken down into the sum of their parts. There are over 30 different "types" of library in that list, and I imagine most of them would not be includible here. ---> Tooironic 00:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want to read Wikipedia, grab a book. I recommend William John Murison: The public library: its origins, purpose, and significance as a social institution (London 1955). It's technical term. --Chris Boston 02:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary's Criteria for Inclusion does not look at technical terms, it looks at whether terms have meaning beyond the sum of their parts (apart from other things). How does this term mean anything beyond a "library" that is "public"? ---> Tooironic 14:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Start with the question: What is the meaning of "public"? Public funded or open to the public? Is a national library a public library? And what is the meaning of "literal translation" (Finnish) if "public library" is SoP? --Chris Boston 21:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

shot on goal

Looks spuriously like a shot on goal. Note, definition is incorrect, what it describes is a shot on target. A shot on goal (in the UK anyway) is just any shot at the opponent's goal. Accuracy doesn't matter. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it has a more particular meaning in ice hockey. It is one of the main statistics reported for a professional game thereof. DCDuring TALK 13:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the meaning in ice hockey in the States is a shot on a goal, even if it one of the main stats reported. It does have unusual structure (no article before goal); see [[WT:SURVIVOR#Once upon a time test]].​—msh210℠ (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

In baseball they have the games played statistic, I don't think we want an entry for that here, outside of appendices. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the unusual grammatical arrangement makes it worth keeping. bd2412 T 04:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

terracotta

Adjective: "made of terracotta". Is this really a separate sense? --Yair rand 22:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Not if I may decide. --Hekaheka 05:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's try what Ruakh has suggested before, and use empirical evidence to decide (on RFD, without resorting to RFV unless we have to). I've looked for modification by the adverb "very", one test, but Google Books only has examples like "Unmistakably, she is the same nude who appears on Old Babylonian cylinder seals often as an object, a figurine or the very terracotta plaque just described" (2006, Silvia Schroer, Images and Gender: contributions to the hermeneutics of reading, page 196), in which very is an adjective and terracotta is most plausibly a noun. Next I looked for modification by "too", but that, too, only turned up examples like "Here too, terracotta hearths and floor-levels were found" (1999 Robert Leighton, Sicily Before History, page 120). "Terracottaer" and "terracottaest" are not English words. Google Books has one example of "the most terracotta", but I think it's a scanno. Use with forms of "become" is more promising:

• 2011 February-March, Dan Cooper, Arts & Crafts Walls, in the Old-House Journal, volume 39, number 1, page 24:

  The designers softened them by selecting tertiary colors, so that green became olive, red became terracotta, yellow became ochre, and so on.

• 1996, Joseph Rykwert, The Dancing Column, page 352:

  [...] when it became terracotta and stone; [...]

The second quotation might still be use of the noun. The first quotation suggests a way of finding an adjective "terracotta" (though one meaning "terracotta-coloured", not "made of terracotta"): look for collocation with other colours.

• 2006, Elizabeth Moore, Than Swe, Early Walled Sties of Dawei, in Uncovering Southeast Asia's Past: selected papers from the 10th International Conference of the European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists, page 290:

  They are deep red or terracotta, yellow brown, milk white, cream, sky blue and dark blue in colour.

Thus, I think the existing adjective should be deleted, but I will add the attested adjective. - -sche (discuss) 21:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I have had similar experience in looking at noun-derived color adjectives. Only the rarest of color nouns are not also attestably adjectives in my experience. DCDuring TALK 23:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

county

Adjective. I don't think this is attestably used as an adjective in any way distinguishable from attributive use of county#Noun. DCDuring TALK 14:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's comparable, but it seems to be modified by the adverbs (deprecated template usage) purely and (deprecated template usage) solely. I've added citations. I think the usage notes belong with the noun, though. — Pingku^dimmi 15:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Focus adverbs (from which an anon removed [[solely]] by deleting the context/grammar tag), are not a discriminating test for this purpose, IMHO. DCDuring TALK 15:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Well, it didn't seem that great a test the first time. See your comments at WT:RFV#business. I'd like to know what the difference is, precisely. — Pingku^dimmi 16:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I can explain without risking violating CGEL's copyright. But, to see the problem, take a look at Google "strictly OR purely OR solely OR especially OR mainly Cadillac" (Books • Groups • Scholar). You can substitute most nouns and get some hits.

I'm trying to read up a bit on syntactic and lexicographical classes and may eventually be able to offer an explanation. DCDuring TALK 16:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

bang on

bang on#Preposition

Called a preposition. This would seem to be (deprecated template usage) bang (just added) + (deprecated template usage) on. Same problem as many multiword entries beginning with all and certain other adverbs. DCDuring TALK 11:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Though it can be re-expressed many ways using 'on' as the last word, I'm not sure how we can cover this in a way that makes this sum of parts. Examples include dead on, and smack on. In other words, I remain unconvinced. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

(deprecated template usage) Right is a fairly exact synonym for (deprecated template usage) bang in this usage. MWOnline doesn't seem to have any trouble. They use a non-gloss definition as they do for most simple prepositions: used as a function word to indicate a time frame during which something takes place <a parade on Sunday> or an instant, action, or occurrence when something begins or is done <on cue> <on arriving home, I found your letter> <news on the hour> <cash on delivery>. DCDuring TALK 13:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, one of the usage examples uses (deprecated template usage) on the dot which is itself an idiom even in the opinion of the editors of MWOnline (one of the least inclusive of MWEs). But perhaps someone can attest to the spelling (deprecated template usage) bangon and invoke WT:COALMINE. DCDuring TALK 13:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

By fixing attention on the time aspect of the preposition on, we seem to be ignoring staple phrases such as Bang on the nose. and Bang on target. Not to forget the simple exclamation Bang on!!. -- ALGRIF talk 14:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

(deprecated template usage) bang on is not part of this. BTW, it is not really an expression of emotion and thus not really an interjection by my lights. It is a colloquial ellipsis of a sentence and should probably be under the L3 header "Phrase".

I simply assumed that MG's problem with the definition of (deprecated template usage) on had to do with its temporal senses rather than its spatial senses. I usually find the physical sense of prepositions obvious, the spatial ones sometimes less so, and the more "grammatical" ones much, much less so. (deprecated template usage) on the nose and (deprecated template usage) on target are also themselves idioms. "Bang" seems to go well with other idiomatic (or nearly so) prepositional phrases like (deprecated template usage) to rights, (deprecated template usage) on the spot, (deprecated template usage) on the mark, and (deprecated template usage) in form. But it is also followed in its adverbial use by many other phrases headed by prepositions with spatial or other non-temporal senses such as "into", "opposite", "in line with", "in front of", "against", "next to", "onto", "over", "on top of". It is also occasionally followed by adverbs. To convince yourself you would probably need to avail yourself of the BNC. DCDuring TALK 18:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

bang on#Adjective

Isn't "bang on" also an adjective? If you say "My guess was bang on" you mean "My guess was correct".--Arthurvogel 08:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Er, yes. — Pingku^dimmi 13:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Um, are you sure? It seems largely NISoP to me as an adjective. See ["on" at MWOnline]. Our [[on#Adjective]] seems quite lame and inadequate.

"Bang on" seems to me mostly just more emotion-laden and unusual than other adverb-"on" collocations and so is more likely to be remembered. I suppose that such considerations are potentially relevant to inclusion, but they are not part of WT:CFI. DCDuring TALK 14:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think (deprecated template usage) on has a sense to fit the Las Vegas citation, where would seem to mean "appropriate" or "fitting." If you can demonstrate such a sense (apart from this collocation), I will defer. — Pingku^dimmi 03:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that is exactly the sense in the collocation "just not on". I'll be looking for it. DCDuring TALK 03:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that the same sense as in "spot on"? —Ruakh_TALK 03:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

By Jove, another bang-on contribution from Ruakh.

In "spot on" and "bang on", the sense seems the same. In "right on", the sense of on may be virtually identical, but my experience with the 60s and 70s usage makes the whole seem idiomatic. In each of these the stress seems to be on the first word of the expression. In "not on" the stress seems equal on each. I think that is a feature of collocations of "not" rather than evidence of some distinction of sense. All four seem related to the idea of "on target", "on point".

Many dictionaries have (deprecated template usage) right on. A few non-US dictionaries have both (deprecated template usage) spot on and (deprecated template usage) bang on. We and UD alone have (deprecated template usage) not on. DCDuring TALK 13:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Only Collins Pocket among OneLook references seems to have the right sense of on as adjective: "tolerable, practicable, or acceptable". DCDuring TALK 13:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

梗塞する

Tagged by Haplology on 5 March 2011, but not added here. FWIW, I disagree that this should be deleted. The term does appear to have some non-medical use, meaning "a blockage", in addition to its more specific medical sense of "infarction". -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 18:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As an amendment to my previous post, I would agree with simplifying this entry and referring users to the 梗塞 page as the main entry, as would be ideal for all [noun] + する constructions (equivalent to "do + [noun]" in English, like "do sports", but much more common in Japanese). -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 18:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

marriage counseling

User:Pilcrow nominated for deletion. Seems okay to me, but needs a lot of work. —Stephen ^(Talk) 02:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems like counseling for a marriage to me, I don't see how else a reader could interpret it. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it could be advising somebody to get married! Equinox ◑ 10:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

...or whom to marry, or how. Borderline... keep, I think.​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete, while it's hypothetically possible to misunderstand this term, I can't imagine anyone actually doing so. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Irish

Sense: "(as plural) The Irish people." Couldn't this be a sense of any adjective? Feed the hungry, read to the blind, etc. This is just the (sense #5) plus an adjective. Plus, take away the the and you get something awkward like "Irish have faced many hardships." Ultimateria 04:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It’s a plural noun. There are a lot of demonyms that have this pattern: the Irish, the English, the French, the Chinese, the Choctaw, the Cherokee, the Navajo...but, the Danes, the Russians, the Americans, the Germans, the Mexicans. I think the rule is that if the singular takes -man or -woman, as Irishman, Englishman, then the plural can take any of several forms: Irishmen, Irish people, or the Irish. The "regular" pattern does not take -man or -woman, and the plural doesn’t need people: a Dane, the Danes; a German, the Germans; an American, the Americans. Americans Indians seem to be a special case, and most tribal names are invariable and can refer to an individual or the whole nation: a Cherokee, the Cherokee; a Navajo, the Navajo. All of these are nouns, but adjectives can also be used: German people, Irish people, English children, Choctaw women, Danish men, American teenagers. —Stephen ^(Talk) 07:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't completely agree with Stephen, but I find "many Irish immigrated" much more acceptable than ?"feeds many hungry" or *"reads to many blind" (the latter seems out-and-out ungrammatical, actually, though it may be citeable per the CFI; here's one use), so I think it may be worth covering this sense as a plural-only noun even if it's still technically just an adjective. (That said, if we do keep it, we need to improve the def. "Many Irish immigrated" doesn't mean "many the Irish people immigrated".) —Ruakh_TALK 11:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Your three examples all sound very wrong to my ears. the nomination sounds about right. But if cites say Irish is used as in feeds many hungry, then I suppose we should keep. Or at least if it's widely used that way.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Like Stephen, I would analyse it as a noun, but that may be under the influence of German, where the division is clear (die studierende und die trinkende Menschen sind..., die Studierende sind...). It passes the lemming test, however; dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage Dictionary all analyse it as a noun meaning roughly "inhabitants of Ireland". Notably, Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster include descendants: "the inhabitants of Ireland and their descendants elsewhere", "natives or inhabitants of Ireland or their descendants especially when of Celtic speech or culture". - -sche (discuss) 18:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

attack dog

A dog for attack.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm I thought this was an idiom but Wikipedia says "An attack dog is any dog bred, trained or used for the purpose of attacking a target either on command or on sight." which backs up what msh210 says. Our Wiktionary definition says "A specialized police or security dog", which contradicts Wikipedia, which says the definition of attack dogs including dog fighting (that is dog-on-dog, not planes!) Mglovesfun (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, our definition didn't say that at the time of nomination. As you note, WP says it's wrong anyway. Most cites for "attack dog" do seem to be in the context of security, but not all.​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep and add the sense of a person who engages in rhetorical attacks on behalf of another. See, e.g.:

• 2001, Mark Jaffe, The Gilded Dinosaur, p. 146:

  It was, however, as Charles Darwin's alter ego, an attack dog for the theory of evolution, that Huxley gained his greatest notoriety.

Cheers! bd2412 T 15:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep, want to add translations like Kampfhund (literally "fight dog") Mutante 22:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep both the literal sense and metaphorical place about people instead of dogs Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 01:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

back-

Prefix. Sense: Situated, located, or toward the rear; backward or in reverse; in return; again.

The words using this purported prefix would seem to actually be compounds formed from back#Adverb. backbite is from back#Noun (ahistorically, anyway). (deprecated template usage) backfriend might be from the other, unchallenged sense of back-. DCDuring TALK 02:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we remove the first sense, leaving only the second, wouldn't that cause confusion? Especially for words like (deprecated template usage) backfill? Leasnam 04:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

What about backformation, backdating, and others like them, indicating reversal in time? bd2412 T 04:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

All of those seem to be formed by compounding of the adverb to me. Is everyone really sure that even the "backfriend" instance is not a compound. Does "back" have a similar extended meaning to that sense of "back-" with the same dialectal distribution?

How is it less confusing to suggest that back- is a prefix? We could always remedy the "confusion" by adding a usage note or directing users to back#Adverb in some way analogous to {{&lit}}. DCDuring TALK 13:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

(deprecated template usage) back-friend doesn't seem to be limited to the sense of "false friend". Some scholars seem to think it is derived from back#Noun and spell it without a hyphen. A synonym would be shoulder-clapper, "arresting officer".

I believe this may be another etymology (not shown at the entry), where backfriend = "a friend who's got your back". Quite the opposite meaning to false friend. Leasnam 16:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Are there any other instances of a term derived using "back-" in the sense of "false"? There may be another way of avoiding all this confusion. DCDuring TALK 14:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I would say that backdate implies not only putting an earlier date on something, but in some cases doing so for purposes of falsification. For example, an author might backdate a manuscript in order to claim that his writing came before someone else. bd2412 T 19:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

But it isn't the back- part of the word that carries that meaning. The word backdate means merely "to put an earlier date on"; the fact that people often do so for fraudulent reasons isn't part of the meaning of the word, and certainly isn't part of the morphology of the word. —Angr 20:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

poor white trash

I'm having trouble considering this an idiom. Isn't it just white trash preceded immediately by the word poor? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

WordNet and RHU have it. It might be a set phrase. DCDuring TALK 11:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Chambers has it too, under trash: "(also called white trash or poor white trash) poor whites, esp in the southern US". Equinox ◑ 14:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete this is a sentence.Gtroy 10:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Where's the verb? SemperBlotto 10:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

multiply

Rfd-redundant: Same as #2. --The Evil IP address 17:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep. 5 is intransitive, 2 is transitive. DCDuring TALK 17:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps merge them and use the ambitransitive gloss...? Equinox ◑ 17:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the need. Keep.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

playing in

This is really just the present participle of play in, which in this case is sum of parts anyway. In baseball you can also play back, that is, not as close. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

dating

Sense "A form of romantic courtship typically between two individuals ..." — Looks like this is probably the gerund. The definition as it stands seems overly detailed. No plural was claimed; I added that for the other (cited) senses. — Pingku^dimmi 14:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted as redundant to the infinitive at (deprecated template usage) date. Although there is a plural, datings, it is found in phrases like "radiocarbon datings" and apparently never in this romantic sense. Equinox ◑ 14:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It comes down to whether gerunds, when acting as nouns as they do, should be forbidden from Wiktionary as nouns. My position has been that what acts as a noun should be documented as a noun, hence keep. As regards the alleged redundancy, you might also say that "fairness" is redundant to "fair" and that "fairness" is a form of adjective. See also Wiktionary:English -ing forms and Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2010/September#CFI for -ing form nouns and adjectives in particular. --Dan Polansky 18:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I find it very hard to accept any reasoning built on a general principle that has the following implications:

1. all Proper nouns should have full sections for Proper noun, common noun, and adjective, subject only to attestation.
2. (deprecated template usage) uncle should be have a verb section because Shakespeare(in a "well-known work") used it as a verb.
3. all terms attestably used as exclamations should have interjections.
4. all common nouns should have adjective sections and definition lines for each sense subject only to attestation.

But that's just me. Perhaps others find such a principle desirable and would enjoy participating in the effort to attest and maintain such sections. Or perhaps the problem is in reasoning arguing from slogans. DCDuring TALK 20:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

"Fairness is a form of adjective"? You've lost me. That definitely has nothing to do with the point I made. Equinox ◑ 20:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

@Equinox: If "dating" in "Dating is a form of courtship" is a form of verb, then I do not see what prevents "fairness" from being a form of adjective. While I admit that you did not say that "dating" is a form of verb, I understood your "I think it ['dating' in the particular sense] should be deleted as redundant to the infinitive at date" as your implying that the sense of "dating" requested for deletion is redundant to dating#Verb. In any case, I do not think we should delete "fairness" as redundant to "fair", whereas having no major entry for "fairness" is a strategy chosen by Merriam-Webster online. --Dan Polansky 08:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Constructions like "online dating" and "speed dating" make this seem nounier than many gerunds. (By comparison, note that "online communication" is fine, while ?"online communicating" is pretty bad; that "speed chess" is fine, while ?"speed playing" is pretty bad. That said, the pretty-bad ones do get some relevant hits, so if we refuse on principle to distinguish between a phrase with three cites and a phrase with hundreds, then all gerunds are created equally nouny.) —Ruakh_TALK 00:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Compare swimming#Noun, rowing#Noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep: widely accepted phrase that often goes above and beyond going on dates. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 01:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

accelerando

Adjective. (music) There is also a noun section. I doubt that this can be shown behave as a true adjective. DCDuring TALK 22:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

overseas Chinese

outland Germans

Renominating based on Talk:overseas Chinese. In my opinion, in the single worst outcome of an RFD debate that I've seen. Can be attested in parallel forms such as overseas Irish - heck overseas Catholics and overseas Muslims are also attested. It's not even limited to nationalities! Mglovesfun (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, regarding it being a translation or equivalent of "华侨": compare "overseas Germans" / "Germans abroad", and especially "outland Germans", the most direct calque of "Auslandsdeutsche". - -sche (discuss) 18:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I am considering adding outland Germans (which I just created) to this RFD. It is distinguished from "overseas Chinese", however, in that it uses a sense of "outland" only used (AFAICT) in two other places, both of which are also calques: a calque of a Danish phrase, and calques of 华侨! "Overseas Chinese", on the other hand, uses a sense of "overseas" that can be used with every other nationality/ethnicity, and even, like Mglovesfun points out, with religions. I just added the sense to [[overseas]]. - -sche (discuss) 20:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I asked my wife (who is overseas Chinese) and she just shrugged and said "It's two words; putting it together doesn't make a new word". bd2412 T 19:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of outland Germans, but looking up outland it seems to be "foreign, from abroad" and Germans of course means more than one German, so it's SOP and easily decodable from its parts (as I've just decoded it). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Technically (and importantly), it's not "foreign, from abroad", but rather "native (not foreign) but living abroad". But note that sense of "outland" is (AFAICT) only used in three unrelated calques, thus I ask if we should have a sense of "outland", or only the three complete calques. - -sche (discuss) 23:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"Outland" would itself be more of a calque (of German Ausland) than natural-sounding English. Isn't expat the term generally used for such phrases? -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 23:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

same-sex marriage

Keep it is in Merriam Webster, Oxford, Black's Law, and American Heritage, and widely used in print.not making this up.Gtroy 09:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete as nothing more than same-sex + marriage. --Mglovesfun (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry are you saying that it doesn't matter that it is in every major English language dictionary because it falls under the technicality sum of parts? This doesn't make any sense to me.Gtroy 09:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

WT:CFI. — [Ric Laurent] — 19:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

In any case (not that it matters to Wiktionary which is not a mirror), the claim that it is "in every major English language dictionary" is clearly false unless you mean as part of an example or a citation. The phrase appears in the Oxford English Dictionary only under a cite for reconstructionist, not as an entry. Dbfirs 09:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Not according to the source I listed. And it appears in my Websters paperback.Gtroy 09:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You are mis-reading your source. It talks about the definition of the word marriage. Please read carefully. Dbfirs 07:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

How do the two of you know you are talking about the same dictionary? Exact title, date, and, publisher or ISBN would help. DCDuring TALK 14:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the dictionary, but to the listed source which is on-line. I'd be interested to see the exact wording of the Webster's paperback. Dbfirs 12:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep (weakly): for the sake of translations. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

traditional marriage

Unlike #gay marriage, same-sex marriage seems entirely SOP. Traditional marriage is possibly also SOP. - -sche (discuss) 22:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Given the cultural single-mindedness of "traditional marriage" (which isn't traditional in places that practice marriage with more than 2 participants, or in places where the parents pick the partners, places where marriage is more about business than love, etc.) I can see how traditional marriage could be argued to not be SOP, but really I don't care whether we have this entry or not, so I won't vote. — [Ric Laurent] — 22:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point. We should probably keep traditional marriage with a usage note (or at least context tags). - -sche (discuss) 23:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep, polysci term, frequently used in journalism.Gtroy 10:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant to CFI. A phrase's frequent use in journalism does not stop it from being a sum of parts. — [Ric Laurent] — 11:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep as antonym of #gay marriage. This term is commonly used by opponents of gay marriage. --The Evil IP address 14:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not a vote.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Common use of the term by opponents of gay marriage would probably encompass a heterosexual marriage where the spouses lived in different parts of the country, each had been divorced five times before, and had seven live-in mistresses, as long as the legally recognized marriage itself was legally between one male and one female. Conversely, it would exclude a lifelong marriage between two males which was otherwise mundane and indistinguishable from any puritan marital relationship. bd2412 T 16:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I suspect it means only "a marriage that's traditional" (according to whatever connotation of traditional is relevant in the context in which it's said). If someone's talking about homosexuality, traditional marriage may well mean heterosexual marriage, but I doubt it would mean that if someone were to say "Bruce and Percy plan to have an open marriage, but I want a traditional marriage". Delete.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Oddly, same-sex marriage was listed here but not tagged. I've tagged it now. Delete.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's no sense at traditional to match with "established between two people of the opposite sex", so until we have one, or until then part of traditional marriage is removed, this isn't SoP. --Mglovesfun (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you could be opening a hideous can of worms on that one. "established between two people of the opposite sex" would only apply to the word marriage in places where marriages are established between two heterosexual people of opposite sex. I don't think you'd believe it to be wise to add a sense for traditional for every world tradition, right? — [Ric Laurent] — 11:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I bothered to look up a couple of citations which use the term traditional marriage outside of a LGBT context:

1. 1972, LIFE: Volume 73, Number 20, p. 59:

   Some married couples answered jointly, as did some unmarried couples who live together. Six hundred readers wrote letters to expand on the answers they had checked. Though there were some important exceptions, the responses, taken together, amount to a sober, often enthusiastic, sometimes angry defense of traditional marriage in America.

