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

• mendapat durian runtuh
  

December 2012

white supremacy

Keep. A Merriam-Webster term, also defined in other popular mono- and bilngual dictionaries. Even though it seems unfair to other races or ethnicities, whites are at the top of the food chain, that's why the term exists and is common. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep. The fact of this being an ideology is what makes it non-idiomatic. Going just by the literal meanings, one could say that there is "white supremacy" in ice hockey and "black supremacy" in basketball, but if you actually said that, you'd get some funny looks because the phrases carry ideological connotations. bd2412 T 02:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That distinction should be covered by a proper definition of supremacy. Delete all. --WikiTiki89 03:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

A "proper definition" of supremacy would not counter the fact that referring to "white supremacy" in contexts outside of human racial strife is just plain wrong. bd2412 T 03:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Kept. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Arab supremacy‎

Seems obvious SoP as no other way to interpret this than as supremacy of the white (black or Arabs). Note supremacy has a dedicated sense, thought it probably shouldn't. And if it should, it needs to be worded so it's correct. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete, but I think the dedicated sense at supremacy is necessary. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 18:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Abstain on "black supremacy" and "Arab supremacy". --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

under pressure

under + pressure. --WikiTiki89 16:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be the only common under + noun collocation with have. No under duress, under stress or under strain. under#Preposition does have this sense. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete, but ensure that relevant definitions are found at (deprecated template usage) pressure. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a relatively big job as we have three senses and Collins, eg, has seven. DCDuring TALK 17:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I've added the Webster 1913 defs that we lacked. It could definitely stand some updating. DCDuring TALK 17:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Abstain. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete. - -sche (discuss) 03:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

sous pression

Same as above. sous + pression. --WikiTiki89 16:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete. - -sche (discuss) 03:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

battery-backed save

-- Liliana • 18:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It is interesting that the def suggests that "battery-backed save" is the saved data, rather than the saving process or technology itself. That's probably just sloppy editing, though...? Equinox ◑ 11:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it? I'm not sure this is verifiable--Google Books doesn't come up with anything--and the web hits as often as not mention "battery-backed save feature", but web hits for "don't overwrite my save" shows a number of uses of "save" for the saved data. It doesn't turn up anything on Google Books, but Google Groups might turn up something.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Just like "game save" I think it can refer to both the process of saving and the saved data itself, with the saved data being the more commonly used meaning due to being the more commonly needed meaning. --WikiTiki89 13:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW, keep, but I'd move to battery-backed, because it does not just mean backed by battery, but specifically that if the battery were to die, it [the save in this case] would disappear. --WikiTiki89 13:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Delete as fairly transparent--sum of parts. Note: This is barely attested: google books:"battery-backed save", google groups:"battery-backed save", “battery-backed save”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

penultimate

Noun. Not the linguistics sense but the general sense seems to me to be another example of a fused-head construction. DCDuring TALK 16:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Even the linguistics sense is suspect; it's usually called the (deprecated template usage) penult. —Angr 18:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Move to RFV. In particular, if these senses are attested in the plural ("penultimates"), then the noun POS is valid. - -sche (discuss) 03:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

tuck

Etymology 2 is redundant to Etymology 1 noun sense 4 (Both are "snack food. Derived from the expression "to tuck in to one's food" meaning "to eat up", "to guzzle".") One needs to go. But which? Smurrayinchester (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I’d delete the one in Etymology 1. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 22:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

In my boldness, I've merged the etyms. The "eat" sense seems to derive from "push into a snug position." (See also etymonline.) — Pingku^dimmi 09:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved, it seems. - -sche (discuss) 04:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

open content

Adjective. Not distinct from attributive use of noun. Does not otherwise behave like an adjective. DCDuring TALK 01:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you think of moving it to open-content? — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 05:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Delete the adjective section of "open content". Let us create an adjective section at open-content, unless people want that to be a noun section with the definition line "attributive use of ..." or the like. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete, although this is properly a RFV issue. - -sche (discuss) 04:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

black beetle

rfd-sense X 2:

1. (colloquial) A common name for many species of beetle that are black in color.
2. When capitalized, this name refers to Black Beetle, a fictional character, a comic book supervillain published by DC Comics (cf. other superheroes named Blue Beetle).

The first seems to me to be {{&lit|black|beetle}}. The second shouldn't be at this capitalization and probably not at any capitalization. DCDuring TALK 18:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Terminate with extreme prejudice. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 19:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I have speedily deleted the superhero: bad caps, let alone the usual arguments against pop-culture proper nouns. The rest remain for discussion. Equinox ◑ 21:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This may be a pain, but if there are specific species of beetle for which the local common name actually is "black beetle" (such that between two beetles that are black, only one would properly be considered a "black beetle"), then we should have those senses. Of course, this would be particularly applicable with respect to insects that are not actually beetles, or are not actually black. However, absent evidence of such species, I would delete. bd2412 T 04:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree conceptually, but I would expect that often we would find that there are definitions that included specific beetle species or genera (or subspecies or subtribes or subgenera etc) to be added, as I added the NZ species. It would be difficult to attest the general phenomenon that you mention and distinguish it from both {{&lit|black|beetle}} the taxonomic definitions. DCDuring TALK 14:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not really a sense of its own, but an umbrella for a number of potential senses. I've added a few species as subsenses that are referred to in Google Books hits without a qualifier. I also removed the translation section for this sense, since each species would have its own translations. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Including example species names makes the entry richer, but are they best presented as subsenses or as examples of the general phenomenon? Or, do they mislead?

I'm still not sure how to capture the phenomenon that I think BD is referring to. How often does someone referring to a black beetle "really" mean something specific?

This harkens back to dual uses of vernacular name. It seems to both mean a name that is used by normal folk and a name not in scientific Latin (Translingual) that nevertheless is in exact correspondence with a taxonomic name.

One of the items that might be useful for wiktionary to have in the definiens of species that are known to normal (non-scientific), especially rural-living, humans is the geographic range. That would enable us to have some targeted translation requests. If the translation tables are at the level of ambiguous names such as this, I doubt that they will be very useful. We can use the scientific "vernacular name", where it exists, as the site for the translation requests, but I'm not at all sure that such names will be the ones that will best facilitate filling the translation table. Shouldn't the translation tables be at the Translingual entry rather than any corresponding English entry for all species names, not just those that have no exactly corresponding English entry ? DCDuring TALK 16:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

For information, Wikipedia recognizes black beetle as a phrase applicable to a number of different species, and distinct from black-beetle: see w:Black Beetle. The issue is not simple, and I think that this page should be kept. Lmaltier (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Tentatively keep the "beetle that is black" sense now that it is the parent of a set of subsenses. - -sche (discuss) 04:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

waxing

(deprecated template usage) (uncountable) the action of the verb to wax. Can't decide whether to rfd or rfv, so will start with this one. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you make of these: [1][2][3][4]? — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 23:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be what comes of our decision not to include {{gerund of}} alongside {{present participle of}} for English -ing forms. Any verb-ing form can mean "the action of the verb to verb", because -ing forms are gerunds as well as present participles. I've never understood why we try to hide that fact from our readers. —Angr 06:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV, those seem like the verb to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

@Angr: Why not just reform {{present participle of}} to {{en-ing form of}} and display Present participle and gerund of ...? Does that capture all the uses of the form or do we need more of a grammar lesson built into the display for "progressive"? DCDuring TALK 15:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You can't change {{present participle of}} itself because it is used in languages (such as Italian) in which the present participle and gerund are of different forms and have different meanings and usage. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

But we could bot-replace all instances in English with an en-specific template that was specific to the grammar of English. DCDuring TALK 15:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I suppose we could have an English-specific template that says "both present participle and gerund", but I'd rather we just had two senses, one with {{present participle of}} and one with {{gerund of}}. It's really only coincidence that the two are homophonous in English; it's not like they form any sort of semantically natural pair. It would be like having a Latin-specific {{la-dative and ablative plural of}} just because the dative and ablative plural of (I believe) every single Latin noun are identical. But we don't do that; we list the dative plural and ablative plural separately. And the English pres.ptc. and gerund are even less closely related to each other than the Latin forms are. Can't we get a bot to add {{gerund of}} underneath every instance of {{present participle of}} in an English section? —Angr 17:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I’m not sure. If they were the verb, wouldn’t they be “waxing the floor” instead of “the waxing of the floor”? — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 17:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily. In "Waxing the floor is fun" it can't be anything but a gerund. —CodeCat 17:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

We must keep a sense of the noun because the plural is very much attestable. Whether it's this sense and/or the others, I don't know. Equinox ◑ 23:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

This sense is marked as uncountable. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Now that we have the extended functionality of Lua modules. Could it detect "lang=en" and describe it as "present participle and gerund of..."? SemperBlotto (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

That can actually very easily be done even without Lua. The question is do we really want to? --WikiTiki89 22:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Weak keep because there are other noun senses (so it makes sense to have the most basic one), and waxings is attested. - -sche (discuss) 04:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure it makes sense to keep such a vague sense. - -sche (discuss) 04:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

come to somebody's aid

come to someone's rescue

SOP. Delete.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete both, SOP. Maybe usage notes could be added to aid and rescue about its usage with possessive pronouns. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 17:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. Then also to [[assistance]].​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 17:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't object to a hard redirect, in case, to the noun.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I meant "in each case" when I wrote "in case".​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete both. The redirect might discourage the recreation of these better than the RfD-failed notice. DCDuring TALK 18:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

So are you saying we should hard-redirect?​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Or to a new Collocations namespace or via {{only in}} to WikiPhrasebook, but those haven't been voted on yet. DCDuring TALK 22:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• They seem idiomatic and unusual, but I'm not a massive fan of these entries in general....maybe redirect to the nouns? With suitable usage notes? Ƿidsiþ 18:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Not only can the noun be replaced by synonyms so can the verb (go, hurry, run, sprint, race, speed). Adverbs can be inserted. You could also change tense and add modal verbs. OTOH, it is rather unnatural to say "It was his aid that I came to" or "It was to his aid that I came". This looks like a construction with some idiomaticity, but a rather low degree thereof. DCDuring TALK 21:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Rename to come to rescue and come to aid. Lmaltier (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The renaming idea would contradict our prevailing practice for this type of entry and would seem to be a matter for WT:BP.

It also doesn't fit the grammar of any form of these, which is either come to the aid/rescue/assistance of someone/something or come to someone's/something's aid. DCDuring TALK 15:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It's often found in titles such as BP agents come to aid of stranded Samaritans, Bedspring Spears Woman; Firemen Come To Rescue, or Bankers come to rescue of unpaid teachers, and it's more basic. This was the reason for my suggestion. Lmaltier (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't count titles as running text. They certainly aren't speech. The expression you would have as a headword might belong in a pidgin or creole. DCDuring TALK 22:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

An entry title is not speech either. But it seems that it was a bad idea. Lmaltier (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't see how this could possibly make sense knowing only the parts. The best I can come up with is "come (literally) to someone's assistance (whatever their assistance is)". I do suspect that there is something else going on though. You can also say "(person) [comes] to the rescue". It seems that the idiomaticity lies in "to" combined with some kind of word meaning assistance, but I can't really put my finger on what it is. In any case, until we resolve that specific idiomatic meaning, keep these entries as they are not SoP within the spectrum of definitions that currently exists at Wiktionary. —CodeCat 22:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Note, come to somebody's aid should be moved to come to someone's aid per WT:About English. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Keep both. They seem unusual to me in the way they are constructed. Since Widsith says above that they are idiomatic and unusual, they appear so to at least one native speaker (a double-check, since I am a non-native). In Czech, we say "přijít [někomu] na pomoc", which is also a peculiar construction; the lemma would probably be "přijít na pomoc"; google:"přijít na pomoc". On the downside, I admit that they are absent from OneLook dictionaries. I tried to translate "They came to his rescue" to German using Google Translate and obtained "Sie kamen zu seiner Rettung", which has no Google web hits per google:"Sie kamen zu seiner Rettung"; the same English phrase translated by the translator to Czech yielded *"Přišli k jeho záchraně", which is a non-idiomatic (funny foreign-sounding) Czech for "přišli mu na pomoc". You can try this for other langauges that you know. Thus, to me, something peculiar is going on and we can document that peculiarity in this dictionary, thereby providing value to the user.

  I am okay with moving "come to somebody's aid" to "come to someone's aid" as proposed by Mglovesfun above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm happy to keep these. Although they have an unusual construction they translate to a similar Italian verb that is definitely in use. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

bulette

fictional land shark from D&D --Tobby (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Move to RFV since it might turn out to be used (as the entry suggests) in other places, like perhaps roguelike computer games (they often "borrow" D&D monster types). Equinox ◑ 18:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I've added a cite from rec.games.roguelike.adom--apparently it was used in a rougelike game called Ancient Domains of Mystery--and a cite from alt.toys.transformers where it's used in a generic way. Plus a couple more cites, the original from The Dragon and a more-or-less generic one from rec.games.frp.dnd.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I've added a cite from the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game; in 2000, the owners of D&D released the base part of it under a pretty Free license, and thus many people are using creatures like bulette under a license that's for many purposes the CC-BY. I'm not sure where this goes with "fictional universes"; Pathfinder makes no reference to any universe owned by D&D Hasbro (owners of D&D).--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. The pertinent regulation is probably WT:CFI#Fictional_universes, to wit: "Terms originating in fictional universes which have three citations in separate works, but which do not have three citations which are independent of reference to that universe may be included only in appendices of words from that universe, and not in the main dictionary space. ..." ... Prosfilaes has provided some promising citations at bulette, so unless someone questions the citations, this can be kept. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

accordion

This claims to be an adjective, but has but one cite, which only shows attributive use, not good enough for a word that is also a noun. DCDuring TALK 23:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Move to RFV. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing adjectival about it; looks like an attributive use of a noun. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

A noun modifier. Not really an adjective. Donnanz 23:40, 10 Dec 2013.

February 2013

pre-shared key

Apart from being something of a mess: it's precisely a key that's pre-shared. Equinox ◑ 16:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Keep this term used in cryptography. Other terms with a similar structure making them open to similar RFD: private key, public key. This seems to be a bit like talk:free variable. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

base off of

SoP, no base on or base upon. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

But we are just lacking [[base on]], which Macmillan and McGraw-Hill Idioms & Phrasal Verbs have. We should put in a request at WT:REE. DCDuring TALK 14:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we're lacking is because it's not admissible, at least not the sense I'm thinking of. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

box

"(transitive, Jamaica, African American Vernacular) To punch (a person)" redundant to "to strike with the fists". I originally just added {{UK}} to the context labels, before I realized it's just the same sense twice. Was gonna speedy it but I'm not qualified to merge the translations. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done: merged. - -sche (discuss) 05:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Does this not need a usage note of some kind? In Englishes other than those mentioned above (e.g. British English) I don't think you would box a person (unless perhaps fighting them in the boxing ring): you would only box someone's ears. Equinox ◑ 14:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Aerialdrome

As far as I can tell, this word is used solely for a building in Seattle - so, if OK, would be a proper noun. Also needs formatting and severe pruning if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 14:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Chief of Party

A designated (deprecated template usage) chief of a (deprecated template usage) party. Or is it by some fine distinction contrasted with (deprecated template usage) chief of staff? Or an alternative form? Capitalisation is an issue, if to be kept. — Pingku^dimmi 14:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Move entry to chief of party. I think at least some of the three senses are usually lower case in running text.

Move to RfV. It needs to be cited and contextualized.

This is presented as a capitalized common noun. I would imagine that any proper noun (ie a title of an official position would be capitalized). I don't know why we have Prime Minister and President as separate entries, unless we are into glorification of the roles and the holders thereof. Usage notes at or, better, referenced at the corresponding lower-case entry seem much better and less like idolatry. DCDuring TALK 16:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if it is an Anglicization of (deprecated template usage) chef de partie. SemperBlotto (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I am seeing this title frequently on LinkedIn members' profiles. Your entry provided under "Chief of Party" provided the first usable definition. I am also seeing it abbreviated as COP.

collect up

Tagged but not listed. As for why, I have no idea. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Without looking at the history, I'm fairly sure that it was tagged because in this case (and in many cases) up is just a verb-modifying intensifier that does not otherwise alter the meaning of the verb modified. I'm fairly sure that it wasn't listed because this page has been full of nominations. DCDuring TALK 20:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Same's true for wake up mind you. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It's probably also true for quite a few of the 471 terms in Category:English phrasal verbs with particle (up). Chuck Entz (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

However, only certain verbs do this, e.g. we have collect up and gather up but not amass up or acquire up. Equinox ◑ 23:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Don't understand rationale either. Wake up is the best counterargument so far though. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

All words from old languages on the Korean Peninsula

As per Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#All_Goguryeo_words_in_the_main_namespace, I would like to propose deleting all words in Category:Silla_Old_Korean, Category:Old_Korean_nouns and Category:Baekje_nouns. (The words in Category:Goguryeo_language have already been deleted.) Is there an easy way to delete all of them? --BB12 (talk) 08:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser is better than nothing. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

delete.py -- Liliana • 18:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

See the section "Deletion of Middle/Old Korean, Silla, Goguryeo and Baekje" earlier on this page for a list of all entrie that need to be deleted. I have put all of them into appendices. --BB12 (talk) 06:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

attentat

Should the legal senses be combined? The definition in the 1848 quote appears to combine the elements of both. — Pingku^dimmi 11:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

One definition says attentat is any appealed (i.e. claimed to be wrong) lower-court holding/ruling/whatever. The other say it's any wrong (and therefore appealed) lower-court holding/ruling/whatever. I'd venture a guess that only one of those is correct, but have no idea which. (Both might be, though.) Of course most citations won't help distinguish which meaning is correct, but careful citation-finding/reading could help. (I haven't time now, I'm afraid.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. It could be that they are both describing the same thing, with the one sense being an objective one meant by a disinterested observer, and the other being what is meant by the appealing lawyer, who in argument would be claiming wrongness. It does sound somewhat abstract though. — Pingku^dimmi 13:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

plenty

Pronoun. There is a noun PoS section with definition and usage example I can't distinguish from those offered for the purported pronoun. DCDuring TALK 12:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to classify the first use as. It's the same conundrum we have with lots of (which just happens to be a redirect...)

For the second use, that seems to be an adjective or noun describing the subject through use of the copula equating "six eggs" to "plenty".

However, there seems to be plenty (pun intended) wrong with our coverage of the word. There are constructions like "there is plenty to go around" and "six eggs is plenty" instead of "six eggs are plenty" that our current entry does not serve to adequately describe. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, some linguists would use the existence of lotsa as justification for an entry for lots off. Similarly, plentya is readily attestable in books and provides a justification for plenty of.

This is the kind of entry that is worth the work of consulting references, getting examples, and facing some dispute about what one does. It's also not as daunting as trying to improve or repair an entry for a common preposition or a modal or light verb. DCDuring TALK 16:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep: a) Plenty is a partitive pronoun, b) This an RfV issue, not an RfD one Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 23:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. Plenty is either a noun or a pronoun, not both. I think it is more fitting to call it a noun. --WikiTiki89 01:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

precedent

Two noun senses:

1. (obsolete, with definite article) The aforementioned (thing).
   • 1621, Robert Burton, The Anatomy of Melancholy, New York 2001, p. 74:

     A third argument may be derived from the precedent.

2. The previous version.

Both of these seem to me to be "fused-head" constructions of the adjective with different context-dependent nouns understood. They are very much like "rare" in:

"Did want dark or light meat?" / "I'll have the dark."

We have the "preceding" sense of precedent in the entry. It is possible that the fifth sense ("an earlier draft of a document") may suffer from the same defect. DCDuring TALK 18:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Keep: Since when wasn't precedent a noun? Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 19:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

He is challenging only two of five senses. Equinox ◑ 19:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't they have plurals? If they do, then keep. Equinox ◑ 19:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Dunno about the second one, can it be cited? Something like this is a precedent of my essay/this is a precedent of the song? As for the first one, it's an adjective, ergo delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Very many adjectives can be used in plural in fused-head constructions to refer to a wide range of things, known from context, so I don't think that can be a definitive test. For example, color adjectives can be used in the plural to refer to, say, game pieces. OTOH, many adjectives can't be readily pluralized and even the color ones may be used in agreement with a plural verb: "The red (one|ones) is|are more attractive."

We wouldn't want agreeable and disagreeable to be defined as nouns because of citations like this:

"We wouldn't want agreeable and disagreeable to be defined as nouns because of citations like this." Well, I would! See e.g. nouns at unanswerable and married. If we don't do this, then there seems to be no way we can have an entry for the (attestable) plural, as what else would its part of speech be? Equinox ◑ 11:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

What is a fused-head construction? In any case, the first nominated definition’s usex seems to be the adjective precedent with the noun argument implied, so I’ll go with delete.

I don’t know about the second one. I’d have to see a usex before voting. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 00:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Is "fused-head construction" another made-up term? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

@MG: What was/were the other one(s)? DCDuring TALK 12:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

@Ungoliant: In English, determiners, quantifiers and adjectives can be used as nominals without an explicit noun or pronoun.

"Would you like a rare piece or a well-done one?" "I'd like the rare (one)."

"We have sets of four glasses and of six (glasses)."

"Where are the sausages?" "I bought some (sausages) yesterday."

I don't think that there is any point in assigning the underlined terms acquire a new PoS. The deletion of the terms in parentheses seems like a part of normal grammar. DCDuring TALK 13:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

DCDuring TALK 13:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: It seems like we're putting the cart before the horse here. We're RfDing something before we even bothered to ascertain if it can be verified Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 17:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• The OED has it: "the precedent: the aforementioned; that which has just been said or written. Obs." It's not a use of the adjective, it comes from a plural form (also obsolete) which referred to "foregoing facts or statements". Template:script helper 17:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

behind

Adverb sense no.5 appears to depend entirely on the phrasal verb usage. I doubt this is a real adverbial sense. -- ALGRIF talk 15:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

If it were true, that this was only in use in truly phrasal verbs, then we would need a place to indicate the contributions that a particle gives to phrasal verbs it is part of. And we would be denying users the chance to construct the meaning from components. If we could show that there was no use except in true phrasal verbs, then we could indicate with a context label the restrictions that might apply, eg, (only in phrasal verbs). DCDuring TALK 18:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I find the noun sense 2. "bottom, downside" puzzling. To which sense of "bottom" and "downside" is it referring to? I don't see any sense amongst our definitions that these two words were sharing. Or is it actually the same as sense 3. "butt, the buttocks"? If that's the case, we need another sense to "downside", and to combine 2 and 3. --Hekaheka (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

@DCD That place you were asking about? It is in the appendices where the phrasal verbs are separated and organised by particle. The user is invited to make the best understanding of the meaning(s) of the particle for himherself. It is almost a "criteria" of phrasal-verb-ness, that the meaning held in the particle is somewhat subjective and often not an exact map to the standard meanings of the corresponding adverbs and prepositions. And yet, the phrasal verb itself is normally very precise in meaning. See subcategories of Category:English phrasal verbs -- ALGRIF talk 11:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

da

Adverb defined as "yes in Russian". Not an English word by its own admission. Equinox ◑ 15:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

That's what I was gonna say, any citations showing it as English would contradict the definition. The noun definition (A Russian yes) has the same issue. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I've seen a few times in articles or blogs about Russia or Russians when "da" or "nyet" ("net") are used jokingly, sarcastically, etc. Like he doesn't take nyet for an answer, and the like. Perhaps similar plays are possible for other languages, e.g. oui/non, ja/nein but they are not as common in my opinion. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

1. Patrick M. Dunne, Robert F. Lusch - 2007 "When Will Wal-Mart Say da to Russia?"
2. Richmond, Yale. From Nyet to Da: Understanding the New Russia. Boston, MA: Intercultural Press, 2008. Volkov, Solomon. Magical Chorus: A History of Russian Culture from Tolstoy to Solzhenitsyn. London: Vintage Books, 2009 "From Nyet to Da: Understanding the New Russia" (title)
3. Vol. 18, No. 9 - Magazine "Packer merely bobbed and weaved his head, saying "Da" or "Nyet" to everything." --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

If we are going to regard it as English then we need to rework the definition (for example, it could be defined simply as "yes" with a usage note saying it indicates Russianness). Equinox ◑ 09:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I think there should be something here noting that "da" is a common representation of the Russian word for yes, at least in English. I've added some ideas to Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2013/April#Cross-script.2Fmutated_semi-borrowings about how to do this, though, since I think this is a bigger problem and that adding an English section is suboptimal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

all right, my lover

NISoP once we move the note about lover to (deprecated template usage) lover. Equinox ◑ 16:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

sexuality studies

Sum of parts. Needs a headword if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

p.s. Don't we have a bot that picks up missing headwords?

KassadBot, also speedy delete, it's just a good faith mistake by a new user. The new user seems pretty open to communication so I feel confident that this can be resolved quickly. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It may be a sum of parts, but I still think it should be included to avoid conflation with sexology (sexual psychology), which has a different focus than sexuality studies. Nicole Sharp (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per Nicole Sharp, although I am unsure about this. About "<noun> studies" entries, these are often worth keeping for their translations, e.g. English studies. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

forestry

It seems to me that these two senses should be merged:

• The science of planting and growing trees in forests.
• The art and practice of planting and growing trees in forests.

and that these two senses should be merged:

• The art and practice of cultivating, exploiting and renewing forests for commercial purposes.
• Commercial tree farming.

However, the translations are different, which is puzzling. DAVilla 05:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The second, at least, strikes me as different; a tree farm is not a forest.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I understood "commercial tree farming" to include forests. DAVilla 05:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I support merging sense 1 and 2 (perhaps as “The science, art and pratice of […] ”), but 3 and 4 strike me as different, unless parallel rows of same age, same species trees counts as a forest. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 19:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I support merging sense 1 and 2 along Ungoliant's lines.

Senses 3 and 4 could be merged by simply replacing "forests" with "trees" in sense 3. Further revision might be desirable. I don't think that the non-tree portions of the forest environment play anything other than a supporting role to the trees, in the main uses of this term. Also, I wonder whether some may be trying to redefine forestry to refer to management of the forest ecosystem without regard to its commercial use. DCDuring TALK 00:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

w:Forestry says "Modern forestry generally embraces a broad range of concerns, including assisting forests to provide timber as raw material for wood products, wildlife habitat', natural water quality management, recreation, landscape and community protection, employment, aesthetically appealing landscapes, biodiversity management, watershed management, erosion control, and preserving forest as 'sinks' for atmospheric carbon dioxide." Italics bring out examples where merely talking about trees and farming isn't good enough.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

te reo Māori

Names of languages in Maori are created by adding (deprecated template usage) te (deprecated template usage) reo "the language" to the name of a people or country. So this just means "the Maori language". I think we've deleted similar entries in other languages before? —CodeCat 20:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If that's the precedent, then yes. However, it's a common phrase in NZ English, in which it is perhaps non-SoP? Here are some cites [5]. Note entries 1, 5 & 6 in particular. Furius (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

That would make it keepable as an English term, not as a Maori one. —Angr 19:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, yes. That was what I had in mind. Furius (talk) 07:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

We've tried to delete similar entries before (e.g. in Russian), but it hasn't always happened. [[Türk dili]] was RFDed but passed due to COALMINE. The RFD on русский язык et al. is still open, with (by my count) two users favouring deletion and one favouring keeping. - -sche (discuss) 18:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

special move

Cut out the rather encyclopedic (and incorrect) definition and you get "A move that is special". -- Liliana • 07:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This is the "set phrase" for these, especially in fighting games, but the meaning does seem obvious. Note it's sometimes also just called a special, e.g. (from Google) "They'll need to give SF [Street Fighter] characters some better specials." Equinox ◑ 14:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Strong keep. DAVilla 00:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

green line

The quote does not support this – it just means a literal green line (which happens to indicate a grammar mistake). But you can't say, "I've made a green line." ((deprecated template usage) green line may mean something else though, like the Israel-Arab state boundaries.) Ƿidsiþ 07:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

pohjois-

Finnish is an agglutinative language and often forms compounds by putting words together. Some words are changed during this process by converting them from the nominative singular form into their inflectional stem. This includes words ending with -nen, which becomes -s- when an ending is attached (see the declension of (deprecated template usage) pohjoinen) or when the word is used in a compound. This process is completely regular and predictable, so every Finnish word ending in -nen automatically has this stem form with -s-. For that reason, it seems wrong to treat this as a prefix (since there is Category:Finnish words prefixed with pohjois-), this is just the combining form of a word. It's the same as how Russian (deprecated template usage) сам (sam) becomes (deprecated template usage) само- (samo-) in a compound, like in (deprecated template usage) само-вар (samo-var), and Greek and Latin also have such combining forms of most words. —CodeCat 14:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, the Institute for the Languages of Finland, also known as KOTUS, lists pohjois- in their wordlist, which we have copied in Wiktionary as Finnish index. They list it as prefix. They don't list every word formed this way, e.g. varsinais- (from varsinainen) is not included, although it is used in some place names, see Varsinais-Suomi. I also think the commonness of this form speaks for keeping it. A simple Google search for "pohjois-" gets 27.6 M results, which - to be honest - includes millions of inflected forms of (deprecated template usage) pohjoinen. Further, the process of forming these prefixes/attributive modifiers is regular but not perfectly predictable. Notable exceptions include the colours (deprecated template usage) sininen and (deprecated template usage) punainen which become (deprecated template usage) sini- and (deprecated template usage) puna-. I would say majority of adjectives cannot be transformed this way. I have never heard common adjectives such as (deprecated template usage) tavallinen modified to tavallis- whereas (deprecated template usage) erikoinen becomes (deprecated template usage) erikois- which, by the way, is included in KOTUS wordlist. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

(deprecated template usage) sini and (deprecated template usage) puna are distinct words, so you can't really treat them as combining forms of (deprecated template usage) sininen and (deprecated template usage) punainen. The argument that "you've never heard some adjectives modified this way" seems a bit moot. Of course not every word actually does appear in compounds, but that doesn't automatically make the remainder into prefixes. What I would find more convincing is if the prefixed/combining form had a different meaning from the base word, but as far as I can see (deprecated template usage) pohjois- means the same as (deprecated template usage) pohjoinen, so I don't see any way it could be distinguished from the compounding form of (deprecated template usage) pohjoinen. I would agree with keeping it, though, if we changed the definition into something like "combining form of" and allowed such entries for all other -nen words. But that would be so that people don't get stuck when they see a term like Pohjois-Irlanti and can't find "pohjois" anywhere. Then again, would they know whether to look for (deprecated template usage) pohjois- or (deprecated template usage) pohjois? —CodeCat 12:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

lady

The senses

• (deprecated template usage) (archaic, attributive, with a professional title) Who is a woman.