2. 2006, Tamo Mibang, M. C. Behera, Marriage and culture: reflections from tribal societies of Arunachal Pradesh, p. 276:

   With the changing face of the society, new ways like hosting party for social recognition have been incorporated into marriage celebration. However, even if a marriage party is hosted in a most modern way, still the customary practices are carried on side by side and the traditional marriage essence is maintained.

3. 2008, Kristina LaCelle-Peterson, Liberating Tradition: Women's Identity and Vocation in Christian Perspective, (no page numbers):

   Further, these varied practices have changed over time, even across the many cultures and centuries in which the biblical texts were written. Most notably polygamy, which figures prominently in early Old Testament stories, disappears from view in the New Testament. But we tend to read our own ways of doing things back to our ancestors, and so we assume that our version of traditional marriage is something lifted straight out of the Bible.

From these examples, it seems obvious that this term is just traditional + marriage. delete -- Liliana • 11:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Those are sum of parts, from india, from the 70s, before the idiomatic counterargument term to gay marriage took off.Gtroy 01:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Uh Troy, only one of those is from the 70s. The second two are from within the past 5 years. The one from the 70s wasn't from India, the one from 2006 is. — [Ric Laurent] — 11:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I understood Gtroy to mean that one of the cites was from the seventies (and therefore inapplicable to the current discussion), and another of the cites was from India (and therefore inapplicable to the current discussion). Certainly the 1970s definition of "traditional marriage" has been superseded by events. In current usage, the couple who lived together for years before getting married and engaged in spouse-swapping afterwards would still be a deemed a "traditional marriage" so long as one was male and the other female. Conversely, a homosexual couple who in every respect conducts themselves as a couple in a traditional marriage would have in 1972 are still not deemed to have a "traditional marriage". The third citation actually supports the notion that "traditional marriage" is not marriage that is "traditional", but is instead marriage that conforms to cerain political views of the moment. bd2412 T 12:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• If we have this as an entry, wouldn't we need to have all attestable senses? Isn't (deprecated template usage) traditional a deictic word whose reference depends on context. I would argue that it is ad little like a pronoun or words like (deprecated template usage) this, (deprecated template usage) that, or (deprecated template usage) such in this regard. The denotation of traditional would seem to be about the same in all cases: "observant of (some) tradition", the specific tradition being dependent on context. For example, someone might well mean a heterosexual marriage that involved a stay-at-home care-giving mother rather than a two-earner-cum-nanny arrangement, or a marriage without open adultery vs an "open marriage", or a marriage of spouses of child-bearing age rather than a marriage of eighty-year olds.

Then there are all the deixes involving the "wedding" sense of (deprecated template usage) marriage.

I suppose that if we are all bored with lexicography (building a dictionary), we could get into the analysis of texts in areas of topical interest and list all kinds of meanings of collocations of all kinds. DCDuring TALK 14:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Have politicians in earlier eras gone to the stump to declare their support for "traditional marriage" in front of crowds who agreed based on a specific subtext being given to the phrase? I don't recall seeing this specific phrase used in the rhetoric of the debates against interracial marriage, or even against cohabitation outside of marriage (having also been illegal at times). bd2412 T 19:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

inocubate

I believe this is just a rare mis-spelling of incubate. A month ago, someone added it to Webster's list of protologisms, but I cannot find any real usages. The only three usages in Google Books are clearly just errors. Dbfirs 17:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I see GB results for inocubate, inocubating, inocubated, inocubation... I just friggin hate doing book citations, ugh.... — [Ric Laurent] — 17:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me where I can find them. All of the results that I came up with were either scannos or spelling mistakes. There are many hits in Google Books for "inocubated" but, as far as I can ascertain, they are all scannos for "inoculated". Please add inocubates, inocubated and inocubating to my suggestions for deletion. Fortunately we don't have inocubation yet. Dbfirs 17:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't look that closely, I have a tiny laptop that's slow as hell. Is what you're saying that when you go to the actual viewer to look at the pages that the words that the search reports as inocubat* actually appear as inoculat*? — [Ric Laurent] — 19:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have a similar problem with an inadequate internet connection, so cannot do extensive research, and I don't have access to the original books, but all of the hits that I found clearly meant either "incubat*" or "inoculat*". Looking at a few "pictures", they seem to be typos rather than scannos. If anyone can find a genuine usage, I would be happy to revise my view. Dbfirs 19:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I checked Usenet. A couple hits were using the string of letters in the wrong temporal tense and with a different meaning, suggesting that they were misspelling some other word, but I have found one hit that seems to use the term to mean "incubate". - -sche (discuss) 19:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that could have meaning if the surrounding text explained the method, but I believe that it is just an error and should have read "incubate" and that the "o" slipped in by accident. Dbfirs 20:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Move to rfv? Mglovesfun (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I originally put it there, then decided that there wasn't much point in trying to verify a spelling mistake or typo. If anyone can find even one actual clear usage that is not an error, I'm happy to restore the word to rfv. Dbfirs 12:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Fat and Skinny

From RFV. There are three quotations which use the phrase on the citations page, but no consensus was reached on whether they verified the term or not, or on whether the term was SOP or not. - -sche (discuss) 18:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Laurel and Hardy

From RFV. There are four quotations which use the phrase on the citations page, but no consensus was reached on whether they verified the term or not. See also WT:RFV#Mona Lisa. - -sche (discuss) 18:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

overtype mode

Redundant to overtype. Equinox ◑ 13:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Right: SOP, delete.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please explain. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The mode in which overtype ("A feature in wordprocessing whereby each typed character replaces the character after the cursor rather than being inserted before it") is in effect, or, in other words, the mode of overtype. Like any other non-count noun followed by a count noun to form a single noun. (Configuration settings, stenography school, etc.) SOP. Incidentally, should the computing sense of mode be sub "Etymology 2"? (It's currently not.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

free morpheme

It's free + morpheme. Note the existence of google books:"morpheme is free" (not to mention all the hits with intervening words). I've now added this sense to our entry [[free]].​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Also see google books:"free or|and unbound|bound morpheme|morphemes" OR "free or|and an|a unbound|bound morpheme", "bound or|and free morpheme|morhemes" OR "bound or|and a free morpheme".​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep per my arguments from Talk:free variable. An aside: all the hits with intervening words has 17 hits, as is apparent when I press "next" to get to the page 2. --Dan Polansky 08:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep : SIL lists it as a linguistic term [6]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 07:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • But msh210 is not challenging its existence, he's challenging it's includability. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete The required sense of (deprecated template usage) free is now present. Its really nice that folks use concepts to generate possible lexical entries, but it seems amateurish or lazy lexicography to simply assume that the multiple words for a concept constitute an entry. This is an illustration of why inclusion in glossaries may not be a reliable basis for inclusion here. We are a still a dictionary, aren't we? If we need to simply accommodate the overwhelming tide of sloppy lexicography, we will be a lesser dictionary for it, sliding down the spectrum toward Urban Dictionary. DCDuring TALK 13:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

    You can say this morpheme is free, but isn’t it because of the existence of the term free morpheme? If you just say nouns are free, that would be incomprehensible. Compounds allow splitting, such as The demon I am talking about is Maxwell’s, not Laplace’s, which doesn’t mean the existence of the adjectives Maxwell’s or Laplace’s. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

    But you also find things like "in English cats, cat is free" and "un- is bound; happy is free".​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

    In both books, they first use the terms free morpheme and bound morpheme. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

אשה

Rfd-redundant: "Each (woman)". Doubtless this is a reference to things like (Exodus 3:22)

Template:Hebr ― "But every woman shall borrow" (KJV)

But that's how singular nouns work in (at least Biblical) Hebrew. The same use can be found for (deprecated template usage) אִישׁ (Num. 31:49, Template:Hebr ― "and not one is missing" (NIV)), (deprecated template usage) בַּיִת (Maimonides, Template:Hebr ― "A house, closed, that the corpse is within" (my own translation)), and doubtless, many other nouns. (It is, in fact, how singular nouns work in English, also. "A house that a corpse is within" means "Any house that a corpse is within", the difference from Hebrew being that in English that's inherent in (deprecated template usage) a (and IMO deserves a separate sense there (we lack it currently)), whereas Hebrew has no indefinite article.) I think this is not worth a separate sense at Template:Hebr (or any other Hebrew noun).​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I would have assumed that that sense was referring to the usage of Template:Hebr to mean "each woman", such that one of the ishá-s means "woman" and the other, I suppose, means "each (woman)". (I don't remember ever encountering that usage, but I'm certain it must exist, since Template:Hebr, as I'm sure you know, means "each man".) —Ruakh_TALK 18:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Perhaps so. (I, too, don't recall ever having heard of such a duplication of Template:Hebr.) Even so, I doubt it's a sense of Template:Hebr meaning "every". More likely IMO it's either (a) some feature of Hebrew I'm unfamiliar with outside of Template:Hebr but whihc actually exists more generally or (b) worthy of a definition at Template:Hebr (and Template:Hebr if attested) but not at the unreduplicated forms.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. (Even if this does exist more generally, we should probably have Template:Hebr, as the seeming sole survivor of this construction into Modern Hebrew.) —Ruakh_TALK 20:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added the sense to [[a]].​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hand of God

Sure this is an inclusible term? -- Liliana • 03:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete, encyclopedic. Or should we add the Holy Roller? bd2412 T 03:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. The term was Maradona's excuse for the goal, not the goal itself, but in any case this would still be encyclopdic.--Dmol 21:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

When asked about the goal, Maradona said that he did it "un poco con la cabeza y un poco con la mano de Dios" , i.e. "a bit with the head and a bit with the hand of God", which means that he thinks he was lucky. Since then, the goal has been known as "hand of God goal". In this context "hand of God" looks more like an adjective than a noun. Anyway, I'm for delete.--Hekaheka 05:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Sort of. I don't see how this is different from World War II so I'll go for a very, very weak delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

keep. I've heard this being used in football. With good enough searching, this is surely valid, with a change of meaning, adding Maradona's quote to etymology. The definition could be "a deliberate handball, especially one to score a goal or save a goal" --Rockpilot 20:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That definition would definitely require some quotes:

1. AFAIK, the words refer to a specific goal in a specific game, not any goal made in a similar way.
2. There was no handball involved. The word "hand" refers to the invisible hand of God. Maradona pushed the goal with his head.

   --Hekaheka 02:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep: and hasn't "Hand of God" been used for a number of other fateful or fortuitous events, to the point that there could be a second definition vis-a-vis any fateful or fortuitous event? Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 02:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You are probably right, just provide the citations that prove your point! If you are right , Maradona's famous statement becomes just one example of usage. I proposed deletion because I believe the current definition is wrong or at least not properly cited. There's no proof that Maradona's famous goal would ever have been referred to as Hand of God but rather as Hand of God goal, which we luckily do not have. --Hekaheka 06:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

mediocer

Moved from RfV. It was questioned whether this misspelling should be kept.

I vote keep, it is a likely error for someone who is used to type er in all other words (i. e. most Americans). Case in point for the longest time I used the erroneous spelling massacer. -- Liliana • 16:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. We have no evidence for the existing sense (a valid though obsolete spelling of mediocre), and some evidence against it (see Ruakh's comment at the RfV). It doesn't seem a common enough spelling mistake to warrant inclusion, with only 87,400 Google hits, versus 42,200,000 for "mediocre". For comparison, looking at the occured/occurred example given in the CFI, "occured" gets 111 million Google hits, even more than the 78 million hits for the correct spelling "occurred". --Avenue 08:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. The Google Ngram Viewer shows that "mediocer" was never anywhere near as common as "mediocre" — its highest popularity, relative to "mediocre", was around 1:1000 (0.1%) — but it seems to be very obsolete. It looks like "mediocre" first became relatively common in the 1920s (though its popularity has dropped somewhat since then), and "mediocer" spiked in the 1930s before dying out. (This sort of pattern makes sense if you think about it: a relatively obscure word suddenly became relatively popular, and people tried to use it who didn't have much experience with it yet, and therefore weren't sure how it was spelled. Over time, as it remained common, people became more familiar with it, and therefore were less likely to misspell it.) So, I think "mediocer" was always a misspelling. Nonetheless, I don't really see much harm in keeping it as an obsolete spelling, or put another way, I don't really see much point in distinguishing between obsolete spellings and obsolete misspellings, as long as they're not too rare. —Ruakh_TALK 03:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Addendum. I should mention that the Google Ngram Viewer only indexes books — and maybe periodicals and such, but still, edited works. The proportions in the 1930s equivalent of Usenet might have been quite different; and on present-day Google Groups, the ratio in raw hits is a still bit more than 1:1000 (not that I set much store by raw Google-hits of any stripe), which is much, much higher than the Google Ngram Viewer would have suggested. —Ruakh_TALK 03:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep as an obsolete (mis)spelling per Ruakh, perhaps with a usage note. I don't think we can distinguish obsolete spellings from obsolete misspellings, if they're used consistently in at least three works. - -sche (discuss) 03:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

foreign

As noun, "foreigner". The (non-durably archived) citation shows the kind of "fused-head" construction that is possible in principle for every sense of every English adjective. To keep such things would mean adding a noun sense for every sense of every adjective not derived from a noun. DCDuring TALK 22:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Move to rfv, if it exists, keep it. Otherwise, don't. --Mglovesfun (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

And yet we have a noun sense at (deprecated template usage) poor. (Isn't foreign as a noun often a deliberately facetious parody of ignorance? "I 'ate them foreigns.") Equinox ◑ 20:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I would RFV except I can already see that Google Books shows the noun in genuine use. DAVilla 06:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Cyrillic alphabet

Cyrillic script

These are sum-of-parts, examples of the normal use of the adjective (deprecated template usage) Cyrillic. —Michael Z. 2011-09-22 04:43 z

keep both are really common, a new speaker or child would find it useful. i recall seeing these terms in dictionaries as well.Gtroy 23:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Convert to an {{only in}} pseudo-entry directing users to WP. DCDuring TALK 00:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete, it's not a question of how common these are, but a question of if they are difficult to understand from Cyrillic + alphabet (or + script). --Mglovesfun (talk) 08:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

These are synonyms - Cyrillic = Cyrillic alphabet = Cyrillic script. In many languages translated as one word. I think Cyrillic is only used in these combinations, cf. Roman (e.g. Roman empire). Keep. Also, I feel sorry for my work on translations, if anybody cares. --Anatoli 06:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete both per nom. (Or, I suppose, convert to "only in" per DCDuring, but I don't really see the point.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

cycle per second

Looks sum of parts to me: cycle + per + second. -- Liliana • 21:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

To me too. Delete. DCDuring TALK 00:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Ditto, assuming it's used only for things that can be called cycles.​—msh210℠ (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

In the Netherlands on a busy day you can see at least one cycle per second pass by. :) —CodeCat 12:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete: it might be a specific (obsolete) unit of measure, but we don't even have entries for the modern ones (metre per second) and I think (deprecated template usage) per explains what is going on. Equinox ◑ 21:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete. DAVilla 06:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Broken Britain

The two cites given spell this term in lowercase. This gives me severe doubts on the idiomaticity of this term. -- Liliana • 21:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit of a political catchphrase right now. I wonder if this weren't alliterative would we even consider including this, e.g. would we speedy delete Broken Ireland of Broken France? --Mglovesfun (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I added this entry and can't really remember why. I can assure you it's been a big catchphrase in UK newspapers in recent years, though, with the capitalisation you'd prefer to see. Equinox ◑ 21:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

not so great

Sum of parts. You can also write not so good, not so wonderful etc. and it'll have the same meaning. -- Liliana • 20:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

But we might need not so. "I'm not so great" doesn't seem to be an antonym of "I'm great", which suggests a lack of SoPness. But delete this, naturally. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Suppose the not so entry might have merit. Equinox ◑ 11:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

eru tygum

I have to admit I have no knowledge of Faroese, but this doesn't seem particularly idiomatic to me: eru and tygum seem to cover the definition given adequately. -- Liliana • 01:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

menstrual blood

Seems pretty SOP to me. Our definitions of menstrual and menses are mutually pathetic, though. — [Ric Laurent] — 17:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's menstrual (menses-related) + blood. Seeing that it probably comes from the uterus is not a great leap. Delete. Equinox ◑ 20:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete, if you can work out the sense from menstrual + blood, we don't need it. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Technically, it's not actually blood in the usual sense (though it does contain some blood); but that should be addressed by adding an appropriate sense at [[blood]]. As for this entry — it's like the "adjective noun" entries I recently started a discussion about at the Beer parlour, except that there it's an adjective-specific sense of the noun rather than vice versa. The discussion there leaves me very unsure about how to know which such entries are worth keeping . . . —Ruakh_TALK 21:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think of menstrual blood as describing the blend of blood and endometrial matter. I separate them in my brain, but I don't know whether doctors do. I know in layspeak they're inseparable, but do layspeak versions of actual medical jargon warrant inclusion when the medical term is SOP? (note that at no point am I likely to weigh in on that question, just putting it out there) — [Ric Laurent] — 12:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe that "menstrual blood" has the same meaning both in medical use and in lay use: it always refers to the menstrual fluid as a whole, and never refers specifically to its sanguinary component as you suggest. (The common phrase "menstrual blood loss" does refer specifically to the loss of normal-sense-of-blood, but that's because it's "menstrual {blood loss}" rather than "{menstrual blood} loss".) —Ruakh_TALK 18:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

chalk

Rfd-redundant: "Template:uncountable A white powdery substance used to prevent hands slipping from holds when climbing." AFAIK climbers use actual chalk when climbing, as do wrestlers use it when wrestling, gymnasts when performing. Isn't this really a way of using chalk rather than a definition for it? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

And players of snooker etc. use it on the cue. The question is whether climbers' chalk is actually chalk (in the mineral sense). I do not know. Equinox ◑ 22:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be magnesium carbonate not calcium carbonate [[7]] Fugyoo 23:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

In snooker, it normally refers to the little cube of blue material, rather than the material itself. SemperBlotto 06:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Is that a separate sense, one that has a plural ("there are three chalks on the rack")?​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It's uncountable, but none of our definitions seems to cover it right now. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a different sense. Note that, in French, it's called magnésie, not craie (= chalk). Lmaltier 16:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, different especially because it's not always the same material. Keep. DAVilla 06:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

error-ridden

User:Rockpilot points out that this is SOP. Isn't it? - -sche (discuss) 18:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• error, ridden. Primary meaning of the first term, only meaning of the second (although a baseball game where many "errors" are committed would also properly be described as "error-ridden". Classic SOP. Keep anyway, as it is usually spoken without a pause between the words. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  • So is nail infection.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination and bd2412.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Nail-infection? bd2412 T 22:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
    • and I quote "it is usually spoken without a pause between the words". Mglovesfun (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
      • I'll modify that. It is a common hyphenated term that is usually spoken without a pause between the words. It may be SOP, but it is much closer to the edge of what differentiates individual words. bd2412 T 01:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

have a mountain to climb

I don't think this is really an idiom, but a metaphor instead. ---> Tooironic 09:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. From google:"have a mountain to climb" and google books:"have a mountain to climb", this seems a common expression, one that, when rendered word-for-word in Czech in order to mean "To be faced with a difficult task or challenge", sound weird and non-native, and may not even be understood. The term is attestable, and it is not a semantic sum of parts. --Dan Polansky 07:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete. It looks like a mere multi-word metaphor to me. Moreover it is a live metaphor that can be reworded in various ways. I wonder whether it is the translation of any English expression of the general grammatical construction that would seem "weird and non-native", ie, "have a NP to V", eg "have a car to sell". DCDuring TALK 11:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you voting outside of CFI? Or are you saying that the term in question is a semantic sum of parts? Great many idiomatic expressions are metaphors, including "add fuel to the fire"; being a metaphor does not make a term exclusion-worthy. --Dan Polansky 15:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep, and furthermore I would personally assert that DCDuring's delete vote is despite WT:CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What part ? DCDuring TALK 14:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

leash up

This is nothing more than (deprecated template usage) leash + (deprecated template usage) up. DCDuring TALK 11:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Which sense of 'up'? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Possibly just an intensifier, but MWOnline offers a few other possibilities among the 23 other senses and subsenses (and subsubsenses) they offered. DCDuring TALK 18:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

pendant ce temps-là

looks SOP to me --Rockpilot 14:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So it means "during this time there"? —Stephen ^(Talk) 16:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Best to avoid translating SoP. For example the French term for red box is boîte rouge, and it doesn't mean 'box red' but that doesn't mean that therefore it's includable. For this one, yeah it's SoP and the definition isn't really right, it really means 'during this time' rather than 'meanwhile', though if you take 'meanwhile' to mean 'during a given time' I suppose they could be equivalent, hence both correct. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Kinda, it does mean "during this time there". Having thought more, we are missing a French entry for -là (and -ci) which would be very useful. I'll investimagate. --Rockpilot 19:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

boîte rouge is truly SoP and even the most amateur French student would make "red box" of it, and not "box red". The SoP translation of boîte rouge is "red box". This is not comparable to an SoP translation of pendant ce temps-là, which will not yield the correct meaning no matter how diddle with the word order. SoP means that if you translate the phrase word-by-word into English, then a reasonable English-speaker should be able to get the meaning from it. Nobody would be able to turn "during this time there" into meanwhile or in the mean time. —Stephen ^(Talk) 12:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

In reponse to your question, yes it means "during this time there". Mglovesfun (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

or "during that time". Seems fairly SoP to me. Fugyoo 19:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, in terms of numbers, on Google Books this gets 266 000 hits, "durant ce temps-là" gets 18 000, much less but still a heck of a lot, "pendant ce moment-là" 399 hits. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The common phrase is pendant ce temps. pendant ce temps-là is a familiar variant. I think that both are set phrases worth inclusion, despite the fact that they can be understood easily. Otherwise, where would you explain what I just explained? Lmaltier 17:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

go live

Rfd-sense: (broadcasting) To commence a live broadcast.. Looks like go + live to me. -- Liliana • 19:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Rfd-sense: Sole other sense: "To make some system, which had been under development or operating in a limited test mode, fully active so that its intended users can access it."

Unsurprisingly, our entry for live#Adjective lacks a dozen senses, including one, present in most competing on-line dictionaries, that makes this definition SoP. DCDuring TALK 22:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete, straightforward, uncomplicated. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

2^n-bit

128-bit

This is a series that can potentially be continued ad infinitum, cf. google books:"256-bit", google books:"1024-bit", google books:"32768-bit", and potentially any other power of 2 + -bit. We should probably have an entry on -bit, though. -- Liliana • 19:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Totally agree. delete all as pure SOP. An analogy I could see is 12-year-old or 5-wheel. No need for -bit either, [[bit]] suffices. --Rockpilot 22:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What RockPilot just said, delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

(Well, two-wheeled passed!) While 32-bit and above are technical, I would note that 8- and 16-bit are often used to describe the video games etc. of that era, e.g. (from Google) "Kind of 8-bit Music played on an Acoustic Guitar", "folks who've used 16-bit style graphics". Whether that makes them worth an entry is dubious. Equinox ◑ 09:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

8-bit is definitely not SOP, because it refers to things that aren't necessarily in 8 bits at all, such as 8-bit art and music. —CodeCat 13:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

In which case it is missing one or more definitions. -- Liliana • 18:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think -bit needs an entry because it's just bit attached to some other word by normal English hyphenation rules. Equinox ◑ 23:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete: sum of parts. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete except 8-bit obviously. (Struck.) DAVilla 06:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

overworld map

Rfd-sense: (video games) a map of the overworld. Definition says all. -- Liliana • 18:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete and I might dispute the other sense, since I think "map" in general can be used in this way in video game terms, not just "overworld map". Equinox ◑ 22:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

horse armor

Rfd-sense: Armor for a horse in battle. *sigh* -- Liliana • 18:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there some rule that says it's okay to have an obvious literal sense when there is also a non-obvious one (the second video game sense here)? Equinox ◑ 19:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

There's {{&lit}} for that. -- Liliana • 19:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep if the non-SOP sense is real. Convert to use {{&lit}}.​—msh210℠ (talk) 07:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure we'd consider the citation for the other sense durably archived. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

metropolitan area network

As it is, the definition suggests this is just metropolitan area + network. -- Liliana • 21:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

We also have this proper-cased as Metropolitan Area Network. Note that there is a set of these: MAN, LAN, WAN, WLAN, VLAN... And very high frequency might be comparable as a "fixed term" that nonetheless looks SOPpy. Equinox ◑ 22:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

My initial reaction is how come metropolitan area is an idiom, surely we can write a definition for metropolitan to cover it. Do we also want rural area and urban area? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Arab World

this doesn't look particularly idiomatic to me. -- Liliana • 04:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It does to me, though, like New World, Old World. It's not exactly a "world". It's a cultural area. We don't have "English World" or "French World" - countries where English or French is spoken. Admittedely it's controversial, since non-Arabs living in these countries dislike it or don't want to belong there. Keep --Anatoli 05:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

If a term is used widely in newspapers we should define it, that way people unfamiliar with it could find out exactly what it means. If not someone could think it means a world wide caliphate, a theme park, or something other than the middle east, which is in fact not all arab, so we should keep it.Acdcrocks 09:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Arab and world should cover this. If they don't, it's because our definitions are not good enough. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

What’s the difference between the criteria of western world and Arab World? — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether we should keep Arab World--I'm tending to no--but the western world is not the world west of something, or in the western hemisphere.--Prosfilaes 21:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Old World

Rfd-sense: Of, or relating to the Old World. I suspect this is attributive usage of the noun. -- Liliana • 05:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That's my impression as well. --Hekaheka 05:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete: it’s clearly a noun adjunct. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Esperanto forms of aklimatig*

The Esperanto forms of aklimatig* (59 in all) were created by a bot (MewBot) because of a typo in the conjugation table of alklimatigi (e.g. aklimatigas, aklimatiginto etc. etc.). This is the version with the typo, all blue links in the conjugation table should be deleted. --JorisvS 17:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The old pages can be moved, they don't need to be deleted then. —CodeCat 17:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You feel like doing that? --JorisvS 18:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It's probably no more or less work than deleting them all. I'll start moving them. - -sche (discuss) 18:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I think I've moved and corrected the contents of all of them. - -sche (discuss) 19:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I've found a few more: disiĝi with stray "r"s[8], dekalkuli with missing "ul"s[9], and rimarkigi with stray "k"s[10]. I would have moved them already, but I can't suppress the redirect. --JorisvS 21:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I've taken care of disiĝi now, too. - -sche (discuss) 02:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I am Canadian

Do we need this for all ethnicities in the world? We have Appendix:I am (ethnicity) already. -- Liliana • 18:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the point (of having it) is that we're to have it for all anglophone ethnicities, not all ethnicities: see [[Appendix talk:I am (ethnicity)#Deletion debate]]. (Somewhat relevant also is [[Appendix talk:I am (ethnicity)#Canadian is not primarily an ethnicity]].)​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep if we must have a bloody phrasebook. You're just showing one of the reasons why mixing this stuff with a general-purpose dictionary is very stupid indeed. Equinox ◑ 22:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete, no added value. Wiktionary's mission is "every word in every language", not "every phrase". --Hekaheka 04:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete - as above. SemperBlotto 07:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete but I suggest to keep at least one complete example - I am English, no offense to other nationalities/ethnicities. I chose "English" without any bias, perhaps because it's the English Wiktionary. The effort to replace "English" with anything else - "Canadian", "Mexican", etc. is minimum, although can also cause problems like using adjectives where a noun is required or incorrect ending or gender, etc. For example Polish uses instrumental case to make this phrase - Anglik -> Anglikiem , Angielka -> Angielką Template:f. --Anatoli 22:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. --Yair rand 16:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Northern California

If what Wikipedia says is correct, this isn't a set phrase at all, and pure SoP. -- Liliana • 21:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete, encyclopaedic. Equinox ◑ 22:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ditto, delete. --Hekaheka 04:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep it is a very specific place. Like saying Upstate New York or the Florida Panhandle. It has merit etymologically because it has led to the creation of new words such as Norcal and Socal.Acdcrocks 06:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

In those entries you could write [[Northern]] [[California]]. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It gets treated like its own state a lot of times on forms as does Southern California, this is a unique treatment not afforded to any other state in the nation.Acdcrocks 11:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have added 6 citations showing it is commonly treated as a proper noun in books and print media.Acdcrocks 11:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't this a valid toponym under whatever rules and interpretations we have for toponyms? DCDuring TALK 13:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

So what does this prove? I'm sure you could find cites for Southern California, Western California, Eastern California, and stuff like Southern Florida, Western Wyoming, etc. as well. That doesn't make them any inclusible. -- Liliana • 13:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

@ DCDuring I think the rules we had on toponyms have since been deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

So any attestable toponym is includable, without limitation. Cool. That way we can have a really big entry count and provide lots of opportunities for transliteration and translation practice. With this success under our belts we should move on to further dismantling of CFI. DCDuring TALK 17:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Per nom.​—msh210℠ (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. The quotations provided in the entry show that the term is used not only with lowercase "n" as "northern California" but also with capital "N" as "Northern California", all that in the middle of sentences and outside of titles, a significant lexicographical fact. The term does seem to border on being a semantic sum of parts, but then, whence the capitalization with "N"? --Dan Polansky 15:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

google books:"Western Wyoming" mostly finds "western Wyoming" with lowercase "w" in the middle of sentences and outside of titles, in a response to a post by Liliana from 12 October 2011. --Dan Polansky 15:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you proposing quantitative criteria for the relative frequency of capitalized and uncapitalized forms to justify in-/exclusion? All of "Upstate|Downstate|Eastern|Western|Northern|Central|Southeastern New York" (capitalized) can be found with sufficient diligence or patience at this bgc search. Perhaps some refer to administrative districts as they may have been defined from time to time. DCDuring TALK 18:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Weakish Keep. Northern California differs in demographics, geography, climate, and maybe even culture from Southern California and--more so than distinct portions of most any other US state--can be thought of (at least by some) as a separate entity. All of this is sometimes in the sense of the term. This means that this sense is a little more than SOP (sometimes). I'd give it the benefit of the doubt. · 15:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Strong delete, unless it can be proven that Northern California may be used to refer to something else than northern part of California. Generally a Northern Foo differs in many ways of Southern Foo, yet it is just Northern + Foo. --Hekaheka 16:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If Northern California means the northern half of the state, then it is SoP. If it means something different and more specific (I have not read the entry), then it is no SoP. —Stephen ^(Talk) 16:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The term is somewhat ambiguous because there are different definitions applied. I have split the entry to reflect this. DAVilla 06:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

just because

In its purported idiomatic sense it looks to me like (deprecated template usage) just + (deprecated template usage) because. "Just" is certainly optional. It might make a lovely referral to a phrasebook wiki. Here, it seems to be, at best, a hard redirect to (deprecated template usage) because. DCDuring TALK 13:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The first definition is unnecessary; that one is just (deprecated template usage) just + (deprecated template usage) because. The second definition is not covered in the definition of (deprecated template usage) because. Mcornelius 18:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

But would that be an indication of a need for [[just because]] rather than a reason to improve [[because]]? In fact, it would seem that sense 3 of (deprecated template usage) because is the relevant meaning. DCDuring TALK 18:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Hard redirect, I suppose.​—msh210℠ (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

scene size up

- -sche (discuss) 04:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Strong delete, also not limited to emergency medicine. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delete —Saltmarsh^{talk-συζήτηση} 06:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
• keep has a very idiomatic usage. It refers to emergency scenes (like a crime, or heart attack, or car crash, or murder), no way to deduce that from just looking up scene. Size up means to evaluate the danger to self. The specific medical jargon defition is that it means to quickly figure out what you can tell from your 5 senses upon the instant of arrival so that you can begin any immidiate treatment and fuck all patient assessment order.Acdcrocks 18:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

scene safety

- -sche (discuss) 04:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Strong delete, also not limited to emergency medicine. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

keep this has strong police/fire/rescue idiomaticity, it is not just any scene, it is a crime scene. Also the definition I put in has a very specific EMS definition, which is determining if the place you have arrived requires additional paramedic (advances life saving skills) or if it needs (police intervention), altered mental status situation, violent gun shit goin down, ya feel me?Acdcrocks 18:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm twenty years old

Please see Talk:I'm eighteen years old and I'm ... year(s) old. -- Liliana • 18:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Kill with fire. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete per eighteen. Equinox ◑ 21:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

In accordance with "I'm eighteen years old", delete. I also think that I'm a Muslim, I'm a Christian, I'm a Buddhist, I'm a vegetarian, I'm an atheist, I'm allergic to nuts, I'm bisexual, I'm blind, I'm bleeding, I'm burned, I'm cold, I'm dying, I'm deaf, I'm divorced, I'm English, I'm fine, I'm full, I'm gay, I'm hungry, I'm horny, I'm hot etc. add little if any value to this project. We already have I'm. --Hekaheka 03:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Knowing translations for I'm + hungry does not allow you to translate (e.g. French has j'ai faim, "I have hunger", and not literally "I am hungry"). As it happens, that's the same with this phrase ("I have twenty years"), and any of them might have any kind of quirky idiom in any translating language. Just a thought. I mean, I kinda feel that you should know the basic grammar of a language before speaking it, but I'm probably old-fashioned. Equinox ◑ 03:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

A non-speaker of French can find this out relatively easily. First he checks hungry and finds a strange looking adjective avoir faim as one of French translations. He clicks that and the whole secret is revealed to him on the French page. I think this old-fashioned approach to using a dictionary is far better than adding randomly selected "I'm something" -sentences as individual entries. --Hekaheka 06:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

But that French translation is wrong. (deprecated template usage) hungry is an adjective, (deprecated template usage) avoir faim is a verb. SemperBlotto 07:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I know that, but if two languages have a different approach to a concept, like in this case to being hungry, it makes sense to make a link that shows the user the normal usage of the looked-for language. Also the adjective affamé is there, but "j'ai faim" gets about 20 times as many Google hits as "je suis affamé". --Hekaheka 21:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I am twenty years old soft redirects to I'm twenty years old. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I've now tagged it linking to this section.​—msh210℠ (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedily delete as already having failed RFD.​—msh210℠ (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

At least one of these complete phrases should be kept. It is handled very clumsily at old (#5) and in its translation section. If someone didn’t already know how to say it in a given foreign language, he would probably not be able to put it together from what is shown for most of the languages there. That section is virtually useless. If we have a complete phrase such as I'm twenty years old, then the translation section in old could be amended to "see translations at I'm twenty years old". —Stephen ^(Talk) 11:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

SGB, by that logic, why not hard-redirect the entries with numbers to [[I'm_..._year(s)_old]] and have the translations there? (In fact, why do we need "I'm"? But that's another issue.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, per Stephen. Keep at least one of these complete phrases as part of the phrasebook rather than relying on "I'm ... year(s) old". Given "I'm eighteen years old", the reader can figure out that he has to replace "eighteen" with other number word. Twenty is a round number, so "I'm twenty years old" seems to be a fit example entry to represent all the other phrases with different number word. "I'm eighteen years old" would also be a nice example entry, but it is now deleted. --Dan Polansky

Keep, per Stephen. Also, I don't see the Estonian or Ojibwe translation in I'm ... year(s) old. I added the Hungarian after some checking. "I'm twenty years old" in Japanese is a remarkable example. 二十歳 ("twenty years old") is not pronounced "nijussai" or "nijūsai" as expected (a number + sai) but "hatachi".

"I'm eighteen years" old is gone, so, one complete example is worth keeping for the phrasebook but no more than one. We have too many phrases like "I need ...". This could be cleaned up. --Anatoli 22:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete. --Actarus ^{(Prince d'Euphor)} 12:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep — [Ric Laurent] — 23:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. --Yair rand 16:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

ELIZA

Specific software program. Encyclopaedic. Equinox ◑ 03:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Send to RFV to see if it meets the CFI for brand names. bd2412 T 15:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

in mint condition

SoP. It is even given in mint as an example! -- Liliana • 20:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete as sum of parts.--Dmol 20:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Poorer than average wonderfoolism. Deleted SemperBlotto 21:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Two OneLook references find this worthwhile, Cambridge Advanced Learners and McGraw-Hill Idioms. See “in mint condition”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. We have mint condition and only Urban Dictionary and an automotive glossary join us. Keep DCDuring TALK 22:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, we should have one of mint condition and in mint condition, but not both. In contemporary English, this sense of mint is only used with condition (unless someone can demonstrate the contrary) for example, I've never heard of a something being in a mint state. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Google Books has a number of hits for mint state; it seems to be a standard term in the coin hobby.--Prosfilaes 18:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think only the sense of (deprecated template usage) mint condition transferred outside of the context of coins might be idiomatic. The literal coin sense could be in the etymology. I doubt that any phrase containing "mint" other than "mint condition" is used in reference to items other than coins (and paper currency ?). DCDuring TALK 18:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

"mint" is sometimes used by itself without "condition" in reference to cars and other manufactured items. IMO "mint condition" should be kept, even if theoretically sum-of-parts. 86.160.83.37 20:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes that's sort of my point, doesn't carry the same meaning. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If we keep [[mint condition]], should we redirect [[in mint condition]] to it? - -sche (discuss) 23:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think such a redirect makes sense. bd2412 T 23:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think hard redirects from longer SoP common collocations to core component idioms almost always make sense. They enable us to eat our cake and have it still. DCDuring TALK 23:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Since mint means "mint condition", I say redirect both in mint condition and mint condition to [[mint]].​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I am satisfied with a redirect to mind condition, two entries on substantially the same entry is superfalous.Acdcrocks 18:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks resolved. Can we strike? DAVilla 05:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems so. -- Liliana • 07:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

illegal formation

Surely just a formation that is illegal? -- Liliana • 04:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete —Saltmarsh^{talk-συζήτηση} 06:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. It has a specific meaning, not guessable from the parts. Requires prior knowledge--Dmol 09:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC).