  A lady doctor.

• (deprecated template usage) (in the plural) A polite form of address to women.

  Ladies and gentlemen, it is a pleasure to ...

  Follow me, ladies!

seem redundant to the sense

• (deprecated template usage) (polite or used by children) A woman: an adult female human.

  Please direct this lady to the soft furnishings department.

.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how the first is redundant to that sense; it's not used by children, and it never was markedly polite, and currently ranges from the "things the old folks say and we let them get away with" rude to "sexist asshole" rude.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Because all three senses just mean "woman". The contexts/registers can be added as a context template: (deprecated template usage) (archaic, attributive, with a professional title; or polite or used by children) or the like. The meaning is the same.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• KeepPurplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 19:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

  Keep the archaic sense; delete the polite form of address. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep both. This lady is polite but this lady doctor is not so anymore. And the form of address is in a different paradigm:

	Singular	Plural
Male	Follow me, sir!	Follow me, gentlemen!
Female	Follow me, madam!	Follow me, ladies!

— TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Unsupported titles/Ideographic space

I thought we deleted stuff like that before. This is not a term in any language. -- Liliana • 10:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. We have Unsupported titles/Space and ？, so why not this?
  • I don't think we should have the space either, to be honest. We have words, phrases and symbols (like the ？ character you cited above), but this is not a word, not a phrase and not a symbol. It's not within our scope. -- Liliana • 16:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Speed Die

tagged but not listed -- Liliana • 11:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete per Baby Pokémon. Equinox ◑ 17:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this is in common use in the language. DAVilla 00:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Chance card

tagged but not listed -- Liliana • 11:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete per Baby Pokémon. Equinox ◑ 17:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There should be a generic entry at chance card as this feature has been copied in many games. DAVilla 00:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Community Chest card

tagged but not listed -- Liliana • 11:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete per Baby Pokémon. Equinox ◑ 17:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Could be valid if there were uses like this:

• His pockets were turned inside out just like on the Community Chest card but instead of being empty the pockets have piles of coins coming out of them. [6]

I'm not sure it need to pass WT:BRAND but certainly that would be more than sufficient, no? DAVilla 00:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

ecological service

I don't understand the definition, too complicated for me, but it's probably a service of an ecological nature. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I tried rewriting the definition, based on the WP entry. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 18:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 17:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure, if we believe the WP entry it's idiomatic, but they are as prone to mistakes as we are (that is to say, very). Mglovesfun (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep - I took a class which had a focus on this, but we called it ecosystem services. Maybe that's an American thing. Definitely idiomatic, though. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I suspect this is a separate sense of service dealing with benefits that things in nature provide, spoken of as if they were people actively working to provide them, and not passive things. If so, we need to add that to service and delete this as SOP. Aside from ecological services and ecosystem services, there's environmental services, and probably others. I've also heard someone talking about the services (without a modifier) that trees provide in an urban environment. As to locality: I suspect it came fairly recently from the environmental movement, and has only made inroads into the mainstream in environmental contexts. I suppose it might be specific to US environmentalism, but I have no idea whether it is or not. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Outcome: RFD keep: no consensus for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

service

rfd of the sense:

1. An event in which an entity takes the responsibility that something desirable happens on the behalf of another entity.

Added as the one and only edit of this editor. It looks like an attempt to combine multiple senses by removing references to anything specific. Instead, it's so vague and abstract as to be meaningless. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The definition cannot be all wrong. It has been around unchanged since 2008, and it has survived, among other English Wiktionary dignitaries, the inspection of Semperblotto, who does not hesitate to kill dubious senses at sight. More seriously, if it were simply deleted we would be missing a sense which defines service as an individual act, as e.g. in:

• American Heritage Dictionary: "An act of assistance or benefit; a favor: My friend did me a service in fixing the door."
• Collins: "an act of help or assistance"
• Merriam Webster: "a helpful act <did him a service>"

Thus, I'd say keep, rewrite. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

AsH₃

We shouldn't be an indiscriminate collection of chemical formulae unless they have somehow entered the lexicon like CO₂ or H₂O. This would open the door to all possible combinations of chemical elements and this can't seriously be our intent. Anyone who's into chemistry can figure this out from its components, anyway. -- Liliana • 11:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I see that the creator made a lot of these: Special:Contributions/H2SO4. I'd say delete because they are not word-like, any more than (say) musical melodies like CDEFG. Equinox ◑ 11:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Appendicize. That is pretty much the universal solution for issues like this. I can envision a circumstance where someone is struggling to remember the common name of a given formula, so maintaining some appendix-space directory of formulae that are otherwise CFI-worthy seems reasonable to me. bd2412 T 19:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete, fair point. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

We certainly seem to be putting a lot of specialised non-dictionary things into appendixes. Is that really the direction we want to go in? —CodeCat 20:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be useful to get some figures on how many people visit e.g. Appendix:Chip's Challenge, and how they are getting there. Equinox ◑ 20:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Some people do seem to think the Appendix namespace is the universal trash can where anything that isn't of any use to us is dumped in. -- Liliana • 20:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom. But I think we should put the formulas in to the word entries, not the other way around. Then anyone can search for the word with the formula. Or perhaps redirects from formula to entry.--Dmol (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

A redirect seems like the most workable solution, but I'm not sure if there is anything in CFI that really goes for or against including it. "entered the lexicon" is really vague and doesn't tell me at all why AsH₃ would not be includable if CO₂ is. CO₂ is used far more commonly of course, and is known by many more people than AsH₃ is. But that alone doesn't mean anything with respect to CFI: we also include many other obscure or jargon-type terms. So on what basis should these terms be included or excluded? And if there is no basis, should we try to modify CFI so that there is one? —CodeCat 20:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I think a redirect would be an equally workable solution in this case. I would note, however, that I have worked a great deal on molecular formula index pages on Wikipedia, and there are over a thousand formulas which can refer to multiple possible formula names (for example, C11H16, which can be ectocarpene or pentamethylbenzene). bd2412 T 00:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't get the value of appendices like this for us. I'm not convinced we need it outside the arsine page, but if we do, what do we gain by putting it in an appendix instead of just AsH₃? It seems like only a social difference, so we can look at it and say it's not a real page, with no real difference.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The question is, when do people find it useful to look up a molecular formula? I can't think of a time when doing so would not be as well satisfied by a single, comprehensive list of formulae. bd2412 T 01:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

And, of course, there is nothing that says CO₂ can't just as easily redirect to that list. —CodeCat 01:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

A chemical formula needs to have linguistic merit, in my opinion. I don't see the point of appendicizing. DAVilla 04:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

An appendix in this case would be a sort of reverse-lookup, for those who know the formula but want the common name. Since the common name will certainly have linguistic merit, we should help users get to it if that's what they seek. Another possible way to do this is to make the formulas redirect to the common name, and then add a category to the redirect page, so that anyone looking in that category will see the complete list of redirects by formula name. However, this would still require some additional step for formulas that have multiple possible common names, perhaps depending on their configuration. bd2412 T 21:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete: SOP. However, keep KCN (current redlink) if attested, and likewise others that look like acronyms or words but are actually formulae, as people may well look them up.​—msh210℠ (talk) 07:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'm on my own here, but keep if it's used in running English text, which from a brief look at Google Books seems to be the case. Otherwise I'm not quite sure exactly how this is different from H2O or CO2. Ƿidsiþ 07:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, delete those as well. —CodeCat 21:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That definitely would not make sense, since even lay persons sometimes literally say, "Boy, I need some H2O". See, e.g., 2008, Barbara Thomas, The Melanin Factor, page 41: Jared headed toward the kitchen. “I need H2O.” “Bottled stuff is in the fridge. Bring me one, too.” Cheers! bd2412 T 23:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why that would be an argument for inclusion. Just because something is used by laypeople doesn't mean it is an includable term. —CodeCat 23:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

To speak directly to the criteria for inclusion, H2O is a term conveying meaning for which numerous citations exist (well over three citations, spanning well over three years) showing usage outside of the context of an author merely defining what H2O is. It seems unlikely that AsH3 would yield such citations (although CO2 does, with some effort), but there may still be people who need a refresher on the common name associated with AsH3, or are just curious to know. bd2412 T 04:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It's also sum of parts, because its meaning is predictable: two atoms of hydrogen, one atom of oxygen. —CodeCat 10:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

We've generally included English terms that don't have spaces in them whether or not they can be broken down more.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm not seeing an enormous difference between these and the other translinguals we have, like taxon names and nonlinguistic symbols. —Angr 13:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a single symbol though, it's 4. It's more like 1234 than it is 1 or a. Compare Talk:ABBA. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

And Acer pseudoplatanus isn't one word, it's two. And it's not as if chemical symbols can be combined at random; there is (to the best of my knowledge) no such thing as AsH₂ or AsH₄ or As₃H. —Angr 17:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Just because AsH₂ may not exist, doesn't mean it can't still be a term. There are plenty of terms that refer to fictional entities. However, I think that it's sum-of-parts, just like CO2 and H2O are. —CodeCat 17:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

But it's not predictable sum of parts, like "brown leaf" would be. You can know that As is arsenic and H is hydrogen and still not know that AsH₃ is arsine. Maybe if "arsenic trihydride" were its only name, but it isn't. —Angr 19:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I would not be the least bit surprised to hear someone say "I want some H2O" who has no idea that the H and the O actually stand for things. bd2412 T 00:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete per Equinox and Mglovesfun. - -sche (discuss) 20:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 03:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Nine users favour deletion of the entry from the main namespace (Liliana, Equinox, Mglovesfun, Dmol, DAVilla(?), msh210, -sche, Ungoliant, bd2412). CodeCat favours a redirect, but this is not workable, for reasons bd2412 explains. I'm not sure what Prosfilaes' position is. Only two users favour keeping the entry (Ƿidsiþ, Angr). I have therefore deleted the entry. - -sche (discuss) 08:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Das Reich

German. The only other sense besides the {{&lit}} is "name of a newspaper". I don't think we cover these. -- Liliana • 20:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I concur; delete. - -sche (discuss) 21:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Why keep English "Das Reich" and delete the German original? --Hekaheka (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The English section does not have the German sense which is the subject of this RFD. A sense can hardly be "kept" in the English section if it isn't there to begin with. - -sche (discuss) 04:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The wording led me to believe that the whole German section would be endangered. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, does the article inflect when the term is used as an object, or in a genitive construction? If so, it could SOP as well. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Difficult to find usage, but this sentence from German Wikipedia would hint that the article is not inflected: "Am 15. Oktober 1942 wurde der Name von „Reich“ in „Das Reich“ geändert". --Hekaheka (talk) 04:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Yes, when a term like this is used in a dative or genitive position, it either inflects or sometimes drops the article. The fact that "das Reich" is common in its unambiguously SOP sense(s) makes it hard to find inflected examples of the collocation's military and printing senses, and the fact that the division was formerly known as "Reich" (without the article) muddies the waters when citations like die Männer der motorisierten Waffen-SS-Division „Reich“ (from Als der Osten brannte) are found, but the general principle can be seen with other newspaper and unit names: in „dem Großen Bremen-Lexikon“, auch im „Großen Buch der Musik“, etc. - -sche (discuss) 04:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted the "newspaper" sense which was the subject of this RFD. (A "military unit" sense was added to the entry after the RFD began.) - -sche (discuss) 08:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

deaf

rfd-sense: Deaf people considered as a group. This is the adjective not the noun. We don't list such senses at poor, rich, disabled, blind (and so on) as nouns because they are adjectives preceded by 'the'. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we do list such senses at poor and disabled... and Irish, about which there was some relevant discussion; see Talk:Irish#RFD. deaf#Noun might pass the lemming test; Dictionary.com has it, though MW and Macmillan seem to lack it. - -sche (discuss) 14:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Lemming-shmemming. I find it hard to discern a boundary between the includable and the nonincludable (as nouns) of such uses of adjectives, other than the nounal introducing a sense not present in the adjectival.

But CGEL has the following types of adjective modifiers as eligible for "fused-head" constructions, of which this could be considered an example: superlative forms of adjectives; definite comparative forms of adjectives; ordinal adjectives; modifiers denoting color, composition, or provenance; adjectives denoting basic physical properties, eg, age, size; and modifier-heads with special interpretations.

Of these, only the last class seem to me to possibly merit inclusion. Syntactically, they are almost always only plural (but see accused and deceased) and only the, and not even demonstratives among determiners, can occur with these adjectives. They include nationalities and ethnicities ("the French" [= "those who are French"]) , certain adjectives ("the rich", "the poor", etc), and certain past participles ("the unemployed"}, and denominal -ed forms ("the gifted"). All of these apply to people and at least some animals or to sentient beings, and are equivalent to "those who are [candidate adjective here]". But there are others ("the impossible", "the immoral"), which are equivalent to "that which is [candidate adjective here]".

I don't buy the distinctions that they make. I offer this summary in case the distinctions seem real to others. DCDuring TALK 16:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a quibble, I think unemployed is an adjective formed from un-+employed, not a past participle (though it wouldn't surprise me to find unemploy#Verb as a back-formation). - -sche (discuss) 17:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It was one of CGEL's examples. It is derived at one remove from employ anyway. And employed works the same, though it's not as common. DCDuring TALK 18:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

But what about unemployment? Is it un-+employment, even though un- doesn't normally attach to nouns? Or is it unemployed+ment with deletion of the -ed? —Angr 20:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd say the latter, considering how sociology and economics works: first there was a non-negligible number of unemployed who surely created problems for the society, then you needed a word for this phenomenon. That said, I think the first sense in unemployment came after the second. --biblbroks_{дискашн} 21:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Judging from this Google N-gram, the development might have been as follows: "employment" (a. 1777), "the employed" (sometimes as fused head) (a. 1836), "the unemployed" (sometimes as fused head) (a. 1894), "unemployment" (a. 1931). Obviously I didn't analyze each use to determine whether it was labor or workers that were employed or not, but many, possibly most of the instances seemed to be about labor. DCDuring TALK 22:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep: Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 13:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

otra vez

SOP of (deprecated template usage) otra + (deprecated template usage) vez. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 03:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd say it's idiomatic. This one of the two most common ways to say "again" in Spanish, the other being (deprecated template usage) de nuevo. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Being common does not make it idiomatic. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 11:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Isn't commonness one of the definitions of an idiom? Most people consider idioms and set phrases the same thing, more or less. —CodeCat 16:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

So any common SOP is an idiom? — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 19:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that what idiom means? As far as I know, one of the meanins of idiom has always been something like "the way people usually say something". For example, "I am hungry" is an idiom in English because it's the most usual way to say it, whereas "I have hunger", although correct, is very unusual. I realise that this isn't the way we use the word on Wiktionary with respect to CFI, but there are at least some senses of "idiom" for which we do not allow terms. —CodeCat 23:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Vez is used with determiners like this. otra vez (another time: again), alguna vez (some time), una vez (one time: once), dos veces (two times: twice), tres veces (three times: thrice), diez veces (ten times), mil veces (a thousand times). There’s no need to create every possible combination; a usage note or decent definition at vez should suffice. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 16:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that otra ("another") implies anticipated occurrence. For instance, if the translation holds, promising to do something otro día ("another day") could be putting it off indefinitely. Keep as idiomatic. DAVilla 16:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

ne

rfd-sense: (in grammatically negative comparative clauses that express superlatives) not (usually translated with the positive sense of the subsequent negative)

Which is as clear as mud, but if you look at the usage example it makes sense:

le gâteau le plus grand que je n’ai jamais vu — “the biggest cake that I have ever seen”

Except that ne is an error in this case, it should be « que j'aie jamais vu ». I have found a couple of hits for it used this way on Google Books, so am not sending this to rfv. Argument is that it's a rare error and only hear because a non-native speaker added it, probably because of the association between 'jamais' and 'ne'. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree a bit. I think it's an error only inasmuch as the verb should be in the subjunctive. Some examples I posted in the Tea Room:

• Ajoutez que Marguerite était revenue de ce voyage plus belle qu'elle n’avait jamais été. – Alexandre Dumas, La Dame aux camélias.
• Singer décrit ce film comme le plus ambitieux et le plus grand qu'il n’ait jamais fait. here
• J'avais eu un réel coup de cœur pour cette émission, notamment pour le décor, le plus grand que je n’aie jamais vu sur un plateau de télévision. here.

However, I don't necessarily object to deleting it because I think this is probably not different from the preceding sense. Ƿidsiþ 19:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Inflected forms of address with the informal T-form and address with the polite V-form

Since they are translation-only entries, their inflected forms don’t need entries. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 15:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I strongly agree; delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 20:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

{{en-verb}} must somehow be made to suppress those unneeded conjugations, though. -- Liliana • 16:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

We can use {{head}} when we don't want inflected forms to display, as I've now done. I've also deleted the inflected forms' entries. - -sche (discuss) 16:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

ngo5

Cantonese pinyin, a single entry. See also Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Others#Category:Cantonese_Pinyin_syllables. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep in the absence of a rationale for deletion. For other similar entries, seee Category:Cantonese jyutping. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• delete Unlike Pinyin, this is not used by native population, so we should delete it unless proof to the contrary is presented. -- Liliana • 08:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Unlike Mandarin Pinyin? This entry states that it is Cantonese pinyin (which is a bit non-standard as you have stated). Bumm13 (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Just for clarification, Cantonese Pinyin is not the same as Jyutping, which is the de facto standard for Cantonese romanization in Hong Kong. Specifically, keep as the ngo5 reading is the same in Jyutping as it is in the much-less-used Cantonese Pinyin romanization system. Bumm13 (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• 'Keep but only once converted to a jyutping entry, which is what Dan and Bumm13 seem to support as well, given their comments. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

lactium

lactibus

The Oxford Latin Dictionary states that ‘lac’ has no plural. Esszet (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The OLD seems to be mistaken, then, because the plural is well attested. google books:"lactibus" - -sche (discuss) 01:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Most if not all of those hits are for the plurale tantum lactēs 'intestines', which we don't have an entry for yet. —Angr 08:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hm, then this should be moved to RFV. See WT:RFV#lac. Cheers, - -sche (discuss) 21:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep: Other sources have been found for the word Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 20:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

  Would you care to share some of those with us? The scholarship of the OLD is pretty thorough. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

These entries were deleted because they failed RFV. See WT:RFV#lac and, after it is archived, Talk:lac. - -sche (discuss) 00:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Outcome: RFD who-cares; deleted via RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug

"Any anti-inflammatory drug that does not contain steroids." Obvious SoP. Keep NSAID of course (single word) but split the link in that entry into [[nonsteroidal]] [[anti-inflammatory]] [[drug]]. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 16:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep; it is a set term or a taxon in a widespread classification of pharmaceuticals. It may be a semantics sum of parts, but that is just because someone cared to give the taxon a transparent name. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom.​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like this might pass the lemming test, so keep. DAVilla 16:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete please. It's usefulness in pharmaceuticals can be cured by Wikipedia. --WikiTiki89 16:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

comida

Portuguese: “healthy food, as opposed to junk food”

The primary meaning of this word is “food.” The definition I’m RFDing is not a distinct sense, it’s just special use of the primary definition to belittle junk food by implying it’s not really food. An English equivalent would be adding the definition “A person from Scotland who eats haggis, wears kilts and throws logs, as opposed to one who doesn’t” to Scotsman, because those who don’t aren’t true Scotsmen. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 15:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

parents

The translations table can stay (or be incorporated into [[parent]]'s), but surely the sense "one's mother and father" is redundant to the sense "plural of parent" to the extent that it isn't simply misleadingly and incorrectly over-specific. (We don't have a sense "one's own mother" at [[mother]] distinct from the sense "human female who parents a child or gives birth to a baby", or a sense "one's uncles" at [[uncles]].) - -sche (discuss) 01:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete BTW, "mother and father" doesn't cover all the cases, eg, step-, same-gender parents, let alone one or more transgender parents. DCDuring TALK 02:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Redundant to plural of parent, per nom. bd2412 T 03:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

bullshit

rfd-sense: An expression of disbelief or doubt at what one has just heard. Isn't this just the noun used on its own? No interjection at horseshit or bullcrap for example. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep. One could just as easily add the same to nonsense, poppycock, horsefeathers, hogwash, bull, horse pucky and, of course, all the usual vulgarisms. Delete Chuck Entz (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete. This kind of usage could be considered an ellipsis for "That/this is/was bullshit". Unless an ostensible interjection that is more commonly also a noun cannot be so defined with at least one of the noun's definitions, it seems to me that it does not merit inclusion, except in Wikiphrasebook. DCDuring TALK 16:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep as a phrasebook entry at least. This word, when used as an interjection, has nontrivial translations into foreign languages, which I think are worth keeping. Keφr 11:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

coronation

"An uncontested party leadership election." Way too specific, why only a (political) party leadership election? Could be any office (Sepp Blatter being re-elected as president of FIFA whilst being the only candidate comes to mind as a specific example). But then, isn't that just the first sense used sarcastically (as in how big can means small, and easy can mean hard)? As a separate issue, has anyone heard of "The pomp or assembly at a coronation" as a definition of coronation, because I haven't. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

My second instinct is to keep this but to rewrite per what I've written above. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Any non-competitive instance of an ostensibly competitive process for selecting a winner can be so described. Elections are the most common usage, but I'm pretty sure I've seen it used in sports and in business, as well. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

JIRA

Sae1962 (sigh) -- Liliana • 22:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Non-generalised name of a product that hasn’t entered the lexicon. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 23:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 15:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep absent consensus for exclusion of company names. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Oops; this is a product or service name. Applicable regulation: WT:BRAND. Keep in RFD; no reason for deletion applicable to RFD was stated. Potential interesting lexicoinfo: pronunciation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I need a city map

This gets just 12 Google Books hits, and three of them are from the same book (Angels and Demons by Dan Brown). Mglovesfun (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete (along with all similar rubbish) SemperBlotto (talk) 07:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

(deprecated template usage) I need a map would be a rather more sensible phrasebook entry. Equinox ◑ 07:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. --Yair rand (talk) 09:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

moved -- Liliana • 12:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Nope, I need a map failed RFD, we can't move it there. In this case, delete. -- Liliana • 12:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought, that in Phrasebook/Travel one can add all sentences, which one needs in a journey to solve problems. Maybe this was a mistake?! What sentences is Phrasebook/Travel for? I'm new and really don't know this. --Allexkoch (talk) 08:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

We don't really have criteria for a phrasebook, apparently because no one finds the effort of drafting and getting agreement for it worthwhile, especially given some uncertainty about whether a phrasebook belongs here. Wiktionary is at least the most sensible incubator for a phrasebook and may be the best permanent home in the Mediawiki empire.

I personally think that the core sentence "I need a map" might be best, with some further Usage notes about how the English term is modified for politeness and greater specificity. "Excuse me. Where could I find a bus map of the city?" might be one useful end product for a user of a phrasebook, but it is obviously cumbersome as a entry itself. I don't know how to help a user who needs such a sentence get to I need a map and then produce the specific polite sentence needed. Maybe removing the politeness requirement helps. Interaction with strangers might begin with "(Excuse me. [if interrupting]) Could you help me?" That framing allows many following statements that would otherwise be too direct.

Without some kind of framework, I don't see how a user-useful phrasebook can be constructed. DCDuring TALK 13:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi DCDuring, thank you so much for your answer, I didn't expect to get one. (Please excuse my bad english, I'm german.) My aproach to the phrasebook/Travel is totally different (from yours and the others). I travel a lot through the world and I try to know the most important and useful words of the language of the country where I am by heart. So all this "excuse me bla bla bla ..." and "if interupting bla bla bla ... " is totally out of frame for me. If I am in a country like Hungaria or China I have to concentrate of a minimum of useful words, which will my partner hopefully understand. If my partner speaks english, then there is no problem, but if not!!!

For me, my purposes and my opinion this phrasebook/travel is a wonderful thing!!! One can get the most important sentences online!!! And I think, it should contain all these short (minmal short!!!) sentences one need abroad. You (and all this english speaking people here) should consider, that "I need a map" and "I need a city map" are very similar sentences in english but f.i. in German map is "Landkarte" and city map is "Stadtplan" or in french map is "carte geographique" and city map is "plan de ville" there is no similarity at all there and you will get two very different things if you use the false word.

So, I hope, this phrasebook/travel will continue to be - with minimal-word-sentences not concerned of good english, but of memorizable(!) words in all these other languages. And that it will not fail for this language purists, who I also honor with respect to the use of there own language. But if you are abroad you will be lucky to be understood by the people there with few words.

I think, phrasebook/travel should be not so much concerned with english but with internationalism. I anyway don't understand, why there are so many wiktionaries. I think one wiktionary is enough from every language to every language - like now the english wiktionary. All the other wiktionaries are - in my opinion - lost energy. I really hope for your and the others understanding - english is not the only language in the world! greetings --Allexkoch (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The fact that some language like French and German distinguish between "city map" and "country map" doesn't mean we have to have separate entries. We could still have a single I need a map page and then in the translations write "German: ich brauche einen Stadtplan (for a city map); ich brauche eine Landkarte (for a country map)". —Angr 20:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

To Allexkoch: The English Wiktionary is usable by readers understanding English, the German Wiktionary by readers understanding German, etc. Yes, all wiktionaries are needed. About the phrase, I understand your concern, but the solution would be topical pages (e.g. Finding one's way), not this kind of page. Lmaltier (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• The voters in Talk:I need a map have decided that "I need ..." entries should be deleted. People wanting to delete these kind of entries in Talk:I need a map include Thrissel, Hekaheka, SemperBlotto, Mglovesfun, DCDuring, WikiTiki89, Equinox, CodeCat, Maro and possibly Liliana. This entry has mere 8 hits in Google books (google books:"I need a city map"), which excludes it per one of the few objectives heuristic criteria that we had for phrasebook entries, that of number of hits. WT:PB mentiones three criteria for phrasebook entries: usefulness, simplicity and commonness. This entry does not meet the commonness criterion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

And it's gone. DAVilla 16:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Transwiki:Guard ship

Discussion moved from WT:RFDO#Guard ship.

Says it's a warship used as a guard. I assume it can be any type of ship, just a warship is much more suited to the task than a shrimper. Ergo delete, unless guardship is ok, then we kinda can't. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it fails WT:COALMINE because it's not significantly more common than guardship, it's significantly less common than it; on Google Books an estimate 441 hits whil guardship gets 25100, more than 50 times more. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

But guardship can also refer to "the state of being a guard/guarded", so a simple Google Books search may not be representative for this particular sense. —CodeCat 18:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"A guard ship" gets 32900 GBC hits to 3930 for "a guardship". "Guardships"+crew gets 1440, "guard ships"+crew gets 4950 (with some being for "Coast Guard ships"): "the guardships"+crew gets 529, "the guard ships"+crew gets 3480. - -sche (discuss) 16:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you noticed how wonky Google search results are? The counts, in particular, seem unreliable. Caution seems required. Sometimes it pays to try to page toward the end of the results. That end may come much sooner than the indicated number would suggest. That might be the result of Google limiting the number of such pages they make available or it might indicate a bad estimate. Heavy use of qualifying terms to reduce the absolute count, possibly even going further than -sche did above, may be desirable to make a page-by-page scan of the results more feasible, without fear of Google-imposed limits. DCDuring TALK 16:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point. "Of the guardships" masts crew gets 9 results (though it says it gets 10), "of the guard ships" masts crew gets 12 (though it says it gets 237). "Of the guard ships" boats crew gets 18 (claims 673), "of the guardships" boats crew gets 6 (claims 7). The two-word term seems more common than the one-word term. - -sche (discuss) 17:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Also guard ship seems to be a calque for the Russian ship-class name storozhevoj korabl. It may be worth checking the literature for whether this is a common English name for the particular type. —Michael Z. 2013-06-10 19:44 z

Maybe not. First page of GBooks results for storozhevoy korabl has various SOP translations including guard ship, escort ship, patrol ship, etc. —Michael Z. 2013-06-11 00:54 z

make a living

earn a living

Both are SoP, in contrast to such expressions as bring home the bacon and even pay the bills/pay the rent/put food on the table, which at least are idiomatic inasmuch as they are metonymies. DCDuring TALK 21:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete, or redirect if we absolutely must (which is dismissing the readership as idiots who can't separate words by spaces). Equinox ◑ 21:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. From a non-native-English perspective, make a living at least isn't entirely obvious. The common JA gloss for EN (deprecated template usage) make, for instance, is (deprecated template usage) 作る (tsukuru), but this verb cannot be used sensibly with any of the common glosses for (deprecated template usage) living (though I suppose some kind of allusion to Frankenstein might be possible). That would seem to make this an idiomatic phrase. The idiomatic JA equivalent would be (deprecated template usage) 生計を立てる (seikei o tateru), literally “to stand or set up a living”, similarly non-obvious for anyone not fluent in the language. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

  Re: "common gloss". That's why we take the trouble to offer several definitions of make#Verb. and livelihood is a perfectly serviceable gloss at living#Noun. I think it does a serious disservice to a language learner to suggest the there are idioms that have to be memorized just to know a single expression, when instead there are polysemic words to learn of very broad application, like make and living. DCDuring TALK 22:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete or redirect to [[living]] or [[living#Noun]].​—msh210℠ (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep both as idiomatic set expressions. Another synonym: bring home the bacon. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 14:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep, possibly outside of CFI. While both phrases can probably be understood when seen or heard, the existence of this way of putting it in English is unobvious, I think. Furthermore, both "make a living" and "earn a living" seem more common than the other synonyms, as per Google Ngram Viewer: make a living,earn a living,make ends meet,pay the bills,bring home the bacon,put food on the table,pay the rent.--Dan Polansky (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep both. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Having read make#Verb, I can't see a sense to cover this, so keep. Definitely keep earn a living too Mglovesfun (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Wacky Watermelon

There's a bunch of things wrong with this:

1. Obvious SOP
2. Zero citations
3. Fails WT:BRAND as so constructed
4. Created to make a point about Berry Blue, even though berry blue is cited and passes WT:BRAND Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 16:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hang on a minute

1. Obvious SOP? So it's a watermelon of a wacky nature is it?
2. Citations aren't required in entries, it is required that they be citable (that is, citations are available, but not necessarily copied up)
3. Failing WT:BRAND is an RFV issue. It can't fail before it's even been nominated, it's like convicting someone of a crime before the trial
4. Berry Blue has't actually passed yet; there's some debate over the validity of the citations.