Delete. IMO it is very much guessable from the parts. Equinox ◑ 15:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete current definition, if there is a definition not guessable by the sum of its part, Dmol should add it and then we'll discuss it. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Illegal generally means against the law in the larger sense of legislation governing a civil society, not against rules of a game. Is this used in any sport other than football, by the way? bd2412 T 16:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Illegal meaning against the rules is very common, it might even be more common than the against the law sense. In effect a law is a special type of rule, so there's not even different definitions. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

As for the second question, I looked at b.g.c, and illegal formation also occurs in football (the American one), volleyball, and even military aviation, so no, it is not specific to soccer at all. -- Liliana • 18:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I meant American football. Wikipedia only has one sense of illegal formation (the term redirects to w:Penalty (American football)); and that is:

Fewer than 7 players line up on the line of scrimmage(NFL/High School); more than four players in the backfield (NCAA only); eligible receivers fail to line up as the leftmost and rightmost players on the line in the NFL; or when five properly numbered ineligible players fail to line up on the line.

Ah! For some reason, {{football}} redirects to {{soccer}}. It should not do that. -- Liliana • 18:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a very specific definition, one that does not even include formations that break the rules by having the wrong number of players on the field or having a player offsides. We should have a definition of the very specific sense used in American football. bd2412 T 18:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it. What does it prove that that there are more ways than one to end up in an illegal formation? --Hekaheka 21:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The point is that there are four specific formations that constitute an "illegal formation", even though there are other formations (one with twelve players, or one with a player on the other side of the field) that would be against the rules. Therefore, an illegal formation, in American football at least, is not any formation that is illegal, but only formations falling into one of those four specific rule violations. bd2412 T 23:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That makes it even more SoP. There are various conditions which determine what is "illegal parking" and what is not, what is "unlawful killing" and not, and so on - it doesn't mean we create a specific legal definition for each, that is what an encyclopedia is for. ---> Tooironic 23:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

In this case, however, there are "illegal" formations that are not "illegal formations". bd2412 T 23:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

In that case, the definition being challenged is wrong, because the definition says that it can be any formation that is illegal. Equinox ◑ 23:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I've added the missing senses, and narrowed the RfD to the SOP sense, which I agree is SOP and should be deleted. bd2412 T 00:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Replace remaining sense with {{&lit|illegal|formation}}. DCDuring TALK 00:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

What makes the formation illegal isn't part of the definition; it's just any formation which is illegal. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If anyone cares, I this doesn't seem to meey WT:CFI#idiomaticity as the meaning is easily derived from the sum of the parts. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No more so than many of the cricket expression which we so lovingly include. DCDuring TALK 17:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I find this comment vague and provocative, hence not very useful. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to provoke looking at this kind of entry with respect for the possibility that this term has as much idiomaticity as comparable cricket terms, some of which have seemed SoP to me, at least at first. Terms in certain fields seem to get a much more sympathetic view than those from other fields, in a way that suspiciously reflects the background, training, and interests of active contributors. I have the feeling that our recent treatment of emergency medical technician jargon was a little less sympathetic than our treatment of, say, linguistic, cricket, or internet jargon. It is a reason why formal criteria, rather than pure votes, would make for more objectivity and a better Wiktionary. DCDuring TALK 20:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and would add that I think our evaluation criteria should consider whether a phrase would be likely to appear in a specialized dictionary on a given topic. I have no doubt that illegal formation would appear in a dictionary of football terminology, just as equal rights in fact appears in every current legal dictionary, and various EMT phrases would appear in a dictionary directed towards that field. In a sense, I think when a phrase like this actually appears in another dictionary, the authors of that dictionary have done the work for us of determining whether the term belongs in a dictionary. bd2412 T 22:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is that simple really, but we could decide to let it be that simple. Many glossaries seem to include in their definitions a great deal of content I would characterize as encyclopedic. They often have, say, both "Adj" and "Adj + N" as entries, where N is not limited in its meaning to the area covered by the glossary. I would argue for only "Adj" being included. OTOH, the benefits of simplicity are such that it is tempting just to accept such terms without qualification, at least for now. DCDuring TALK 22:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I edited Talk:caught and bowled to express why I think it's an idiom and I'd happily do the same for other cricket terms. There are some terms in Category:en:Cricket that I'd like to delete, but where I'm not confident enough of getting a majority so I'm not gonna even try. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

altitude indicator

Certain kinds of indicators could be regarded as idiomatic. This one doesn't seem to be among them. -- Liliana • 08:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Fails WT:CFI#Idiomaticity, so delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Question: Does this term appear in specialized dictionaries? bd2412 T 15:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep common consumer item in aviation referring to a specific thing.Acdcrocks 18:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

plastic bag

Total SOP? — [Ric Laurent] — 23:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. -- Liliana • 23:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It's an everyday item like handkerchief, even if it's written with a space in between, it's a word.

It's included in foreign language dictionaries: Mandarin: [11], Japanese: [12], Russian: [13], why don't we include it? Keep, of course. --Anatoli 01:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly and we should keep it because it is an everyday consumer good. It is unique. Translations are useful. It is too common a term to make it hard on people looking it up having to cross reference plastic and bag which both have tons of convoluted info on em. Some plastic bags aren't even made out of plastic they are made out of starch or corn, some are singleuse some are multiuse some are permanent, some rot, some not. All that is not something you could expect to find with plastic+bag defs yaknowhamean?Acdcrocks 02:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Your rationales for keeping things make no lexicographic sense and you never seem to learn from these discussions. Equinox ◑ 15:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Depends if any bag made out of plastic is a plastic bag. FWIW I don't care how many non-English dictionaries have it, we're not trying to be other dictionaries, we're just trying to be Wiktionary. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

For one thing, a bag made of a woven fabric of plastic fibers would not be called a plastic bag in normal usage that I am familiar with. For another, the plastic bags (or bag-like things ?) enclosing electronic items inside the cardboard and foam are not normally called plastic bags in my experience.

FWIW, I have a great deal of respect for the inclusion decisions of lexicographic professionals vs. our own votes. DCDuring TALK 15:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I sometimes get sent things in plastic envelopes which are in effect bags (just of a squarish shape) but I wouldn't call that a plastic bag. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Some are not made out of petrochemicals they are biodegradable but resemble the petro ones almost exactly and they are still called plastic bags due to their exact same purpose.Acdcrocks 21:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The bags enclosing electronics and the envelopes I would call (and have called) 'plastic bags'. Woven, I guess not. FWIW.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

CALPERG is working on a series of plastic bag bans, but these laws don't target any old transport invention made from plastic, just the one's handed out by stores.Acdcrocks 03:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Washington D.C. has imposed a 5 cent tax on plastic bags, which is understood only to apply to grocery bags, including those made of plastic-like materials that are technically not plastic, but not to garbage bags or to plastic purses. I would be inclined to keep and note the paper/plastic dichotomy. bd2412 T 03:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I find it difficult to come up with any solid reason for keeping this, so a legal one is a bit of a stretch, but it does show that a priori we think of plastic bags in the specific context of shopping even when we would consider a trash bag to be, you know, a bag made of plastic and technically fulfilling the request if not quite what we had in mind when we asked the host if she had any plastic bags we could borrow. DAVilla 05:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Treat like day after tomorrow. -- Gauss 07:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

No deserves a definition.Acdcrocks 21:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

keep, not just a bad made outta plasic. --Rockpilot 06:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

danger zone

A zone of danger. -- Liliana • 02:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. NiSoP. Delete. Actarus ^{(Prince d'Euphor)} 06:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete, fails WT:CFI#Idiomaticity as the meaning is easily derived from the sum of the parts. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe there are substantial idiomatic senses not included in the current definition. These should be added. See, e.g.

• 2010, Misty Evans, I'd Rather Be in Paris, p. 160:

  A low moan sounded in his throat and the intensity of their kisses shot back up into the danger zone.

• 2007, Pat Tucker, Led Astray, p. 68:

  When he eased into the danger zone and gently fingered my clit, I shamelessly spread my legs a little wider.

• 2006, JoAnn Ross, E. C. Sheedy, Jill Shalvis, Bad Boys Southern Style, p. 175:

  He slid his hand to her waist, across her tummy, and every butterfly in her body was set loose to flap and fly. She shook a negative even though it killed her — and his hand was slipping down toward her danger zone.

Not actual "danger" in either case. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but perhaps it's just a poetic use of danger, so in that case it is actual danger, just a poetic form of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with MG, except I don't think there is much "maybe" to it. It might be metonymy (2010) or an extension of (deprecated template usage) zone to non-physical spaces (2006 and 2007). The extension of "zone" is an example of what seems to me to be the nearly universal extension of any spatial term to time and to other realms that are not literally spatial but commonly thought of and spoken of in spatial terms. DCDuring TALK 16:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I see you point. As I have often demonstrated to my wife, almost any sentence is susceptible to a non-literal connotation if said with the right emphasis. For example, she will say "Honey, can you put a little celery in my soup?", and I'll say "Oh, I'll put a little [air quotes] celery in your soup!", and then she'll roll her eyes and say, "you're disgusting". It's a little ritual that we have. bd2412 T 16:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing that :) 86.176.209.178 20:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC).

keep this is a common phrase that is not easily understand by sop searching.Acdcrocks 21:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

At least I understand easily danger + zone. --Hekaheka 02:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say delete, especially as the suggested definition introduces the idea of a region to be avoided, and this is not supported by the citations claimed. Dbfirs 08:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Having thought it over further, I say keep because danger is a noun, not an adjective, making the phrase grammatically unintuitive. If a place presents danger, we would say it is a "dangerous place" or a "dangerous field", "dangerous building", etc., not a "danger place", "danger field", or "danger building"; however, I would find it at least somewhat awkward to say we are going to a "dangerous zone" or "zone of danger" rather than a "danger zone". I would be interested to see what sort of collocations come with "danger" as opposed to "dangerous". bd2412 T 03:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep per figurative use. DAVilla 05:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

ball tampering

It's tampering with the ball. The only reason one could say it's limited to cricket, is in other ball sports the ball is replaced whenever necessary, but in cricket it isn't. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably delete. The def doesn't suggest anything enormously specific. This just seems to be the standard cricket term for any tampering with the ball. Equinox ◑ 17:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

buncha sign languages

Category:Definitionless terms has a few entries for sign languages, which have no usable content. I guess they could all be deleted. --Rockpilot 22:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Would it not be easier to simply provide a definition for these? They're all valid anyway. -- Liliana • 22:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You serious? Deleting things is loads easier than defining things! --Rockpilot 22:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep, no AFAICT-valid reason given for deletion.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it's always acceptable to delete entries with no definitions at all. And I'd include a couple of entries that I've created. The only possible exceptions could be definitionless entries which are valid words, and have citations. Correct etymologies and pronunciations also seem like possible but weaker reasons to keep a wholly definitionless entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking back, many of these are garbage and should be deleted. -- Liliana • 21:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I think some of the sign language names aren't even attestable. Anyway, if an entry's entire content is "definition requested", it should be at WT:REE or similar. Equinox ◑ 22:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone up to the task? -- Liliana • 14:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

understand

Rfd-sense: To apply values (axioms).

I don't understand the definition, or in any case how it related to "to understand". It was added by an anon in diff, on 8 March 2004. My take is delete, unless someone can convincingly argue otherwise. --Dan Polansky 16:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the sense in "How do you understand X?" is meant. That sentence sometimes means something like "What values or axioms do you bring to the table when you comprehend X?" — but the "What values or axioms" part of it is in the word "How", not in the word "understand". Anyway, this belongs at RFV, no?​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happier with an RFV, where I expect it to fail as a mistake. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Move to RfV or keep it here and get it cited. DCDuring TALK 18:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

light touch

The citation is for a figurative (deprecated template usage) touch that is (deprecated template usage) light. DCDuring TALK 02:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd happily speedily delete it has having no definition, and the citation doesn't justify a non-SoP meaning. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Why do we have an entry when it just says RFDEF. Move to Requested Entries. Equinox ◑ 23:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Already at [[citations:light touch]]. Delete this, since it may well be SOP (I have no idea what it means), and has scarcely more content than the citations page (just the POS, which is obvious, and the plural, which is fairly so).​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Oracle Large Object

Under what kind of criteria is that entry justifiable? -- Liliana • 03:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The definition is "Data structure for very large objects in ORACLE databases." I'm not sure what this means; that is to say it's too vague, is a a data structure or data structure used as a mass noun? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

"data structure" is meant as "a data structure". "Large Object" describes the type of data that is held in a database field. It means that the field will hold a big chunk of data such as a whole document or photograph, rather than a small discrete piece of data like a number, date or text string. — This comment was unsigned.

How is this different from, say, "GM dealership" or "GM look"? DCDuring TALK 18:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why it was Oracle Large Object. There's a case for "large object" in a database sense; see google:database "large object" and [14] which starts "Large Objects (LOBs) are a set of datatypes that are designed to hold large amounts of data." but the Oracle part is just irrelevant.--Prosfilaes 18:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete. It's a very specific term for a very specific thing in one particular software system. Like having SQL Server 2000 nvarchar. Equinox ◑ 23:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

What's ORACLE/Oracle, we have no entry for it. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It's the name of a company. w:Oracle Corporation —CodeCat 16:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh definitely delete in that case, it would be like Yahoo! server where simply server would suffice. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for including technical jargon, even when it's vendor-specific if used outside of the company. This one is odd because it has the vendor's name, so there is no chance for it to be adopted by other companies. I'd almost want to apply the brand names criteria. DAVilla 05:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

authorization

Rfd-redundant: (computing) The permission to use a specific resource; access control. Tagged but not listed. DCDuring will surely comment on this. -- Liliana • 21:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Assembly Language

Why is the lowercase entry assembly language not sufficient for this? I doubt people use this term exclusively capitalized. -- Liliana • 22:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If it's attested in this form (which I suspect), just convert it to an {{alternative form of}}-entry. - -sche (discuss) 23:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not a specific language or brand (like, say, Visual C++), it is just assembly language. It's generic. Should not exist under capitals. Should be removed. I have years of experience in this arena which will no doubt be ignored. Please prove the existence of the capitalised version. Equinox ◑ 23:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Assembly language (with "language" in lower case) would be more appropriate (in case Assembly has to be in all caps). Capitalising "language" would introduce too many alternative forms, like "English Language", etc. --Anatoli 23:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

But there is absolutely no reason why "assembly" should be in caps, because it isn't a language called "Assembly", it is the language used to assemble opcodes into machine code! If you don't know what it is, don't comment! Equinox ◑ 23:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

That's rude and arrogant and I comment when I want. If you read carefully, I'm not suggesting to keep the cap version. You don't need to explain to me what the assembly language is, I'm a programmer. --Anatoli 23:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was unnecessarily aggressive about that. Sorry. Combination of too many beers and Rockpilot getting on my nerves. Equinox ◑ 22:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The capitalised forms that I can find are all titles of courses or books, so I agree that an entry with initial capitals is unnecessary. I'm surprised how many of us here have programmed in assembly language, though I've done more in machine code. Dbfirs 08:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

block length

Neither of the two definitions seem any idiomatic to me -- Liliana • 02:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Nor to me. Delete DCDuring TALK 03:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I can find nothing special about this combination. bd2412 T 14:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)`
• Ditto. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Strong delete. Equinox ◑ 22:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete. DAVilla 05:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

capacity

Sole adjective sense: Filling the allotted space. Usage examples might be: It was hauling a capacity load. and The orchestra played to a capacity crowd.

I have not yet found this sense as predicate, nor in gradable or comparative use. The noun senses:

3. The maximum amount that can be held and

5. The maximum that can be produced.

in attributive use seem to cover the usage I have found. OTOH, MWOnline has something very similar as an adjective sense. DCDuring TALK 19:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I would keep as I don't think this is intuitive. DAVilla 05:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

water 2

Rfd-sense: (uncountable) Tap water, or well/pump water, as opposed to bottled water.

Added by an IP here. I have serious trouble considering this separate from the general sense 1. In the example sentence given (Do not drink the water.), there isn't really anything that semantically distinguishes tap water from bottled water - you could fill a well with bottled water and the writing would still hold true. -- Liliana • 18:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What the context of the usage example (not the usage example alone, let alone the word "water") usually implies is a definition such as "that local-source water that possibly might make one sick (whether tap water or other water, such as locally bottled, unpurifed water, or possibly local well water from low-lying wells)." Another definition might be: "water that is likely to be inhabited by bacteria (or other contaminants) to which the auditor is unlikely to have developed a resistance or tolerance." Another definition might be "the locally sourced water". Or it might just mean "any water around here" or "the water the auditor is likely to drink". That seems like context or, from another point of view, encyclopedic content. In fact, that definition presupposes knowledge on the part of the auditor of the current generally accepted theories of infection from such sources, sanitary conditions, and the economics of local water supply and other beverages.

At the very least we need more diverse illustrations of this purported sense, preferably from durably archived sources. DCDuring TALK 23:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The water in Mesquite is hard. DAVilla 05:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete or, at the very least, move to a sub-sense of the primary sense. I don't think it's necessary. Equinox ◑ 23:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete, just plain wrong isn't it? I've never heard anyone say that bottle water isn't water, which is what this sense is trying to say. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's plain wrong; I think the idea is that statements such as "You shouldn't drink the water here", "The water's bad here", etc. often implicitly mean tap water and exclude bottled water. However, whether this usage requires or justifies a separate sense is doubtful in my opinion. 86.186.9.168 13:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. It would be a subsense except I've rarely seen that here. Keep. DAVilla 05:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

-là

Not really a suffix, just là with a hyphen. Should be converted into some kind of redirect IMO. See also -ci#French Fugyoo 23:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete, I agree that this isn't a suffix, the French Wiktionary also does not consider this a suffix, but là immediately preceded by a hyphen. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd keep this information, preferably in current form. Granted, it may not be a traditional English-language-style suffix where you add the letters (and nothing else) to the end of the word, but it means exactly what it says on the tin, in that there's no denying. When I created it I considered -là a better place to house it than là. --Rockpilot 02:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Everyone is invited to participate in a discussion at fr:Wiktionnaire:Questions sur les mots/novembre 2011#-ci, -là : suffixes ou adverbes ?. I’m inclining to think they are particles, like TLFi sais. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I have created entries of -ci and -là on French Wiktionary. We French Wiktionarians have concluded that they are different from ici and là grammatically and semantically. In short, they are rather particles meaning this and that, while ici and là are adverbs meaning here and there. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep: I have rewritten the article. It is a particle. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 09:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

-ci

Not really a suffix, just ci with a hyphen. See also above. Fugyoo 23:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete, I agree that this isn't a suffix, the French Wiktionary also does not consider this a suffix, but ci immediately preceded by a hyphen. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Done — [Ric Laurent] — 14:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

OK but I think -là and -ci should get the same treatment, whatever it is. Fugyoo 21:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep: I have rewritten the article. It is a particle. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 09:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

bad luck

rfd-sense: interjection, "Expressed to someone suffering misfortune." This just seems like use of the noun on its own. Same way that I can offer someone a coffee by saying 'coffee?'. Doesn't make it an interjection— This unsigned comment was added by Mglovesfun (talk • contribs) at 16:53, 27 October 2011‎.

Right: delete.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Does the same apply to well done and nice one? 81.142.107.230 16:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Not an interjection. Delete. DAVilla 05:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not really an interjection, but it is indeed an idiomatic phrase said to s.o who's having (or has had) a misfortune. So, keep. --Actarus ^{(Prince d'Euphor)} 20:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

United States Marine Corps

Sum of parts and/or not dictionary material. Same as #US Army and #US Navy above. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually Talk:US Army. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom. bd2412 T 01:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

deleted -- Liliana • 00:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

sexual minority

Sure not just sexual + minority? -- Liliana • 09:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete, unless I'm missing something. Check that sexual covers sexual preferences. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does, #4. Fugyoo 10:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Because I just added it; sexual could do with a bit of work, mind you. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep this is not anything that is simply sexual, it most often means gays and sometimes prostitutes, how could that be inferred by looking up those two words separately, that is not likely so it is no SOP.Acdcrocks 19:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

My gut feeling is delete but I'm also aware that this could theoretically mean "minority" in age terms, e.g. the kind of age minority that is not yet old enough to have legal sex. Equinox ◑ 19:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Move to RfV. It is completely uncited. It is apparently taken from the eponymous unreferenced WP page or else it is authored by the same author or hisher fellow travelers. DCDuring TALK 20:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Moving (immediately) to rfv would bypass the issue of admissibility. Do we want to do that? If so and it passes I think it'd just get nominated again for rfd. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Existence is not the sole point of citations. I doubt that any honest effort to cite the term would fail to show a range of meanings beyond the narrow one given. The meaning given is a narrow one that reflects some author's intent, ie, what heshe means by the term in a given work or what the words can each be assumed to mean in context. I suppose that we cannot assume that those who would undertake the effort would necessarily be open to those possibilities. DCDuring TALK 14:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Avoid moving to RfV: There is no doubt the term is actually used, per google books:"sexual minority" and google scholar:"sexual minority". As a point of possible interest, a number of these Google books finds seem to be from academic writing. I abstain from saying whether this should be kept or deleted. One quotation from Google scholar, for illustration: School support groups, other school factors, and the safety of sexual minority adolescents, C Goodenow, L Szalacha, 2006: "Sexual minority adolescents—those self-identifying as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) or with same-sex desires or sexual experiences—report higher rates of victimization and suicidality than their heterosexual peers, [...]". --Dan Polansky 08:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

nothing in minority would imply that this term is usually attributed to gays, nothing in sexual would easily identify that this is sexual orientation, sexual minority means LGBT for all practical purposes and that is clearly idiomatic

71.142.73.25 22:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Week keep as defined. If it includes paedophilia, incest and other minorities, then delete. —Internoob 23:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

About that, again: [15], [16] and [17] all say that some non-LGBT people are sexual minorities. —Internoob 23:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

〳

I created this redirect only because it was requested on Wiktionary:Wanted entries. It was speedied, I restored it and sent it here. Refer to Talk:〳 for more information. -- Liliana • 15:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep as a redirect, for those who do not know Japanese and attempt to look up each character individually. - -sche (discuss) 19:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't 〳〵 be a subpage of Unsupported titles, so we can give it a vertical title? - -sche (discuss) 19:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, if you think it's necessary go ahead. -- Liliana • 19:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I tried, but it seems not even {{unsupportedpage}} supports <br> vertical titles. Bahaha. I did find a picture of the proper vertical display to add, though. - -sche (discuss) 01:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps try that template with a newline rather than a <br> in it. (Not sure it will work, but worth trying.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Wait. If I understand this correctly, the symbol used in the classical texts is "〱"; it can stretch to take up the space of two or three characters. "〳〵" (written vertically) is only a modern way of inputting it in the cases in which it takes up the space of two characters. If that's the case, "〳〵" should be a soft redirect to "〱". (〱 is curretly a hard redirect to 〳〵.) - -sche (discuss) 21:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that is an option I hadn't considered, in fact Unicode even says "the preceding two semantic characters are preferred to the following three glyphic forms". So yeah, it might be better to move the entry to 〱. -- Liliana • 22:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

If I tried to look up 〱 and was redirected to 〳〵 I might be very confused. If you do it the other way please at least explain the difference. Fugyoo 22:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I moved the entry to 〱. -- Liliana • 19:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

girly girl

talk about SoP... -- Liliana • 19:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this is a "set phrase", often used as an opposite for (deprecated template usage) tomboy. Equinox ◑ 19:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Though it is a common collocation, probably due to the reduplicative sound of it, "girly bitch", "girly man", "girly lady", "girly woman", "girly boy", "girly rider", etc would all be attestable, as well as many NPs not referring to humans. Consequently, unless it really meant something quite unexpected, it seems not to meet CFI. DCDuring TALK 21:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep per WT:COALMINE, as a Google Books search indicates that girlygirl meets the CFI. bd2412 T 20:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Mmmmmmh. kept -- Liliana • 15:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

hence thither

Sum of parts. --Pilcrow 17:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete, no added value. Fugyoo 21:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

功課達人, 功课达人

Sum of parts: 功課 ("homework"), 達人 ("a person good at something"). Not a set phrase, not in common use, uncited. Hbrug 03:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete, no added value. Fugyoo 21:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

prairie dogging plus prairie doggings, prairie-dogging and prairie-doggings

[Latter three entries added by--Enginear 21:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)]

Sense: An incident of a fecal solid involuntary exiting the anus as the person having the involuntary bowel movement fights the undesired exiting with his rectal muscles. nt because it is vulgar, but because the cites given for it don't match the definition, and I can't find any that do --Rockpilot 13:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I did find some better ones if you wanna have a look.Acdcrocks 10:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Definition is very strange - as if the author does not speak English as a native language. I would delete it. SemperBlotto 08:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ouch semper! English and Spanish are both my first language, maybe I have fucked up syntax to show for it. I would have written in "when you are fighting off a bowel movement and the shit keeps poking out" but that isn't quite phrased in the form of a noun or proper dictionary jargon. Help?Acdcrocks 10:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A sense of "fecal matter poking out" is attestable so ideally this would be fixed rather than deleted. Fugyoo 18:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Awesome job citing this, Acdcrocks. --Rockpilot 23:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought that prairie dogging is a present participle of the verb "to prairie dog", but there doesn't seem to be such verb definition. Should somebody correct something? Second, I think the verb should be defined in more general terms, e.g. "to pop up from a hole or similar in a manner that resembles the way a prairie dog pops his head up from his burrow". This would make the undeniably interesting poo-related "sense" a mere usage. Third, the noun sense appears unnecessary. --Hekaheka 16:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it needs cleaning up into 'noun' and everything else should be covered by {{present participle of|prairie dog}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

That won't work because "I'm prairie dogging" doesn't mean "I" am popping up from a hole. Fugyoo 13:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It does. If you read carefully, the examples referring to an urgent need to defecate, say "I'm prairie dogging it". I take back a little of my earlier comments. To "prairie dog" seems to have a transitive sense. Whether it is limited to the specific use our examples are of, remains to be seen. --Hekaheka 06:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

A figurative burrow/hole is what cubicle workers etc are popping their heads up from.

If seems that the "popping one's head up" sense should not have a noun or a verb definition. It should just be a present participle of "to prairie dog". I think we could find the past participle and possibly the other forms attestable in this sense.

I found only one cite (now on Citations:prairie dog) in our customary sources for the past participle of the other sense, so perhaps it should be defined only in this entry. OTOH, if verb is attestable in each form in some sense, wouldn't we assume it to be a full verb in every sense, even though we cannot find each form attested in each sense. DCDuring TALK 19:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've modified the definition, to what I hope is an improvement, under the assumption it remains where it is. — Pingku^dimmi 09:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I've just added prairie doggings, prairie-dogging and prairie-doggings to this RFD, since if the noun sense of prairie dogging falls, so will they, as they are only claimed in that sense. If they pass, it would be helpful to have added some cites to each, to avoid RVFs later. --Enginear 21:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

seismic fitness

SOP: fitness in the face of an earthquake.​—msh210℠ (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought it meant "the ability to not fall down in a earthquake" but whatever. Fugyoo 11:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Important scientific term, I would expect someone to look for in a dictionary if they read it in the paper and didn't know what it meant. It is read as one word because it is a compound two-word word.Westernstag 03:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

hadaway and shite

Geordie SoP = (deprecated template usage) hadaway + (deprecated template usage) and + (deprecated template usage) shite (imperative}. Might be worth including in a usage example or citation on [[hadaway]] and [[shite]]. DCDuring TALK 14:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It isn't SoP if the definition is correct, since the and shite doesn't actually contribute to the meaning. —Angr 18:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Then we need eat shit and die and many others in which some vulgarity is used as an intensifier in some way. For that matter, hardly any intensifier of any kind adds "meaning". DCDuring TALK 20:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

stunt cock

Hekaheka (talk • contribs) thinks this is SOP, I don't. Discuss. — [Ric Laurent] — 23:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Not SoP to me, because the penis isn't performing stunts. Equinox ◑ 23:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Some snippets from Google Books:

• It is her hands we are watching as the pizza comes out of the microwave — the other hands are all stunt hands
• "I bet there was a stunt ass standing by in case I chickened out and lost it."
• "stunt pussy noun a female pornography performer who fills in for another performerfor the purposes of genital filming" (no uses on Google Books, just mentions it seems. Also none for "stunt cunt" even though it rhymes)

Fugyoo

Stunt cunt. Fucking lawlz <3 — [Ric Laurent] — 01:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Even stuntman would not be inclusion-worthy were it not for the application of WT:COALMINE. So all we need are three cites of stuntcock to pass this RfD. DCDuring TALK 02:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Or a sense at stunt meaning "stand-in, substitute". The cock, hands, ass, etc. above are not performing stunts. Stunt man could be sum of parts (if two words) but that's because he performs stunts, not because he is a substitute or stand-in. Equinox ◑ 13:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. There are multiple possible meanings of "stunt" and "cock" which objectively make sense, but would be incorrect. One might call a rubber chicken used in a practical joke a "stunt cock", but this would be wrong, idiomatically. bd2412 T 17:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

If there are are multiple possible meanings, why pick just one? If I make a movie of the adventures of a rooster, I might want to use a stunt cock in a cock-fighting scene. There are situations in which the reader must figure out themself, which of the possible combinations best fits the context. I'd still delete. --Hekaheka 05:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we are missing a sense of "stunt". It seems that the word has acquired by extension a sense that is close to "substitute". No dangerous performances in these examples picked from the internet:

That's the movie where Kirk refused to kiss the actress playing his wife so they had to get Kirk's real wife to be stunt lips.

I asked my husband if he could just hire a stunt wife for this. ("this" = a social occasion in which the real wife did not really like to participate)

You ever look at a picture of yourself and think, “Do I really look like that?” Sean was taking happy, rumpled Easter morning pics and as I scanned them I thought, “Damn, that looks like a stunt belly.”

--Hekaheka 18:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Hekaheka that we're missing a sense of "stunt". - -sche (discuss) 19:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, add the sense to 'stunt' unless of course it's not attestable. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Didn't have a clue what it meant before looking at the page. Keep entry and revert my innocence if possible. DAVilla 04:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I bet there are a lot of two-word combinations that any of us does not have a clue of, but that isn't necessarily a justification for inclusion. This is not a set term either, as one could as well use stunt dick, stunt penis or even stunt organ. Penis is not the only organ that may be replaced by a stunt in a movie: stunt hand, stunt finger.... And, with the added sense for "stunt", it is (or will be, I did not check) a sum of parts. --Hekaheka 05:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hand, finger, penis etc. I would have figured out. My first guess for stunt cock was a trained rooster. DAVilla 20:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep pretty oddLucifer 02:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Since when has oddnessbecome an inclusion criteria? --Hekaheka 05:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

duty-free shop

A shop for duty-free goods. -- Liliana • 10:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems similar to (deprecated template usage) antique shop (i.e. the shops themselves are not free from duty or antique in age, but they deal in things that are). I would delete. Equinox ◑ 13:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete, also as an aside antique shop seems SoP too. It's a bit like saying a soap shop isn't sum of parts because it isn't made out of soap. If you don't understand what an antique shop (usually antiques shop here in the UK) from antique + shop, it's because you lack an understanding of English grammar, and grammatical information goes in appendices, not the main namespace. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No opinion on antique shop. bd2412 T 17:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oh, I always thought it was a shop in which duty wasn't charged. In any event, delete.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. DAVilla 04:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

disease-modifying drug

Defined as: "a drug which directly impacts the course of disease progression with beneficial consequences to a patient"

This seems an awful lot like a drug that modifies a disease. It is certainly not a set phrase as a large range of semantically appropriate NPs can substitute for drug, such as Alzheimer's disease drug, treatment, medication, therapy, potential, etc. and, at least, altering substitutes for modifying. DCDuring TALK 12:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete per very reasonable argument above. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. bd2412 T 17:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
• Delete (also alternative form (deprecated template usage) disease modifying drug). SemperBlotto 17:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Even so, it is a medical term and has value in being included here.Westernstag 03:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Move the content to "disease-modifying", and adjust the definition to make it adjectival, applying to various treatments including drugs. Interesting search: google books:"diseasy-modifying drug" definition. One particular find, among the others: this. The key question for understanding the term is this: disease-modifying as opposed to what? The answer seems to be this: as opposed to merely reducing symptoms. If this answer is correct, it is nowhere clear that this is meant by "disease-modifying" from "disease" and "modifying"; as long as symptoms are part of a disease, a thing that modifies symptoms thereby also modifies the disease. --Dan Polansky 20:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - this is a specific term used in the field. Would additional sources be something which would bring those who have suggested deletion to re-evaluate their opinion, or would this be a futile effort (I don't intend to expend time on futility). --Ceyockey 06:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

  The literature of the field seem to show "disease-modifying" applying to concepts other than "drug" or "therapy", such as "effect", "gene", "agent", "activity". IOW, it seems to combine freely with a variety of nouns, both in attributive and predicative positions. To me, this is exemplifies the difference between a book's glossary or a specialist technical glossary and a true dictionary. Some others here seem to differ on this point. DCDuring TALK 19:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

pillar of the community

Probably just pillar + of + the + community. Not particularly set as a phrase. Can be replaced by "pillar of society", "pillar of the city", etc. No hits on OneLook. ---> Tooironic 05:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say we need another, figurative sense for "pillar". --Hekaheka 05:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Or is this use of (deprecated template usage) pillar a "live metaphor"? DCDuring TALK 09:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added the two missing senses. ---> Tooironic 12:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The new senses look good. I don't see any sense to the RfDed term that has meaning beyond the SoP sense. DCDuring TALK 23:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a common idiomatic phrase meaning an informal leader, it has nothing to do with the marble columns of a greco-roman building.Westernstag 03:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Now that the figurative sense is added to pillar, I don't see how we can prove this is not SoP. ---> Tooironic 06:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

@Westernmark. What is the evidence that it is idiomatic? I stipulate that it may be more common than phrases like "red car" and agree that it doesn't have the straw-man definition that you suggest. The implication of your line of reasoning would be that we should have all attestable phrases whose component words are polysemic. Since the polysemy of a word itself seems to depend greatly on the patience, care, and analytical mindset of those who attest to and author definitions, very few words indeed would fail to be polysemic. DCDuring TALK 17:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No strong feelings. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep per discussion above; unique definition of pillar. bd2412 T 05:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

star magic, sun magic, moon magic

Moved from WT:RFV#star magic, sun magic, moon magic

Not content with only adding bogus JA entries, IP user Special:Contributions/2.125.74.75 has begun adding bogus EN entries as well. Unless I'm mistaken, all three of these are little more than SOP and should be deleted, but on the off chance that I'm wrong, I'm adding here to RFV. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Add some heart magic and clover magic, and your magical breakfast will be complete! ☺ ~ Robin 20:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Don't forget the diamonds too.  :-P -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC) FWIW, I've given this IP user a one-day break in the hopes of forestalling their copious avalanche of rubbish. Going through their contribs, it's the exception that I find anything that doesn't need fixing or flat-out deleting. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Using the style like "(a/the) star(s)" is really annoying, as well as " (or around,)". Mglovesfun (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Yes, this user and Special:Contributions/90.215.199.167 are both known for lack of knowledge about WT formatting conventions. Or WT:CFI. Or Japanese, despite adding so many entries and page content for this language. Every once in a while they add something that doesn't need fixing/reformatting/deleting, but I'd hazard that's only around 20% of the time, if that. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Yes, not to defend him/her, their work is still horrible overall and they are slow to learn, but I've noticed that they are getting better gradually, from absolutely awful to fairly awful. They should be given a break though. Haplology Remember that RFV is the forum where we try to demonstrate that something exists; problems like "encyclopedic" and "sum of parts" are RFD's domain. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Doh, thank you MG, moving forthwith.  :) -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone put forth good reasons to keep these three entries? They look very SOP to me, and encyclopedic as opposed to dictionaric, to mangle a coinage. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

If the Wikipedia article on Moon magic and the sources it lists are trustworthy, then at least moon magic may be verifiable, and rather too specialized to be SoP. The other two may well have to go. —Angr 18:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, whether the term exists, I have no question. Whether the term is any more than SOP, I'm still not certain -- the WP article is by no means compelling in that regard, as it describes what could be any magic having to do with the moon. Do others interpret that article differently? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete: improvised words without well-established definition. They can be, say, solar magic, lunar magic, and stellar magic. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

dynamic IP address

I'm not sure, but to me it is an IP address that is dynamic. -- Liliana • 21:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

keep, if attested the use of "dynamic" makes this a highly technical term, non-compsci majors/geeks would unlikely understand.71.142.73.25 08:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Cf. polymorphic constructor, petroleum hydrocarbon. A phrase made up of two bits of specialist jargon can still be NISoP. Looking up two words won't kill anyone. Equinox ◑ 09:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Not obvious from the several meanings of dynamic.--Dmol 09:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Could be SOP, but I think we need a new meaning of dynamic, something like "(computing) Dynamically assigned; subject to change or reconfiguration". 81.142.107.230 10:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yup. IP addresses are by far not the only thing that can be dynamic, check out w:Special:Prefixindex/dynamic to see a whole bunch of dynamic things in the computer world. -- Liliana • 12:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

child bride

Definition: "A very young bride." That's SoP and if anything less helpful than the simple words.--Prosfilaes 03:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This term has a very specific connotation when used in the media, it refers largely to islamic and moron [mormon] child marriages where a girl is married to a much older man, often against their will, this is a richer meaning that [than] you would get from say kid+groom71.142.73.25 08:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you mean moron or Mormon? Both fit in the context somehow... —Angr 09:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Funny enough, they did. But yes I meant mormon.71.142.73.25 22:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep as amended.--Dmol 09:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Because 71.142.73.25 mentioned the media, which I took to mean the news media, I checked http://news.google.com for the term. the first result (here, now, for me) was an article about "Hollywood child bride Courtney Stodden". (There were other results about her also.) So it doesn't only mean someone "coerced or pressured into nuptials with a much older man in a conservative culture". Is it ever used to mean that, to the exclusion of other brides who are children? (E.g., a book that distinguishes "child brides" — who are those pressured into marriage in a conservatve culture — from brides who are children.) If (as I suspect) not, then the definition should be reverted to "a very young bride" and IMO it should be deleted.​—msh210℠ (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Then that's a separate definition that would be sum of parts. As it stands it is a valid meaning.--Dmol 23:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we have a more-specific "an organism of the species Prunus persica" sense for (deprecated template usage) tree, but only a broader "large plant" sense, whereas we have both the more-specific "line of connected cars with a locomotive" and the broader "sequence of vehicles" sense at (deprecated template usage) train? Because there are citations that support it: specifically, there are citations that use train to mean a line of connected cars with a locomotive, to the exclusion of any other sequence of vehicles: they say things like "take a train or a caravan" or the like. If there are citations saying "a tree or any other kind of large thing bearing fruit" (where by tree they meant what we call a peach tree), then we should have a separate "Prunus persica" sense for tree. (I highly doubt that that's the case.) If there are citations saying "a child bride or other bride who's a child" (where by child bride they meant someone coerced into marriage in a conservative culture) then we should have a separate "coerced into marriage in a conservative culture" sense for child bride. (I also doubt that that's the case.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The first hit child bride gets on bgc is Child Bride: The Untold Story of Priscilla Beaulieu Presley. (Interestingly enough, she was 22 when she married Elvis.) I don't see that this is a separate definition, instead of a common use of the normal meaning.--Prosfilaes 07:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

In this case, "child bride" must surely be idiomatic, since a 22 year-old is hardly a child. ---> Tooironic 11:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? On BGC I find "Children remain eligible for TRICARE benefits while they're in college up to age 23"[18]. Child is a pretty elastic word.--Prosfilaes 03:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Another BGC hit is Sister of the Bride by Beverly Cleary, where the bride is 18-years old. '"My child bride," he [the groom] teased.'[19]--Prosfilaes 07:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably keep per Prosfilaes. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

But the definition was "A very young bride". If you want, we can argue about its SOPness, but IMO that depends solely on whether child generally is used for contextually relatively young people who are not strictly children in the usual sense.​—msh210℠ (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

If we're having an argument about what child bride actually means, I think it's worth keeping. DAVilla 05:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

That;s a really good point, I agree.Lucifer 00:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

forced marriage

Definition is quite specific, probably to avoid looking SOP... but that's what it is. — [Ric Laurent] — 22:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep: Tweak the definition, though Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 23:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the the issue that this is completely SOP. — [Ric Laurent] — 01:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe because I don't think it's completely SOP, or because I would keep it anyway... Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 04:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Kepp: this term is used a lot in the media, especially when referring to marriages in India and AfricaLucifer 23:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Many self-evident multi-word terms are used in the media. Equinox ◑ 23:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Wide use in the media does not override the fact that it's totally SOP. — [Ric Laurent] — 01:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep: I've heard that in a forced marriage, one or both spouses don't want (or, in the case of disability, can't) to give consent, but are forced to marry under duress against their wishes. Reasons for forcing the one or both spouses to marry can get diverse, such as honor (or izzat, if desired), money, to emigrate with an "anchor bride", etc. (Who wants to think up any other reasons or excuses for making a forced marriage?) --Lo Ximiendo 02:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is everyone saying "keep" while they keep proving that it's a complete sum of parts? It's not like a shotgun wedding, which even if it weren't idiomatic is highly specific. A forced marriage is a marriage that is forced. Regardless of which half of the couple doesn't want it or both or the reason for the marriage being forced, the fact remains that it's completely recognizable by the sum...of its...parts.... — [Ric Laurent] — 12:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's this on forced marriage as an issue of ethics. But you're free to do any research. --Lo Ximiendo 21:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

delete, sorry but isn't this just a marriage that is forced? -- Liliana • 12:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete per all the arguments put forth by everyone above, including those saying "keep".​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. As Ric and msh210 point out, the "keep" voters are making great arguments for deleting this. —Ruakh_TALK 03:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Strong delete. It's a marriage which is forced. And the definition doesn't make sense: you can be in a forced marriage, but the way in which it has been forced doesn't have to be just what is proposed in the definition. ---> Tooironic 11:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete per everyone, --Mglovesfun (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC).