Mglovesfun (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree that this is SOP, although wacky could probably use some refinement to indicate that it can refer to both zany fun and just plain insanity. With respect to the watermelon flavor, the idea of the sense of zany fun is obvious. "Berry Blue" should be of little relevance to this discussion, although I would note in passing that I have scared up citations for berry blue which seem to me to be in line with color entries like sky blue, navy blue, and peacock blue. bd2412 T 17:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

There are seven citations, Eagle Eyes. They are in the entry for convenient reference.

I created this to investigate the question of inclusion surrounding Berry Blue and other similar names. I am not sure that either of these belongs in the dictionary, but neither am I positive that they don’t. —Michael Z. 2013-06-17 16:42 z

Curiosity

Opportunity

Is this seriously dictionary material? -- Liliana • 17:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

FWIW - Curiosity may be as worthy as dictionary material as Opportunity and Spirit I would think - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Good point - I added those two to this discussion as well. -- Liliana • 17:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Not in my opinion. But WT:CFI#Names of specific entities lets us debate each instance of such things, all as a result of Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Names of specific entities. DCDuring TALK 17:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The craft is named from the word, because it is hoped to embody certain properties of the word — like calling a child Grace. We don't have entries for individual people called Grace, and IMO should not for individual vehicles. Drbogdan points out that we do have Opportunity and Spirit; we also have Titanic and Apollo; and (better known than some of these, but fictional) Talk:Enterprise failed. IMO delete all. Equinox ◑ 17:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

How is this different from my cat being called Gatto? The difference is cultural not lexical, delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems that Curiosity, Opportunity, Spirit, Apollo and Titanic may all be comparable (ie, all names of world-famous vehicles of notable real-world historical significance) - but Grace and Gatto may not be "*as* analogous"? - apples and oranges (*maybe*?) - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Just wondering - should the Mayflower (and the like) also be included? - in any case - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Words like Template:l/en and Template:l/en should be included because they have entered the lexicon (in these cases, as epitomes of major accidents, as used in comparisons.) This is not the case with Curiosity, Spirit and Opportunity. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 21:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Wiktionary Pages for the Challenger (ie, the space shuttle Challenger) and the Hindenburg, having major accidents, should be created? - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You could create them, and if they were RFDed I would oppose deletion, but I doubt that everyone will agree. — Ungoliant ^(Falai)

 Done - hopefully the newly created pages (Challenger and Hindenburg) will last a long time - or at least as long as the Titanic, Columbia and Mayflower pages? - in any case - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hindenburg is used as an approximate synonym for disaster. I'm not so sure about Challenger. Above you mentioned "notable real-world historical significance". That's valid for an encyclopedia, but not for a dictionary ("notable", especially, points to confusion between Wikipedia and Wiktionary standards). The term itself is what we focus on, not the thing it refers to. Unless the term has some meaning beyond just a reference to a specific thing- no matter how famous or important- it doesn't belong in a dictionary. In other words, we answer the question "what does 'Curiosity' mean?", not "what is Curiosity, and what's important about it"? Chuck Entz (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz - Thank you for your comments - they're *very much* appreciated - in terms of Curiosity - to some (maybe many these days) Curiosity may actually mean a "robot on Mars" - and may be synonymous with "space exploration" - might this make the Curiosity term dictionary worthy? - rather than only encyclopedic material alone? - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you show any evidence that Curiosity might be a generic term for a Mars robot? It seems incredibly unlikely. Equinox ◑ 04:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You may be right about this - I was thinking that, in casual conversations these days, the word Curiosity seems to bring to mind "Mars robot" - without further explanation - how widespread this may be - or how widespread it needs to be - may be an issue of course - thanks for your comment - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 05:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

My test for these is metaphorical usage, which Apollo, Titanic, Hindenburg, and Mayflower all pass. For instance, the Concord was "commonly called the Mayflower of the Germans."[7] This may be difficult to find for the listed terms because of the commonness of the words, but tentatively I would say delete Spirit, Opportunity, and Curiosity. It doesn't look good for Challenger and Columbia either. DAVilla 16:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The metaphorical/allusive usage test is a good one, if it could be operationalized and rendered objective and replicable. Allusions might be a worthy expansion of Wiktionary's coverage. We already have many of them. For example, we should have George Washington, because of the abundant use of "the George Washington of his country/nation/people". All sorts of historical figures, especially classical ones, are used for allusive reasons in taxonomic names, especially genera. DCDuring TALK 17:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Apollo

Rfd-sense: (with “the”) Apollo Theater, a music hall in New York City associated with African-American performers.

Like the above, I don't think this is dictionary material either. -- Liliana • 17:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete sense line. Perhaps have a "See also" linking to Wikipedia's article, but that's as much as there should be. Equinox ◑ 18:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

We have {{only in}} for just these cases. DCDuring TALK 21:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

{{only in}} won't work inside a language section because it's a box. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Citations added show how it is referenced simply as "the Apollo". DAVilla 09:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

our butts

Ref: WT:RFV#our butts or Talk:our butts.

This is SoP, per Check Entz's comments. This and its siblings should be replaced by a {{senseid}}-exploiting redirect like one's butt. DCDuring TALK 14:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete, sum of parts. Siuenti (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

knap

Sense#3: To bite; to bite off; to break short.

I am not convinced that the citations have the meaning claimed. They seem to me to be just more examples of "break off pieces". In "he will knap the spears apieces with his teeth" the "with his teeth" element would be redundant if knap really meant "bite off". Likewise in "He breaketh the bow, and knappeth the spear in sunder" the "in sunder" part is redundant if the meaning of knap were "break short". SpinningSpark 13:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

double vertical line

Doesn't this refer to any double vertical line (in which case it's SoP) rather than specifically the math symbol? -- Liliana • 07:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

This is the name allocated to it in Unicode. Not all Unicode character names are entry-worthy, however. Equinox ◑ 07:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Strictly speaking the name allocated to it is DOUBLE VERTICAL LINE as they allocate all-caps names. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• It seems to me that the generic sense of the phrase "double vertical line" would include a pair of infinite lines, and would also include two vertical lines that were spaced far apart, or even two vertical line segments that were arranged with one on top of the other instead of next to it. If the phrase can demonstrably be used to refer to a specific symbol which is composed of two line segments of equal length that are next to each other in close proximity, then that sense would escape being SoP in my view. See, e.g., 1998, Burkhard Dretzke, Modern British and American English Prononunciation: A Basic Textbook, page 89: "The whole tone unit stands between a double vertical line (double bars) ||". bd2412 T 14:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Here is another interesting example:
    • 2007, K. David Harrison, When Languages Die:The Extinction of the World's Languages and the Erosion of Human Knowledge, page 39:

      The ||Gana people (800 speakers—the double vertical line denotes a click sound) of Botswana have no generic word for living things, nor do they recognize a plant versus animal distinction.

  • I think, at least, that if "double vertical line" does not necessarily refer to the math symbol, it is still not SoP if it refers to finite vertical lines that are right next to each other, with matching endpoints. bd2412 T 14:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

financial institution

Delete. Obvious sum of parts. --Dmol (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. "financial institution". I find it unobvious that this term should be used to refer to, among other things, commercial banks. For lemmings: “financial institution”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete SOP. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 23:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

financial service

SOP. Delete.​—msh210℠ (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Obvious sum of parts. --Dmol (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete both. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep "financial service". I don't think it's really obvious. The current def seems actually wrong ("A service concerned with the handling and investment of funds"), as it seems to exclude insurance companies. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete SOP. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 23:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

dop

"Small zippered toiletries - used with kit." It's not even an adjective (it comes from the brand name Dopp kit); IMO it should be removed from here and created at dop kit instead. Equinox ◑ 22:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

whore around

I think that around functions as a kind of aspect marker with respect to a wide variety of verbs that can be found as derived terms at around#Adverb. It indicates repeated or continuous action. DCDuring TALK 00:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Not all such words are unidiomatic, but I think this one is and other similar ones are. DCDuring TALK 00:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete per DCDuring, although I believe this requires a more nuanced sense of "around". "Sleep around", "whore around", "screw around", and even "shop around" suggest engaging in an activity with multiple partners (or at multiple venues), without showing faithfulness to any particular one of them. bd2412 T 13:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. The current definition in "around"#Adverb does not do, and it is supposed to fit to "kidding around", which does not seem to have anything to do with multiple partners. Even if possibly sum-of-partish, I think this term should better be expressely defined in a dictionary entry. Furthermore, this entry does the job of indicating that you actually say this is English. Ditto for sleep around, screw around, and shop around. As an auxiliary hint, “shop around”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. is defined in Collins, Macmillan and Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary; “sleep around”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. is defined in Collins English Dictionary, Macmillan Dictionary, Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, and Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

key evidence

SOP- as key witness, above.

• Delete, as above. bd2412 T 19:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete, straightforward, I have no other comments. 20:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

a 3

Rfd-sense: Designating a second residence with the same street number.

I think this sense is misguided. a does not "designate a second residence with the same street number", as in, it doesn't distinguish two buildings which both have the house number 12. Rather, it is itself part of the house number. Letters do appear in house numbers, but they don't carry any inherent meaning and thus aren't dictionary material. -- Liliana • 19:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fairly clear cut. This is no different than having senses for numbers indicating that they are themselves street addresses. bd2412 T 19:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per bd. - -sche (discuss) 04:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is used in deriving a new number from an old one, e.g. a new house is built between 10 and 11 and may be numbered 10a. The French equivalent is bis, written as a separate word beside the original number. Equinox ◑ 05:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

And if there's more than one, wouldn't the second one be 10b? I've also seen fractions: 10 1/2 and 10 3/4. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I vote keep, if not obvious from the above. But then I added it :) Equinox ◑ 16:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep. It is not clear for me that a new address between 10 and 11 is named 10a rather than 10b. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

So you would support a sense of 2 as "designating a second residence on the same street", because it's not obvious that a new address between 1 and 3 is called 2? Appending a isn't even a hard and fast rule, there are exceptions. -- Liliana • 09:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

It’s obvious that a new address between 1 and 3 is called 2. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete. This is just a numbering convention, like "Exit 3A" on a highway or "Vitamin B6" (which is the opposite). --WikiTiki89 20:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete. I'm sure you can also find addresses where b is used instead of a on the principle that the original number is implicitly a. It has about as much lexical significance as the fact that a is used in outlines, along with b, c, d, etc. The fact that letters are used to supplement numbers in numbering schemes is a useful thing to know, as is that fact that such numbers tend to follow numeric and alphabetic order (there's no explicit requirement that houses not be arranged in the order 3,9,2,7, etc.), but it's not for a dictionary to explain it: I have trouble imagining anyone looking up a in the dictionary because they saw an address with "3 a" in it. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

clean coal

(deprecated template usage) Clean + (deprecated template usage) coal. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 22:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It does damage the environment, though. (OTOH, I'm not sure all misnomers should have entries. I'll stay on the fence for now.) - -sche (discuss) 23:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

In an Orwellian sense like the Clean Air Act cleans the air of birds. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it is listed for deleted, when the term clearly exists. The reason I listed it at RFV was that the definition is vague and dubious. Feel free to put in a more accurate definition, then I'm sure we can get rid of this sense only.--Dmol (talk) 07:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Because it’s SOP. Template:l/en is used for anything which (whether true or not, as -sche noted) doesn’t damage the environment. There’s clean energy, clean oil, clean technology, clean mining, etc. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 17:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Delete per nom. The Orwellian magic is right in the word clean, like organic, gluten-free, democracy, etc. DCDuring TALK 18:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I have added a second definition, taken from Wikipedia, that seems to cover the term. As I have said, I wanted verification of the dubious and vague first definition. --Dmol (talk) 08:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Acanthasitta

I think this is a not-common misspelling of Acanthisitta. DCDuring TALK 23:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly disconcerting in the etymology of Acanthisittidae. — Pingku^dimmi 13:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete; google books:"Acanthasitta", google groups:"Acanthasitta", “Acanthasitta”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. yields no hits at all. This could go to RFV, but I actually think it could as well have been speedied, so let us vote on deletion here and be done with it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

redwood

Adjective, both senses.

I strongly doubt that these are ever used as true adjectives. The adjective-like usage I have examined looks to be attributive use of the noun. DCDuring TALK 19:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete. The usexes clearly show attributive use of the noun senses. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 21:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 14:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

make

Rfd-sense (linguistics) "to form", which is just a specific example of the following more general sense "to constitute". For example, in the sentence Words form a sentence. one can equally correctly say Words constitute a sentence. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 21:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

toleratie

Wrong spelling of tolerantie. Should be deleted.15:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Keep as an obsolete spelling or a common misspelling. This Dutch spelling is plentifully attested in Google books. The search in Dutch books of toleratie finds 90 hits, while the search in Dutch books for tolerantie finds 54,100 hits. The ratio of the two numbers is 601, which suggests a common misspelling to me; compare to the ratio of "conceive" vs. "concieve". --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • A ratio of 1:601 does not suggest a common misspelling to me at all. I'd call that rather rare. —Angr 18:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Then find a couple of misspellings that you consider common and determine their frequency ratio. Then you will have a data-based or fact-based idea instead of an opinion not based on actual knowledge. If you want to see the homework I have done, you can have a look at User talk:Dan Polansky#What is a misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, here is a relevant snippet:

Term 1	Term 2	Ngram	Frequency Ratio in Year 2000
beleive	believe	Ngram	3349
beleiver	believer	Ngram	22913
aquitted	acquitted	Ngram	433
aquire	acquire	Ngram	1075
arithmatically	arithmetically	Ngram	441
concieve	conceive	Ngram	1494
recieve	receive	Ngram	1874
bibiliography	bibliography	Ngram	2920
assidious	assiduous	Ngram	1084
bizzare	bizarre	Ngram	396
athiest	atheist	Ngram	561
condensor	condenser	Ngram	99
concensus	consensus	Ngram	341
accross	across	Ngram	5097

--Dan Polansky (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

To judge from your data both here and on your talk page, I'd say a misspelling needs a frequency ratio < 100 to be considered common. —Angr 19:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thus, of the examples listed in the above table, only "condensor" is a common misspelling per your assessment. My assessment differs: "recieve" is a prototypical common misspelling by my lights, and it has frequency ratio of 1874. In Google web search, "recieve" has 32,700,000 hits. Furthermore, I see no reason to believe that copyedited Google books material should contain common mispelling in ratios less than 100. Be it as it may, you still have not listed your prototypical common misspellings with their frequency ratios. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and of the ones listed on your talk page, "referencable", "experiencable", "influencable", "sequencable", "idiosyncracy", and "supercede" are. As for what I consider to be common misspellings, that's a bit hard to judge, but two words I often misspell myself are separate and existent. I'm not sure how to read Google's Ngrams, but if I've read them correctly, then this says the ratio of seperate to separate is about 1:1030, while this says the ratio of existant to existent is about 1:52. So do that mean I have to increase my maximum frequency ratio for misspellings to be considered common? Not at all; it means seperate isn't as common a misspelling as I thought, so if someone were to nominate it for deletion, I'd vote delete. I'm surprised that existant is so much more common, though, and I wonder whether the French and Latin words are perhaps showing up in the results despite the "from the corpus: English" setting. Maybe the French and Latin words are showing up in quotes inside otherwise English-language texts. At any rate, the results are making me very skeptical of the reliability of Google Ngram Viewer as a reliable linguistic corpus analysis tool. There are so many corpora of written English out there, surely someone has analyzed some of them following proper statistical procedure to estimate the frequency of various misspellings. —Angr 21:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the basis of your choice of the frequncy ratio in copyedited Google books of 100 as a threshold? What possible factual observation could shake your choice of that ratio? What about the results is making you very skeptical, as per your statement above? Given your doubt, have you considered looking at other corpora, such as COCA, BNC or even world wide web? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

"What possible factual observation could shake your choice of that ratio?" Probably nothing; any spelling that occurs less than 1% of the time the word is used is simply too rare to be called "common". I would much prefer we use a real corpus like COCA or BNC, but there too I would want the frequency threshold to be at around 1%. —Angr 15:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you agree with the following statement? 'Any spelling that occurs less than 1% of the time the word is used in a copyedited corpus is simply too rare to be called a "common misspelling".' Is there any further reasoning or evidence that you could provide in support of that statement? Let me emphasize that we are talking about common misspellings, not common spellings. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that statement. My reasoning is based on sense 3 of common: "Found in large numbers or in a large quantity". If we're going to call something an alternative but correct spelling, it had better occur far more often than 1% of the time. —Angr 18:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, correct spelling. But we are discussing threshold for common misspelling, not common correct spelling. The threshold is not for an alternative spelling tag to be used but rather for common misspelling to be included. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

But we're still calling them common misspellings. I don't think a misspelling is common unless it slips past a copyeditor at least 1% of the time. I really don't think that's an unreasonably high threshold. —Angr 13:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Well yes, Google books for lang=en for existant finds the term in many French and Latin books or snippets. Whether the results are similarly skewed for other spelling pairs can be discovered for each pair by having a glance at what the links present on the Ngram page show in Google books search. Actually, the suspect low ratio of around 50 suggested such a glance was worthwhile. I find it very likely that, for most investigated spelling pairs, there is no such skewing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't toleratie be equivalent to toleration not tolerance? Could it be a separate word, not a misspelling? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• And any chance it might be dated? The bulk of hits popping up at google books:"toleratie" "geen", for instance, are not terribly recent. Limiting that search to the 21st century produced only two hits. FWIW. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • As I said, "Keep as an obsolete spelling or a common misspelling." If it is not obsolete, then maybe dated. If it is a misspelling, then a common one. I don't feel qualified to decide whether this is an obsolete form, a dated form or a common misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

    I've never seen this word anywhere, but Mglovesfun is right, this would be "toleration" rather than "tolerance". So I don't think this can be considered a misspelling for sure, it's quite possibly another formation, which happens to be very rare. Of course we can't tell the difference in this case because they're still only one letter apart. —CodeCat 15:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

@DP: Obviously the frequency ratio of alt/misspelling to unmarked (prevailing) spelling alone is not sufficient evidence to choose among the classifications and presentations we use for current spellings: unmarked, "alternative spelling" and "common misspelling". Some weighting by its frequency in the corpus as a whole or by the absolute number of occurrences of the spelling in the corpus is needed. The natural log or square root of such frequencies or absolute numbers would give the right shape to a criterion curve, though it would need to be calibrated to reflect our judgement, preferences, or whims.

What Dutch corpora are there that reflect adequately misspellings? Is there a way to use Google searches of the web to be reasonably sure that one is counting mostly occurrences in Dutch text? Can we create a template for each language that would provide a way of having consistent searches for this purpose? DCDuring TALK 16:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

If you can create a compelling multi-factor method, that's great. In the absence of a presented specific alternative method complete with factor weights, the presented single-factor method using a reasonably reliable and already copyedited corpus is compelling to me. You can constrain a Google books search by language, which I have done for Dutch; the results seem reasonably reliable overall, with some skewings and glitches. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Accordingly, Delete as too rare a misspelling,if misspelling it is. DCDuring TALK 17:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

After your musings about multi-factor logarithmic analysis, what is the basis for your claim of "too rare a mispelling"? What method and threshold have you used? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I cry foul: an editor requests a complicated method and when he does not get any, votes upon a whim with providing no method whatsoever. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

To DCDuring: well, as I noted above, there is no way to tell if it's a misspelling or an independently formed (but rare) word. So there is no grounds for considering it a misspelling that I can see. —CodeCat 17:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep as a non-misspelling per Mglovesfun and CodeCat. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 17:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

@DP: All of our decisions on misspellings are whimsical as we have no express criteria of any kind, quantitative or otherwise. In particular, we have no accepted criteria for determining what makes a misspelling common. Accordingly, I whimsically determine that this is too rare at less than 1%. But 1% is not in particular my criterion, nor of any implicit consensus, AFAICT. I don't think that we have ever accepted a challenged misspelling with such a low frequency, but facts could prove that wrong. I was willing to contemplate other criteria using this as a test case, but it does not have the makings of a good test case, IMO. DCDuring TALK 18:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the specific tentative threshold of 1% AKA 100 frequency ratio for Google books or similar copyedited corpus. Based on the table I have posted above, I think the threshold is eminently unreasonable. On another note, you might want to consider the analysis provided by a Dutch native speaker above (CodeCat) as an input to your vote. As for consensus, there is an implied consensus in Category:English misspellings, from which most of the items in the table have been taken. It is merely implied, but much better than anything else we have on consensus as far as the inclusion of common misspellings in Wiktionary.

If you want to be musing about previously challenged common misspellings, you'd better find some. Otherwise, yours is an idle speculation produced in the absence of actual knowledge. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to your offering your findings for discussion. DCDuring TALK 21:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I was not making any claims about frequencies of previously challenged misspellings; you were: "I don't think that we have ever accepted a challenged misspelling with such a low frequency". My suspicion rests: yours is an idle speculation produced in the absence of actual knowledge. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Outcome: RFD kept: no consensus for deletion. Boldfaced keeps included mine and by Ungoliant; pro-keeping arguments were made by Mglovesfun and CodeCat; boldfaced delete is by DCDuring and, by implication, by the unsigned nominator; pro-deletion arguments were made by Angr. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

avião cargueiro

Portuguese for cargo aircraft. SOP of (deprecated template usage) avião + (deprecated template usage) cargueiro. The following are also citable: Template:l/pt/Template:l/pt cargueiro (cargo train), Template:l/pt cargueiro (cargo ship), Template:l/pt cargueira (cargo watercraft), Template:l/pt cargueiro (cargo boat), Template:l/pt cargueiro (pack horse), Template:l/pt cargueira (pack mule), Template:l/pt cargueiro (pack donkey), Template:l/pt cargueiro (pack animal), etc.. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 02:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

female penis

I have sent this to RFV, but I realized that the attesting quotations are going to be sum of parts. Hence this RFD nomination. They are going to be sum of parts, as "female penis" is naturally read as "female analogue of male penis", which is a sum-of-parts phrase. It is so even if the reader does not know what the female analogue of male penis is. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "I realized that the attesting quotations are going to be sum of parts" that sounds a bit like WT:CRYSTAL to me. I think this should be 'adjourned' to use the legalistic word until the RFV is finished. If it fails then obviously this debate will be totally redundant. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Outcome: RFD who-cares: deleted via RFV. Can be archived to nowhere, IMHO, since the actual work was done by RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

check into

See here. AFAICT, this is not a unit as e.g. check in is, but simply check, followed by into (which belongs to a following prepositional phrase). Longtrend (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's actually , where of course into becomes a single word. I feel uneasy about deleting it; probably keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

kick off the team

(deprecated template usage) kick off + (deprecated template usage) the team. Direct object not always 'the team' (kick off the committee, kick of the board, etc.) Mglovesfun (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 11:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, I had to add the sense to 'kick off'. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Straightforward SoP. bd2412 T 16:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

ancient Greek

This is a mistake not an alternative form. Hardly worth creating {{misspelling of}} entries for wrong capitalization. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I’m on the fence on whether wrong capitalisations should have misspelling of entries, but if kept it should have an {{&lit}} definition as well. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 10:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not. Delete. —Angr 18:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think using ancient + Greek to signify the ancient form of Greek is a mistake. Greek: "The language of the Greek people, spoken in Greece and in Greek communities." hardly indicates that Greek refers to Modern Greek. (I think I'll add a note about when Greek means Modern Greek and when it means Ancient Greek later, but we can hardly exclude that it sometimes does refer to Ancient Greek or both. (I'd have a hard time citing both, though.))--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Re your last sentence: Maybe I misunderstand you, but I think it'd be simple enough to cite both "Greek" = modern Greek and "Greek" = ancient Greek. For the latter, just look for works that say "the (Latin|English) word foo was borrowed from the Greek word ..." or mention famous Romans who spoke or were fluent in "Greek", etc. - -sche (discuss) 00:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Certainly any modern work on Indo-European studies will say "Greek" to refer to Ancient Greek and "Modern Greek" to distinguish the modern language (if they mention it at all). (Back when I was studying Indo-European linguistics I once told someone "I've never been to Modern Greece", making them laugh and ask if I had been to Ancient Greece, but all my brain was doing was making a kind of back-formation for "the country where Modern Greek is spoken".) —Angr 09:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking about a sentence like "Greek is the language that is currently spoken in Greece, and has been since before the time of Homer." Maybe formulated that way, it would be possible to cite; I still think that most works would either make a Greek/Ancient Greek divide or a Modern Greek/Greek divide, if the other one was ever important enough to worry about.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

loser

RFD-sense x2:

• Someone who loses in a specified manner.

  is redundant to: A person who fails to win.

• Someone with bad luck or poor skills who consistently loses.

  is redundant to: A person who is frequently unsuccessful in life.

This was pointed out by another user years ago, but never RFd'd. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The first doesn't strike me as redundant. There are plenty of situations that aren't winnable competitions/contests, but in which one can still suffer a serious loss or setback. "Our children will be the losers if this government's flawed education plan becomes reality," "indigenous wildlife isn't the only loser when it comes to habitat destruction," etc. -Cloudcuckoolander (formerly Astral) (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it can be expanded to “ […] who fails to win or thrive” — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 05:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Apparently in a specified manner refers to 'good loser', 'bad loser' and so on. Surely in this sense, it's just someone who loses. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted the "someone with bad luck" sense as redundant to the "person who is frequently unsuccessful if life" sense. I've merged the "someone who loses" and "someone who fails to win" senses like this. - -sche (discuss) 17:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

illegal immigrant

SOP: (deprecated template usage) illegal + (deprecated template usage) immigrant. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 01:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

There is certainly a lot of connotation with this, but it seems SoP to me. DCDuring TALK 03:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete, unless I'm missing something. It's a bit of a hot-topic from what I've understood. But as far as I know there's nothing dictionary-worthy about this phrase. Leave the non-dictionary stuff to other websites. We don't have to do everything. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete, SoP, one who has immigrated illegally. Compare "illegal parkers" (of vehicles), evident in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 16:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this term is considered worth banning, which seems to be an indication of idiomaticity. See news citation in entry. DCDuring TALK 16:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Failed. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

bodyswap

The adjective. Isn't this just an attributive use of the noun? -Cloudcuckoolander (formerly Astral) (talk) 05:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we usually rfv such things as its an attestation issue. Honestly I would just speedy delete it and put in the edit summary if anyone wants to restore it to also add it to rfv. As far as I'm concerned it's a total error. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete based on my expectation that no evidence could be found of true adjective use. DCDuring TALK 12:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm just going to speedy delete that erroneous sense, no need to debate it. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Winsock

I would have thought that this is a Sae1962 entry, and I was surprised when I looked at the version history to notice it isn't. In any case, you know the drill. -- Liliana • 20:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• No, Sae1962 would have created something like "Winsock attribute binding agent" - but this is a (deprecated template usage) word, and we include "all words in all languages". SemperBlotto (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks like a brand to me. DCDuring TALK 21:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't even have Windows which should be far more widespread, so... -- Liliana • 21:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not a brand but an abbreviation. Compare Winmodem (genericised from a trademark) and Wintel (never AFAIK been registered by anyone). Equinox ◑ 16:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

"Joe's Grocery Store" may or may not be registered, but it's still a brand. DCDuring TALK 17:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

But what is brand-like about it? I am pretty sure it originated as a technical abbreviation inside Microsoft for this particular technology and then reached the wider world through a filename (WINSOCK.DLL being the file that held the relevant code). Equinox ◑ 17:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Keep a single-word entry in the absence of a deletion rationale. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Equinox ◑ 14:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

njia ya maji

Swahili. Doesn't necessarily refer to a canal, but instead literally means "the way of the water" (or waterway) which is basically any path that water can take. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea, but it was created by an Englishman based on fr:njia ya maji, created by a Frenchman! Mglovesfun (talk) 09:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

the rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain

I suggest deleting this and replacing it with an {{only-in}} redirect to Appendix:List of shibboleths (or another appendix) for the same reason WT:RFD#park the car in Harvard Yard was deleted: it's lexicographically irrelevant. Failing that, it should be moved to the more common and more logical "the rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain". - -sche (discuss) 01:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete for the same reasons as park the car […] . — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 03:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete, off topic. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. bd2412 T 11:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete or move to suitable appendix as per my vote at park the car in Harvard Yard. Equinox ◑ 16:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: this one is already in the appendix. bd2412 T 18:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

deleted -- Liliana • 18:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't speak Indonesian

I don't speak Russian

Similar entries were deleted as covered by I don't speak English per Talk:I don't speak Bulgarian and Talk:I_don't_speak#Deletion_debate; I don't speak English was kept. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't speak Russian was restored out of process despite having failed RFD. I deleted it again. -- Liliana • 14:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

And delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete all. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree, delete. Persian and Indonesian are the only ones left. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Deleted per the consensus here and per precedent cases. - -sche (discuss) 08:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

-endlic

The etymology really says it all. I don't think this is a single suffix, but rather a combination of two. —CodeCat 17:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete, I think. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

What about moving the definition to -lic and changing it to “forming […] from present participles […] ”? Would that be correct? — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 16:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

duka la vitabu

Swahili: bookstore. Not a set phrase; literally means "shop of books" or "shop that has books". —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Keep assuming this is a common Swahili term for bookstore. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  Commonness is not a valid reason for keeping it; idiomaticity is. How is this any more deserving of an entry than duka la vifaru ("rhinoceros shop"), were that to be attestable? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

ۅسۉمدۉك

As far as I know, we only accept Kyrgyz entries in Cyrillic script. Should Arab be added to the module or should we delete this? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Per WP, Kyrgyz is written in the Arabic script in Xinjiang. Arienne M. Dwyer confirms this, writing in The Xinjiang Conflict on page 22 that "The unique use in Central Asia of an Arabic-based script by Xinjiang's Uyghurs, Kazakhs, and Kyrgyz focused the language-issue discussion inwards and towards Beijing." It has also been written in the Latin script. We should probably make the Cyrillic spelling the lemma, though. - -sche (discuss) 00:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

سٵرسەنبٸ

Same situation as above, only this one's Kazakh instead. As above, we already have the Cyrillic script entry (сәрсенбі). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Like Kyrgyz, Kazakh is written in the Arabic script in China. It has also historically been written in the Latin alphabet. - -sche (discuss) 00:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

As I suggested be done to ۅسۉمدۉك, I have converted this entry to a soft redirect to the Cyrillic spelling. Unless you think Arabic-script Kazakh should be banned for some reason, I think this RFD can be withdrawn...? - -sche (discuss) 19:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Since when do we do soft redirects for entries in different writing systems? We don't do that for other languages like Serbo-Croatian (and ooh it'd spark a huge editwar if we did!). -- Liliana • 22:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I think a soft redirect is better than a hard redirect or deletion in this case. The problem with Kazakh, Kyrgyz and Tatar in Arabic and Roman scripts is that words in these scripts are not regulated by anyone, they are used in chats and some online discussions, sometimes Wikipedia. It's hard to say for sure if that particular form is correct. E.g. Turks have created dictionaries for Tatar language using Roman letters (and using wrong grammatical forms and inconsistent spellings), making similar efforts for Kyrgyz and Kazakh before the changeover to Roman is announced. Try searching for سٵرسەنبٸ online, it's many hits (most are wikis), might as well be an Uighur misspelling or dialectal form, not Kazakh. Don't think I am biased because my native script is Cyrillic.