Its a set phraseLucifer 23:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't put my finger on it, but this is definitely a set phrase. I'm sorry not to offer better rationale for keeping. DAVilla 05:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The british government has a task force dedicated to "Forced Marriage" (I added a quotation to the article from their annual report) which really seems to indicate this is a society topic as well

stupid fuck, stupidfuck

SOP. (Creator didn't bother to fix quotations or anything. I lold) — [Ric Laurent] — 01:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

‘lold’ is not a valid word.

¶ dumbfuck is (apparently) not Sum‐Of‐Parts but it is identical to these terms, so your proposition is meagre. That said, I think all profanity is pretty worthless, but if I demanded execrations to be deleted from this website, there would be an overwhelming opposition no matter what. So I do not see the point in voting for this. --Pilcrow 01:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

RFD isn't a vote.

The difference between stupidfuck and dumbfuck is that dumbfuck is a common compounded word, where "stupid fuck" is just two words frequently used together. "dumb fuck" and "dumbfuck" are both pretty frequently used, and dumbfuck was used enough to become its own new word. "stupidfuck" has 6 hits on google books, and I'm guessing that at least one or two of those are mis-reports by the search, but I can't check cuz my browser is being a cunt.

If you really think that I give even half a fuck that "lold" isn't a "valid word" then you don't know me at aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall. Plus you spelled meager incorrectly, so stick it somewhere nasty lol. — [Ric Laurent] — 01:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

¶ Google Books results are not absolutely necessary to support entries. Remembre that “clearly‐wide spread use” is also a valid way to support an entry. Try clicking ‘next’ at the bottom of this page for a while and judge for yourself. There is also an option to search within websites by putting something like site:example.com in the search‐bar. site:twitter.com reveals many results.

¶ A browser cannot be ‘a cunt’. The ‘word’ ‘cunt’ does not mean anything. Furthermore, if you want to get a G.E.D. (which is vital for college) then it would be a good idea to not write as a knuckle‐dragging, dysfunctional child like you always write. For the record: meagre is, in fact, a perfectly valid spelling and it is actually more orthographically consistent with the French and Latin ascendants compared to the allegedly ‘phonetic’ form meager. --Pilcrow 02:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

And we'll see you back in 3 days! — [Ric Laurent] — 02:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I think WT:COALMINE applies here. —Internoob 02:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It's still a SOP. (I haven't checked fuck to see if we have the simple pejorative, but if not we should.) If we include stupid fuck, why not silly fuck, retarded fuck, etc. — [Ric Laurent] — 03:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It's as widespread as dumb fuck, the quotations I will fix, they were a mistake by me, I was working on both entries and mixed them up. As for silly fuck and retarded fuck, no one has yet, I've never heard of a retarded fuck, but silly fuck I have, maybe you should add it.Lucifer 04:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a sum-of-parts to me. Also the contributor needs to decide if it is an interjection or a noun. SemperBlotto 08:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. The term "stupidfuck" is not a sum of parts, or else "headache" would be a sum of parts; we don't treat closed compounds as sum of parts. The term "stupidfuck" seem attestable even on Google books (google books:"stupidfuck"). The open compound "stupid fuck" should be kept per WT:COALMINE; it should be under the "noun" part of speech. --Dan Polansky 08:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It's SOP if you know that "fuck" is used as a disparaging term of address. — [Ric Laurent] — 12:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't deny that both terms are semantic sums of their component words. I merely emphasize that we keep closed compounds even when they are semantic sums of their component words, so we keep the likes of "headache", "toothache", "stupidfuck", "dumbfuck", "beermaker", "carmaker", "shoemaking", and "coalmine". --Dan Polansky 19:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I've got a feeling this is WT:COALMINE abuse. Having looked on Google Groups, I think (deprecated template usage) stupidfuck can pass after all, so we should keep both. I don't like it though! Equinox ◑ 12:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Keep both and frown about it. (Though I think almost all applications of COALMINE are COALMINE abuse, so what do I know?) —Ruakh_TALK 13:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I wonder whether stupidfuck and stupid fuck mean the same thing or whether, OTOH, stupidfuck is a noun ("contemptible person") whereas stupid fuck is an adjective and noun ("non-smart or contemptible" + "contemptible person"). If the latter is the case then COALMINE wouldn't seem to apply. I don't know what evidence might prove one way or the other — and this might affect what our definition should be for stupid fuck (if kept). As it stands, our definition is "contemptible person", which matches either parsing. I suppose the burden of proof should be on those who wish to apply COALMINE, no? So delete stupid fuck pending such proof, while of course keeping stupidfuck.​—msh210℠ (talk) 08:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• If stupidfuck meets RFV then obviously keep it. But stupid fuck is not the same thing, it's just a SOP adjective + noun combo and is stressed differently in pronunciation (compare coal mine). Ƿidsiþ 08:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

stupid fuck and stupidfuck are the same thing, coalmine proves that, if its even written one word then clearly its no SOP and coalmine helps point that out, notwithstanding, stupid fuck is the more common version.Lucifer 00:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

kept -- Liliana • 19:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

computer engineering

Sum of parts. SemperBlotto 08:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, but why, then, do we have electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, systems engineering and probably yet a few others? --Hekaheka 14:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep because it is a set term.Lucifer 06:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

computer hardware

I'm going to assume anyone of us could figure this one out on their own. -- Liliana • 20:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 20:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep, we of course can, my grandma can't, my mom might have trouble too, even some of my friends just a few years older that grew up right before they started throwing computers in the classroom.Lucifer 20:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

But they can look up computer and hardware. I mean your granny also won't know what computer monitor, computer keyboard, or computer mouse is (the last one actually failed a RFV/RFD already), but we don't need entries for these obvious combinations. Equinox ◑ 21:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. --Actarus ^{(Prince d'Euphor)} 08:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

@Gtroy, do your mom and your grandma no what hardware in the computing sense is? --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The old people I do, don't. They need the qualifier computer or else they understand Home Depot, my point is that it is a set phrase in a way that. They do understand mouse, keyboard, and not monitor but screen. Keys (typewritter) and Keyboard is not much of a strech and is is similar enough to a piano keyboard. Mouse is really universally understood for some reason and not very often confused with a rodent. I clicked the mouse, I used the mouse doesn't seem to match much with I set traps for the mouse, my cat ate the mouse, I petted the mouse. As for monitor I find older people understand "to look after" generally if I don't say computer monitor and they often ask for confirmation "the computer screen?" so I usually say screen, also not many computers have "monitors" anymore as that tends to refer to bulky box CFC type monitors and they have been largely displaced by flat screens, tablets, and laptops. Hardware has a very set understanding of having to do with construction, home improvement, tools, wood, for a lot of people in a way the others simply don't and taking into account that this dictionary is not on paper and that this is a set phrase I think it should be allowed, also it would make translations easier.Lucifer 22:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)Lucifer 22:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Right, delete.​—msh210℠ (talk) 08:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

@Gtroy my point was that if someone doesn't understand this definition or hardware, they won't understand any utterance with hardware in it. So they won't understand I upgraded my computer's hardware last night, but that doesn't mean I upgraded my computer's hardware last night is an English idiom. --Mglovesfun (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete: sum of parts. It’s hardware of computer. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

rock hard

This seems to be an example of a common construction for a large class of adjectives, better treated under the adjective or as an element of grammar in an Appendix. For example consider this bgc search for "gun-barrel straight".

Also, under WT:COALMINE shouldn't the use of a spelled-solid form be attested for each sense? DCDuring TALK 12:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

We had a similar discussion for (deprecated template usage) apple pie, and the consensus there was that the literal sense needed to be included in order to balance out the figurative senses. That is, it would be misleading to only indicate figurative senses for the term, when the literal meaning is also in common use. See also w:Mohs scale of mineral hardness to see why the literal sense of rock hard needs a definition. --EncycloPetey 18:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

One issue is whether any one of the possible senses combining senses of rock#Noun and hard#Adjective should be on the first sense line rather than {{&lit}}. Another is whether the open class of constructions of the form N + Adj, with some restrictions on Adj, is appropriately represented. Including every such combination seems absurd, though many seem to believe that each attestable combination would merit an entry. Combined with the absurdity of WT:COALMINE, we seem to be committed to an exceptionally foolish course. DCDuring TALK 00:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I attested all the meanings, but someone moved most of them to rockhard, which seems to be a disservice, as its not clear which sense they are directed at there.Lucifer 22:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I moved them because they are not of rock hard which is the headword in question. It may be that all attestation should be devoted to each sense of rockhard. I would expect that any sense attested in the form rockhard would also be attestable in the form rock hard. DCDuring TALK 00:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Since the page for rockhard states only that it is an alternative form, I'd argue that the senses should be moved back to the lemma page. They might be duplicated on the alternative form page, but they shouldn't reside only there since, as Lucifer points out, they are not tied to any senses there. --EncycloPetey 18:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• keep under all circumstances. rock hard doesn't really mean as hard as rock, but very hard. There could be a verb here too, i.e. "this concert rocks hard" --Rockpilot 05:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

  I don't think that "rock hard" differs from "gun-barrel straight", "ramrod straight", "petal soft", "chrome shiny", and many, many similar N-Adj constructions, almost all of which don't mean anything more than Adj like an N, where N is a paradigm of Adj.

"This concert rocks hard is transparently a simple use of (deprecated template usage) hard. DCDuring TALK

• I've almost never seen it said "rockhard". What I've seen, and no one's mentioned, is "rock-hard". I agree with Pilot that there is enough content to be placed somewhere Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 05:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

  Do you think that all the possibly less common, but attestable collocations of similar form Adj-N can have entries. DCDuring TALK 05:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

  Is this thread about rock hard, or about all the possible words of the same construction? If the latter, then a separate thread should be started in the Beer Parlour, as this discussion pertains to a particular tagged entry. And why must the decision be all-or-nothing? Language isn't Boolean. --EncycloPetey 18:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

  I was interested in the "principle" being applied to the term in question. Any such principle that is so invoked and is not generally accepted needs to be addressed and its validity challenged, especially here at RfD, which is principally based on reasoned argument Or is it just voting with a figleaf of rationalization.

I think that each of the senses of rock hard needs to be confirmed as being used with the spelling rockhard, because I do not believe that the solid-spelled form is commonly used. The rationale for inclusion of the senses of this term is partially WT:COALMINE, after all. DCDuring TALK 23:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

For you, perhaps, but not to my mind it isn't. I don't think WT:COALMINE has anything to do with the discussion that was started here. It applies only to a tangential topic that invaded the current discussion. Only one sense was raised for discussion, and whether it has a single-word form or not is not critical to retention of the sense. --EncycloPetey 05:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I want to extend this discussion also to the other senses given in the entry. I'd say "rock hard" simply means "very hard" and that's basically what the rfd'ed definition currently says. There are two other senses, one referring to "rock hard" i.e. "very hard" muscles (muscles of abdomen, it says, but there's nothing in the quotations that would connect them with the abdomen) and the other referring to "rock hard" i.e. "very hard" penis. As a minimum development to the entry, I would like to combine these three senses into one, defined as "very hard". The quotations could be kept as examples of "very hard" sense. --Hekaheka 10:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

But it's very clear from the quotations that these do not all mean the same thing. If sentence begins "He was very hard...", the first sense means rigor mortis (or petrification), the second sense means his muscles are toned, and the third sense means his penis is erect. The second and third sense imply an unstated noun that is not implied by the first sense. These cannot be meaningfully combined. --EncycloPetey 02:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Not convincing. Saying that "rock hard penis" means "erect penis" is equal to saying that "red tomato" means "ripe tomato" and thus we should add the sense "ripe" to the word "red". It's true that rock hard penis is erect, but if I'm using "rock hard" I'm discussing a different aspect of the penis than when using "erect". --Hekaheka 21:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You're clearly not understanding what I'm saying, so please look at the quotes. I am not talking about situations where "rock hard" is used to modify the word "penis". Rather, I am pointing out that "rock hard" implies "penis", even if the word "penis" is omitted. --EncycloPetey 23:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Vichy water

Isn't this just water from Vichy? Or am I missing something here? There are several other brands of water which we do not include either, no matter whether or not they're carbonated. -- Liliana • 14:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's from particular springs or spas. Formerly supposed to have health benefits. It's not any old tap-water from Vichy, and it isn't a brand. Equinox ◑ 14:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Right in front of me, I have a bottle labeled "Bad Vilbel water". By your logic, we should include that as a separate entry, because it doesn't refer to tap water from Bad Vilbel, but only to water from particular springs. To me, that doesn't make a lot of sense. -- Liliana • 14:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Anybody here seen the end of Casablanca? That somewhat makes the case for this entry's inclusion. Not completely, but somewhat. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 05:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's a kind of water, what kind is it?Lucifer 06:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

When I was growing up, my parents used sometimes to buy bottled carbonated (artifically carbonated, not with natural bubbles) water with certain salts/minerals in it — IIRC baking soda was one of them. They called this Vichy water. Seemingly that was not just their idiolectic word for it: First of all, see La Republique Francaise v. Saratoga Vichy Springs Co., 107 F. 459, aff'd, French Republic v. Saratoga Vichy Spring Co., 191 U.S. 427, which, though they discuss the use of Vichy by a specific company, may be weak evidence of its use generally. But more convincingly, see [20], which sounds like so-called "vichy water" may have had some antacid in it. (Baking soda is an antacid.) Similarly, see [21], where so-called "Vichy water" is made, so is clearly not from the Vichy (France) springs. (And it contains baking soda.) (Don't let the italics there throw you off: italics are used throughout that text for English words.) Now, certainly Vichy water also refers to water from the Vichy springs, as in [22]: I'm arguing merely that it has another meaning also.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure (but have difficulty in proving) that this was a generic term for mineral water before there were any commercial brands of the stuff. SemperBlotto 08:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

oats

"Seeds of an oat plant", redundant to "plural form of oat". Or am I missing something? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's used as singular (as in one usex provided). Probably deserves its own sense therefore.​—msh210℠ (talk) 09:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

cum junkie > WT:RFV#cum junkie

SOP, you can be a junk(ie/y) for anything. — [Ric Laurent] — 18:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete and compare Talk:travel junkie. Equinox ◑ 18:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Definition says "person that uses their sexuality to obtain luxuries" which seems non-SoP, but the definitions not really back this up, for example "I never knew Elizabeth was such a cum junkie." does demonstrate existence, but could just mean a junkie for cum. --Mglovesfun (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

If you look through google books, "cum junkie" does indeed mean trying to get luxuries for sex, comparable to sugar baby (the opposite of a sugardaddy).

That's exactly what it is. It seems Troy likes to exercise creative license where none is due. I might semi-speedy this one later. I'll give it a bit more time for other comments. — [Ric Laurent] — 20:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I am just reporting the definition as the citations showed it to mean, I was surprised by this non-cumslut definition but it was there.Lucifer 21:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• keep as alt form of cumjunkie, per WT:COALMINE --Rockpilot 20:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Lol I was just about to change my mind and delete it after looking at Talk:travel junkie. I don't think WT:COALMINE was ever meant to make SOP phrases acceptable. Anyway, we don't have cumjunkie, just cum-junkie, which I'm also going to burn. — [Ric Laurent] — 20:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not but this word does get spelled cumjunkie sometimes which means for certain it meets COALMINE and that cum junkie is simply the common spelling and that is what COALMINE was made for.Lucifer 21:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this should be kept, it is a set phrase in line with cumwhore, cumslut, cumrag, cumhole, cumdump, and cum dumpster. It's true you can be a junkie for anything but this is a set phrase, and is a type of person as evidence by the synonyms.

A google search makes use of the one word compound form to be pretty common.Lucifer 21:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see WT:ATTEST. DCDuring TALK 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Clearly widespread use, which it does have., Usage in a well-known work, it has them, I put in several sources, Usage in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year, again the sources.Lucifer 00:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Restored as it's not an open-and-shut case, should get at least a week and then only delete if there is a consensus to do so after a week, if there's no real consensus either way, leave it at least a month to allow for more comments. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the junk definition which claims that it means something that it doesn't, how is it any different from Talk:travel junkie? There's precedent for x-junkie not being included. Junk definition aside, this is no different. — [Ric Laurent] — 13:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Move to RFV as not cited; the citations convey meaning, but not the meaning in the entry. --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess you're not going to do this yourself, so I've done it. — [Ric Laurent] — 12:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

butt chin

Just a butt that looks like a chinLucifer 22:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope, a chin that looks like a butt. --Hekaheka 17:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Lol actually it's a cleft chin. Try reading the definition. — [Ric Laurent] — 23:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, lol @ a butt that looks like a chin. — [Ric Laurent] — 23:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

That is just a claim made in the definition, these two words means someone with a fat round chin like a butt, not cleft chin. Creator provides no proof of cleft chin claim.Lucifer 23:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

If you dispute what it means, you should use RFV (request for verification, where you're asking people to find citations). RFD is where you think it doesn't even meet the criteria for inclusion somehow. Personally I've never heard of a "butt chin"! Equinox ◑ 00:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Just added three cites. Bout to add a wikipedia link (cleft chin) which clearly lists it as a synonym. Stop being bitter that I'm nominating your bad entries for deletion lol — [Ric Laurent] — 00:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think its meets CFI, the definition given is made up, and the definition I understand these words to mean, are SOP, either way delete.Lucifer 00:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You don't understand the CFI lol. The definition very clearly isn't made up, read the cites and the wikipedia page. I'm striking this now. — [Ric Laurent] — 00:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I still contest this, and only two cites mention anything of a cleft chin, and only one fully supports that a butt and a cleft chin are one in the same, the other simply says someone with a cleft chin has people sometimes call it a cleft chin.Lucifer 00:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

There is not wikipedia article about butt chin, just a cleft chin. Wikipedia has one single source for butt chin=cleft chin, and that doesn't mean it meets CFI, nor does it mean that the reference is valid over there either.Lucifer 00:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It has valid citations. This isn't even a valid RFD because it's an RFV issue. God. Equinox ◑ 00:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd really love to ban him again. — [Ric Laurent] — 00:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't have three that clearly state it is what the creator claims it is. Out of the two that even mention cleft chin, one of them is dubious.Lucifer 00:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Lol, dubious? You don't get to decide that. I got all the cites from google books. And just to prove that you're a moron, I'll sit here and look for more than specify the cleft chin specifically. If you don't stop acting foolishly, I'm going to ban you again. — [Ric Laurent] — 00:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

There are now 9 quotes spanning 16 years. Two of them specifically say "cleft chin", 2 others mention a cleft, 3 mention a dimple, and 2 more a crack. I'm striking this again, and Troy, you can just get over it and look for something else to try and get deleted. — [Ric Laurent] — 01:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep, a butt chin is not a chin that can pass feces! --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Re-tagged, no reason not to give this seven days, others may want to express an opinion. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, the reason would be that it was procedurally wrong to begin with. What Troy was contesting was the definition I gave, so it should have been at RFV, which Equinox correctly pointed out earlier. But whatever lol. I need to add a picture... — [Ric Laurent] — 12:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

First thing he says on this page is "Just a butt that looks like a chin" which looks like a SoP argument to me. Anyway, given the circumstances let's be procedurally correct on this one, eh? A week won't hurt anyone. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Read it again. A BUTT that looks like a CHIN is not what the entry says, and a chin that looks like a butt (which is also not what the entry says, though I suppose I should make an etymological note of this) is not an accurate definition. (For one thing, a butt chin doesn't look like a butt. Except maybe in cartoons.) It's an informal term for a cleft chin, which is a pretty specific genetic trait. What causes it is a little groove in the jaw bone, not in the flesh of the chin itself. In no way is it SOP. :P

A week might not hurt anyone, but leaving this open is a waste of time, and besides, you can't be procedurally correct on something that was incorrectly placed to begin with. — [Ric Laurent] — 14:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

He's pointing out that the "moron" stated an SOP argument, and SOP arguments are grounds for deletion not verification. I am saying this is SOP, while also mentioning that even though the entry claims this means something else I am not convinced it is anything but the SOP chink looking like a butt, if that makes sense. And you can't block people for voicing their opinion on a deletion debate. Your not above the rules just because you want to be. I honestly didn't think the entry was valid at the time and the quotations didn't show it when you first added them, I am a bit more inclined to believe it now.Lucifer 21:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

For once, I vote for keep. I'd say it's quite hard to guess from the parts. --Hekaheka 08:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Kept, duh — [Ric Laurent] — 16:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm Rick James bitch

This is a idiom and a phrase, it's like "like water for chocolate", "i'm coocoo for cocoa puffs", "life is like a box of chocolates".23:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep.Lucifer 23:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It's utter tosh. — [Ric Laurent] — 23:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like tosh to me, however a Google Book search gets 95 hits, also this one calls it an 'over-used catchphrase' which suggests it has more than a literal meaning. Restored for now, let's keep debating. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It's really used and all words in all languages seems to ring a bell here, the quotes I added seem to show that it is used in literature and also report that it is used not just when quoting the show which no longer airs but for unrelated reasons such as the term has been defined. Almost like an interjection if you ask me.Lucifer 22:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The "all words in all languages" argument works much better for, you know, words. That motto doesn't mention anything about phrases and lengthy interjections, however commonly used they are. — [Ric Laurent] — 04:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be a catchphrase. Do we accept these? Is there a missing comma? SemperBlotto 11:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if we do, but there are "phrases" as qualified entries so I would say it is. Technically it is missing a comma, but printed words spell it with and without, one instance even spelled it "I'm Rick James's bitch" but that seems like a typo, and the ' is wrong on top of that.Lucifer 22:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Like most Internet catchphrases, it is not CFI-attestable and will be forgotten in six months anyway. This should have been an RFV. Equinox ◑ 12:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Well for what it's worth, I have now verified it, and it was easily attested. I don't know if CFI covers such a term but as per wikipedia, when no rules fit the bill make one up, I say this should be treated as a proverb, although it isn't.Lucifer 22:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I speedied it right after Troy made it. Then about a full day later, he put it here, then Martin restored it. — [Ric Laurent] — 13:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no opinion, it simply didn't seem speedy-deletable. BTW it does get 95 Google Book hits. --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Lots of things that get 95 books hits wouldn't be the kind of thing we include. Naturally, what seems speedy-deletable is completely subjective and to me, it certainly looked it. — [Ric Laurent] — 16:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

@Ric: For what it's worth, I'd have done the same. —Ruakh_TALK 17:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me in the slightest that it got speedied, I thought it would be a longshot for inclusion. So to avoid any edit warring for conflictiveness when I noticed it was outright deleted I just put it here so as to get others' opinions. Having said that it's used a lot, now I don't know or necessarily personally think it is a proverb, but maybe its a phrase here? It is set. It was popularized by David Chapelle. It's kind of like It's peanut butter jelly time if we have that, as for a comma, maybe it should have one but it is said awfully fast, with no pause so I didn't put that there.Lucifer 22:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As to the citations: 2004 does not convey meaning; 2008 and 2009 are mentions; 2010 and 2011 are in poetry, in which the meaning the term is supposed to have is not at all obvious. I don't see the meaning conveyed by the 2007 cite. All of them do seem to allusions to the Chappelle Show (a comedy). I certainly don't see much support for the definition in the citations.

Contrast this allusion with that giving the prevailing meaning to bell the cat. DCDuring TALK 01:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Even though some are not direct quotes they are printed examples, contextually, of the writer cataloging the usage in the form of a quotation and report that it is used as an exclamatory to grab attention.Lucifer 19:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any of them count for attestation. Please see WT:ATTEST. I can't imagine including this under any plausible phrasebook criteria, either. The supposed meaning is an attempt to say that the attitude with which a performer delivered this has become an implicit part of the meaning, when there is no evidence that it is actually used that way, rather than mentioned. DCDuring TALK 21:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should edit the definition then? It is attested after all.Lucifer 00:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The mentions don't count at all. I can't tell what meaning(s) is(are) supported by the citations apart from the literal one: I am w:Rick James, bitch. DCDuring TALK 00:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That's why it's an interjection of irreverenceLucifer 22:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

For me, those citations don't back up any meaning, apart from a literal one. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

glory days

I am suspicious of this; the authour’s original version lookt like nonsense, and I do not know whence thon got this definition from. --Pilcrow 03:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It gets 9M Google hits, and the definition looks correct. Yet I believe it's SoP, hence delete. --Hekaheka 06:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It is odd that the editor first saved a nonsense definition, but the present one is correct. I'd say it's mildly idiomatic, in that the actual period referred to is usually years, decades, or even perhaps centuries, for example the glory days of the British empire. I'll abstain on this one, but I've slightly improved the wording, in case we keep it. --Enginear 07:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like "days (time) of glory" to me. I would delete it. SemperBlotto 08:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Strong keep: I think SoP is too rigidly called in this case. "Days" is ambiguous enough (and doesn't necessarily mean "days" per se) to justify it being kept. Also, considering that it gets 9M hits, it's clearly a commonly used term Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 14:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"shitty day" gets nearly 7 million. Commonness isn't a criterion for inclusion. However, I would lean toward keeping this one. Not enough to make it bold, but... leaning. — [Ric Laurent] — 17:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Common set phrase, not just common so keep.Lucifer 21:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Some lemmings have this: Cambridge Adv Learners, RHU, Cambridge Idioms, Macmillan. DCDuring TALK 00:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it really a set phrase? One might as well use "days of glory". Also, we have this sense for day: "A specified time or period; time, considered with reference to the existence or prominence of a person or thing; age; time." --Hekaheka 05:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Definitely a set phrase. —Ruakh_TALK 21:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

base isolation, seismic load and seismic performance

To me, as a building design professional, these appear to be clearly sum-of-parts, but perhaps I am too close to the subject. What do others think? (And if we do keep them, the wording needs tweaking for clarity.) --Enginear 07:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

They look specialized enough to warrant inclusion to me. — [Ric Laurent] — 13:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

They do to me too.Lucifer 21:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete, except possibly "base isolation", which seems to become opaque because of dropping seismic from seismic base isolation. The others seem quite transparent once a context of use is suggested. DCDuring TALK 00:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

After thinking about it a bit more, I'm going to have to say keep to all. I wouldn't understand any of the given meanings of these terms looking at our entries for their constituent parts. — [Ric Laurent] — 20:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

contents of Category:Cantonese jyutping

Unlike Chinese pinyin and Japanese romaji, Cantonese jyutping has never been approved for inclusion in Wiktionary, and I doubt it will, since I cannot see it passing CFI. Similarly, Korean Revised Romanization already failed to be approved, so there's a precedent case. -- Liliana • 22:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this more of a Beer Parlor thing? Mglovesfun (talk) 08:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably. — [Ric Laurent] — 12:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

We don't have many editors knowing and willing to contribute in Cantonese, let alone its multiple romanisation schemes. Pinyin and romaji are much more widely used for romanisation and as a learning tool. Not so much with Korean Revised Romanization - learners switch to Hangeul much faster - Korean writing easier to learn. Cantonese is seldom romanised in a standard way and Yale is perhaps more common than Jyutping. --Anatoli 03:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I add Cantonese from time to time and always use jyutping. — [Ric Laurent] — 18:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

law

Rfd-redundant: The two definitions for scientific law seem redundant, but there might be some worthwhile elements in the newly added sense, however tendentious it may be. The contributor of the new sense evidently believed it the previous scientific sense to be redundant to his. DCDuring TALK 02:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That's kinda funny, we should give him the Eric Cartman award! That way we can tell him he's being a punk while at the same time complimenting him.Lucifer 02:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Good grief. I just didn't have the time or energy to fix his ramblings. SemperBlotto 08:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I was talking to another user the other day (offsite) and was saying I would be surprised if I hadn't blocked him within 24 hours. That was more than 24 hours ago, and I've gotta say, I was right. I'm surprised. It would be one thing if the community were tolerating a poor editor who weren't so lazy. Recent examples: the one horrid quotation on tribbing, a quotation for throat-gagging where the two words were technically not connected to each other, a completely wrong inflection on be a man, adding superfluous and unverifiable information to the etymology of pussyboy which only applies to one of the several definitions... — [Ric Laurent] — 12:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that there's a misunderstanding. The new sense was a modification of the old one, but then the old one was brought back in this edit. You can tell because they both have the same wording. —Internoob 06:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

金の中心

None of the search results with this term gets anywhere close to mean heart of gold, it's usually a part of another phrase. The only example I can find is a non-idiomatic literal translation the title of Neil Young's Heart of Gold - lost in translation major time here. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 02:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done : totally meaningless. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

-neß

¶ This should be deleted since it is a typographic différence. I am sorry I made it. --Pilcrow 19:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. (Though the main reason it should be deleted is that it doesn't exist. If it existed, then we could discuss whether it was worth keeping as an alternative form or something.) —Ruakh_TALK 20:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

¶ There are more terms like that here. I give you my consent to speedy‐delete the ones I made. --Pilcrow 20:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done by Equinox (talk • contribs). Thanks, both of you. :-)   —Ruakh_TALK 21:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Why would ye thank me? --Pilcrow 21:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

For pointing out the category and its contents, and giving consent to speedy-delete them. —Ruakh_TALK 21:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

table scrap

¶ I had a soupçon someone would attempt to get this deleted, so here I am. Could this be interpreted as sum‐of‐parts? --Pilcrow 22:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I suppose that (deprecated template usage) scrap could be interpreted as a fight. Anyway, I have never heard of this term. RfV? SemperBlotto 08:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It's the small pieces of food left over on your plate that you would throw away, shove down the disposal, or sneak to your doggy.Lucifer 08:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Widespread use. Not a set phrase or idiom. A mere collocation. Picnic scraps would be attestable, for example. But many seem to believe that all attestable collocations should be, some (eg, SB) restricting inclusion to collocations involving polysemic components. No OneLook reference has this.

Scrap in this sense can be found in many phrases of the form "NP scrap(s)". The NP can be a food that constitutes the scrap(s) or a place or event that may be the source of the scrap(s). A near synonym is scraping(s). DCDuring TALK 16:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

In this situation, I'd favor keeping it, since table scrap refers to leftover food, and not to junked bits of a table. The combination "table scrap" could have more than one possible meaning, but only one is usually intended. Additionally, table scrap is an exact synonym of one sence of scrap, just as ice hockey is a synonym of one sense of hockey. The additional word does not add any meaning to the definition that was not there before, so it isn't really an extra word (since it lacks independent meaning in the collocation), but the additional word does clarify which sense is intended. --EncycloPetey 17:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The principle on which your argument relies are a poor basis for making replicable decisions about inclusion. The first argument applies to all phrases including at least one polysemic terms. Thus it puts us on the wrong side of a combinatorial explosion of potential entries, given the poor quality of our entries for single words, despite having the benefit of copyright-free dictionaries for all basic words and many others, including some not yet included. In addition polysemy is an artifact of the care with which we (or anyone) subdivide meaning in words. Does head have 10 or 100 senses? Does barometer have one, two, three, or ten senses?

The second argument (if it is not an observation) just seems wrong. The sense of scrap that appears in table scrap is the same sense that appears in picnic scrap or kitchen scrap. A picnic scrap, for example, could be from a blanket as well as a table and a kitchen scrap' from a counter. Butcher scraps would be from a chopping block. The same sense also appears with NPs referring to the type of food in which "table" is potentially completely irrelevant.

This kind of discussion also illustrates the somewhat arbitrary nature of what one calls a "sense". DCDuring TALK 18:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The second point was indeed observation more than argument, but your reply is not error-free. In fact kitchen scrap does not always refer to food in the quotations I'm finding:

• Boys' Life - Oct 1976

  Kitchen Scrap. Here's a way to recycle kitchen throwaways such as popsicle sticks, disposable ice-cream spoons, and soda straws.

The combination "kitchen scrap" (as food bits) seems to be more British, whereas "table scrap" is more used in the US.

In any case, "table scrap" does appear in crossword dictionaries, FWIW, even if not in the OneLook sources. --EncycloPetey 19:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I never said that kitchen scrap meant only food. Another use of scrap is to refer to materials of any kind by their source. "Foundry scrap", "picnic scraps", "household scraps", "factory scrap". DCDuring TALK 20:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting variation:

• 1911, C.A. Rogers, "Raising Chickens-The Principles Involved", Agriculture of Vermont, p. 97:

  The domestic chick must be given the animal food in some concentrated form also, such as meat scrap, meat meal, milk or buttermilk; the latter alone, however, will not provide enough protein to properly balance the ration. It can be supplemented with table scrap or meat scraps. DCDuring TALK 20:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This seems to suggest a meaning that is, at least, exclusive of meat scraps. bd2412 T 18:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Maybe meat scraps are only scraps of meat, while table scraps are scraps of anything (possibly including meat) from a table. Equinox ◑ 18:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. DCDuring TALK 20:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The second sense should be verified, it seems to be the sense justifying inclusion. Lmaltier 18:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

How about this: 2008, Kim Powers, Capote in Kansas: A Ghost Story, p. 3:

She was not a retiring woman, about to roll over and accept table scraps.

Cheers! bd2412 T 03:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't look very SoP to me, for example it's not a scrap of a table (a bit of wood or metal or plastic). But having never heard of the term, I will decline to make further comment. --Mglovesfun (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Taking an example from close at hand (BD2412's cite), "retiring woman" could have any of a few meanings (referring to personality, relationship to employment, specific activity with respect to a vehicle or other machine, an occupation} depending on context, though the personality one tends to be the most common sense and probably the default. If I build an entry around one of them, wouldn't it be necessarily included by your logic? DCDuring TALK 20:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's fair to draw a comparison between those, since retiring is a participle instead of an attributive noun. I wouldn't apply Mglovesfun's rationale except in a [N + N] combination. I'm not arguing for full and unmitigated validity of the reasoning in all such cases, but I agree with the principle of his reasoning. --EncycloPetey 17:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that the context of the phrase as used in the sentence I cited can be gleaned by reading the surrounding text more broadly. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

strength training

SoP -- Liliana • 22:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a sport, and is the set term for this sport, it's a two word not sop compound.Lucifer 22:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Set phrase, keep. — [Ric Laurent] — 00:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

For once, I agree with GT/Lucifer. It's borderline, but possibly distinct from the expected sum of parts. Dbfirs 11:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not a sport, it's a form of exercise used in training for many a sport. --Hekaheka 12:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree for now, but I'm not sure if or how strength training differs from body building, except that body building gets to the point of being gross, whereas strength training actually makes you kinda hot. I think of strength training as body building for people who don't care to do steroids and look like aliens. — [Ric Laurent] — 14:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I can think of at least two differences: 1) there are competitions in body building but not in strength training 2) in body building one tries to get good-looking and voluminous (in somebody's eyes, at least) muscles but in strength training the focus is in adding the performance (and as by-product often also the volume) of the muscles. --Hekaheka 22:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of competitions for people who use strength training, but they're not called "strength training competitions". They're called sports. --EncycloPetey 18:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

As I read the definition it would be SoP were it not for the prepositional phrase "through anaerobic exercise." As no citations support this (or any other aspect of the definition) the entry is not really defensible as it stands. Move to RfV. DCDuring TALK 18:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Strength training is a specific form of resistance training that utilizes low numbers of repetitions with higher resistance. As Harvey Newton put it in 2006 (see another quote in the entry): "Strength training, a relatively new term, is applied to athletes who use resistance training to increase strength with the express purpose of improving performance in their chosen sport. Strength training implies that the athlete is actually using a high enough resistance, applied with a relatively low number of repetitions, to actually gain stength. Not everyone engaged in resistance training actually trains for increased strength." Strength training is a very specific form of resistance training, such that many major athletic teams now have strength coaches. --EncycloPetey 18:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

exercise equipment

SOP? Equipment used for exercise. — [Ric Laurent] — 00:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Also a set phrase. A jumprope doesn't really count, this term is nearly always in reference to the muscle isolation machines at the gym.Lucifer 00:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. e.g. from Make your own exercise equipment (Jack Wiley, 1984): "Manufactured jump ropes of good quality are available for about $5 and up, so you won't want to go to too much trouble and expense to make one." So delete as NISoP. Note existence of other similar compounds like exercise gear and gym equipment. Equinox ◑ 00:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It can refer to anything used to excerpt including heavy cans but it usually means machines at the gym is my point. This means bench press, adductor, incline press, treadmill, etc in most situations and is implied.Lucifer 00:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Prove it. Equinox ◑ 02:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't refer mostly to the machines. From the Men's Health Ultimate Dumbbell Guide: "All of the exercises in this book can be done with no additional equipment save a set of dumbbells or by using a few ordinary exercise equipment accessories like a weight bench or a Swiss ball, for example. If I added other less-common exercise equipment into the mix (such as cable pulleys, resistance cords, etc.) […] " Or from the book Dynamic Dumbbell Training: "When you're looking for a piece of exercise equipment that offers the body a unique challenge, you can't look past a pair of dumbbells." It seems clear that the major publishers don't use the term to refer specifically to exercise machines. --EncycloPetey 19:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't see how this could be anything other than (deprecated template usage) equipment used for (deprecated template usage) exercise. Delete SemperBlotto 08:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, to those of us who don't use gyms, there is no special meaning attached to these two words. Specialist usages by paramedics or in gyms deserve special entries only if the meaning there differs significantly from general usage outside the specialism. Dbfirs 10:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete, per Eq, Dbfirs.​—msh210℠ (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete per nom. bd2412 T 03:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree, delete. --EncycloPetey 18:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 16:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

guatonsito

I was going to rfv this, but there are absolutely zero hits for guatonsito, guatonsita, guatonsitos or guatonsitas on google books. Discuss. — [Ric Laurent] — 00:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a conjugated form of guatón, it's the diminutive and it's very much in use. It's also a term of endearment for a male baby.Lucifer 00:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not "conjugation". Also I realized what it is. You spelled it wrong. — [Ric Laurent] — 00:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is and damnit it's -cito isn't it? Well can we move it then?Lucifer 02:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Conjugation applies to verbs. — [Ric Laurent] — 02:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Moved to guatoncito. Please delete guatonsito. --Hekaheka 12:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Boy, that was quick! --Hekaheka 12:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

fatbitch, fat bitch

I think fat bitch is a really common set phrase and should be kept.Lucifer 00:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

All you have to do is create the article with three appropriate citations — i.e. ones that aren't scannos, proper nouns ("he signed the letter Henry Fatbitch" is unusable, as I said), or misunderstandings on your part. Have you really personally read books with fatbitch as one word? You seem to have a weird idea of when spaces are used and when they aren't. Equinox ◑ 00:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

machine-readable dictionary

This seems quite like a dictionary that is machine-readable, which is to say readable by a machine of some kind. That the machine would, at present, be electronic seems immaterial to the concept. DCDuring TALK 20:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

All English dictionaries printed in the traditional way on paper are machine-readable. The term machine-readable dictionary excludes those kinds of dictionaries, and something more specific is meant. Without reading more about these MRDs, I am not sure if they include all electronically digitized dictionaries, or if they are even more specific than that. But, clearly, not every dictionary that is machine-readable is a machine-readable dictionary. —Stephen ^(Talk) 21:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article backs Stephen up, in fact even the initial 2007 version of that article does. --Mglovesfun (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that machine-readable dictionary = electronic dictionary (in the form of database) + API, where API allows manipulate dictionary data (e.g. search, insert) from the computer program. So MRD is a subset of all electronic dictionaries. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky 11:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Paper books are not machine-readable. For the large scanning projects that Google and the Internet Archive do, a human has to manually turn the pages on the books. Even then, while one might claim that OCR can handle some books appropriately, dictionaries are not those books. OCR will make a hash of phonetic notation and will not segment the text appropriately.