I don't have a very strong opinion on this but this spelling needs to be verified, which is hard. Kazakh and Kyrgyz in the Arabic script are obviously not thriving and there are very few resources. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, this entry uses the official Kazakh Arabic script that is still used in China. I would suppose it isn't used much today on the Internet which is why you won't find many hits, but it does seem to be valid. It uses letters like ٵ or ٸ which do not occur in any language other than Kazakh. -- Liliana • 07:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

@Liliana: As you know, Serbo-Croatian is a special case; everything about it sparks huge editwars. We do soft-redirect Arabic-script Afrikaans words like كُوْنِڠْ to Latin script, and we soft-redirect some Cyrillic-script Romanian words like доктор (used in Transnistria) to Latin script, and have since at least 2011. OTOH, other Cyrillic Romanian words, like молдовенеск and нє#Romanian, still have full entries... - -sche (discuss) 08:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm doing those Romanian entries now. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Not to undo your work, but I'm going to switch them to use {{ro-Cyrillic of}} (especially so that the usage note doesn't end up varying from entry to entry). - -sche (discuss) 21:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Kept. - -sche (discuss) 03:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

-style

"column or having columns. Combining form is appended to make an adjective form. "

This is based on what are or should be senses of style, used in combination or with a prefix. DCDuring TALK 17:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

K

(US) The initial letter of the call sign of radio stations west of the Mississippi (see also W)

Orginally in Translingual. Is this practice of the US FCC involving a single letter of what might be considered an alternative name of a broadcast organization a morpheme that we should include? BTW, what should its tag be: "in the US", "of the US", "of certain US radio broadcasters", or just ambiguously "US"? DCDuring TALK 16:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Call it a prefix if you must since it's never used as a standalone word. DTLHS (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs here. If we do want it, then we need to include all the other call sign prefixes XE- and XH- for Mexico, C- and VO- in Canada, and so one for broadcasters in all nations. DCDuring TALK 16:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It has meaning, but I'm not sure it belongs in a dictionary. It's just a practice in assigning of letter sequences- do we want to include the letters at the end of forms, like the US IRS tax forms 1040 vs. 1040A vs. 1040EZ (w:IRS tax forms#1040)? There are all kinds of cases where a serial number or ID or code contains sequences that have meaning. It's kind of like the practices in naming things like ships and hurricanes: there is a system to it, but it's not really dictionary material. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I was wrong to move this from Translingual, as one of the purposes is to identify a broadcaster at a distance, which distance has little to do with official boundaries. DCDuring TALK 18:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It isn't even exact; there are a few exceptions. It kind of reminds me of the "used to differentiate between houses with the same number" sense of a. delete -- Liliana • 18:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

There is some interesting history to the exact assignments. According to Wikipedia, "[t]he United States was represented by the military at the 1927 [International Radiotelegraphic Convention] conference, which is why it received (or, in some cases, retained) A (for Army) and N (for Navy). The W and K for civilian stations followed as the simple addition of a dash to the Morse code letters A and N. (However, in 1912, KDA–KZZ, all of N, and all of W were assigned to the United States, but all of A was assigned to Germany and its protectorates). International call signs for stations aboard U.S. ships were initially assigned with W prefixes on the west coast and K prefixes in the Atlantic; land-based stations followed the opposite pattern. The distinction between Atlantic and Pacific ships was to become less meaningful after the Panama Canal reduced the distance required to cross from one ocean to another". It's not exactly etymology, but it is an interesting explanation. I had never realized that radio stations and television stations outside the U.S. had call signs at all, or that all call signs had an initial letter assigned by international convention. bd2412 T 20:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete. It's not dictionary material. We could do similar with the Australian radio stations and add 4 for Queensland, 2 for NSW, etc, but in neither case are the letters or numbers used in a linguistic sense. (BTW, our radio prefixes match our post code prefixes, so that could open another can of worms).--Dmol (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Good point about the post codes. In the US, you can tell by the first 2 digits of a zip code what state or territory it's in, and you can tell the same about phone numbers from the area code. There's a huge amount of encyclopedic information associated with specific letters, numbers, and sequences thereof that's not really a part of the language. Such things may find their way into the language via their symbolism or as short-hand for something (I think an adjective entry for 90210 might be justifiable, for instance), but on their own they simply don't belong in a dictionary. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

W

Same as K. DCDuring TALK 16:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Keep both: Not seeing how the project is harmed by these entries Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 13:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep both, there is some interesting history behind them for which a reader might turn to a dictionary. bd2412 T 19:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete both. Any "interesting history" behind them is Wikipedia material. --WikiTiki89 20:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It has a definition that is not discernible from the letter alone, plus in interesting history as to why it has that definition. bd2412 T 22:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
    • It doesn't have a definition period, discernible or not. It would be like defining "BC" as "broadcasting corporation (used as the last two letters of a television network name)". --WikiTiki89 22:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Enable - sense

None of the senses given seem distinguished.

Sense #1 specifically overlaps Sense #2. Sense #3 is redundant to #1 and #2. The example given is too general and vague to confer any additional meaning. No citation given.

Here is the version being referenced 8/8/2013 ~ 06:03 PM CT:

1. To give strength or ability to; to make firm and strong.
   • (Can we date this quote?), King James Bible, "1 Tim. i. 12"

     Who hath enabled me.

2. To make able (to do, or to be, something); to confer sufficient power upon; to furnish with means, opportunities, and the like; to render competent for; to empower; to endow.
   • 1711, October 13, Joseph Addison, The Spectator, number 195

     Temperance gives Nature her full play, and enables her to exert herself in all her force and vigor.

   • Template:quote-magazine
3. To allow a way out or excuse for an action.

— This unsigned comment was added by Anon lynx (talk • contribs) at 23:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC).

I think the first two senses are redundant, but the third sense is distinct - the root of enabler. To enable someone to carry on bad habits is not to give them the ability to do those things, but to facilitate their habits by failing to take steps to prevent them. bd2412 T 23:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The first sense is to make one able, in a general sense. The second is to make one able to do something specific. It's almost like the difference between transitive and intransitive with the following infinitive clause acting like an indirect object. I'm sure there's a technical term for the difference, but I can't think of one. For the original poster: unlike Wikipedia, we don't require citation for things like definitions (they're often a good idea in etymologies, though)- we strictly go by usage. For us, a citation is a reference to an example of usage, not to an authoritative work. I can attest that the third sense is in widespread use, especially in the context of psychotherapy and addiction counseling, so it no doubt meets WT:CFI. Even if it didn't that would be something to bring up at WT:RFV, not here. I also think you meant 8/2/2013- unless you can retrieve things from 6 days in the future... Chuck Entz (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

ask for it

Discussion moved from WT:RFV#ask for it.

Sense 3. Is this distinct from sense 2? I don't think so. Hyarmendacil (talk) 06:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC) (moved by Mglovesfun (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC), please continue discussion)

It's a total no doubter for me; I would've simply undone the edit. This is a specific example of #2 not a new definition. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete. It’s definition 2 used in a specific context. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 10:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd say sense 2 could be narrowed down instead, since it seems to primarly be a synonym for "someone who's vulnerable and is deliberately annoying those who are liable to hurt them" whereas sense 3 is a woman who's underdressed as if to tempt someone to rape them. I dont think being underdressed can be a subset of being annoying. Soap (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You might want to read it again. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

There is difference between provoking (even unwanted) sexual attention and instigating sexual assault. It's a gliding scale, but we distuingish black and white, even if there is a whole range greys between them. People using the expression "asked for it" when it is clearly inappropiate, often don't think that they are asking for it. It might be useful to add a usage note that outside certain circles "she was asking for it" is asking for a kick in the balls, if not a castration. --80.114.178.7 20:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

prévaille

prévaillent

The proper first-person and third-person present subjunctive of prévaloir is prévale. Esszet (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking this might be a common enough error to be included as an erroneous form. But it's actually attested in early Modern French (with the acute as well) as a correct form. Here's such an example. Keep, rewrite as necessary. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

That source says that prévaille is incorrect: 'But no matter what those who attach themselves to the exactitude of grammar say about how it is so and how one must speak so, one says at the court prévale and not prévaille, and it is the court that must set the rules for us.’ If prévaille is a common error, it should be included under ‘Usage Notes’ and not be given a seperate page or even be included in the conjugation table. I'm also nominating prévailles and prévaillent for deletion because the correct forms are prévales and prévalent respectively (see the above link for prévale). Esszet (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

We're a descriptive, not a prescriptive dictionary- if it's in use, we have an entry for it. That's not to say it shouldn't be tagged as "proscribed", "nonstandard" or a "misspelling"- but it merits an entry according to our WT:CFI. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep all and rewrite as necessary - all of these are likely enough errors that they should be included. Razorflame 21:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Esszet, prévaille might be incorrect but it hasn't always been incorrect. It has existed, it is present in French texts. Websites likes Larousse and Leconjugueur only list current forms, not all forms that have existed. Similarly you won't find avoit under avoir instead of avait, but it's an older form and the standard spelling for much longer than avait has been. And I'm not suggesting adding these to the conjugation either. So only those who type it in will find it, and they will see the usage notes saying this is no longer used and prévale is the only modern form. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see actual uses (the link provided above does not show a use at all). I found at least one use, but I feel that it might have always been an uncommon error due to the conjugation of valoir. I even find this error on a modern conjugation site (mentioning prévaille', prévailles but prévalent), despite the fact that nobody would use prévaille. Lmaltier (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot of uses; I searched Google Books, found about 10 and stopped after that. The total number of hits was in the thousands and I didn't want to check all of them. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at

• http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=pr%C3%A9vaille%2Cpr%C3%A9vale&year_start=1600&year_end=2000&corpus=19&smoothing=3&share=
• http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=pr%C3%A9vailles%2Cpr%C3%A9vales&year_start=1600&year_end=2000&corpus=19&smoothing=3&share=
• http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=pr%C3%A9vaillent%2C+pr%C3%A9valent&year_start=1600&year_end=2000&corpus=19&smoothing=3&share= (but this comparison is not very meaninglful, because prévalent is also an adjective, so look at the following one)
• http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=ils+pr%C3%A9vaillent%2Cils+pr%C3%A9valent&year_start=1600&year_end=2000&corpus=19&smoothing=3&share=

All these figures seem to show that prévale, prévales, prévalent have always been the normal forms, and prévaille used concurrently only during very short periods. These statistics should be used in some way to clarify things in the pages: it might be understood that the old normal form was prévaille and that prévale is only a modern form. Lmaltier (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

lead poisoning

Change to an &lit. It's poisoning by means of lead. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. It is my thumbnail understanding that "lead poisoning" refers to poisoning by incidental absorption through the skin. If you decide to do away with your evil twin by mixing lead into their tea, they may be poisoned by it, but this would not be "lead poisoning" as it is traditionally used. Consider:

• 2005, John Emsley, The Elements of Murder: A History of Poison, page 317:

  Specht and Fischer deduced that Clement had been fatally poisoned with lead and that this had been taken repeatedly and over a period of time. They concluded that his remains revealed a pattern of lead poisoning similar to those who had been exposed to lead as a result of their occupation and who had died of this cause.

Cheers! bd2412 T 18:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete, simple enough. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

"...poisoned with lead...revealed a pattern of lead poisoning..." seems to me to be evidence for exactly the opposite case that BD2412 is trying to make. SpinningSpark 23:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The book is about murders committed with poison. In context, the passage is about how researchers knew that Clement had died of from exposure to lead because he had symptoms similar to those of crafstman who worked with lead (i.e. had actual "lead poisoning"), and concluded from those symptoms that Clement had been poisoned with lead - much like finding that someone had died from burns (the symptom, which might be found on people who work in fire pits and boiler rooms and get burned incidentally) and concluding that this particular subject had been murdered by intentionally being set on fire. bd2412 T 00:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

There are two definitions of poisoning. "The administration of a poison" is what you're focusing on as the SOP meaning, but "The state of being poisoned", works just fine for the common usage. Lead poisoning is a condition or syndrome that is the result of too much lead in one's body- how it got there is irrelevant. For instance, if children eat chips of lead-based paint, they get lead poisoning. If someone is shot and the bullet isn't removed, they're at risk for lead poisoning. "Poisoning by incidental absorption through the skin" isn't part of the definition. In fact, one could say "this particular case of lead poisoning was no accident- someone deliberately poisoned him with lead." It seems to me a matter of whether the fact that only one definition of a component contributes to the default meaning is enough to establish idiomaticity. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. Delete. bd2412 T 13:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

There are no non-literal senses in the entry, and it's not a translations target, since plumbism hosts the translations... so if it's decided that any poisoning by lead is lead poisoning, the thing to do would seem to be delete the entry, rather than make it an {{&lit}}. - -sche (discuss) 00:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

@-sche: There was a non-literal sense when I nominated it. Semper deleted it out of process and I reverted him. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed the context from that sense, because I don't think it's correct. I have heard or seen that figure of speech in fiction, so it may be that the contributor saw it in some western and assumed that was the context. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

For some reason or other many lexicographers find this worth including, including Merriam-Webster, usually fairly picky about excluding MWEs. See “lead poisoning”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. DCDuring TALK 17:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

La Calavera Catrina

Not English. Bad title (shouldn't contain "La"). SemperBlotto (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Remove 'la' and make it a proper noun. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 03:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

No strong feelings, if kept as English can retain the 'La' as 'La' isn't an article in English. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

failover

I am proposing to delete the first sense. I feel, as someone who's worked in the computing field for more than a decade, that the first sense is really just a specific case of the second, which is more general, and in my opinion, the better dictionary definition. What do you guys think? Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 03:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I am puzzled that sense #1 is glossed as uncountable. Is there an uncountable use of this term? SpinningSpark 20:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The "capability to perform a failover" (countable) seems to be uncountable. I've added a few cites under the uncountable heading, but intending no endorsement of that wordy, even encyclopedic definition. I don't think there are a vast number of these so the sense should be worded to span all the cites, which probably means lack of specificity. DCDuring TALK 23:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so if you agree that there is an uncountable sense (and you have now just cited it), then you can't delete it. There are still two senses. Unless you also intend to gloss sense #2 as countable and uncountable. I would think a cleanup of sense #1 is a more appropriate thing to do than deletion. SpinningSpark 15:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I think there's not enough difference between the uncountable and countable versions to warrant two definitions. The second definition can be tweaked slightly to cater to both. My point with this post is the unnecessary degree of specificness that the first definition goes into. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 00:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that one definition ought to be enough. We are talking about the difference between an uncountable ability ("do we support failover?") vs. a countable instance ("how many failovers last year?"). Compare backup, perhaps. Equinox ◑ 00:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

If it is a requirement for a definition to be substitutable – it is a desideratum – it may not be so easy find suitable wording. DCDuring TALK 04:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

prévalant (adjective) and prévalants

It's a somewhat common spelling error (the right spelling for the adjective is prévalent, unlike the past participle), but I think that nobody considers it as a legitimate spelling. Google figures: "prévalents": 45 100, "prévalants": 3 030, Google Books figures: "prévalents": 3 860, "prévalants": 755 (surprisingly high, but I find that there are scanning errors and that some of the uses are, clearly, not adjectives). If kept, it should be made clear that it's not a standard spelling. Lmaltier (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

süküt

1. Wrong language, it's Crimean Tatar, not (Volga) Tatar.
2. It's a noun, not an adjective. (silence, quietness)
3. The Tatar term is тынлык (tınlıq).

Alternatively move to Crimean Tatar, noun with appropriate fixes. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Moved, converted. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Outcome: RFD who-cares: deleted via RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

tiş

1. Wrong language, it's Crimean Tatar, not (Volga) Tatar.
2. The Tatar term is теш (teş). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Outcome: RFD who-cares: deleted via RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

vorstellen

Rfd-redundant: (reflexive) to introduce oneself . This is just sense 1, (transitive) to introduce, to present, where the object is oneself. -- Liliana • 18:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Does it take sich in this sense? — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 00:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It does take sich, but it's the wrong case to be reflexive (accusative case, when it should be dative as in sense 3). -- Liliana • 08:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

"sich vorstellen" ("to introduce oneself") uses accusative (sense 2), "sich vorstellen" ("to imagine") uses dative (sense 3).

Keep sense. Alternatively, allow reflexive verbs like in Czech, Spanish, Russian (the last two have particles written together).

There seems to be no policy on reflexive verbs in German. Nor there is a distinction between accusative and dative cases. Either "sich" verbs should be allowed or verbs without "sich", should be allowed to be marked as reflexive. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

A Dutch example I was able to find: aankleden (cognate of German ankleiden). Mentioned in WT:ANL#Reflexive_verbs. Only the policy page uses non-existent {{reflexive}}. There is a template {{reflexive of}}, though. Perhaps German reflexive verbs could be treated similarly (Dutch verbs could also use {{reflexive of}}). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

{{context|reflexive}} still exists, as it's in Module:labels/data. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. French also uses "pronominal" for the same purpose. See habiller (reflexive: "s'habiller") --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

But how is this any different from sense 1? You failed to answer this question. -- Liliana • 11:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for taking too long to get back. I thought I have explained by using Dutch and French examples and language policies. Not adding reflexive verbs just because their meaning can be construed doesn't sound good to me at all. Not all transitive verbs can become reflexive. They can have intuitive and not intuitive sense. Besides, having sense #3 but not #2 (which is equally common) would be really confusing - not just senses, the grammar is different. The meaning of Dutch "zich aankleden" can be understood when one knows "aankleden" but it's still helpful to have a new sense, even if reflexive terms don't get own entries. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

With this argumentation you could add so-called "reflexive" senses to almost any verb, like waschen, mögen, kennen, etc., just because they can take sich as an object. This works for pretty much any German verb. I don't think it's a good argument at all. -- Liliana • 11:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to create them but I don't see why they should be deleted if someone adds them. "Sich waschen" means "to wash oneself" but "sich kennen" means "to know each other". As I said, the second sense of "sich vorstellen" is important because there exists another sense with a different meaning and grammar. Since there is no explicit policy on German reflexive verbs, French and Dutch policies could and should be reused. This term and sense is included in world-known dictionaries, including Duden. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's a difference in the two verbs you use as examples, you can also say "sich waschen" to say to wash each other. (It's really the use of sich as the third person plural, rather than singular.) You claimed that this sense is in the Duden so I checked; no, it's not present. Where did you get that from? -- Liliana • 16:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The reflexive verbs appear under non-reflexive: Duden vorstellen: sich vorstellen: "jemandem, den man nicht kennt, seinen Namen o. Ä. nennen". A dict.cc English-German for dict.cc vorstellen translation. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I checked the printed version and it doesn't have that sense (though it does contain sense 3). Anyway, the evidence here is weak; the two are subsenses subsumed under a single point 4, so even the Duden considers them one and the same sense. -- Liliana • 14:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the evidence is weak. I have provided both the evidence and policy examples, my rationale for keeping. As this discussion is about language policy changes - whether we need to keep reflexive verbs (separate entries) or reflexive senses in the non-reflexive entries, and it affects not just this entry and just German I suggest to move it to BP. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

What kind of policy? I don't see no policy anywhere. I only see your personal opinion that you're trying to defend through dubious means. There is no need to invoke the BP here (nice try to end this discussion forcefully), consensus in here will decide just fine. -- Liliana • 13:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

@Liliana-60 16:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC). OK, the example isn't German, but is provoked by "kennen", in (Low Saxon influenced) Dutch I can say "ik was mezelf" en "ik was me" ("I wash myself/me"). I can also say "ik ken mezelf", but I can't say "ik ken me" ("I know myself/me"). So yes, the reflexive sense can be understood from the transitive sense, but not all transitive words can be used reflexively. --80.114.178.7 20:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

There's can't be a consensus with only two people talking. You have to defend your case for deletion. I'm not forcing anything, just explaining what seems right to me. Do what you want, dealing with you only causes frustration but you need to advise other people of how you wish to treat reflexive verb forms. I'm out of this is discussion --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep sense. I am not really sure, but I err on the side of keeping. For one thing, "sich vorstellen" (introduce oneself) and "sich vorstellen" (imagine) get easily confused I think, and if the entry only contains a sense for "transitive" and one for "reflexive" for "imagine", it will not be clear to many a reader that "transitive" includes "sich vorstellen" in the sense of "introduce oneself". So I think the separation is useful even if probably not strictly necessary. Moreover, Duden online[8] seems to differentiate the two senses as 4a and 4b (pointed out by Anatoli above). On another note, I see nothing wrong with bringing issues to Beer parlour if they pertain to more than a single entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Outcome: RFD kept. Two boldfaced keeps; one boldfaced delete implied in the nomination. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

en- -en

em- -en

These are just a combination of a prefix and a suffix. As far as affixes go, these are SOP. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

These look similar to (deprecated template usage) -ality and (deprecated template usage) -manship. What's the policy regarding these "compound affixes" (to adopt that term from -ality)? It looks like these circumfixes have been discussed here before (see Talk:en- -en and Talk:em- -en). I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Come to think of it, these circumfixes are on all fours with most English prefixes, which are really a base prefix + one of the interfixes ((deprecated template usage) -i- or (deprecated template usage) -o-). If those various compound affixes and prefix–interfix combinations are kept, then so should these circumfixes. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Mine's a keep vote, in case that isn't clear from the above. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 09:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

When the word is not enlive or liven, it's (deprecated template usage) enliven, formed by adding both en- and -en. Keep, seems like an RFV issue except that's pointless because it's definitely attested. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC) — IFYPFY. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Compare the recently resolved RFV for the English compound suffix (deprecated template usage) -cratic: Both en- -en and em- -en pass bd2412's test "to determine the productivity of a[n a]ffix [by] find[ing] uses of that [a]ffix for which related [a]ffix variations are absent"; in the case of these circumfixes, they are shown to be attested by the existence of (deprecated template usage) encolden, (deprecated template usage) ensmallen, etc. and the non-existence of *(deprecated template usage) colden, *(deprecated template usage) encold, *(deprecated template usage) smallen, *(deprecated template usage) ensmall, etc. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

check up on

Same reason as for check into above: IMO, it's check up + on; not a phrase as a whole, but a phrase combined with the beginning of another (prepositional) phrase. Longtrend (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep Even MWOnline finds this one idiomatic. There may be a UK sense of "check up" that is applicable here as Macmillan has, but that does not carry over to the US. I find the [[check up]] entry suspect, especially as the usex is for check up on. Check on and check up on are nearly synonymous with up adding some sense of thoroughness or completion. DCDuring TALK 21:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Columbia

Rfd-sense: Columbia Rediviva, a famous American sailing ship.

Is there anything special about this ship that it needs its own definition? From my non-American bias it just seems to be the name of a ship, which is clearly not dictionary material. -- Liliana • 20:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete DCDuring TALK 21:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete. If anything, have a "See also" section linking to this on Wikipedia, rather than a sense line; but I doubt it's worth it. Equinox ◑ 01:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete. As far as I can tell, we don't have ship names, except for the occasional exception like the Titanic which has entered the langage as a symbol of something. Having just the one makes no sense, especially since most Americans have never heard of it, let alone anyone outside the US. I would say that even the space-shuttle sense is borderline, though its association with tragedy might argue for some kind of symbolic overtones. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. The sense seems to be there to support the following sense, "The space shuttle Columbia, named after the sailing ship", which should probably deleted as well. —Angr 11:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It's very borderline (Challenger is more commonly used to refer to a disaster). I gave it the benefit of the doubt but wouldn't mind if someone else nominated it as well. -- Liliana • 14:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Strong keep: The river was named after the ship. The spaceship was named after the ship. Ergo, both definitions are dependent on the ship. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I would expect you to defend your definition, but... according to w:Burbank, California: "The city was named after David Burbank, a New Hampshire–born dentist and entrepreneur". We have an entry for Burbank- does that mean we should have one for the dentist (who Wikipedia doesn't consider notable enough for an article)?. Presence in etymologies isn't a reason for having an entry, especially since we can link to Wikipedia articles. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • The two are hardly analogous. The fact that the ship has a Wikipedia article is the first way that comes to mind. You mention only a few ships have entries here. a) Columbia should be one of the ones that does, and b) I see no policy arbitrary limiting the number of ships. Also, the fact that no one has heard of it now is hardly relevant; notability at any period in recorded history is sufficient; the ship had such notability 100-200 years ago Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 00:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Entries by User:89.240.237.161

Do we want all these "division" entries? —CodeCat 01:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete all. Encyclopaedic information not for the Wiktionary. Razorflame 02:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Move to titles without "Division" for the ones that would thereafter be single words that we don't have. bd2412 T 04:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This sounds more reasonable, as place names are allowed. Preferably the names should be accompanied by translations into Urdu and native languages but this could be added later. Either move per BD2412 or keep in full. My only concern is that these divisions are too small and are unlikely to be used in the media or books and are of little value as a translation target. It's far more advantageous to keep high level administrative divisions of a country, such as provinces of Pakistan, like we have Category:en:States of India or Category:en:US States. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The trouble with them is that, unlike Orange County and the like, they don't actually tell us anything. I would delete them all (by all means add proper entries for the names without "Division"). SemperBlotto (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

What is the difference, in the end, between deleting these "Foo Division" titles and creating new "Foo" titles, or merely moving these "Foo Division" titles to "Foo" titles? bd2412 T 16:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea; if we're going to move Lahore Division to just Lahore, does it carry the same meaning even when the word 'Lahore' is removed? Is this like New York State or more like Arizona State, or what? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Lahore Division is currently defined as "One of the administrative divisions of Pakistan". At worst, we would merely need to adjust that to "The name of one of the administrative divisions of Pakistan". I am, however, certain that we should have an entry on Lahore, with an etymology and a pronunciation. bd2412 T 03:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

If you click on one of the Wikipedia links, you'll find that a reform in 2000 eliminated that entire tier of jurisdictions- these are all historical, rather than current entities. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep We have had a VOTE on keeping toponyms. It passed. I see no reason to provision for excluding administrative divisions from places far away in distance or time. End of discussion.

If we would like to reverse or qualify the vote, then we need a VOTE. We may have enough information now to actually have criteria that would allow us to rationally distinguish between toponyms we deem entry-worthy and those we don't, though I doubt it. DCDuring TALK 11:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Is "Lahore Division" a toponym, though, or is it a toponym with a qualifier? It seems rather similar to Washington State, which is completely SoP as even the definition itself shows. That the "state" or "division" part is used as disambiguation doesn't really matter, because "tall tree" is also distinguished from "small tree". —CodeCat 12:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz, the fact that it is a former division rather than a current division merely means that we would have to mark the entry "obsolete". Lahore is still a word, and can be defined here. bd2412 T 23:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

In this case probably "historical" rather than "obsolete". Equinox ◑ 23:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's more complicated and murkier than that. According to w:Divisions of Pakistan there was a vote in 2008 to restore the divisions, but it's unclear to me how far along the restoration is.

As for why I pointed this out: of course we have historical and obsolete terms, and there's no reason to eliminate these because of that. My point was that this IP is operating from a definite POV, and we need to factor that into our decisions- albeit remaining true to CFI in the process. If we decide to keep these, we need to consider if there's anything we can do to mitigate the POV aspects. My take on this is that we have a typically-jingoistic expat living in England who's on a mission to make sure that the Pakistani version of things is represented in detail. Mostly that's not a problem in itself, but this edit shows they're quite capable of crossing the line into overt POV. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It gets worse: some of the divisions were in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, which is in the disputed territory of Kashmir, and India doesn't have divisions with those names. I've speedied those. Others were listed as being part of "East Pakistan", better known as Bangladesh. Given that East Pakistan ceased to exist decades ago, defining Dacca Division as "One of the administrative divisions of East Pakistan" is misleading. I changed "East Pakistan" to "Bangladesh". Also, all of the entries have Wikipedia templates, but several link to nonexistent Wikipedia articles.

To sum it up: this IP needs to be watched carefully, due to POV language, politically-motivated entries with no correspondence to actual reality, and sloppiness with Wikipedia links. I've gone through and cleaned up some of the POV stuff, but I'm sure there's more that I didn't spot. I'm also not sure what to do about some of the divisions in disputed territory that might or might not be part of Pakistan, depending on whom you ask. It wouldn't hurt for someone to check all my edits to their contributions, for that matter, to make sure I didn't make any mistakes- it got a bit tiring after awhile. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• As for Bahawalpur Division, Bannu Division, Lahore Division and similar entries from Category:en:Divisions of Pakistan:
  • One thing is whether e.g. "Lahore Division" should have an entry. I think it should, and thus keep. Geographic names that contain their entity type in the name include Hudson River, Cooper Creek, Lake Ontario, Atlantic Ocean, Adriatic Sea, Chesapeake Bay, Cape Horn, Mount Everest, Longs Peak, Death Valley, Copper Canyon, Red River Gorge, Mexico City, New York City, Cape Town, New York State, Main Street, Grant Avenue, Jack Kerouac Alley, Leicester Square, Piccadilly Circus, and Abbey Road. Some have the form "<noun-phrase-used-attributively> <entity-type>" (e.g. "Death Valley"), while some have the form "<adjective-phrase> <entity-type>" (e.g. "Atlantic Ocean").
  • Another thing is that the definitions are entirely unspecific and poor: "One of the administrative divisions of Pakistan". This is I belive that SemperBlotto means when he says that "... unlike Orange County and the like, they don't actually tell us anything". I admit that this is a fairly good reason for wanting to delete the entries.
  • As for "We have had a VOTE on keeping toponyms", a claim made above: We had a vote that resulted in this regulation: Wiktionary:CFI#Names_of_specific_entities: "... A name of a specific entity must not be included if it does not meet the attestation requirement. Among those that do meet that requirement, many should be excluded while some should be included, but there is no agreement on precise, all-encompassing rules for deciding which are which. ...". So the regulation does not tell us that we need to keep all place names. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    • The vote eliminated the sole criterion for discriminating among proper nouns. The surrounding discussion explicitly included toponyms. By normal rules of construction, that leaves us with not basis for discrimination other than subjective whim, as was mentioned at the time. We are now in the position of exercising our discretion arbitrarily against a place that is unpopular and far away from the deciders, exactly the kind of situation that rules are intended to prevent. DCDuring TALK 13:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Passive forms of Latin venio

Hello,

The "passive" forms of (deprecated template usage) venio (venior, etc., apart from the third person that can be used impersonally) should be deleted , since it's a intransitive verb. I have tagged the wrong forms with the appropriate template. --Fsojic (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

chemical warfare

Where do these come from? It's chemical + warfare. But then, on the other hand, we seem to have biological warfare, conventional warfare, psychological warfare, possibly others. But for some reason nuclear warfare still awaits its creator. Who wants to score a point? --Hekaheka (talk) 10:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it really that obvious what it means? But then you could have chemical attack and chemical war as well. Chemical doesn't seem to cover this as it happens, but likely it should. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep all. Is it "chemical warfare" to drop explosive bombs on the enemy, since explosives generally rely on chemical reactions? Is it biological warfare to send a wave of troops to attack an enemy, since humans are a product of biology? One might reasonably think that "biological warfare" is merely the alternative to "mechanical warfare" or "robot warfare" (which is fast becoming a reality with drone strikes). bd2412 T 12:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it "chemical warfare" to drop explosive bombs on the enemy, since explosives generally rely on chemical reactions? --According to our current definition of chemical warfare, yes. Explosives are harmful chemical substances par excellence. --Hekaheka (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Then our definition is wrong, at least according to the Wikipedia article on chemical warfare, which specifies: "Chemical warfare is different from the use of conventional weapons or nuclear weapons because the destructive effects of chemical weapons are not primarily due to any explosive force". bd2412 T 15:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have expanded the definition of chemical warfare to specify that it refers to intentional toxic exposure, and not any of the thousands of other ways that chemicals are used in warfare. bd2412 T 15:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I created nuclear warfare because it explicitly refers to nuclear weapons, not to any other nuclear substances like depleted uranium rounds. -- Liliana • 15:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep. The meaning is more specific than the expected SOP “the use of chemicals in warfare”. The definition has been improved, and this is more clear now. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 16:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per bd2412. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Outcome: RFD kept per consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

biologinen sodankäynti

If chemical warfare is deemed SOP, this should go as well. I created it back in 2008 as translation to biological warfare. --Hekaheka (talk) 11:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep per chemical warfare, above. bd2412 T 12:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per bd2412. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Outcome: RFD kept per consensus here and at #chemical warfare, later Talk:chemical warfare. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

moral authority

Seems to mean "an authority with respect to morality". Mglovesfun (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Actual, it's more or less the other way around. It means having authority because one is believed to be moral. The authority can be over anything. In other words, if a person is believed by others to have impeccable morality, those others may follow the commands of the person with "moral authority", even if that person has no formal authority (i.e. doesn't have academic expertise in a subject or hold a political office). bd2412 T 12:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Government/politics and academia only? Really?

Some other sources of formal authority includes management position, property ownership, officially certified competence, legal violence or threat thereof. There may be more. Other, informal sources of authority can include extra-legal violence or threat thereof, status from any source derived, celebrity, a track record of success (or its tokens), acknowledged competence or knowledge (certification-free), friendship with or leverage over others. I don't know what I'm missing.

Moral authority is in no OneLook reference besides Wiktionary. DCDuring TALK 14:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

flowering plant

Any plant that produces flowers; we have flowering#Adjective. Also for translations we have angiosperm. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The sole justification AFAICT would be that it is a formulaic phrase meant to include any angiosperm, whether or not a normal human, rather than a botanist, would say it was flowering. DCDuring TALK 12:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. See also “flowering plant”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. and flowering plant, angiosperm at the Google Ngram Viewer.. A common name of a biological notion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. I would consider this a set phrase. It gets orders of magnitude more Google Books hits than "plants that flower", for which most hits seem to be for more granular uses (e.g., "plants that flower when daylength exceeds a certain critical value"). bd2412 T 22:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Outcome: RFD kept for no consensus for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

executable code

Per User talk:Equinox#executable code. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

(Since I've cleared my talk page, I will quote the discussion referenced above. Mglovesfun said, "I don't know a great deal about coding but, the definition basically says it's code that's executable. Is this a term worth including?" I replied, "Not particularly, IMO. Executable is also seen with program, binary, image, etc.") Equinox ◑ 13:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete per Equinox. DCDuring TALK 00:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what makes chemical warfare (a few lines above) worth keeping in comparison to "executable code". With a similar logic that was used to justify keeping chemical warfare, one might say that executable code is not a body of law that is capable of being put in effect and therefore it should be kept. --Hekaheka (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. The nomination as I understand it is that "executable code" is a sum of parts. I'd keep this along with "source code", for which one might argue that it is just a code that serves as a source (for compilation). Furthermore, it is unclear whether the text of a script is considered executable code; such a text quite clear is executable, unlike a text file containing a poem; the entry should clarify this. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, keep. Not intuitive at all and requires some clarification of what it is and example of usage, for example a batch file or a Unix shell script is an executable code. "executable file" is more common, though, just "executable" (noun) is used as well. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, I am not convinced that a Unix shell script is usually referred to as "executable code". Do you have any WT:ATTEST citations showing that the term "executable code" is used in this way? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Searching "executable code" shell script on Google Books turned up cites both ways; I added 2 for and one against.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

keep, though I note that none of the examples are in a form that a computer can directly use. With microcode even machine instructions aren't anymore what they used to be. --80.114.178.7 21:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

-on-

Not an interfix, but the preposition on used both before and after a hyphen. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete. It is simply on. If we don't, we will end up with entries being added, one-by-one, for many English prepositions wrapped in hyphens, then entries for other English words used in hyphenated orthography. DCDuring TALK 19:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

If it were simply "on", one would write "Stratford on Avon" instead of "Stratford-on-Avon", but note "Stratford-upon-Avon". --80.114.178.7 19:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

invitar a salir

"to invite to go out", NISOP (not idiomatic, sum of parts). Mglovesfun (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yep, delete as SOP -WF

crystally clear

Adverb sense. Insofar as this is not SoP it seems to me to be a clear error in grammar. It is conceivable that clear is used as an adverb in parallel to words like fast which is used both as adjective and adverb, which would make this SoP. Otherwise, it seems like a simple grammatical error. Grammatical errors are never SoP, but they are […] errors. I didn't think we documented them. DCDuring TALK 20:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep per CFI’s “A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means.” Even if it is a grammatical error (I see it as an error of interpretation: forming a -ly adverb from the expression crystal clear and thinking crystal is an adjective, probably a result of it ending the same phonemes as the common adjectival suffix -al) we do include them (Mussulmen, avocadi). If anything is a SOP, it’s the adjective:

• “There is a crystally clear river flowing by Vidauban.” ((deprecated template usage) crystally + (deprecated template usage) clear)
• “How dare you imply that the paradox rules aren't utterly, crystally clear!” (multiple adverbs (utterly and crystally (missing sense?) modifying the adjective)

— Ungoliant ^(Falai) 13:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

@Ungoliant: These two are obviously adverbial uses of crystally#Adverb, modifying the adjective clear. Thus, it is SoP. That, as a matter of style, many, including me, would view it as inferior, is immaterial to its SoPitude. We do not have the talent to be a style guide and would be venturing into a realm that is gradually being abandoned by AHD, the sole major dictionary that offered any style guidance.

@Musselman: It's meaning is obvious from its parts. Crystally is attestable as an adverb, whether or not it agrees with anyone's theories of proper word formation and whether or not we can attest to crystal as an adjective. DCDuring TALK 15:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete; covered by crystally (and in some cases evidently an error by non-native speakers). Equinox ◑ 16:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

@Musselman: crystal#Adjective "very clear" is attestable as an adjective. See Citations:crystal. DCDuring TALK 16:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually CFI goes on to say "A term need not be limited to a single word in the usual sense. Any of these are also acceptable:

Compounds and multiple-word terms such as post office."

I suppose it doesn't mean all multiple word terms, but it doesn't say one way or another. I keep finding error or ambiguous bits of CFI, and even blatant errors are hard to get rid of, because there needs to be a 70% consensus on what to replace the error with, even if 70% of voters overall want to see the text change. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Иосиф Виссарионович Джугашвили

This is like Albert Einstein. We have individual names, but not combined names that refer to individual people. —CodeCat 20:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Also delete (deprecated template usage) იოსებ ბესარიონის ძე ჯუღაშვილი (ioseb besarionis ʒe ǯuɣašvili) and (deprecated template usage) იოსებ ჯუღაშვილი (ioseb ǯuɣašvili). --Vahag (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been speedy deleting this per an amendment to WT:CFI saying that first name + surname combinations aren't allowed. Here's we've also got a middle name I suppose, and the text doesn't mention that possibility. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not a middle name, it's a patronymic. We don't have middle names in this part of the world. Middle names are useless. --Vahag (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The policy banning individual names probably didn't exist when this entry was created, but it exists now (and I support it), so delete. - -sche (discuss) 21:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm OK with delete but I'd prefer to have entries for each missing part (including patronymics) and a usex in Джугашвили/Сталин, ჯუღაშვილი/სტალინი before it gets deleted. We don't have Иосиф, Виссарионович, ბესარიონის --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I would say that the full name entries are of no use for creating these, though. They're speedied now since they obviously fail CFI as per the vote. -- Liliana • 15:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

superoptihupilystivekkuloistokainen

I am opening this RFD to close a RFV. The RFV seems hard to close going by evidence only, so a RFD seems appropriate.

For a RFV discussion, see WT:RFV#superoptihupilystivekkuloistokainen. For attestation evidence in Wiktionary (I see none), see superoptihupilystivekkuloistokainen and Citations:superoptihupilystivekkuloistokainen.

I motion to delete the page as unattested. The term has zero Google books hits, and less than 1000 Google web hits. There was a pro-keeping argument by considering the "well-known work" item in WT:ATTEST, but I do not see it as obvious that the work in question (Mary Poppins) is a well-known work, nor do we have a standard for what "well-known work" means. I do not known the work, while I could name a couple of works by Shakespeare, so I reject the "well-known work" item from applying to the discussed term. As a disclaimer, I have tried to have the "well-known work" item removed from WT:CFI in the past, and I may try to do so again in future, so I am generally unfavorable to the item, but even I have to admit that e.g. Much Ado about Nothing is a well-known work, whether I like the item or not. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete. No chance it is a well-known work. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 13:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Mary Poppins is a rather well-known work in English; but in Finnish? (Let's not, for example, allow all the Joycean nonce words in various French translations.) Equinox ◑ 13:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It's quite well-known also in Finland. The movie was extremely popular, and there have been several theater productions. This particular song has been recorded in Finnish and it became quite popular as well. 1000 hits is not so bad for Finnish. It's a small language with only five million speakers. Even if we don't count Indians and Pakistanis, there are at least 100 times as many English speakers around. If 1,000 hits is some sort of criterion, we'll have to delete much of the current Finnish content. That said, delete by all means, too much energy has been spent on discussing it already. --Hekaheka (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

slapende vulkaan

Two separate words, adj+noun. One could include slapende hond, 'sleeping dog' too. — This unsigned comment was added by DrJos (talk • contribs) at 12:47, 1 September 2013.

Actually there isn't currently a definition for slapende#Dutch. Also slapen just says 'to sleep', whereas a dormant volcano isn't literally sleeping of course. Things which aren't alive can't literally sleep. Whether slapende means "(of a volcano) dormant" I don't know, so we need Dutch speakers, and we have a few of those. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

(deprecated template usage) slapende is the inflected form of (deprecated template usage) slapend, but most present participles are currently lacking inflection tables and don't have entries for all the forms yet. I would say that (deprecated template usage) slapen can also mean "be dormant" in the more figurative sense, although "slapende vulkaan" does sound somewhat poetic. The more usual way of saying it would be (deprecated template usage) inactieve vulkaan. —CodeCat 13:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

If I look at the examples at dormant, it's not a good translation for slapend (not even as a secondary meaning after sleeping; though dormant bank account might do too). An "inactieve vulkaan" can be a w:dode vulkaan or a "slapende vulkaan", most are "dood" (extinct).

Weak keep, idiomatic meaning. --80.114.178.7 21:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

My point wasn't the idiom: "slapend" literarily means "dormant", that's not the point, the Dutch use the term "slapende vulkaan" for a volcano that hasn't erupted in quite a while. A dictionary however should be filled with words, not encyclopedic terms: these are two separate words coincidentally put together. You could include "slapende hond" (sleeping, dormant dog) or "slapende man" (sleeping, dormant man) too. --DrJos (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

In English "dormant" and "volcano" aren't two words coincidentally put together; "dormant volcano" is more scientific whereas "sleeping volcano" is more allegorical. The question of what the translation of "dormant volcano" into Dutch is is certainly a lexicographic question, not an encyclopedic question.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

If (and that's a big if) English uses "dormant dog" for a "sleeping dog" (as opposed to, say, a dog who did lead a pack, who doesn't lead it now, yet might lead it again), you could be right. For me (and I am Dutch) Template:l/nl usually only means Template:l/en, the idiomatic uses in Template:l/nl and Template:l/en just happen to coincide. --80.114.178.7 20:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

a good man is hard to find

Previously passed but with lack of discussion. Looks doubtful to me--Shegashega (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any reasons to support its deletion? DCDuring TALK 00:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure, it doesn't look like a proverb to me.

Definition is wrong; it just means that a good man is hard to find. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It is only a well-known phrase because of the Mae West quote:- "A hard man is good to find". SemperBlotto (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete, I dispute that this is a proverb, and even if it is proverbs don't get any exemptions in WT:CFI so it needs to be idiomatic, and it isn't. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. I thought about this one for a while, since it may hinge on what is meant by a "good" man, but any relevant sense of "good" should be at good already, and the applicable sense will be determinable by the context of the phrase. bd2412 T 02:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete: nothing like idiomatic. BigDom (t • c) 10:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• See w:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Good_Man_Is_Hard_to_Find_(short_story) for the story. See also the book [9], the painting [10] and the song [11]. I have no opinion on this phrase either way, but it seems there is more to it than just the sum of parts. Also [12] shows that "a hard man is good to find" has applicability beyond quoting Mae West. BB12 (talk) 05:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep but redefine. According to a quick One Look search, the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs has this with the definition "Men who make good husbands or workers are rare," and the the The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy has it with definition "Dependable, trustworthy help is not easy to get." What makes this phrase idiomatic, I think, is that the rarity of "good men" is not something that can be taken as given. Approached from the perspective of a cynic, "a good man is hard to find" is a statement of the obvious, but to someone who views humanity as fundamentally/essentially good, it's highlighting something unexpected and counterintuitive. Something that's true, but shouldn't be. And, that, I think, is the underlying message: good men are far less common than they ought to be. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Whether good men are rare or not is subjective, not fact. It has no place in a dictionary. Also we shouldn't be giving such a narrow definition of good. A man who doesn't have a job but has a lot of money could still be considered a 'good man' by a woman. We can't force a definition on our readers. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

That whether "good men" are rare or not is a subjective judgment, not fact, is basically what I was trying to get across with "the rarity of 'good men' is not something that can be taken as given." This is why I think that the phrase could only be considered SOP if there were no question that "good men" are rare. I agree that what constitutes "good" is also a matter of subjectivity, but this is not the only proverb on this site to use that word in a narrow manner: good fences make good neighbors, no good deed goes unpunished, etc. Good fences make good neighbors, for example, is based on the assumption that "good neighbors" are ones who keep to themselves, although it's equally possible to view such neighbors as unsociable and unhelpful (and thus "bad"). However, I don't think the definition given in that proverb's entry is intended to impose a particular view of what makes a "good neighbor" onto readers, but rather to report what the proverb is actually used to mean. And if a proverb has more than one attestable meaning, I don't see why its entry can't include more than one definition. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

How is this any different from saying, "a good plumber is hard to find", or "a good laxative is hard to find"? The rarity of a "good" example is equally subjective, and the "plumber" example would even meet the CFI based on usage in durably archived discussion groups. bd2412 T 21:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Neither of those sentences get hits on One Look. "A good man is hard to find" does. If something is included in One Look-listed dictionaries, I think that's grounds to regard it as an established proverb. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• There may be evidence that good man may be an idiom, meaning something hard to find. There's lots of quotes out there for proverbial good man too, suggesting there is something worthwhile to this proverb. --Shegashega (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

get on

definition: (deprecated template usage) (transitive) To commence (an action).

This is clearly get#Verb ("to reach a certain condition") + on#Preposition ("used as a function word to indicate destination or the focus of some action, movement, or directed effort" [from MWOnline]). DCDuring TALK 13:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I would be in favor of making an entry for "get on it." The verb "get" is so complex that expecting the user to figure out which meaning of "get" is meant here is not reasonable. --BB12 (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

1. Keep: Too many definitions of "get" and "on" for this to be SOP which is BS anyway Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 00:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep per Purplebackpack89. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This clearly isn't get#Verb ("to reach a certain condition") as that's intransitive. Try again. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I was using an MWOnline intransitive verb definition. DCDuring TALK 17:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This nomination definition is transitive, and 'on' isn't the direct object. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. If you consider get on to be a unit then it is transitive. If you consider it to be SoP then you need to have recourse to an intransitive sense of get which can be used with a prepositional phrase headed by on. DCDuring TALK 17:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

日本銀行

The Bank of Japan may or may not be a company--apparently it's partly privately owned, and it's listed on JASDAQ. --Haplology (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

As we know WT:CFI is accurate but not very helpful on this issue. Some names of specific entities people want to keep, some people want to delete. Bank of England has an entry. I suppose at the very least it's idiomatic because England has more than one bank. I have no opinion, I just wanted to give some background. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• We have no consensus on whether to keep company names, as per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI and company names. In any case, this entry is governed by WT:CFI#Names of specific entities. Before nominating such an entry for RFD, you should better ask yourself whether you can spend your time and the time of those reading or commenting here in a way that is more conducive to building an excellent and comprehensive multilingual dictionary, IMHO anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I think Haplology is doing the right thing by checking first, if a term is deletable. Tentative keep.--Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a bit early, but Kept. I take exception to that "you should better ask yourself" comment. --Haplology (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

包括的核実験禁止条約

I'm not sure if CFI includes names of treaties, and if it does then maybe this qualifies, but this one, The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, seems awfully encyclopedic. --Haplology (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The inclusion of this entry is governed by WT:CFI#Names of specific entities, which leaves it open to RFD whether to keep this or not. One option is to look at past RFDs on names of treaties to find what we did for them. My guess is that unless we want to keep all attested names of literary works, we probably do not want to keep all attested names of treaties. This particular entry might have some interesting lexicographical material, but I cannot judge what it is. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete. This is a term simply composed of 包括的, 核実験, 禁止 and 条約. There is nothing lexicographically special in it, I'd say. If merely being attestable is not enough for a treaty name to be included, then this would have to be deleted.--Whym (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

paade

Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Requests for verification. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

kostuumbre

Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Requests for verification. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

alkaalde

Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Requests for verification. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

AA cup

doesn't seem particularly idiomatic to me -- Liliana • 16:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Both AA and cup have brassiere-related definitions. Seems SOP. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

A cup

I'm on the fence about these entries, particularly because I note that this one has a "by synecdoche: a woman whose breasts fit this size of bra" sense. I'm adding it to the RFD because I don't think it would make sense to delete one and not the other. The letters are common on their own, so there is an argument to be made that the combinations ("AA cup", "A cup") aren't idiomatic. [[A cup]] currently contains more info than [[A]], but it would be easy to move the info. As for the synecdoche sense: it seems possible to use synecdoche to speak of the wearers of most any item of clothing, with the intelligibility of the synecdoche dependent on the context and the commonness of the clothing. (Yoga pants and skinny jeans might understand things that pantsuits don't. G cups have to deal with things that suits don't. Of those, we only have an entry on the one that is by far the most common, suits.) - -sche (discuss) 03:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Good point: A and cup allow for a lot of senses for "A cup", yet A cup dwarfs those senses. --80.114.178.7 20:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

go

Rfd-sense: sense 42: (intransitive, archaic) To walk.

This doesn't seem to be any different from sense 1, (obsolete, intransitive) To walk; to fare on one's feet., and should probably be merged with it. -- Liliana • 19:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Merge per nom. DCDuring TALK 19:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Do we really need a nomination for this? It seems so uncontroversial that nobody could object. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Liquid something

liquid nitrogen

Sum of parts: liquid + nitrogen. Doubtful it has any non-SOP translations. Keφr 07:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Nothing special about this. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 10:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

“liquid nitrogen”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. shows that some dictionaries have it, mostly followers of WordNet (Does that tell you anything about WordNet?), and several medical dictionaries. The extremely low temperatures of these liquids is the salient fact that should be in any definition that is not SoP. In addition the words come up in less-than-technical contexts in which the users might not be expected to have that salient information. I think we can find a few instances of sci-fi or medical novels that find they need to explain that these liquids are colder than anything in normal human experience. Keep and redefine. DCDuring TALK 13:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Redefine how? We can't exactly avoid saying it's nitrogen in liquid form. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Add the most salient fact: it's very cold: between −196 °C (77 K; −321 °F) and 63 K (−210 °C; −346 °F). DCDuring TALK 16:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

And how does hot liquid nitrogen look like? Keφr 16:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The same as any other hot liquid - it boils. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

No, boiling liquid nitrogen turns into a gas in an instant before it even manages to become "warm" by any definition that would agree with everyday use. Keφr 16:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

But liquid nitrogen is not an "everyday" material. Like any other liquid it takes heat to turn it into a gas; heat moves through a liquid mostly by convection and so cannot turn into a gas "in an instant". When I have used it, it has always just boiled steadily. But anyway, this entry will be deleted because, even though liquid nitrogen is widely used to obtain low temperatures and deserves an encyclopedia entry, the term is simply the sum of its parts. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Lemmings be damned. What do they know? DCDuring TALK 16:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

My point was, specifying that liquid nitrogen is "very cold" does not narrow down the meaning in any way, because liquid nitrogen is always very cold. Keφr 17:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It isn't really about 'know', they just have different criteria to us. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Among the various idiomaticity criteria we would be ignoring the existence of the acronyms LN and LIN and the inseparability of the components (I think).

This is SoP only for those who took and remember their chemistry. For whom does Wiktionary exist? NOT for the folks served by WordNet or the medical glossaries? I suppose we don't want to serve those who miss the salient fact. Let them use Wikipedia. DCDuring TALK 18:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Meh, you could say the same about negative square root (not understood by those who have forgotten their maths) or polymorphic constructor (comp sci). Still very much SoP. Equinox ◑ 04:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I probably would about polymorphic constructor, except for the fact that ordinary humans won't be confronted with it, probably why no OneLook dictionary has it. DCDuring TALK 01:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep. I think liquid nitrogen has enough industrial, medical, etc. applications for this to be considered an inclusion-worthy lexical unit and not just state of matter + chemical element. Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 03:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Because this is a product as Cloudcukoolander says, it seems this is a word not merely SoP. You wouldn't go to a supplier and say, I'd like some nitrogen" with the expectation that the clerk would say, "What phase?" but if you asked for a latte on a hot day, the barista would say, "Hot or iced?" The patent abstract [13] has "a refrigerant such as liquid nitrogen" which seems to indicate this is a noun on its own. Also, [14] has "liquid nitrogen cooling" where "liquid nitrogen" is used as a single item in attribution to modify cooling. Another patent abstract at [15] has "gasified liquid nitrogen" which again seems to be an argument that this is a thing beyond SoP. --BB12 (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep. You say liquid nitrogen temperature (77 K) but not liquid oxygen temperature. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment liquid hydrogen was deleted in 2011; if we're looking at industrial usage, it should be restored for that reason. -- 02:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

liquid oxygen

Same as above. Just because it doesn't occur at room temperature doesn't make it an idiom. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

If you're going that route, we also have liquid ammonia and liquid helium. bd2412 T 23:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the deletion of liquid oxygen, liquid ammonia and liquid helium. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead. --Hekaheka (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Unidiomatic. Anyone familiar with the words liquid and oxygen knows exactly what this means. Those unfamiliar with chemistry might think it’s impossible, or wonder what is its purpose or how it looks, but they will still know exactly what it means. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 16:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep all. These seem at least as wordful as plastic bag, which is obvious to anyone who knows what plastic and bag mean. There are people who deal with liquid hydrogen, liquid ammonia and liquid helium on a daily basis who consider each of them to be singular objects. In contrast, liquid erbium and liquid seaborgium, for example, are merely liquefied versions of those respective elements that, AFAIK, nobody really considers to be nouns in their own right. --BB12 (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• I would keep liquid nitrogen because of its occasional use (and misuse) in fiction and literature, but delete liquid oxygen, liquid ammonia, and liquid helium. bd2412 T 14:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment liquid hydrogen was deleted in 2011 -- 02:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

falling

probably not a true adjective - WF

Needs fixing, not deletion. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It needs evidence to show that it behaves like a true adjective and with what meanings, if any. This is a common problem with -ing form entries. They are worth systematic inspection and review for PoS, without actually flooding RfV or RfD. Perhaps the more far-fetched ones could be done en masse. DCDuring TALK 15:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

depend on

Looks like depend + on. Wonderfool's definition, in any case, is lousy. -WF

Some lemmings view it as a phrasal-verb idiom. Is it? Well, it depends. If we view it-phrases as idioms and ignore the legal and literary meanings, then there may be no common current use of depend that is not always followed by on (or upon). Duplicating the meanings or cross-referencing/linking are possibilities. DCDuring TALK 13:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Henny Penny

rfd with current definition "A fictional character in the children's story Chicken Licken, a hen, in some versions the main character." Of course, if it can be proved to be idiomatic, it'd be a keeper. -WF

Delete. Equinox ◑ 16:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a section on the idiomaticity of this name. Is it accurate? If so, the definition can be updated accordingly and references to the character moved to the etymology section. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 16:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Chicken Little has "one who panics at the slightest provocation" Siuenti (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Foxy Loxy

rfd under current definition. If a definition like that of Big Bad Wolf can be added, it should be cool. -WF

Delete as it stands (defined as "a fictional character..."). The stuff on the citations page might support a generic sense, a type of person etc., but I'm not too hopeful. Equinox ◑ 16:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Chicken Licken

As above - WF

second

Sense:

Per the RFV, this is simply “second chance/attempt” with Template:l/en of chance/attempt. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 18:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep. See, e.g., 2003, Sheila Ryan Wallace, The Sea Captain and His Ladies, page 22:

The policeman smiled, his eyes twinkling. "Now if you'll follow me, I'll escort you to the Victoria."
"Oh, there's no need of that. If you'll just point me in the right direction..."
That's what got you in trouble the first time around. You don't need a second.

Note, there is no reference to a chance or an attempt, even though the word as used requires that it be a second opportunity to do something. bd2412 T 18:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It could be an ellipsis of time (around), but you’re probably right. Did you find any other? — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 18:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's another: 2009, Paulette Jiles, Stormy Weather, page 37:

Smoky Joe ran against a Houston horse named Cherokee Chief.
“Don't hit him,” Jeanine said to the jockey. “Maybe once. But you don't get a second.”

Cheers! bd2412 T 19:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

About the first citation, the only place one would have to look for the what to be understood after second is after first. It's hard to imagine a more straightforward case. The second one isn't much more mysterious, except for the enallage between once/first and second/twice. (I've long looked for a chance to use the word.) DCDuring TALK 19:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Shall we delete the sense of "physician" at doctor, then, since it is generally deducible from the context that it is just an ellipsed form of "doctor of medicine"? bd2412 T 20:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

They are orders of magnitude apart in terms of conventionalization, which is why this sense of second is not to be found in other dictionaries. Actually, to me it seems not all conventional, just a matter of find-the-reference. DCDuring TALK 20:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand the argument - basically, it is that "second" in these sentences is like "slow" in "Bob got a fast car, and Joe got a slow", or "sturdy" in "Bob built a shaky house, Joe built a sturdy"; but I think that it is far more common and grammatically acceptable to use "second" here than to use other adjectives, to the point that it no longer feels like an adjective. bd2412 T 15:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The 'feeling' rationale would be better if we had a systematic way of polling such feelings, presumably among a variety of native speakers who understood what we were asking. The particular examples (sturdy, slow) that you selected don't really work: most speakers would probably insist on adding one or ones. Maybe there are some sensible tests that would get at where a given adjective sense fit on an evolution toward being a full noun sense. The existence of plurals is a strong indication, which we use for English -ing forms, though it doesn't help if the sense is uncountable. Absence of an anaphoric referent is pretty strong, but can require reading paragraphs of preceding text. Checking for use with one/ones requires reading for sense in citations. COCA/BNC at the BYU site makes this easier.

The effort required to find evidence is what sends us to different heuristics: me to lemmings, you to feelings. Maybe I can find something in CGEL that can help. DCDuring TALK 16:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this is because "second" already existed as a noun for other purposes before it was used this way. With respect to the sturdy and slow examples, it would likely be a bit different if the sentence were, "Bob got a blue car, and Joe got a red", because "red" is already a noun on its own. Whether it is wrong or not, it doesn't feel as wrong as "Joe got a slow" or "Joe got a sturdy". The fact that some feel more wrong than others is borne out by the existence of actual uses, i.e. the rather straightforward:

• 2011, Karen Miller, The Innocent Mage:

  I'll have one chance to show them that's no longer true. One chance ... and if I stumble, I'll not get a second.