Every dictionary that is machine-readable is a machine-readable dictionary; however, like many adjectives, not everyone agrees how machine-readable something has to be to be machine-readable, and the answer tends to depend on context.--Prosfilaes 12:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

pageable memory

memory that is pageable. -- Liliana • 20:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC) (addendum: I have to admit, though, that the definition of pageable is horrible and definitely needs some sort of improvement)

I don’t know what pageable memory is (since I have not read the definition there), but if I look at pageable, it eventually tells me that it means the pages can be marked, or else that the pages can be turned. I still don’t understand how a page of memory is marked or numbered (or how that would be a useful feature), or else how a page of memory can be turned. If I don’t read the definition at pageable memory, but look up the separate words, I will never have any idea what it is. —Stephen ^(Talk) 21:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This is what {{only in}} would be for. DCDuring TALK 21:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone who doesn't understand "pageable memory" also wouldn't understand "pageable virtual memory" or "Most of the kernel's memory is not pageable". That doesn't mandate entries for those. Equinox ◑ 12:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

brain cancer

¶ Does anybody think this is sum‐of‐parts? --Pilcrow 02:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't. WP says it can also occur in the spinal canal. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 02:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There's also lung cancer and skin cancer. -- Liliana • 12:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

And prostate cancer. I'd say delete any bodypart + cancer where it refers to cancer of the said bodypart. For English speakers, this is SoP as the meaning is easily derived from the sum of the parts, so it failed WT:CFI#Idiomaticity. Ergo delete this. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily refer to cancer of the said bodypart in this case. A cancer in the w:Central canal of spinal cord is a brain cancer. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 22:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep if this is true. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

start button

start + button. The rest is completely encyclopedic and not part of the actual definition. -- Liliana • 15:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Compare Start and (capitalised) Start button, the thing in Windows. Equinox ◑ 15:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Any button/key/arrow can be known this way, like up button, down button, etc. 'Button' is just a qualifier to make clear what the context is, delete. --Mglovesfun (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. The function of the Start button depends on the game and the context in the game, just like all the other buttons on a controller (left/right trigger, left/right bumper, select button, dpad, etc.....) and should thus not be included in a dictionary. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 03:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete if it doesn’t have another meaning like reset button does. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sadducees

Rfd-redundant: "The sect of the Sadducees" redundant to "Plural form of Sadducee".​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete: it's self-referential too! Equinox ◑ 19:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sadducee

Rfd-redundant: "Singular form of Sadducees" redundant to "A member of an ancient Jewish sect...".​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, this Webster 1913 I've been looking at includes ethnic and religious groups only in the plural (so has an entry for Delawares but not Delaware), which might explain how this originally came about. Equinox ◑ 22:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the decision will be, it should be applied to Pharisee, Pharisees, Essene and Essenes as well. --Hekaheka 06:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Unless I've overlooked something, the only one of those with a redundant sense is Pharisees. I've now tagged it, linking to this section, so consider it nominated for deletion.​—msh210℠ (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Variation selectors

︎

These aren't terms in any language. See Talk:͏ and Talk:Unsupported titles/Tab. -- Liliana • 17:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Repeating what I said at Talk:͏: "I'd support a single-page appendix for control characters. People will inevitably look them up. Probably shouldn't be in mainspace though." (I know I created these entries. I had a big Unicode chart at the time and didn't like seeing the red links!) Equinox ◑ 17:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I imported Appendix:Control characters from Wikipedia, and am currently working on it. Be sure to link to it from somewhere so anonymous users will find it! (Possibly {{only in}}?) -- Liliana • 17:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Esc key

An Esc key! -- Liliana • 17:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Any button/key/arrow can be known this way, like up key, down key, etc. 'Key' is just a qualifier to make clear what the context is, delete. --Mglovesfun (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 21:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. This is one that should be in WP not WT. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 03:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Chicago-style hot dog

SOP: a hot dog in the style of Chicago. People will not look this up in a dictionary, and it's not idiomatic.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Meh, the word 'Chicago' tells you nothing about the hot dog. I'd prefer an rfv. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt it would pass one. So you'd also want [[Chicago-style politics]], I gather?​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, the hot dog isn't SOP, and the politics is. The hot dog is a much more commonly used term outside of Chicago. Your line of thinking amounts to a slippery slope fallacy Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 14:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Move to RFV. Equinox ◑ 21:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Just delete. This seems to be an excellent example of encyclopedic content. DCDuring TALK 23:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Strong keep: This, and the "television show" RfD below, are frankly a waste of community time. This article is clearly not SOP, as nothing to do with "Chicago" is in the actual definition. Even the nominator acknowledges that it would pass a verifibility test. I'm not seeing how it's encyclopedic...it's a single sentence telling what's in the hot dog. Quite similar to dozens of other food-related articles in this project. So, if it's not RfVable, not SOP, and not encyclopedic, why are we here again? Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)}

To his defense, we have Vienna sausage, "a sausage in the style of Vienna" (yes, this is the definition!) -- Liliana • 03:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

...So, yeah, this one is better in that it's definition isn't just that (and FYI, a Chicago-style hot dog is made with Vienna sausage) Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 03:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

What about Viennese waltz though? Or Glasgow kiss? Keep, cannot think of a reason to delete this. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Depending on how this goes, we might need an entry for, Chicago-style politics, (also polka, pizza, and blues). DCDuring TALK 19:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, those are SOPpier than Chicago-style dog, and even if they weren't, that's still a slippery slope argument. CSHD is akin to French fries, baked Alaska or any other food that happens to have a place name in their titles, but can be defined without the place names, just simply by what's in it Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that virtually no term of the form "Place'-style' NP" is not includable under what has been advanced as an argument so far. There is normally nothing obvious from the place and still less the placename that conveys how "Place'-style' applies to NP. But this hardly seems like information that has anything to do with a dictionary rather than an encyclopedia. For one thing, is there any translation of the headword that is not a translation of Chicago-style + hot dog? DCDuring TALK 01:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems as though you're grasping at straws here. The test you're suggesting (the one with the headword) has little to do with the definition of SoP. The test for SoP is "can Chicago-style hot dog be defined in a way that isn't something on the lines of a hot dog from Chicago?", to which it's clear both here and in the definition itself that it can. Not all hot dogs sold in Chicago are Chicago-style hot dogs (you can get a chili dog or a hot dog with just mustard there, for example) nor are Chicago-style hot dogs only served in Chicago (I do not live anywhere near Chicago, but I made a CSHD at a barbecue once, and it appeared on the menu of my hometown hot dog place). Therefore, to call a CSHD "a hot dog from Chicago" is both vague and inaccurate, meaning it isn't SoP, it's just another food that happens to have a name of a place in it instead of another adjective. And to claim the definition is encyclopedic is also inaccurate, as it fits the general form of a food definition "a dish made with this, that and the other thing" Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 01:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I think what DCD means (and why I nominated this for deletion) is that it's incorrect to say "that Chicago-style hot dog can be "defined in a way that isn't something on the lines of a hot dog from Chicago" (as you very aptly put it), and that if our definition says otherwise then it says too much. Just like the definition for telephone should include that it's used for communication at a distance and that it allows for dialing to reach an intended party, but should not include details of its component parts, likewise the definition for Chicago-style hot dog should include that it's a hot dog in the style of Chicago, but should not include details of its ingredients — but that would make it SOP.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The definition doesn't say too much...it says no more than any other food-related article, most of which mention ingredients. Does that mean they have to go as well? Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 16:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Chicago-style doesn't tell me what this hot dog is. I reserve statement on Chicago-style politics, but in general, I think city-style noun phrases have a good chance of not being SOP.--Prosfilaes 21:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep I understand that it's a hot dog in the Chicago style, but that does not help when you want to know the sense. But this is not a sufficient reason. The actual reason for inclusion is that it's a set phrase, one of the two names, together with Chicago dog, as I understand from Wikipedia. This phrase belongs to the vocabulary in English. Lmaltier 21:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Purple. —Internoob 21:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

arpeggiated chord

SOP.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably, though arpeggiated and arpeggiate do not seem to cover it. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The first sense of arpeggiate seems to cover it nicely.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it's written like it's intransitive, but the quotation uses it transitively. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

revolution per minute

SOP.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete, straightforward. RPM should cover this (also, it's usually plural). Mglovesfun (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 03:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

mud wrestler

A wrestler in mud: SOP. (COALMINE says to include this if "significantly more common" than mudwrestler. Since the nominated entry is listed as an alternative form of the other, I doubt that that's the case.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

But it's not someone who wrestles mud, but some who wrestles in mud. This and mud wrestling to me would both pass WT:CFI#Idiomaticity. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep: it’s not a wrestler in mud but a person who does mud wrestling. Etymologically speaking it is a compound of mud wrestling + -er rather than mud + wrestler. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep (same reasons as above, but stated explicitly). Mglovesfun (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep, same. — [Ric Laurent] — 01:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete "foo barer" frequently means someone who bars in foo.--Prosfilaes 21:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a noun for a person who engages in this sport, such as a footballer or foot baller.Lucifer 22:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

deal with it

SOP.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Definition genuinely says "to deal with something", strong delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Strong delete, since we have not only (deprecated template usage) deal but (deprecated template usage) deal with. Equinox ◑ 21:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't hurt to redirect to [[deal with]] AFAICT.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Redirect per Msh. DCDuring TALK 23:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Redirect also seems acceptable to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Taking into account that, be a man grin and bear it lump it push through it take it like a man man up take it like a man and suck it up all existed I created this one following a redlink unbeknownest to me deal with already existed, I spose a redirect is in order but this is an alternate form and a very common one at that which leaving me thinking we should keep it on those grounds.Lucifer 22:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

television show

SOP.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, strong delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Strong keep: Widely used term. It's not SOP, because how would someone know which definition of "show" you were talking about? Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 02:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

delete. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 03:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Care to give a reason? Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 03:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Because (IMO) WT:CFI#Idiomaticity says "An expression is “idiomatic” if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components." In this case it is very easy to do so. Arguments about show having many meanings are not central to the argument; native and competent speakers understand this term. The fact that it's hypothetically possible to not understand it is a weak and for me anyway, irritating argument. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Arguments about show having multiple meanings are too central to the argument! If you didn't know exactly which "show" you meant, you couldn't figure out what "television show" meant! And you're discounting the "people can't figure it out" argument just because you don't like it? That, for me, is a weak and irritating argument. As is James' vote above that's just a !vote without any reasons listed Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 14:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The reason's already stated by the initator of the topic. Why repeating it?! I don't feel like arguing with you. I have my opinion and my opinion is it's SOP. You aren't gonna change my mind here. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 22:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. In this case, "television show" is given as an example at the relevant meaning of "show", which answers the question "how would someone know which definition of 'show' you were talking about?" More generally, though, if any part of Wiktionary's remit is concerned with catering for English learners, then it is in my opinion very helpful to keep these kinds of set expressions/terms and standard collocations (unless they are unmistakably and glaringly obvious from the component parts, which "television show" is not). I know from my own experience with language learning how hard it can be to make sense of multi-word terms the words have multiple meanings. By the way, the fact that "native and competent speakers understand this term" is not in itself an argument that it should not be in a dictionary. All dictionaries contain thousands of meanings that native and competent speakers are certain to already understand. 86.160.220.165 14:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about 'any dictionary', just specifically this dictionary. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, other dictionaries don't have arbitrary rules. Looking at the American Heritage dictionary by my computer, probably 10% of the words defined in it would fail some arbitrary guideline or another. Wiktionary is supposed to be more expansive than a paper dictionary, not less expansive Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 15:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

That's your opinion. I don't see how including multi-word phrases that any Tom, Dick or Harry can work out the meaning of doesn't seem like a selling point, more like a 'stay away' point to me. Anyway this sort of discussion belongs at Wiktionary talk:Criteria for inclusion. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Your assumption that "any Tom, Dick or Harry can work [them] out" is unproven and fallacious, for this definition or for any definition. It also violates the expansionist nature of NOTPAPER. A discussion has been started Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 16:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't take me too literally. I didn't mean every person in the world. And I don't think that should be our aim, that is, every person in the world. What about people who cannot read any English at all? No matter how many sum-of-parts entries we create, it won't help them. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course not. That's hardly the point. 86.177.106.236 20:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Any conceivable general-purpose dictionary -- whether Wiktionary or any other -- will inevitably contain thousands of entries that native and competent speakers already understand. The fact that such speakers are likely to already understand a word or term is completely bogus as a reason for excluding it, as a moment's reflection will confirm. 86.177.106.236 20:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I've been thinking this one over a lot before commenting, because it feels like it should be kept, but I could not actually see any reason why, until I found this quote:

  1972, United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  I have not been back to the prison except when I most recently attended a television show with Representative John Conyers.

  If a television show is simply the reception of a broadcast, then attending the show is not possible. The phrase seems to refer both to a production and to a received broadcast, and the broadcast is edited so as not to be identical to the performance. Likewise, I find quotations by searching for "worked on a television show", which means the production crew, and not the charatcer in the program. So, there seem to be at least two senses for this combination. --EncycloPetey 17:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

  One could also attestably define a television show as a "waster of time", a "babysitter", or "a source of information about life on earth for extraterrestrials", based on its possible relationships.

  I could find citations for report focusing on it being prepared and it being read. Does that need two definitions? DCDuring TALK 18:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

  I can't imagine how this differs from a radio show, some of which I've attended, and my family has worked on.--Prosfilaes 22:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This strikes me as a term that would be justified as being a translation target were that a criterion we recognized. It's inclusion in WordNet is suggestive in this regard. Is it time for a vote on accepting inclusion in WordNet (or any semantic reference of similar authority) as sufficient evidence for inclusion? DCDuring TALK 19:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It's time. As I've said, a person who spoke another language and didn't know what "show" meant couldn't figure out what "television show" meant. And it's quite likely that the word for television show isn't SOP in other languages Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If you're having trouble with show, then look at show; it even uses television show as an example for the appropriate sense.--Prosfilaes 21:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete A show, whether it be a theatrical show or whatever, can be attended or worked on.--Prosfilaes 21:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

  But for a theatrical show, what is prepared, attended, and seen are all the same thing. For a television show, there is (1) the production, which differs from (2) the receieved broadcast, which differs from (3) the sequence of programs that are collectively referred to as that television show. --EncycloPetey 18:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

  Perhaps, but I'd say that's not part of the definition, so it's irrelevant. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

  For a radio show, they aren't all the same thing. Nor for an Internet show (and yes, I could cite three sources for Internet show in this sense.)--Prosfilaes 22:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• My (paper) Harrap's Shorter dictionary provides a definition for film show, and it's not a waste of paper. In French, show is used, but not for cinema or television. Lmaltier 17:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You know it may seem like a silly entry but it is a set term and having a one sentence definition would be quite useful.Lucifer 22:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... pretty SOP, I'd say. dulete — [Ric Laurent] — 12:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

get the axe

we have axe#Noun sense 3, which occurs in more instances than just this one -- Liliana • 17:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Right. Hard-redirect or delete.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree; redirect or delete. --EncycloPetey 03:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

item of data

Basically for the reasons Hippietrail gives on Talk:item of data. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

But (for better or worse) we have item of clothing and piece of furniture, which seem to deserve the same treatment as this gets. Incidentally, data item is probably commoner. Equinox ◑ 21:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

car accident

SOP? — [Ric Laurent] — 01:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, delete, unless we think we need auto accident, automobile accident, motorcycle accident, etc. --EncycloPetey 03:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleted on sight. SemperBlotto 08:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep because this is not any mishap involving anything that could be called a car and is therefore idiomatic. i.e. A derailed roller coaster car, a spilled drink on a toy car, a tree falling on a parked motor vehicle with no occupants. A car accident is any motor vehicle that crashes into another motor vehicle or a big blunt object or living being such a human or deer. A pickup truck crushing a mechanic fixing it because the hydrualic lift malfunctions is not a car accident, but pickup truck crashing into a towncar on the highway is.Lucifer 09:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete, overanalysis is our enemy. If it 'feels' sum of parts to a native speaker, it is. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Bring it back: per common sense and Lucifer. Mgloves' "if a native speaker can figure it out, we don't need it" is weak and not based on policy. Any native speaker can figure out what "the" means...guess we don't need a definition for it Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 15:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No, people can't "figure out" the, because it's not easily decomposed into two parts like "car accident". Delete this nonsense, and also delete (deprecated template usage) taxi accident, (deprecated template usage) helicopter accident, and anything similar. Equinox ◑ 15:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Yes, overanalysis is our enemy. But using this argument for deleting is very dangerous. I would state instead: If it 'feels' like belonging to the vocabulary of the language to a native speaker, it is includable. Lmaltier 17:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

How exactly does a native speaker figure out what 'the' means? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

porn

Adjective. I don't think it meets the CGEL tests for ajdective. See WT:English adjectives. DCDuring TALK 02:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree; delete the adjectival senses. --EncycloPetey 03:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

mint chocolate chip

Obvious NISoP. Not only an ice-cream, as defined, but anything with these ingredients. Google Books shows evidence for e.g. "Mint Chocolate Chip Cookie Bars" and "Mint Chocolate Chip Cake". Equinox ◑ 17:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy close as keep/This RfD is a waste of community time: The definition is about ice cream only, not about those things you mention. The ice cream is the only one of those things you mention that is commonly referred to as just "mint chocolate chip". The other things are not commonly referred to as mint chocolate chip, they are referred to as "Mint Chocolate Chip Cookie Bars" and "Mint Chocolate Chip Cake". And it's not obvious, unless you assume that chocolate and chip have to go together (which they don't; the ice cream is also commonly referred to as Mint 'n Chip)...if you don't assume that chocolate goes with chip, what kind of chips are you talking about? Potato chips? Paint chips? Furthermore, keep because SOP is broken Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 17:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes Purplebackpack89, that's because YOU wrote the definition. Anyway, delete, definition is wrong anyway, apparently deliberately in order to avoid an RFD. Which also makes me want to delete it for no usable content. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89 it's a bit like writing a definition of green to apply only to grass to avoid it being nominated for deletion. Quite why you expected that to work, only you'd know. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)