As for pluralization, see:

• 1969, Peg Bracken, I didn't come here to argue, (link not available) page 43:

  So perhaps some of us flog ourselves unnecessarily when we're actually using every decent brain cell we own. Now, it's apparently true that 100,000 brain cells die every day, and, unlike teeth, you don't get seconds.

• 1983, Joanna Jordan, Never Say Farewell, page 243:

  "I've already had my turn," Margaret said, "and with Grant you don't get seconds."

• 2007, James Atticus Bowden, Rosetta 6.2, page 231:

  We don't get seconds and thirds at this. It has to happen now.

Cheers! bd2412 T 18:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you've actually cited a plural-only (or perhaps plural only) sense seconds; the citations for 'second' seem like ellipsis and not a separate sense (not different to third, fourth, fifth, sixth), while your citations for seconds seem to back up a sense I haven't heard of before of seconds. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that the "food" seconds is derived from an elliptical of "second helpings", as applied to multiple people wanting such helpings (i.e. "I had a first helping, and would like a second" -> "we had first helpings, and would like seconds"). As for the plural examples above, all of them could be reworded in the singular ("for each brain cell that dies, you don't get a second"; "with Grant you don't get a second"; "we don't get a second or a third at this"). Incidentally, in the course of searching for the origin of the food-related term, I found a large number of late 1800s/early 1900s hits for another sense, that of goods of secondary quality (as in "our seconds are as good as other sellers' best products"). bd2412 T 14:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep. The citations (especially the second one BD posted) show, IMO, that this has transcended elliptical usage. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 11:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The "items of second quality; items with minor, often cosmetic, defects" sense is still in use, as is the "second helpings" sense, of course. As the other plural uses not clearly in these senses are relatively scarce, it could be argued that even other plural nominal senses are simply metaphorical appropriations of those senses.

I find it silly to be straining to imagine new and relatively rare senses when our entries neglect so many relatively common senses that emerged in the 20th century. DCDuring TALK 16:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

We have a definition for this sense of seconds, but it only relates to clothes; I saw cites for potatoes and dishes. I would guess that it also originated from an ellipsed form of a second something. bd2412 T 16:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

se cacher

SoP, not idiomatic, cacher (to hide) + se (oneself). WT:About French also says not to make these entries but list them under the infinitive without the pronoun se. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed but before deleting, pronominal (reflexive) senses should be added to the infinitive entries (done). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

In French, it's considered as a verb. Most dictionaries don't include them separately (for space reason), but fr.wikt accept such entries, espacially in such a case. Also note that French pronominal verbs are not always reflexive, this is one of the four possible cases. Much information of interest can be given about these verbs. Lmaltier (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you think Wiktionary:About French (verb section) describe this well? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

It was decided a long time ago that we do not accept separate reflexive entries and all reflexive meanings should be included in the main entry. This should've been shot on sight. I will make the appropriate changes. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 23:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, we somehow missed this one. Anyway, I've created a redirect for it. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 23:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind them to be shot on sight if there is a policy but lemma forms should cover any reflexive/pronominal senses. There are two senses of the English verb "to hide" - transitive (conceal, 藏, cacher) and intransitive (hide (oneself), 躲藏, se cacher), both should be covered by French senses, even if both are in the same entry (the about page explains how). I added the pronominal sense earlier at [[cacher]]. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I would've done the same thing had it been missing at the time of me creating the redirect. In fact, I have always done it this way - move any missing information from the reflexive/pronominal entry to the nonreflexive entry and create the redirect. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 02:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Definition is the same for both senses. How are readers supposed to understand the sense of each definition? Lmaltier (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the {{transitive}} and {{proniminal}} context tags give it all away, doesn't it? I am going to change it to {{reflexive}} instead, as the English intransitive sense is really the same as 'to hide oneself', which is reflexive. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 02:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

One argument for keeping these pages is that they allow the inclusion of anagrams. Again, these forms are considered as verbs in French. And I think that all verbs are includable, including their anagrams. Lmaltier (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to raise it in the WT:Tearoom. However, I will not be converting them back to their own entries if a vote is passed/a consensus is reached to revert the previous decision. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 02:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Another argument is that readers might look for them at S in categories. If cacher and se cacher' both exist, it's easier for readers to find what they look for, whether they look at S or at C. Lmaltier (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair point, but how likely is this? It's more likely for them to search for the term, be it cacher or se cacher, in the search box. For someone with a lick of knowledge in French, they should know se indicates a reflexive or pronominal verb and the word following it is the lemma form. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 02:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Should {{context|pronominal}} somehow reveal the usage, depending on the language, like "cacher" showing "se cacher" if "lang=fr" ({{context|pronominal - se cacher}})? Not all users are trained enough to understand contexts. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

In fact (after multiple edit conflicts): One thing I tend to do (although I have not been consistent with it and I really should be) is to include the actual spelling of the reflexive form in the context template. For example, {{context|reflexive|se cacher|lang=fr}}. I guess it is programmatically possible to do what you described. Is it worth it though? Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 02:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

{{context|reflexive|se cacher|lang=fr}} looks good, perhaps it should become a policy. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

be prepared

Looks SOP to me. Also, the fact that it is the motto of the Boy Scouts should make no difference -WF

Wow. Bad entry. Surely any distinction between senses here should be made at prepare or prepared. Delete. Equinox ◑ 18:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep, it's a well-known international slogan, not just for scouts but also borrowed by pioneers in the former Eastern block, still used in some countries, such as North Korea. The term is important culturally and historically, IMO. Translations do not have to match the literal meaning. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per Atitarev Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 00:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. The first two senses are the verb be + the adjective prepared, and the third is the passive of the verb prepare. Mottos are not dictionary material IMO, whether the organisation is well known or not. If they’re kept, it should be in an appendix. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 02:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The entry is already a phrase, not a verb or a set expression or other PoS. I don't see anything contradicting our CFI. It's a well-known and common phrase, sometimes used as a slogan or literally. It is likely to be sought by users and can't be compared with free form collocations, like "be dressed", "be careful". As I said, the translations of the slogan not necessarily match its literal meaning. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure whether the senses in the entry at the time of the RfD warrant inclusion and am inclined against them. But there is a specific missing sense about a specific kind of preparedness that seems to me to be idiomatic, to wit, be prepared ("possess or carry a condom"). Citations will be at Citations:be prepared. DCDuring TALK 02:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, some literal senses could be deleted - they may be covered by {{&lit}}, which I have added after RfD was added. Would be great if you could add the sense you think is missing. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I would keep only the scouts motto, everything else is just be+prepared. We probably have many other mottos and greetings, e.g. e pluribus unum, workers of the world, unite and Sieg Heil. --Hekaheka (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Everything else should be covered by {{&lit|be|prepared}}, which I think should always be there if a term has both idiomatic and literal senses. It remains to be verified the sense suggested by DCDuring. Senses 3 (to be willing and able) and 4 (to be made ready) could be deleted if there are no objections. I added {{&lit|be|prepared}} after the entry got rfd, I think it should cover these senses now. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I had put citations for the euphemistic sense at Citations:be prepared that seemed adequate to me. DCDuring TALK 23:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I see. Does anyone object to removing senses 3 and 4 and closing the case (including vær beredt below)? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

No objections. The citation currently at def. 4 should be moved to def. 1. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 11:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes I object because the pro-deleters out number the pro-keepers. Just delete it outright; once you get rid of the sum of parts material and the encyclopedic material, you end up with a empty page. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh there's a translation only tag on that sense. Go on then. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Kept. removed senses #3 and #4, Moved a citation to sense #1. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

vær beredt

Looks SOP, meaning be prepared. --ElisaVan (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep as above. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per Atitarev Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 00:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Kept per above. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

una vez más

Not idiomatic, at least to me. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• delete per MK -WF

Keep. Same with once again/once more, noch einmal, 再次, ещё раз, kerran vielä, مرة اخرى, etc. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Atitarev, idiomaticity is not uniform over all languages. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

This set expression is an exact equivalent of the few of the above and a few in other languages, including those for which we don't have entries yet. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

What ever is decided, I think otra vez should be treated similarly. There's an unfinished rfd discussion on it about a mile up this page. I'd support keeping both as set expressions. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep both. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

bydraag

Moved to WT:RFV#bydraag. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

vernacular

The challenged sense: "(Roman Catholicism) The indigenous language of a people, into which the words of the Mass are translated." Vatican II allowed the celebration of the mass in the vernacular.

seems virtually the same as the immediately preceding sense:

"Language unique to a particular group of people; jargon, argot." For those of a certain age, hiphop vernacular might just as well be a foreign language.

Am I missing something? DCDuring TALK 01:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The first sense is referring to a language in the context of all the languages of the world, with Latin being considered the high, sacred language and any other language being considered a common, ordinary everyday language by comparison. The second refers to lower-prestige and/or less-formal varieties within a language, The best way to highlight the difference is to imagine an archbishop saying Mass at the national cathedral, with senators and foreign dignitaries in attendance, and asking whether the language used could be described as "jargon, argot". Chuck Entz (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Another clue is the way Roman Catholic usage tends to refer to "the vernacular", rather than "a vernacular language". Speaking of "the vernacular" in reference to slang is rarely used anymore, except as a humorous way to sound incongruously elegant and proper when describing obscenity. More common is to speak of a specific type of vernacular, such as the hip-hop vernacular in the example sentence. We might end up actually adding a sense, leaving us with three senses: the Roman Catholic sense, a general "speech of the common people" sense, and a "specific speech variety" sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see evidence to that effect and I don't believe it.

What makes that peculiar to the RCs? I could understand vernacular referring to standard language; spoken language; or non-standard dialects, argot, slang etc., not that our definitions make that clear. I could understand that religious texts might be translated into the first and second, but not the third. But lots of groups might not consider "argot" and worthwhile translation target.

And is a "particular group of people" is meant not to include, say, the speakers of a local language not officially recognized.

I also not that, unsurprisingly, we manage to exclude "vernacular" as it might apply to aspects of culture other than language, eg, architecture. DCDuring TALK 02:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) After looking through the entry, I would say that the real overlap is between the first sense:

1. The language of a people, a national language.

   The vernacular of the United States is English.

or the second sense:

1. Everyday speech, including colloquialisms, as opposed to literary or liturgical language.

   Street vernacular can be quite different from what is heard elsewhere.

and the Roman Catholic sense. The "jargon, argot" sense is the least similar to the Roman Catholic sense of the three. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep, but change. The Roman Catholic sense is "not Latin", used pejoratively. --80.114.178.7 23:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

dx

Sum of parts: (deprecated template usage) d + x; just because it has no space in it, does not means it is not two symbols. x just happens to be the most popular variable name. Keφr 07:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I would delete both translingual senses. No reason why dx/DX is more dictionary-worthy than five hundred and ten. At 10 should we mention it means two in binary as well? Or sixteen in hexadecimal? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I second the move to delete the Roman-numeral sense. There are literally an infinite number of distinct combinations of Roman numerals, and I would expect that a great many are attested. We shouldn't be including entries for most numbers, even special ones like 65536- whether represented using Roman or Arabic numerals. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

What's 65536? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

2^16, which is the maximum number of possible combinations of 1s and 0s in 2 bytes. It's not as important as it used to be now that characters and address ranges have gotten so much bigger, but I would guess that most programmers who do anything system-related would still recognize it. It was the largest binary "magic number" I could remember to the last digit without checking. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

We have quite a lot of Roman numerals, should we group rfd them? I wouldn't even put these in an appendix as the information isn't linguistic. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

IMO delete. Since I wanted to delete the kept n-dimensional and three-dimensional (and feel the same about ith; see Talk:ith), I gather that I hold a minority position. Equinox ◑ 22:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Also dy, dz, dw, dx₁, dx₂, dx₃, dθ, dφ, dr, etc. (Checking on preview... oh, thank goodness: we don't have any of those (in this sense).)​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete. It is d + x. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

big balls

SOP, per the RFV discussion. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 23:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not really SoP because if balls means courage, big balls doesn't mean big courage. Unfortunately from a Wiktionary point of view, it can be rephrased in very many ways (huge balls, massive balls) but none of them as SoP. Or if they are, what do we list at big, huge, massive, etc. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

If we keep this, I think we should insist on exact translations from every variation into all the main languages we have.

"Big courage" is simply not good English because courage is uncountable. Balls in this sense needs to be marked as both countable and uncountable. The countable definition could be a non-gloss definition or some strained gloss like "symbols of courage". That would then accommodate both classes of modifiers. Or we could have a single sense marked as both countable and uncountable with a non-gloss definition. An additional step would be have redirects from all the attestable (on Citations pages) combinations of modifiers and balls to a senseid-marked sense of balls and have two or three usage examples that span the usage.

This is yet another example of modifiers being restricted by the grammar and semantics of a term. If every one is to be an entry with translations, we have a lot of entry-creation and translation to do. Wouldn't we be better off to automate the creation of appropriate redirects? Wouldn't that help users at least as much as the proliferation of parallel entries? DCDuring TALK 13:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Could be covered with usage notes at balls I suppose. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of a usage note. In addition to that, a redirect from big balls, but not other combinations such as massive balls, would be helpful to the user. --BB12 (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, with addition of usage note to balls. bd2412 T 19:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

pessimistic

Rfd-redundant: "Always expecting the worst." Redundant to "Marked by pessimism and little hopefulness." Both definitions are frankly a bit weak but they have separate translation tables so I want a consensus to unify them before I merge them. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 22:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes I mean merge, since they're both the same but imperfect. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I think there is room for a distinction that not every dictionary makes. A person can be pessimistic and an impersonal forecast/outlook/appraisal/assessment can be pessimistic. It seems silly to say or imply that a forecast is pessimistic only because of the pessimism of forecaster, but that is what most dictionaries' definitions seem to imply.

If the distinction doesn't seem worth distinct sense, perhaps usage examples can show the application to both people and predictions.

Of course, this isn't reflecting in the existing senses which seem to be the same meaning worded for different types of dictionaries. DCDuring TALK 22:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose such a distinction. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

не забывать

SoP. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The term simply means "not to forget". Since there are no objections, deleted. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

infant mortality rate

SOP. mortality rate of infants. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 02:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. The definition is more specific than that. --Æ&Œ (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

  The thing is, is this specific definition applicable across all countries/cultures? Under one and 1000 live births seem to be a little too specific? Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 02:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

For tiny populations, yes, it is not useful. But I do not see how that would destroy the usage’s existence. --Æ&Œ (talk) 02:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

This and the following material is suggestive that we a dealing with a specific standard way of calculating a rate of the mortality of infants:

• 2011, Mary Zeiss Stange, ‎Carol K. Oyster, ‎Jane E. Sloan, Encyclopedia of Women in Today's World, Volume 1, page 749

  The infant mortality rate (IMR) is the standard way of measuring infant deaths.

The authors say it is standard and subsequently give the same numerator and denominator. (I would have thought that one would have the deaths counted for a period lagged six months after the births to better match the dying population with the population aborning.) DCDuring TALK 03:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete, mortality rate cover this, it's obvious that infant mortality rate refers to the mortality rate among infants, and we have entries for both. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. The coverage, especially for medicine and social science, of “infant mortality rate”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. shows that this is a standard term indicating a particular definition of 'infant', a particular scale, a particular time period, and a particular accepted mismatch between the population of births and the population in which the deaths occur. DCDuring TALK 13:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I would say those are just conventions, the definition of 'infant' for example could be changed at any time. Notice at infant we don't give specific ages despite it having different legal definitions in different countries. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. The definition of infant does vary, and the per 1000 part is just a standard way to quote a number for a stat like this in studies of population statistics. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

  Oh, it's a standard or conventional meaning within a community, evidenced by use in publications. Why would you want to delete something that is so clearly like an idiom by your own description? We treasure such expressions when it is the linguistics community, the computing community, or certain other communities involved. DCDuring TALK 19:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

You implicitly make the point yourself, it it has a meaning within a community, but then a different meaning in the next community, and the next, and the next. For example do the US and UK define it the same way? What about Canada, Indian, Australia and New Zealand? That's before we consider places that don't use English but can still be written about in English. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

As with many MWEs that we include, there is a general, vague and unspecific cloud of meanings which I would stipulate for purposes of this discussion to be SoP. Then there is a very specific meaning shared by all those who attempt to publish statistics that can be meaningfully compared. It is this letter group that has created the standard conventional meaning that is attestable. Whether there are others that can be attested, I do not know, but I doubt it. DCDuring TALK 20:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Even if I conceded the point (and I don't) so what? Metres per second has a standardized international meaning but isn't includable in a dictionary because it's the sum of its parts. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The key difference is that there is only one specification of the relevant senses of meter and second and only one way of implementing per, ignoring questions of acceptable approximation. Neither of infant mortality, and rate are well defined, but infant mortality rate is, precisely because it specifies:

1. who is in the class of infants (live-born up to one year in age),
2. that the period is a year, and
3. that the result is to be expressed as a number per thousand per year.

DCDuring TALK 22:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep. It is a well-established indicator in demography. Read related books. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep. but also mention the SoP meaning (the special meaning is dimensionless). --80.114.178.7 21:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

chronic Lyme disease

Sum of its parts? (plural looks unlikely) SemperBlotto (talk) 08:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a different condition from Lyme disease. It is not long-term untreated Lyme disease infection. -- 76.65.131.217 08:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article is pretty well sourced so I imagine this is totally genuine. The thing is, according to evidence it isn't Lyme disease that's chronic in nature, it seems to be a misdiagnosis. I suppose in terms of how it's coined it's Lyme disease that's chronic, but current usage is different to that. Keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep for that reason. It seems to be a rather poorly named condition! Equinox ◑ 11:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep per the misnomer principle. DCDuring TALK 13:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

me gustas

Straightforward SOP. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The current translation is not acceptable, but I’m not so sure the term is straightforward for English-speaking students of Spanish. The translation should be "I like you"; it might be better as a phrasebook term. It’s a confusing construction for English-speakers who are studying Spanish. I think most Spanish students would argue that me gustas and te gusto are errors, and that only me gusta is correct. —Stephen ^(Talk) 19:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course to a Spanish speaker it's pure sum of parts. However surely this is a good candidate for a phrase book entry, so keep as a phrasebook entry, move the literal meaning to the etymology. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

well put

Fairly obvious SoP, despite the polysemousness of put. Compare nicely put, neatly put, put very well, and well stated. Equinox ◑ 22:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom. DCDuring TALK 00:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Well said, delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree on the deletion --Diuturno (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

refrões

The two attested forms of plural are refrãos and refrães. --Aytrus (talk) 00:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedied. Bot entry. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 01:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

yo no hablo ucraniano

Red-linked Spanish phrasebook entry. --ElisaVan (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

yo no hablo turco

Red-linked Spanish phrasebook entry. --ElisaVan (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

yo necesito un lápiz

Red-linked Spanish phrasebook entry. --ElisaVan (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This, and the two previous ones used to be blue-linked when they were created. As the English phrases have been deleted, let's delete this too. But why do we still have I don't speak Indonesian and I don't speak Persian? We also have ես թուրքերեն չեմ խոսում and je ne parle pas turc, which both mean "I don't speak Turkish", and should consequently be deleted. Same verdict applies to eu não falo ucraniano ‎and Ukraynaca bilmiyorum, which mean "I don't speak Ukrainian". I suspect there are many more out there. --Hekaheka (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't all of these drop the "yo"? I'm not fluent, but I would translate them with something like "I, on the other hand, speak...". Chuck Entz (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

no hablo

Phrase, meaning "I don't speak". Anyone with the simplest of Spanish knowledge could decode this. --ElisaVan (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Combining these words does not make a unique meaning. --Æ&Œ (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

rodzaj nijaki

This looks like an unidiomatic sum of its parts to me:

• (deprecated template usage) rodzaj nijaki = (deprecated template usage) rodzaj + (deprecated template usage) nijaki

Or am I missing something? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

(deprecated template usage) Nijaki can also mean "bland, featureless, unremarkable", while (deprecated template usage) rodzaj may mean "kind, sort (genre?)"; but "unremarkable kind" would rather be (deprecated template usage) nijaki rodzaj. But otherwise, not really. Keφr 17:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC) — IFYPFY. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Are Polish adjectives normally prepositive or postpositive? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The fact that nijaki can mean more than one thing is why we have more than one meaning at nijaki. It's not a massive coincidence. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Normally prepositive, but they are often postpositive in set phrases. Postpositive adjective suggests a more non-literal/idiomatic meaning. Prepositive adjectives are more likely to be read literally, although the less literal meaning should also be recognised by a native speaker. Rodzaj nijaki is a set phrase. Whether it is an idiom I recognise as disputable. Keφr 21:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep. A grammatical term and a set expression. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

OK then, I defer to you (Keφr), in that case. Keep. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

drastically

rfd-sense: "Using drastic or severe measures." Isn't this the same as "in a drastic manner"? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You would think so, being a native speaker, but what about the poor language learner who doesn't know that? DCDuring TALK 15:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, what's your point? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It may look like duplication to you from your privileged position as native speaker, but not to the poor, struggling language learner. DCDuring TALK 22:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Combine them. Sense 1: In a drastic manner; using drastic or severe measures. bd2412 T 22:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

They are not the same, are they? "The numbers have fallen drastically" does not mean they have fallen "using drastic or severe measures" (no measures were used!), but to a drastic or severe extent. Equinox ◑ 22:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I made the degree sense separate from the 'manner' sense today. The challenged sense is "using drastic or severe measures", which could be considered duplicative of the manner sense "in a drastic manner". DCDuring TALK 23:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

drastic

rfd-sense: "Extremely severe or extensive." Seems very similar to "Extreme; severe". So similar in fact it looks as if someone's added a third definition without reading the first two. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It will soon be the fifth anniversary of the edit that added the sense. Thanks for reviewing the entry.

Delete. DCDuring TALK 23:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it should be deleted.

Delete. Aupiff (talk) 05:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

destabilize

rfd-sense: "To undermine a government, especially by means of subversion or terrorism." I think either this is just wrong, or it's a specific example of 'to rendered unstable' the first definition. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

This is an overspecific subsense of the first sense. Delete. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 12:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

A "destabilized" government (ie, one no longer carrying out all of its functions effectively over its nominal jurisdiction) could be "stable" in most normal senses of the word, but at a low level of functioning. The term can mean something like "render ineffectual". This seems to me to be the equivalent for a verb of a misnomer. The misnomer principle suggests that some sense specific to governments ought to be in our definition. Even MWOnline, has an "especially" for governments and has adjusted the definition to make sure it includes governments. Keep until replaced by superior definition. DCDuring TALK 03:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, could you perhaps find some citations where the 'render unstable' definition wouldn't work? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

face sex oral

Sum of parts, especially considering that we already have face sex. --Æ&Œ (talk) 01:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering what face sex was, until I clicked on it and it was Romanian. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

At least it's better than face cum... -- Liliana • 05:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

no comprendo

Sum of parts- as per no hablo above. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Definitely but I don't understand is a phrasebook entry. I suppose perhaps this is so simple it can still be deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep as a phrasebook item. Converted as such. See also I don't understand, я не понимаю. "no hablo" is not a complete phrase, will leave that one to others to decide. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

no pasarán

Sum of parts- as per no hablo above. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

No this one's just ridiculous; no hablo is a possible phrasebook entry, this isn't. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I Agree on deletion --Diuturno (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm on the fence. I might delete the Spanish entry as it stands now, but would note that the phrase may be idiomatic in other languages. - -sche (discuss) 19:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep. It's an international slogan, known in Spanish through the world. We keep quite a few slogans. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep, it's much easier to keep the Spanish entry than to add entries in every non-Spanish language, when it gets three independent, durably archived sources. --80.114.178.7 00:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep.Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

no vayas

Sum of parts. There's a reason the verb and not the whole phrase is wikilinked for negative imperatives in the conjugation template. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete --Diuturno (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

no vayáis

Sum of parts- same as no vayas above. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete --Diuturno (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

group action

This is just group+action. The math sense is covered at [[action]] (and sees much use outside this phrase, as in "the action of G on M"). I don't know sociology, but it also seems to be a simple sum of its parts. Delete.​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, our math sense at [[group action]] is terrible. If it gets kept, it will need to be reworded (to what's at [[action]] or similar).​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Delete.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

First, I rewrote the definition here (without seeing what was at action).

Second, I could suggest this is backwards. Perhaps. There are different kinds of actions: algebra, monoid, monad, graded, category actions and so on. I'm not sure what the proper way to divvy up the meanings is. As I said in a different discussion, I try to stay away from my professional expertise here. I believe mathematics and dictionaries don't really mesh too well.

To clarify, mathematics is notorious for "abuse of language". An official full unambiguous language is effectively present, but then no one actually uses it, except for a few stray moments when the extra clarity is necessary. The result is that "action" is really "X action", except in situations when only "X actions" are considered, and no one mentions "X". And even when two or three kinds of actions are present, well, if the notation is well-chosen, it is always "clear from context" (ha!) which kind of action is meant. As it is, group actions are historically the first kind of action, and they remain the most common, so yes, by default the word "action" without context refers to "group action". But no one would say "I study actions", but "I study group actions." Choor monster (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

jdb

One of Sae's. "The debugger of the JDK." This is the filename of the executable program; it's rather like gcc, make, rmdir, winword, and other command names. Not dictionary material IMO. Equinox ◑ 17:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

We have make, probably with good reason. I agree that jdb isn't as archetypal and isn't really useful for wiktionary.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

For me it is more encyclopedical than pertaining a dictionary, therefore I'd suggest deletion --Diuturno (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

While discussing this, is there some reason we have JDK? Is it ever used in a context where Java is not being discussed? Choor monster (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a term in the language, though; you could argue the same for e.g. UNESCO only being discussed in politics (or various better examples I can't think of right now — financial acronyms etc.). "jdb" is just a filename. Equinox ◑ 11:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I see it as WT:BRAND, and I'd probably feel the same about MSDN, VBA, HTTP but not DNS or TLA or GFDL. Regarding UNESCO or NYSE or WSJ, I can easily think of contexts outside their official venue. Anyway, if there's policy on this, I'm happy either way. Choor monster (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not just a filename, though. "The standard Java debugging tool, jdb, provides basic debugger functionality with a command line interface." "The jdb debugger enables you to step through code one line at a time and also display the value of variables." "The debugger jdb comes with the free JDK download from Sun Microsystems." Or for an example that uses both: "JDB can attach to a running Java Virtual Machine and debug a running application. At a command line one can execute “jdb” and..." That even capitalizes JDB, proving it's not a filename, because a capitalized filename refers to a completely different file. "Before describing the dynamic slicing method in details, let us ponder a bit and explain its difference from conventional software debugging tools such as the gdb for C, jdb for Java, or VBwatch for Visual Basic." I can come up with any number of examples where it's being used as the name of a program, not just a filename.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, yes, program/application name as well as filename. But there is some overlap between these kinds of use, and an application's name is still the sort of proper noun we generally omit. (As for BRAND, I don't find it meaningful to apply to non-commercial things: I believe e.g. HTTP is an open protocol, not a product.) Equinox ◑ 17:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Then why is JDK a term in the language? It's just the name of an application, too. I don't particularly see the value in having them, but I'm hard put to see a distinction between the two.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of an app/program called jdk or jdk.exe (though there might be one). The Java Development Kit is not a single specific program; it is an entire technology; that is why they feel different to me. JDK does seem brand-like to me (it's part of proprietary Java), but then the real term is Java Development Kit, so it's still useful to have it as an abbreviation; compare HP for Hewlett-Packard or Harry Potter. I agree it's debatable and I'll shut up now, but hopefully you can get an idea of where I'm coming from. Equinox ◑ 23:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

an hero

Um what... Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 01:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Move to rfv. Seems real at least in the meme sense. But citable elsewhere, and as a noun, adjective and verb? Mglovesfun (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I find the claim that it’s a grammatic error to be questionable. I don’t know who wrote the page, but as any Romanicist knows, H-dropping is a normal phenomenon. Like any old H word, older books sometimes have the euphonic indefinite article applied before it.

Also, here’s a Google Groups link for the lazy. --Æ&Œ (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Only it's not a(n) historical text, it is from a myspace post presumably by a Minnesotan seventh grader. I think the likelihood it was a grammatical error highly outweighs the likelihood of H-dropping becoming common in Minnesota. --WikiTiki89 14:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The content of the entry as it presently stands is accurate AFAIK&R, apart from the adjectival use, with which I'm unfamiliar; an heroic seems more likely for that POS. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Why would be have an entry for an hero? It is SoP. And it's like a having an entry for they says or Caesar sunt. I'm sure we could find attestation, but why? Who is helped by this nonsense? DCDuring TALK 20:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

  But it's not SOP: an hero ≠ a hero; an hero = (commit) suicide. That meaning, AFAIK, is not carried over to a hero, let alone to hero (sans the indefinite article). Also, it's not a grammatical error (at least not any more); it's entirely intentional and, indeed, the only way to write this phrase. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep per ISMETA (but definitely RFV it). — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 20:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry.

Please attest it without cluttering RfV. Wiktionary seems to like entries that waste normal folks' time while memorializing adolescent drivel (as long as it's on net). The adjective will almost certainly be deleted because finding any usage that is not an instance of what any noun can do seems implausible. DCDuring TALK 21:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Become an hero used to mean "commit suicide" was citable on Usenet (see Citations:become an hero). An hero on its own as a verb is proving more difficult. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Cited as a verb. The book by Trevor James Zaple was self-published through Lulu, and the quotation can be viewed on page six of the preview here. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Cited noun. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 05:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per missing RFD-relevant rationale for deletion. Can be sent to RFV if wished, but that seems unneeded given the citations currently present in an hero. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep. RFV if necessary. Equinox ◑ 20:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep because hey, according to this the ungrammatical error is on purpose. As is the case with a lot of internet memes in general. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)P.S. If anyone needs an introduction to 4ch's culture, let me know. Joking of course.

по тому

It's not idiomatic, identical to English free collocations - along that, over that, on that, etc. Perhaps it was created as a homophone to потому́ (potomú)? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete, SoP. --Vahag (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

absolve of

SOP. Note absolve from, almost identical, recently was deleted as SOP after a RFD.​—msh210℠ (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; no different than "clear of", "acquit of", or "free of". bd2412 T 20:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. At most worth some kind of label or usex at [[absolve]]. DCDuring TALK 20:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Yup. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 19:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata

—Ruakh_TALK 05:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete unless citations that prove it has entered the lexicon are added. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 05:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It's unlikely that this could meet the relevant (WT:BRAND?) standard for attestation. I think it should be held here for the 30-day RfV period rather than be deleted more quickly. DCDuring TALK 13:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Any reason for that? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Because attestation, which is a defense here as Ungoliant points out, usually takes more time than getting a consensus on deletion. To make the lack of consensus on more rapid deletion clear: Keep unless not attested in a month. DCDuring TALK 15:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd say it's an unfair stay of execution. You already said you believe in due process, why not for this? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

If there is a possibility of attestation, why not? Why be such a deletionist? It'll probably go anyway. DCDuring TALK 23:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep, as no RFD-relevant reason was stated, and I cannot think of any. If WT:BRAND is the reason for deletion, this is for RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

RFV as appropriate. (Shouldn't we have RFV as a voting option instead of just "keep" and "delete"?) TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase

Translingual entry. In the translingual community that uses this term Template:l/mul (a species name, in italics) seems to be used attributively as a modifier to chemical term carbapenemase (not italicized). This seems SoP. The same may be true for more casual use in English, but that is a separable matter.

The whole mess of related MWEs surrounding this in both English and Translingual L2s needs review. This seems like the best place to start. If this passes, then the rest almost certainly would pass RfD, whatever redundancy-eliminating cleanup they might need. DCDuring TALK 13:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Basically, it's totally wrong. Originally it was a (deprecated template usage) carbapenemase produced by (deprecated template usage) Klebsiella pneumoniae - this would be SoP. Now, KPC refers to (deprecated template usage) carbapenemases produced by other bacteria. I would just delete it. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

  The misnomer principle would say we should keep it if the SoP name is misleading as to the actual meaning in use. DCDuring TALK 15:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, that to me sounds like a reason to keep (but improve). Mglovesfun (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It might not be too easy to attest the non-SoP definition. Who would like to take a crack at an alternative definition?

Perhaps, these definitions ought to be RfVed. In the course of the RfV maybe better definitions will emerge. If no one is willing and able to find good attestation for the definitions, then we are incapable of including it, whether or not it is in fact part of the language. DCDuring TALK 19:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

take one's own life

It is the SOP reflexive of either take someone's life or take a life (at least one of which needs to be created). --WikiTiki89 15:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Keep and create the others: Not seeing a reason we can't have all three Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 15:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Instinctively keep, though now I look at the page it was actually me that created it. I don't remember it, but oh well! Mglovesfun (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

IMO delete per Wikitiki (but possibly have take a life or take one's life or take someone's life). The own makes it SoP for me; other things can be inserted there (e.g. "miserable life", "wretched life"). Equinox ◑ 20:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

There is something idiomatic here, but it is a construction, not a phrase. We could handle it if someone's fully captured the open-ended part of it. The insertion of adjectives and determiners instead of of in addition to someone's puts it beyond what a dictionary covers. Not even the OneLook idiom dictionaries cover ANY form of this.

Among the 28 senses of take#Verb at MW Online was this group of three subsenses and two subsenses:

"16 a : remove <take eggs from a nest>

b (1) : to put an end to (life) (2) : to remove by death <was taken in his prime>

c : subtract <take two from four>

d : exact <the weather took its toll>"

B (1) is clearly intended to cover this but b (2) and d also seem close.

I wouldn't object to having lots of things redirect to a corresponding sense (which we lack, no surprise) in our entry marked with {{sense-id}}. That would give us appropriate coverage and aid folks in finding the meaning of the expression. If we had synonyms, then there would be at least one translation target. DCDuring TALK 21:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Move to take one's life and keep. Idiomatic. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking the own makes it idiomatic; where does that come from? Mglovesfun (talk) 08:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Pehaps you're right, haven't reached that sprachgefühl yet. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You will be lucky never to reach it, because the presence own does not make anything idiomatic. DCDuring TALK 17:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Like mind one's own business? I admitted my own mistake, you don't have to be mean. You'll be lucky if you reach this level in a language, which is not your mother tongue. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 19:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that was far from my intent. I think MG is not a good model to follow on this point, about own. That's all. DCDuring TALK 21:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a normal indicator/emphasizer/disambiguator associated with reflexive "possession". "He writes his own speeches". vs. ?"He writes his speeches." (ambiguous). "I was too worried about my own job to worry about his." DCDuring TALK 11:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there should be one lemma (take a/someone's life) or two (take a/someone's life + take one's life), but as Equinox and DCDuring say, the "own" adds nothing. The translations and synonyms for take someone's life and take one's life are likely different, so I suppose it might be best to keep take a/someone's life and take one's life separate. Redirect this to take one's life. - -sche (discuss) 18:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

We should probably do it that way for all collocations of the "light" senses of take, make, set, have, et al. as our contributors (myself included) can't really develop and maintain adequate coverage of the full range of definitions for such terms. Whether users are well served with this approach I doubt, but it hardly matters if we can't offer an alternative successfully. DCDuring TALK 19:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree; in my experience "he took his life" and "he took his own life" mean different things. The first one means "the male person killed another male person" and the second one means "the male person killed himself". Mglovesfun (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly the disambiguation contribution that own (qv) makes, as my example above should have made clear. DCDuring TALK 21:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

But instead of limiting ourselves to idioms we probably should ease up and go for all collocations. That would distinguish us from other dictionaries (which don't have, eg, this as an entry), play to our strengths (a constant supply of new MWEs; a large number of intelligent, non-native speakers of English), and minimize the effect of our weaknesses (not so many native English speakers and an inability to write all the definitions required for highly polysemous and somewhat grammaticalized terms).

This is not intended to be sarcastic, but rather a frank admission that I have probably erred in fighting MWEs that were non-idiomatic sensu stricto (say, following MW Online), but are arguably idiomatic sensu lato. DCDuring TALK 21:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

No it's not what I said, I didn't say "he took his life" was ambiguous, I said it could only mean "he took the life of another male person". That's the distinction that I'm claiming. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

"Take a life" is idiomatic for me. --Vahag (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

@MG: These cites of "the suicide took his life" show that is not the case in everyone's idiolect. DCDuring TALK 22:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

google books:"he took his life" suicide demonstrates that "he took his life" means "he killed himself" quite often. (Indeed, plain google books:"he took his life" demonstrates that it means "he killed himself" most of the time!) - -sche (discuss) 22:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Keep including "own", as it is surprisingly common in the phrase: check google books:"take one's own life", google groups:"take one's own life", “take one's own life”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. vs. google books:"take one's life", google groups:"take one's life", “take one's life”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. As for lemmings, per [16], McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs has "take one's own life". --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Pauli exclusion principle

A tentative RFD. It's inherently encyclopaedic, but a good entry. I don't know whether or not it's in Wiktionary's purview (if we decide to delete it, though, we should soft-redirect to WP). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It is at least brief. It is a good tes case IMO. We could put in trreqs for the 30-40 top languages and see:

1. how many bother to provide translations and
2. how many of the translations are themselves SoP.

Running a few such experiments would tell us a lot about whether we should just have an entry for every article in WP. DCDuring TALK 11:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The WP article exists in numerous languages. A quick skim revealed that the major Western languages call it the "Pauli Principle" or the "Pauli [something] Principle". Choor monster (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I would keep this entry. You can't deduce the definition from those of its constituent words. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The same is true of the title of any novel, song, many newspaper stories, and proper nouns generally. It seems to me the question is why we should keep some classes and exclude others.

DCDuring, I'd imagine you don't see it that way, but your comments seem to be off topic griping about the general state of Wiktionary and nothing to do with this entry. May I suggest this sort of debate should not be on this page but on WT:BP as it's policy discussion not discussion of this entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

So, on the the entry. What reason is there to delete this? Even the nominator can't think of one, and neither can I. Keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, what about the other side: what reason is there to keep this? It is clearly encyclopedic by nature (a proper noun, not a noun), and it is also a simple sum of parts like said above. There are millions of phrases like that (=almost every article in Wikipedia), why keep this one? Dakdada (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK we have no applicable principle to apply to justify keeping or deleting the entry, ever since the sole previously applicable principle (reL names of specific entities) was voted out, making every such RfD an opportunity for debate on whimsical criteria or without any principles at all except our slogan, which is contradicted by our actual practice. The closest analogy is the title of literary works, which we do not keep, though "their meaning is not deducible from their content".

The sole stated reason to keep would apply to all proper nouns. The entry is encyclopedic. It might be OK as a translation target, though that rationale could also be deemed to apply to all proper nouns. In addition we don't have evidence that there is any translation that is anything other than an SoP translation of the English (or whatever the original language of coinage was) component terms.

Our actual practice seems to be to keep certain classes of proper nouns without careful regard to any principles. So, is the class of uniquely named scientific, professional, occupational, and practical laws, principles, theorems etc one that we want to keep?

Otherwise, it is most like a title of a literary work. DeleteDCDuring TALK 15:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: "The closest analogy is the title of literary works, which we do not keep": I do not know of any consensus to exclude all titles of literary works. WT:CFI does not say that we do exclude them all. Some titles of literary works that we currently keep include Bible, Qur'an, Bhagavad Gita, Book of Mormon (do we need this?), Decameron, Ivanhoe, Mahabharata, Frankenstein, Sherlock Holmes, Waverley, The Hunchback of Notre-Dame (do we need this?), Odyssey, Iliad, Lebor Gabála Érenn (do we need this?), and Edda. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It's really not like the title of a literary work. Pauli exclusion principle might be analogous to *Dickens novel or *Shakespeare play, but not to David Copperfield or Twelfth Night. (And, of course, P.e.principle is one specific thing, whereas "Dickens novel" can refer to many.) Do you object to the entries for the other named-after-people examples, like Van de Graaff generator? Equinox ◑ 20:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

That it is associated with the name of a person is immaterial to my point. If it were named the quantum exclusion principle it would be the same thing, it would still be a proper noun designating a specific entity, very like the titles of literary works, such as both Twelfth Night and Aesop's Fables. DCDuring TALK 21:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Proper noun: that is not so clear. Some of the items listed by me below are ranked in the mainspace as nouns. Furthermore, the terms are not capitalized as proper nouns--that would have to be "Pauli Exclusion Principle" with capital E and capital P. Finally, names of abstract objects are usually not considered proper nouns, including names of numbers (AKA number words); if laws and principles are considered abstract objects, then their names are not considered proper nouns. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. Not sum of parts. Possibly regulated by WT:CFI#Names of specific entities, although I do not know whether laws, principles, conjectures and the like are considered "specific entities". Other entries for laws, principles, conjectures and theorems: Bragg's law, Kepler's laws, Metcalfe's law, Coulomb's law, Murphy's law, Boyle's law, Charles's law, Hooke's law, Hubble's law, Kirchhoff's current law, Kirchhoff's voltage law, Newton's first law, Newton's second law, Newton's third law, Ohm's law; Poincaré conjecture; Pythagorean theorem, Chebyshev's theorem, binomial theorem, virial theorem, hairy ball theorem, Green's theorem, mean value theorem; Bernoulli's principle, Mach's principle, Huygens' principle, Le Chatelier's principle, Matthew principle, Pareto principle, Mitchell principle, Peter principle, Goldilocks principle, etc. See also Talk:law of diminishing marginal utility. On another note, an a surprising one to me too, "Pauli exclusion principle" is present in AHD, Collins and MWO: “Pauli exclusion principle”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

  Also Bergmann's rule, Dühring's rule, Markovnikov's rule, Mull of Kintyre rule, Gunter's scale, and Bechdel test (a proper noun unlike Kesternich test, Mantoux test, Pap test, and Turing test). Keep. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep. And to Dan's list I would add other things named after people, like Very light and Van de Graaff generator. Equinox ◑ 14:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete without leaving a soft link to Wikipedia. Otherwise we will have to create an entry for every Wikipedia article. The only way we can keep such things is if we demonstrate that they developed a broader meaning, or are used figuratively, or in any way that does not actually refer to the principal itself. For example, if we can cite something similar to the following: Buses exhibit the Pauli exclusion principle, as two people can't sit in the same seat. --WikiTiki89 20:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: "Otherwise we will have to create an entry for every Wikipedia article.": That is demonstrably incorrect: many Wikipedia articles have sum-of-parts titles, such as W:Government of the United Kingdom, and these get excluded as being sum-of-parts. Furthermore, the community may decide to keep names of laws and principles while excluding multi-word names of literary works. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep per Dan Polansky's argument above. We've dozens of these entries, and a quick glance through the first handful does not show any other usage other than the scientific definition. No valid reason to delete. Not sum of parts as meaningless without prior knowledge.--Dmol (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

@Darkdadaah well our criteria for inclusion, it seems to meet them. "An expression is “idiomatic” if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components." And it's definitely attested, so it's both attested and idiomatic. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Keep, non-parseable word used to identify a specific thing, as with Grévy's zebra and Bose-Einstein condensate. bd2412 T 12:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• Keep — Saltmarsh^{απάντηση} 14:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 16:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

culture of death

Rfd-redundant:

1. (deprecated template usage) (theology, Catholicism) According to Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, an opposite state to the "culture of life".
2. (deprecated template usage) (politics) In contemporary political discourse, a culture that is deemed to be inconsistent with the concept of a "culture of life", such as cultures that support abortion, euthanasia, degradation, humiliation, human cloning, self-absorption, apathy, poverty and capital punishment. Some commentators would add to that list homosexuality, contraception and other phenomena perceived to attack marriage and the family.

Redundant to each other and poorly worded as they both rely on a link to culture of life that doesn't exist. The second definition reads like an excerpt from an essay. Basically we need one sens that means 'opposite to the culture of life' but without relying on the wording 'culture of life' because we don't have a definition for that. While we're at it the fourth definition looks dubious to me, but that's purely instinct, I haven't checked. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Cloning? Really? ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

At least that makes it not sum-of-parts. Keφr 00:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Combine into one (preferably short) definition per nom. - -sche (discuss) 04:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

dolĉa ĉerizo

Sum of parts. dolĉa + ĉerizo. Mr. Granger (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, that depends. It says that this means 'cherry (fruit)', and some cherries are sour. If even sour cherries can be called dolcxa cxerizo in Esperanto, and especially if they can be called acida dolcxa czerizo, then it isn't SOP, it's idiomatic. Alternatively, if the correct meaning is not 'cherry (fruit)', but rather Prunus avium (also called sweet cherry in English) as opposed to the sour cherry Prunus cerasus, then the definition should be fixed, but it still isn't SOP. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you're right - according to the PIV, it does refer to prunus avium. I've edited the definition to reflect this, and I withdraw the RFD. Mr. Granger (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

𪜚 (U+2A71A)

This article appears to have been created by someone who doesn't understand Vietnamese chữ Nôm very well. The article creator seems to assume that a character given the "temporary codepoint" of V+6341E as used by the Nom Foundation with the reading of mươi is equivalent to 𪜚 even though the Unihan Database entry on U+2A71A gives no Vietnamese reading information at all. Also, the article creator had an incorrect IDS (character component notation) entry of "⿰氵⿹乚忄攵" while the correct notation is actually "⿲氵枚乙" (per CHISE Project's IDS-UCS-Ext-C.txt document). It seems like a case of amateur sinology (vietnology?) to me. Note that this article was not part of the original NanshuBot database dumps and is part of Unicode CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C. Bumm13 (talk)

Okay, after re-examining things, it looks like the original IDS notation wasn't too far off; I've changed it to "⿰氵⿹乙枚" (per GlyphWiki's entry) and have one "weak" source matching it to the mươi reading (a certain "nom_qn.txt" document). Still can't fully verify it as a numeral but "mươi" does mean "ten" (multiplier word) in modern Vietnamese. I think it's now good enough to at least keep around (for now) but the lack of good sources on this kind of material is a bit frustrating. Bumm13 (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing this RFD (if nobody objects) Bumm13 (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the research, Bumm13. Kauffner was right about V+6341e mapping to U+2A71A, but mươi in this case doesn't seem to mean ten: the Nôm Lookup Tool gives "mươi, như 'mươi (sương giá)'". Sương giá means frost. So I wonder if this is a literary or archaic term that dictionaries don't tend to give as the meaning of mươi. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 10:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

盲目的

A Chinese adjective with 的 (de), which is ... derived from Chinese. At best it should be a redirect to 盲目 (mángmù). [UNRELATED MESSAGE REDACTED]. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

main topic

I think redirects from 的 forms (and other alt forms, like macronned Latin) would be great, but I've previously heard that this project frowns massively upon them for some reason.

In the case of 盲目的, Ati seems not to have read the entry or be falling back on policy. It's not generally a bad policy, either: usually ~的 can be left to the reader's imagination and ignored. In this specific case, 盲目的 has shades of meaning (per www.nciku.com & presumably other dictionaries) that 盲目 does not: spec., "senseless", "unreasoning". That usage is available w/ the 的 but never without it. — LlywelynII 00:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

subtopics

Your issues with that formatting (which, again, I copied from an existing article) have no relevance to a discussion on whether to keep this entry. Keep that to my talk page.

Pinyin entries, especially long ones, should have glosses (not definitions) to direct readers, but that's also a discussion for another place.

Finally, I'm only a single person, not a hive mind. Feel free to use the English gender neutral "he" or, if you're feeling PC, "she or he". — LlywelynII 00:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

No offence was meant re subtopics. I have no idea about your gender, so used "they", which is quite polite when gender is unknown (but you can never win). Sorry, in any case, for anything irrelevant to this discussion.

You're referring to Nciku. My search shows it doesn't exist there but it shows hits in user examples. I'm afraid you have to prove that 盲目的 is different from 盲目 apart from the usual and expected created by the particle "的". I couldn't find 盲目的 in any other dictionary with the particle. I have suggested on your talk page to enhance 盲目 to include any additional senses, which are only created with the particle (I doubt they exist, it's about the particle itself). BTW, a few policies are behind and not written specifically in Wiktionary:About Sinitic languages, especially those, which haven't created any controversy. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Senses "ignorant, lacking understanding, senseless" (the expanded meanings of "blind") are simply covered by "盲目", which obviously loses its particle or attaches it when required. Nciku shows examples of both senses with and without "的". The policy on Japanese particle "な" (na) explicitly disallows it in the entry. Chinese needs to catch up. Adjectives with "的" are also avoided in translations to Mandarin, even if the lemma is an obvious noun. In such cases "alt=" parameter with "的" is used, the raw page linking to the word without it. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Anyone with basic knowledge of Chinese syntax and morphology knows that 的 is never used to create words (词组), though there are about 30 or so exceptions which I have listed on my blog [17], but even these are considered very controversial among linguists. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
• Before anyone deletes the page itself, allow me to add the Japanese term spelled the same way. Haplogy (話) 07:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the Japanese term. It's not in danger, the RFD is for the Mandarin term. The suffix 的 (teki) is derived from Chinese particle 的 (de), which often plays the same role in Mandarin as the Japanese な (na) with adjectival nouns or の (no) with nouns. So, Japanese adds な (na) to 盲目的 (mōmokuteki) in the attributive form, which would be 盲目的 (盲目 + 的) in Chinese. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. That's the first thing I've learned about Chinese grammar. I should probably study Mandarin more at some point. It can't be that hard... (笑) Haplogy (話) 20:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Delete, inappropriate title. Definitions are inadequate too. Chinese entries by User:LlywelynII should be double-checked. Wyang (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

quran belt

Besides the obvious bad caps, isn't this just Quran plus belt (geographical region)? Granted we have Bible Belt, but the fact that that's specifically a Bible belt in America makes it idiomatic. This entry describes any area where the Quran is strong. Haplogy (話) 16:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

...add to that bible belt in the same bad caps belt. Haplogy (話) 16:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete. But I know a lot of people will disagree with me. --WikiTiki89 17:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Probable delete. (deprecated template usage) Quran Belt does, however, seem to be a name for the Muslim area of China. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete. No evidence of it being a term for any specific place. I've no problem with the creation of the capitalised version for the Chinese region, which seems to be in common use. --Dmol (talk) 04:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete for no usable content/bad caps. We already have Bible Belt, Quran Belt seems to be valid, and belt does mention this sense. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

いくつになっても

I assume that entries may be nominated here on the grounds that they do not constitute good phrasebook entries. The category boiler describes the phrasebook entries as "Non-idiomatic phrases in Japanese that are used in common situations, and may be useful to language learners or travellers." This phrase meaning "however old one may be" does not seem to be particularly useful to travelers, and it's not bad for language learners but it's about as helpful as most other non-idiomatic phrases. It's about the same as the English phrase "however old one may be" for learners of English.

In my opinion the phrasebook needs more than just one entry's worth of attention, so while we're at it I'd like to mention these others:

• 争いが収まる for fighting to be settled (useful only to pugnacious travelers)
• 行き付けの場所 one's favorite place (this is not especially common)
• 夫に良く仕える be devoted to one's husband (In years I have never once had occasion to say this)
• 神に仕える serve god (probably covered by other phrases related to religion, and this is not such a common expression)
• 護衛を付ける provide with a bodyguard (who uses a bodyguard?)
• 肉が付く gain weight (this is not so common--people actually say 太る}}
• 敵に付く take the side of the enemy (again for the angry travelers)
• 帳簿に付ける enter in a book (not so common)
• 帳面に付いている ditto
• 伝言を頼まれる be given a message for someone (This was only useful before cell phones, and besides that I have never heard this in my life)
• 値段を高く付ける put a high price on (not so common)
• 二君に仕えず not serve two masters (not exactly a useful expression, and the register is formal or literary)
• 箱に収まる be stored in a box (not very common or useful)
• 明治天皇の代に under the rule of the emperor Meiji (even if you talk about this sort of thing, this was a long time ago)

Haplogy (話) 15:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete all. Some of us would say that just being in the phrasebook qualifies an article for deletion. --WikiTiki89 16:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Some don't count. The phrasebook was kept by a vote (Where is it now? Shouldn't be too far away). Phrasebook entries are considered for deletion like any other entry - case by case. As for the entry above - delete. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on phrasebooks in general. I nominated those because in my opinion they fail the criteria of our phrasebooks. There are many better phrases, the ones which I did not mention above, which you might find in a dead-wood phrase book. Greetings or common expressions like お疲れ様でした or 頂きます seem appropriate and I am not proposing that they be deleted. The ones above, however, are neither useful nor common. I'd say they'd even impede communication more than help it. Haplogy (話) 14:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Move 行き付けの場所 to 行き付け, as you can say 行き付けのカフェ. Keep 二君に仕えず or move it to 二君に仕える. Delete the rest. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted all uncontested entries. I leave 行き付けの場所 and 二君に仕えず to our wise friend TAKASUGI Shinji, to deal with as he sees fit. Striking as closed. bd2412 T 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Pearl of Great Price

Title of a specific work by Joseph Smith, not used generically. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 21:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete SemperBlotto (talk) 08:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

We kept 1 Chronicles which I felt was ultimately just the name of a book, albeit a very well-known and culturally important one. From a linguistic point of view, this is no less justifiable. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

1 Chronicles is an irregular abbreviated form of the First Book of Chronicles, different from its literal title, so that case is somewhat different. Song of Solomon would serve your argument better. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: The deletion rationale of "not used generically" is a personal one, not part of Wiktionary policies. This particular RFD is governed by WT:CFI#Names of specific entities, which contains no requirement of "generic use". --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

  Just so we're clear that it does not mean "a canonical text in Mormonism" in general, but rather a specific one. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 03:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

  I know, it is a name of specific entity, like London, New York, Lysistrata (I should create this at some point; it is a comedy), and Betelgeuse. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Didn't it.Wikt allow all book titles for a time? I can see why: it's hard to find an objective criterion (other than date of authorship) that excludes Pearl of Great Price from the dictionary but allows the Iliad and Genesis. My inclination is to delete. I'd also question Liber AL vel Legis. OTOH, something like (e.g.) Book of Shadows probably sees enough generic use to merit keeping (Wiccans write things in their personal books of shadows). Perhaps pluralization is a possible criterion: can one refer to multiple copies of the POGP as "Pearls of Great Price(s)", the way multiple copies of the Bible and Iliad are "Bibles" and "Iliads"? - -sche (discuss) 15:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it is trivially easy to find an unlimited number of objective criteria that differentiate "Pearl of Great Price" and "Iliad" for the purpose of inclusion, albeit irrelevant or uninteresting criteria. An objective criterion that differentiates "Pearl of Great Price" from "Iliad" that I find interesting is that (a) the latter is a single word, and at the same time (b) the single word is not a capitalized common noun optionally prefixed with an article, unlike "The Frogs" by Aristophanes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I came across this lexicon (including the word quad as cultural literature lingo, BTW). --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 16:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

c-word

b-word

(this is Haplogy (話) 22:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) adding three recently created entries below)

g-word

Noun senses. Our definitions are "any word that starts with the letter [whatever] and one doesn't wish to say explicitly". SOP.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps with a sense of (deprecated template usage) word not present (and not very natural): "In combination with a letter, a word beginning with that letter that is taboo in some way."? The catalog of words for which each of these is a common abbreviation is not short. The attestable ones would probably help someone understand other unattested possibilities.

This is a case where the decoding function of a dictionary is a sufficient justification for the entries. As one of the points of using these is to disguise what one means from a casual eavesdropper, listing the common ones seems reasonable. DCDuring TALK 20:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the sense of word is the usual one, and s-word means just "word starting with s". Compare e.g. looking for an A word.​—msh210℠ (talk) 03:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

This has a very snowclone-ish quality to it. I'm sure one could take any word one wants to assert or pretend is unspeakable and make such a construction out of it. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete all except f-word and n-word, which have very specific meanings even out of context. --WikiTiki89 20:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Why are we substituting personal opinion for attestation? DCDuring TALK 20:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Because this is RFD, not RFV. --WikiTiki89 21:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I think Wiki's right. Aside from nonce usages, everyone knows that f-word means fuck, not faggot nor fellatio nor fart nor another naughty word starting with "f". ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete all except f-word, n-word, and c-word. Unhelpful to just have a series for all 26, plus presumably additional variants (the Æ-word, the Š-word). Those listed have very specific uses. If Wiki & co. really don't recognize that c-word refers explicitly and solely to cunt, mark it as an Americanism. It's still valid. — LlywelynII 08:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

We try and recognize reality, where there have been a half-dozen books with C-Word in the title referring to cancer. I can find n-word referring to "no" and, er, something in Polish grammar. For any of these words "explicitly and solely" is an overreach.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I never said solely, I said that we should keep the ones that are unambiguous when out of context. For example if I found a book titled "History of the F-word", I will assume it means fuck without a second thought. If I found a book titled "History of the N-word", I will assume it means nigger without a second thought. However, if I found a book titled "History of the C-word", I would have to double check it before I am sure that it is referring to cunt. --WikiTiki89 01:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The person I responded to said solely.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

How about just keeping the ones that are citable per WT:CFI and not the generic "any word that starts with the letter [whatever] and one doesn't wish to say explicitly" senses which I believe are not includable. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Keep: I don't see anything obvious about these forms existing. I admit that once you have learned some of the listed items, the other ones can be derived as for decoding (their actual use cannot be derived), but you need some to perform the derivation. If some of these combinations are actually unattested, that is a matter for WT:RFV; "Æ-word" and "Š-word" mentioned by someone above do not seem to be attested. As for other dictionaries (an auxiliary criterion), see “c-word”, in OneLook Dictionary Search., “f-word”, in OneLook Dictionary Search., “r-word”, in OneLook Dictionary Search., “t-word”, in OneLook Dictionary Search., “n-word”, in OneLook Dictionary Search., “s-word”, in OneLook Dictionary Search., “d-word”, in OneLook Dictionary Search., “b-word”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. I have sent r-word to RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Definite keep for f-word - too common, undecided about the rest - letting the community decide. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Keep, generally. To the extent that [letter]-word combinations are attested, these should be kept. If usage for a particular example is tenuous, perhaps a well-organized appendix is the answer, but at the very least, b-word, c-word, f-word, and n-word are likely candidates for having well-defined and clearly attested meanings. bd2412 T 20:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. I've introduced several of these, and usually with citations. As it is, the idea that we should have 26 entries is nonsense. Only certain initial letters have been combined with "word", and those are what the entries are for. I got lazy after awhile, but you can find numerous citeable references for "r-word"=recession, "c-word"=cancer, "t-word"=taxes, and so on. I just did a ProQuest Historical Newspapers search on the NYT, and they list almost 6820 results for "r-word". The first three I checked were for "racism", "rationing", and "retirement". And the Washington "R-word" controversy had been big news the past month—in fact, that was what inspired me to add these terms in the first place. Choor monster (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I should emphasize the 6820 count is greatly exaggerated, since anything ending with "r" followed by "word" is a hit. Nevertheless, it's still like shooting fish in a barrel: I've added four NYT print citations (3 really, plus a quote taken from on off-line novel used in a NYT book review) in the time since the above comment of mine. Choor monster (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Keep f-word, keep n-word, not sure about the others – perhaps keep with less specific definitions along the lines of "any word beginning with [letter] that one does not want to specify". Having separate definitions for every potential word in question that we can find is silly. Template:script helper 15:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

mondo bizarro

Tagged with the explanation "name of a film, and of a Ramones album", but I think it is used as a noun and adjective and is citable. —Stephen ^(Talk) 06:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• keep I believe the entry should be kept as attested by the example usages cited in the article. WilliamKF (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Move to rfv and cite per usual rules. Can't be SoP because mondo and bizarro aren't words in English. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Retagged and moved to rfv. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Máotái jiǔ

There are no good links from the current page, but move this to wherever appropriate: we need to challenge User:Atitarev's unilateral deletion of this. For formatting reasons, we should keep single Chinese nouns as single Chinese nouns (i.e., the default should be Máotáijiǔ, regardless of its mere 5k hits). We still need to account for how common it is to separate the integral words (Máotái jiǔ, more common at 8k hits) or treat each character as separate (variously Máo tái jiǔ, Máo Tái jiǔ, and Máo Tái Jiǔ: much more common as a group at 125k hits but still technically wrong per proper pinyin formatting).

If he is too lazy to make these entries himself, that's fine and he's under no obligation to do so. He (and other editors) should not be going out of their way to make this dictionary less helpful.

If there is an actual policy that supports this, point it out & I'll follow it; but it's still unhelpful and needs changing. We can somewhat ignore the variant caps above (Google does and search will offer the proper version) but, as far as I can tell, the spacing needs alt form entries in order for searches or Google to recognize them. — LlywelynII 08:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Pinyin entries serve as indices (or soft redirects) to the entries in their correct script. They are created once and forgotten, there's no need to maintain them. Chinese language entries contain all linguistic info. As soon as there is anything in the pinyin entries other than the indication to Chinese character entries, they will get out of sync with Mandarin terms in their proper script and provide users with partial information, which is error-prone. Chinese editors don't focus on pinyin and don't check their accuracy. Good commercial dictionaries never allow this duplication or triplication (traditional and simplified entries need to be synchronised). The same applies to Japanese romaji entries. It has nothing to do with laziness. Related vote: Wiktionary:Votes/2011-07/Pinyin entries, policy: Wiktionary:About Sinitic languages. See also Wiktionary:About_Japanese#Romaji_entries (it's a little out of date in terms of romaji definitionless entry structure).

Unfortunately, User:LlywelynII current activity somewhat reminds of abc123, Engirst and his numerous clones - who promoted pinyin and created entries, categories, etc. entirely in pinyin and evading all blocks. The structure of pinyin entries is the convention worked out over years, supported with a vote and editors working with Mandarin, it's not my unilateral activity. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

bible belt

Same as #quran belt above, one sense should be Bible belt but is SoP (belt has this definition) and the other should be Bible Belt, which already exists. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Belongs at RfV. Too bad it can't be a redirect. DCDuring TALK 15:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

испански

Non-existent in Russian, the correct adverbial form is по-испа́нски (po-ispánski) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Keep in RFD; existence is tested in RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Which RFV? It's Bulgarian, not Russian. The Russian adjective is испа́нский (ispánskij), adverbial is по-испа́нски (po-ispánski) , "испански" means nothing. This RFD is for the Russian, not Bulgarian term. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Don't bother RFVing as this is easily attestable in forms such as "по-французски и испански". --WikiTiki89 15:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I have put it to WT:RFV#испански after Anatoli tagged it with RFV in the mainspace. If you two agree that there is nothing to attest, the RFV can be withdrawn, but then please post there to that effect. Or even better, you can provide attestation in испански or Citations:испански. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Convinced by Wikitiki89's example. I never thought about it. So, the entry needs reformatting and usage notes. It only happens to avoid repetition of the prefix. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

за тем

SoP. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. --WikiTiki89 19:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

足の指

While this definition is considerably better than the first, I think this is not idiomatic because 指 means either finger or toe. This is literally "finger/toe on the foot" which is a clearer translation of "toe" than simply 指, but this is not an idiomatic term. Haplogy (話) 18:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Move to 足指, which is attestable as a word. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Haplogy (話) 18:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Moved 足指 with a redirect. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Note that 足の指 is in WWWJDIC. 86.169.36.80 04:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Good point, confirmed existence in the dictionary. Also, see related discussions below. I assume this is a back translation example, i.e. the term was created since there is an English word for it. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• WWWJDIC is full of entries that would not pass our criteria for inclusion. Jim Breen errs on the generous side in including entries in order to be friendly for learners, which is great for his dictionary, but for better or worse we have CFI which differ from his. Going through entries which were copy-pasted from WWWJDIC has been a never-ending trial. I will accept existence in pretty much any other dictionary as a solid argument for inclusion, but not WWWJDIC, especially when it comes to idiomaticity. Haplogy (話) 00:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I mentioned the discussion below since it may be necessary to have an entry as a back translation, even if it's a SoP. Not all users/learners are smart enough or be linguistic to figure out that to translate English "toe" (one word), they need two words. WWWJDIC entry may be there for the same reason - because there is an English word "toe". "足指" is a synonym but "足の指" is quite common too. Unstrike for the moment. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It may be useful to have 足の指 for English speakers, and it is more common than 足指. But it is not a fixed phrase, as you usually say 右足の指 rather than 右の足の指 or 右の足指. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I have added the usage notes for your consideration. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. --WikiTiki89 19:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

палец ноги

Same as Japanese 足の指 above. па́лец ноги́ (pálec nogí) simply means "finger of the foot/leg". Unlike Japanese (足指 ashiyubi), Russian doesn't even have a special word for a toe, they are just called па́льцы (pálʹcy) (fingers) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC) Delete. --WikiTiki89 23:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it automatically clear for an English-speaking non-speaker of Russian that "finger of foot" means "toe"? If not, this should be kept. BTW, there's a number of languages with similar structure: Portuguese, Spanish, Romanian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Tagalog, Arabic, Bulgarian, Irish, Italian, Macedonian.. I would be inclined to treat them as idiomatic and thus would keep this. The fact that the entry палец has the sense "toe" and there's no entry for ноги does not necessarily make it less confusing. Then the translation becomes "toe of something" and you start wondering what else it could be. --Hekaheka (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a non-Russian speaking person's perspective should be taken into account here and similar forms in other languages. I had some doubts, now I think that we can probably keep it, at least as a back translation. BTW, "ноги́" is genitive singular of нога́ (nogá, “foot, leg”). To be clear, Russian consider toes "finger of the foot", so a person has 20 fingers altogether (thumbs are also fingers - "big fingers"). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why it wouldn't be clear, especially since "toe" one of the definitions of палец. --WikiTiki89 13:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It's because the fact that палец means "toe" does not imply in any way that палец ноги should mean the same. As we don't have ноги, one has to guess. I can imagine many logical guesses, like "toe nail", "toe print", "toe ring"… --Hekaheka (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:term/t is the regular genitive form of Template:term/t. Just because we don't have an inflected forms bot for Russian, doesn't mean that this phrase is idiomatic. --WikiTiki89 17:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I would even go as far as to say that "палец ноги" sounds just as awkward in Russian as "finger of the foot" does in English. --WikiTiki89 18:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

In Google Books, there is not a single instance of "finger of the foot." However, there are lots of палец ноги, and I don’t think that includes any oblique forms such as пальцев ног. —Stephen ^(Talk) 18:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Because it's not useful in English, since we have the word Template:term/t. Maybe a better analogy is google books:"finger of the left hand", which gets plenty of hits. In English, if it matters which hand your finger is on, you can add "of the X hand" or "on my X hand" to finger. In Russian, if it really matters whether it's a finger or a toe, you can clarify by adding Template:term/t, Template:term/t, Template:term/t, Template:term/t, or pretty much anything else to Template:term/t. --WikiTiki89 19:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should have back translation entries with usage notes, such as "This term may be considered a sum of parts by a native speaker". Also, toes are very different for fingers - a different body part. From the anatomical point of view, it may be important to have such entries.

Consider Romanian deget de la picior. If the Russian палец ноги is not kept, so shouldn't Romanian deget de la picior and translations should be split (a bit time-consuming). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Which translations exactly should be split? We already have translations for fingers and toes on separate pages let alone separate tables. As for anatomy, your pinky toe is quite different from your thumb toe, that doesn't mean they use different definitions of "toe". --WikiTiki89 13:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I meant toe#Translations, of course. I have split some translations like this: Bulgarian: пръст на крак m (prǎst na krak), Russian: па́лец ноги́ m (pálec nogí), па́лец на ноге́ m (pálec na nogé), Czech: prst u nohy m, Romanian: deget de la picior n. Spanish, Portuguese, Polish are already split. Some are not (Latvian, Lithuanian, Arabic, Catalan, etc.).

Thumbs, little fingers and other fingers have their own entries. Anatomically, fingers and toes are different parts of the body, especially for humans. See thumb, little finger (pinky), index finger --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The phrase little finger could plausibly just mean "small finger" rather than pinky if you didn't know better (which to me makes it seem idiomatic), whereas phrases like Spanish dedo del pie (and presumably this Russian phrase too) could only refer to toes - there's no other plausible meaning. Mr. Granger (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

You're right about little finger, but палец ноги means exactly what you would expect, nothing more and nothing less, based on its constituent parts. --WikiTiki89 00:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It's good that there is no ambiguity, like many other multi-part words, it's unambiguous, like a few words in my post just below and many others. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

@Mr. Granger And your point is? We are not talking about synonyms or whether terms can be ambiguous or not here. middle finger, blood vessel, mucous membrane are unambiguous.

I have reformatted [[палец ноги]] with the usage notes, so if anyone is still pro-keep, please say it. Also, I have split some more translations - Arabic, Persian, Belarusian, Ukrainian. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread what you said, thinking it was an argument to keep the entry. My mistake. Mr. Granger (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

You can interpret it differently. I initiated the RFD but it doesn't mean that I'm against keeping it. It depends on the outcome of this discussion. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep. If someone asked me to translate палец ноги and explained to me that it means exactly what I would expect, nothing more and nothing less, then I would translate it as "leg finger". Neither "leg finger" nor "foot finger" are possible in English (except in the case of someone who has had a finger surgically transplanted onto his leg or foot). As far as I’m concerned, specific things merit an entry if a word or phrase exists, even if the phrase is SoP. If there is a specific plant with a scientific name (e.g., Acacia farnesiana), then it deserves to have an entry in English (and every other language) if a native word or phrase exists for it, even if the phrase is SoP. Acacia farnesiana is sweet acacia, and the fact that people usually only call it acacia is beside the point...if it is necessary to be specific, the English term is sweet acacia and we should have an entry for it (even if there are also other common terms for it). A toe is a specific thing, and if a language has a way that the toe can be specified, then it should be kept. IMO, the only legitimate excuse for deleting палец ноги is if it is incorrect or never used. If the entry were "нос стопы" (foot nose), then I would say delete it, because "нос стопы" is incorrect and is never used to mean toe (even though "foot nose" makes more sense to my English ear than "leg finger"). —Stephen ^(Talk) 09:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you misunderstand the meaning of Template:term/t. I have updated its definition to clarify. --WikiTiki89 13:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I know what it means. I’ve been speaking and reading Russian for 48 years or so. —Stephen ^(Talk) 14:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Then you should know that "leg finger" is an unreasonable literal translation. Given the more correct literal translation "leg/foot finger", it is pretty easy to see that it means a toe. --WikiTiki89 14:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

You are speaking from the point of view of someone who has always known what палец ноги meant. For someone who only knows English, but knows that нога means either leg or foot (you have to choose one of the two, and since leg often includes the foot, while foot never includes the leg), I think leg fingers are as likely or more likely than foot fingers...but either one sounds absolutely ridiculous in English. There have been a few cases where someone had a toe transplanted onto a hand, so leg fingers or foot fingers only bring up an image of somebody who has had a finger transplanted onto his foot or knee. Yes, for people who are around languages enough to know that some languages don’t have a separate word for fingers and toes, leg fingers is something they could figure out. Most Americans don’t know anything about other languages except for some Spanish food items and some French things they may have heard in a song, and some Chinese foods. —Stephen ^(Talk) 15:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

How about we ask someone who does not know any Russian?

Also, you just made me think of another interesting point. In the case that a toe is transplanted onto the hand, it would probably not be called Template:term/t, but Template:term/t, Template:term/t, or Template:term/t, all meaning "finger from the leg/foot". --WikiTiki89 16:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds fine, but I think you should look for someone who speaks only English and does not know any foreign languages. How about: палец пересажен с ноги на руку? —Stephen ^(Talk) 20:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Is there anyone on this wiki that speaks only English? And yes "палец пересажен с ноги на руку" is fine; it's just "палец с ноги" with greater specificity added. --WikiTiki89 20:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Remember, it can be quite difficult to ask such questions without inadvertently guiding the person towards a certain answer. Also, when Americans start to learn Russian, they learn right away that нога means leg or foot, and that палец means finger. They usually do not hear anything about toes for a long time, if ever. I don’t think you will be able to find anyone on this wiki who has not been tainted by existing discussions. You probably will not find anyone on any of the wikis who is not able to find definitive answers quickly by searching and/or asking, or even using Google Translate. You should carefully devise neutral questions, bearing in mind that when they start learning Russian, they will only learn that нога means leg or foot, and that палец means finger, and then pose the questions in person to neighbors or store clerks. —Stephen ^(Talk) 20:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Does it matter what they learn first? The question here is whether they can figure it out given our articles on палец and нога. --WikiTiki89 21:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I think students who have started studying Russian, either in a classroom or on their on, make up a large percentage of the users who have an interest in this, so, yes, it matters. They learn right away the word for leg/foot and the word for finger, and they do not learn anything about the toe. And if you only ask this one question, it will be understood that there is something very special about it, and that will affect the answer. You have to have a number of questions so that this one does not appear to be special, and you have to make sure that they don’t use any other resources. I can already tell that this is going to be a debacle. If you don’t do it right, there is no use in doing it at all. I have said what I have said, and I stand by that. —Stephen ^(Talk) 21:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Keep, outside of CFI, as a term denoting a concept for which English has a single word, even a monosyllanic one. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

deget de la picior

Same as above. --WikiTiki89 13:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

See also 足の指 above. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Keep, outside of CFI, as a term denoting a concept for which English has a single word, even a monosyllanic one. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  I don't see what the number of syllables in Template:term/t has anything to do with anything. --WikiTiki89 20:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we need a template similar to {{translation only}} but for foreign language SoP translations of English idiomatic or non-SoP terms, which would add to "Category:(LANGUAGE) non-idiomatic back-translation targets" (by "back-translation" into English) or similar. Non-idiomatic translations of the English term "toe" is a good example. Online dictionaries confirm that there is demand for such terms. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

{{translation only}} is useless here. The translation table on the English entry Template:term/t already gives the translations to foreign languages. There is no need for an entry to exist just because it is listed as an SOP translation somewhere. --WikiTiki89 22:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I said "similar", not this template but a reverse of it. The fact that 足の指, палец ноги, deget de la picior, انگشت پا and others get created and exist in the online dictionaries show interest in such terms. The logic being - "an English term exists, why there is no word for it in language X?". A template would specifically say something like палец_ноги#Usage_notes, which would direct to more correct terms/alternatives and explain why this term is non-idiomatic. I know your opinion but others have expressed opposition and it seems like no consensus on deletion for this or any of 足の指, палец ноги, انگشت پا. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

انگشت پا

SoP? See also 足の指, палец ноги, deget de la picior above. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete as being too useful to stupid English-natives who want to learn languages. What right have they to knowledge. — [Ric Laurent] — 23:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I know how you feel. That's why the issue is highlighted in the above discussion. Foreign language terms like this should either be allowed for the benefit of English natives, even if they are considered SoP's by native speakers or we shouldn't waste time. See usage note at палец ноги. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep, outside of CFI, as a term denoting a concept for which English has a single word, even a monosyllanic one. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The RFD for 足の指, палец ноги, deget de la picior above and this one - انگشت پا - all meaning "toe" but considered SoP in corresponding languages. The question is whether we should have entries as a back translation target (into English). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله

This phrase, although important to Islam, is not really dictionary material as it has no meaning beyond the literal. It would similar to including Template:term/t (w:Shema Yisrael) or Template:term/t. --WikiTiki89 23:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Maybe we could find some way to work it into the entry at شهادة. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep, it's a very common slogan and expression. Add to the phrasebook category, if you wish. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

So are the other two things I pointed out above. Would you support adding those? By contrast, Template:term/t is actually used somewhat idiomatically as introducing speech. The shahada has no such idiomatic use (as far as I know). --WikiTiki89 05:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I would say delete. The fact that a sentence is culturally significant does not automatically make it dictionary-worthy. I note that we do have quite a few of these, though, e.g. God Save the Queen, Happy New Year (probably for translation reasons). Equinox ◑ 22:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

We have quite a few English phrases. The sample English phrases given by Wikitiki89 are not used as complete slogans. Arabic "لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله" is used on its own and is usually included in Arabic and Islamic phrasebooks. Anyway, those English and Hebrew entries do not exist yet, so I am not voting for those, I voted "keep" on the phrase in question. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I added it as an example to شهادة in diff. - -sche (discuss) 03:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

study population

"The group of individuals in a study." Okay, it could be the various insect fauna that inhabit my reading-room, but let's be sensible. population already has the requisite sense. Equinox ◑ 22:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

чуть тёплый

It's a valid translation for "tepid", "lukewarm" but it's a sum of parts in Russian. Corrected translations to split words. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete. --WikiTiki89 04:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. Russian translations at [[tepid]] and [[lukewarm]] are split like this: {{t|ru|чуть тёплый}} --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

full circle

I am nominating both noun senses as SOP (although I do not want to add the tags while it is WOTD). Both of the senses are nothing more than full + circle. --WikiTiki89 15:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. I could expand on this but I don't think I need to. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Keep: There is a sense that is conveyed in the expression "come full circle" that justifies keeping at least #2, and probably #1 as well Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

  The sense in come/go/etc full circle is supposed to be reflected in the definitions given under the Adverb PoS section. Whether it really makes sense to have an Adverb section rather than just say nouns can function as spatial and temporal adverbs is not an RfD matter, but one for BP. It should be noted that circle is not shown as an adverb, probably accurately reflecting usage.

I have added {{&lit|full|circle}} to the Noun section. DCDuring TALK 22:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

rock band

A band that plays rock (see band). I had a go at citing rockband but couldn't, or rather, it might be citable in Dutch and in German as Template:term/t, but the only English citation I could find talks about climbing a rockband - a band of rocks! Mglovesfun (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we should keep this term. More analysis is required. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Do tell us when you've done the analysis then. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I will, of course, for the moment I'm just adding my subjective opinion on the term, encouraging others to do the same. Both "rock band" and "rock group" have been borrowed by other languages in full, as one word. I'm surprised if "rockband" is not citable but I haven't checked myself. The term is defined in Collins and other dictionaries. I think it's a word, just don't have any stronger arguments handy, if that's not enough. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

jazz band was kept, see Talk:jazz band.

Keep. --WikiTiki89 23:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Keep, as I have now provided citations for rockband (the musical sense). Cheers! bd2412 T 18:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

rock group

SoP as above. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep as above. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete. --WikiTiki89 23:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

What's the difference between rock band and rock group? — This unsigned comment was added by Atitarev (talk • contribs).

rock group is nothing nothing more than rock + group, rock band on the other hand is a little more idiomatic because band is limited as to which types of music groups it can refer to. --WikiTiki89 00:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

board

3. Short for blackboard, whiteboard, chessboard, surfboard, etc.

The items above are boards (by definition 1), thus board is not "short" for them. Perhaps we should extend the first definition to include materials other than wood to make this more apparent. --WikiTiki89 19:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete, I agree. In fact I posted this separately as a mistake and reverted myself (link). Mglovesfun (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Debatable. To me, the chess sense is redundant (because every board game has a board, so termed), but the blackboard/whiteboard might not be: "he wrote it on the board" does not require context for us to think of this kind of board. Also, similar terms like cupboard and sideboard cannot be abbreviated to board. Equinox ◑ 19:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

That is because cupboards and sideboards are not boards (but are made of boards). --WikiTiki89 19:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Is that really the etymology? I thought it was from how "board" used to mean a (dining-?)table. Equinox ◑ 19:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right, that's just what I assumed. Anyway, the fact that you said "used to mean" is why we can no longer call them boards. --WikiTiki89 19:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Definition 1? "A relatively long, wide and thin piece of sawn wood or similar material, usually intended for use in construction." That's sort of a stretch for any of them. A chessboard can be made of glass or plastic or paper or merely be data in a computer. Neither whiteboards or blackboards are wood or intended for use in construction. Maybe surfboard, though that still does seem to match #1.

The chess sense can't be redundant to the sense for board games until we have a sense for a board game board.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Added: "A flat surface with markings for playing a board game." Equinox ◑ 03:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I did say we would need to generalize the first definition, because boards do not have to be wood and do not have to be used for construction. --WikiTiki89 13:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise of the RfV. Blackboard > whiteboard and the others are not well-presented as directly following from sense 1, even as appropriately generalized. Board's senses evolved along a few lines, one including generalization to wood-like materials, another to flat, thin-ish shapes, like those in the challenged sense line.

Can the challenged sense be even be called a definition? It seems as much a list of examples of the word board ("a rigid piece of flat, thin material") being used in combination, which definition we lack. (MWOnline has "a flat usually rectangular piece of material (as wood) designed for a special purpose" with the various "-boards" above as subsenses.)

This seems much more like a cleanup candidate than an RfD candidate. DCDuring TALK 15:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup? Not your normal cleanup. The difficulty here is that what is undermining (deprecated template usage) board sense 3 is not simply a lousy/lazy definition. What is going on is really a distinct linguistic phenomenon, and shoehorning it into definition-making isn't the right thing, but just ignoring it isn't the right thing either.

I ran into this when I struggled with (deprecated template usage) sosh sense 2 when I was new to WT. "Sosh" is an abbreviation for numerous words/phrases that begin with "social" or the like. For example, "social security number", "social climber", "sociology", and it seems to function as an open-ended abbreviation. The same thing is going on with (deprecated template usage) board used as a combining term. And the same thing is going on with x-word for various choice of letters x. (See RfD and RfV in progress.)

I agree that what we have now is shoddy, but this kind of flexibility should be indicated somehow, with specialized non-gloss definitions, or as some kind of open-ended abbreviation, or an "implicit" snowclone. Choor monster (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with that analysis, you maybe right about (deprecated template usage) sosh/soc, but with board, there is no "shortening" going on, just lack of specificity. A "chalkboard", "chessboard", "surfboard", etc. is just a type of board and thus they can all be called boards. With sosh, you can't say that a "social security number" is a type of "sosh". --WikiTiki89 17:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Keep: I see nothing wrong with this definition. A chalkboard isn't made of wood, but even if it was, the definition "abbreviation of chalkboard" would still be an acceptable definition Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

  It is made of "wood or similar material". A chalkboard is definitely a board. It's more likely that chalkboard is "long" for board than it is that board is "short" for chalkboard. --WikiTiki89 21:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

  According to w:chalkboard, they can be made of slate stone (which was their original material) or porcelain enamelled steel, either of which are a similar material to wood. (I'm actually not sure what a similar material to wood is supposed to cover, but if it covers stone and steel, it covers about everything).--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

  The definition is not perfect yet. See google books:"stone board". --WikiTiki89 21:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Not all boards are made of wood. I see no reason to discuss that, and no relevance. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Please inspect the sets of definitions for board that professional lexicographers use to span almost all usage. (I particularly like Merriam Webster because it is online and has more structure, but any full dictionary will do.) Note the relationship of the various definitions.

In a case like this where the relationship of multiple definitions is involved, the matter cannot be resolved by a debate, though useful points can be raised in a debate. Cleanup gives license to someone to undertake a revision of multiple senses, which may be challenged of course. DCDuring TALK 23:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Why do we have to be so bureaucratic? It doesn't have to nominated for cleanup for someone to clean it up. --WikiTiki89 00:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Requests for deletion and verification (and to a lesser extent moving) are the routine serious procedures we have, which have rules to make it possible to get things done without edit wars. Only rarely are these rules ignored, usually by near-unanimous consent. DCDuring TALK 02:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

So nominating it for cleanup magically bypasses these rules? --WikiTiki89 02:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

If there is sufficient agreement that the item should not be deleted, then it is kept. If the keep is conditional on cleanup, then it goes to cleanup. Changing definition while the definition is under discussion makes the discussion more difficult. One could add definitions, but that also make the discussion harder to follow. DCDuring TALK 03:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

If we nominate it for cleanup, it would still be here at RFD anyway, so I don't see how that solves the problem. Anyway, I'm still in favor of deleting this sense and then cleaning up the entry. --WikiTiki89 13:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

по этому

Sum of parts, even though it's a homophone of поэ́тому (poétomu). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Same as #за тем above. --WikiTiki89 01:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Why doesn't WT:COALMINE apply? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. DCDuring TALK 15:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

They mean different things. The one-word version has a more-or-less idiomatic meaning, while the two-word version is completely SOP. --WikiTiki89 15:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure that поэ́тому (poétomu) does not mean по этому (po etomu) often enough to be attestable? This seems suspiciously close to therefor, therefore. DCDuring TALK 21:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

поэ́тому (poétomu) never means по этому (po etomu), but по этому (po etomu) could be a non-standard or dated spelling of поэ́тому (poétomu). I suppose we could replace the definition with a {{&lit}} sense and a {{alternative form of}} sense. --WikiTiki89 21:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete, yes, it's a complete SoP, unless we have special CFI for homophone collocations (e.g. [[upon]] = [[up]] [[on]] or similar). If "по этому" is ever used a non-standard of "поэтому", then it's very rare and illiterate. No, it's not a dated form. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

sabeth

Hi all, could an admin please delete this page as the correct word in northern sami is sabet (plural sabehat). I did the move. (Moreover, "th" is impossible in northern sami). Thanks a lot. Unsui (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

For future reference, if you want something to be speedily deleted (if it does not require discussion), then just add the {{delete}} template to it and an admin will find it and delete it. --WikiTiki89 16:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I notice that you did add the template. You do not have to bring it up on this page unless it needs discussion. --WikiTiki89 16:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the advices. Unsui (talk) 09:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

ΛΣΔ-25

Non-existent abbreviation for LSD. Correct page already exists: διαιθυλαμίδιο του λυσεργικού οξέος. As you can see, if there were a Greek abbreviation, which there isn't, the initials would have been ΔΛΟ not ΛΣΔ. Jenniepet (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Move to RFV. That in itself is not an argument as abbreviations themselves can be borrowed from other languages. If you doubt its existence, you should nominate it for WT:RFV rather than here. This page is where we debate whether to include terms that do exist. --WikiTiki89 18:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

In Greek, when we borrow abbreviations, we keep the Latin script, e.g. LSD. We don't transliterate the abbreviation. A transliterated abbreviation looks frankly ridiculous to me. Anyway, I guess it's your call. Should I nominate it for WT:RFV now? Jenniepet (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, RFV is the place to dispute the existence of a term or definition. --WikiTiki89 13:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a Tbot entry (that is, not created by a human editor) but since I seem some Greek editors in its history I think we should RFV instead of speedy deleting. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

doni akvon

This is a Tbot entry from a translation for "water" (provide animals with water). It doesn't mean anything besides doni + akvon. Mr. Granger (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

We've speedy deleted Tbot entries before. In fact deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

узел крепления главного лонжерона

SOP in both Russian and English. The definition given is a word-for-word translation. --WikiTiki89 23:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete. My reasoning is at WT:RFV#узел крепления главного лонжерона. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

can do with

could have done without

Note: (deprecated template usage) could do with was RFDed in 2008 and kept after a short discussion. It was subsequently RFCed.

On WT:RFC#can_do_without, the point was made that these may be SOP. In particular, they seem like regular uses of sense 10 of (deprecated template usage) do, "to fare" — Dictionary.com in fact uses "do without an automobile" as a usex of their sense "get along, fare, manage". And one can sub in other synonyms of do/fare, e.g. "I could get along just fine without any more comments like that". OTOH, some dictionaries (e.g. Collins) do grant some of these expressions entries, and do does has so many senses that I can see how some might think it unreasonable to expect a novice user to figure out which sense of "do" was relevant. So what do you think? Are they idiomatic enough to keep? - -sche (discuss) 17:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I added the past tense versions which for some reason have separate articles to the nominations. --WikiTiki89 18:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The "could" versions are not past. They are optative or subjunctive, I think. DCDuring TALK 18:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I meant the "could have" versions. --WikiTiki89 20:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's start with do with (as in "I could do with another beer.") and do without (as in "After the war, they simply had to do without", which we and other dictionaries have as idioms and which fully conjugate.

"Can/could do with" seem SoP to me: can/could + do with.

"Can/could do without" can be found in a corresponding SoP sense. But I think they can also be used colloquially in a way that means more and which does not gracefully or commonly conjugate. DCDuring TALK 18:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Certainly do without collocates with other English modal verbs. There are thousands of Google Book hits for "shall do without", "should do without", "might do without" and "may do without". Mglovesfun (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

"I could/can do without remarks such as that." does not mean "I could/can make do/get by in the absence of such remarks" in its most common use in discourse (or reported discourse or imputation of the emotion of others). It is something like a request that someone stop making such remarks. We often include items based on their speech-act/discourse function. DCDuring TALK 17:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

That's called understatement. --WikiTiki89 17:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

That's where it came from, but it is a lexical item now.

Alternative ways of expressing it such as "I don't need remarks such as that." are possible, but I think they require that the verb be strongly stressed to have the same force as the same sentence with could/can do without. DCDuring TALK 17:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. In "I don't need remarks such as that." need does not need to be stressed at all. Also compare things like "I could use less of those remarks." --WikiTiki89 17:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Creative speakers - and who isn't? - can invent variations on almost any formula. "He finally kicked the old/proverbial bucket." In this case: "I could live without...", "I'd be perfectly happy without...", "You could stop .... and I'd be perfectly happy."

I still believe that the colloquial use (also in reported speech etc.) of "can/could do without" is not narrative/descriptive in nature, but is a formula used to express annoyance. As with other such common speech-act formulas, it is idiomatic, as some dictionaries agree. Macmillan, for example has, in addition to the normal definition of do without the following run-in non-gloss definition:

can/could do without something (spoken) used for saying that something is annoying you and causing problems for you

with the following synonyms: "American English synonyms or related words for this sense of do without:

Ways of emphasizing when you are annoyed or angry: hell, for heaven’s sake/sakes, for pity’s sake, for crying out loud, what’s that supposed to mean?, what’s the big idea?, give me strength, give me a break, brother, darn ... more"

AHD has a run-in definition too:

can/could do without To prefer not to experience or deal with: I could do without their complaints.

Obviously these cannot be used completely interchangeably, but the idea is clear: the meaning goes beyond that of the narrative/descriptive sense. DCDuring TALK 12:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Keep the first 4 items, even if uncertain. Do so in part since these items do not seem to be clear-cut sums of parts, in part since at least Collins appears in “could do with”, in OneLook Dictionary Search., and MacMillan's do without has "can/could do without something" as a separate definition. Most or all of the reasoning of DCDuring above applies, I think. About could have done with and could have done without, these seem to be transparent tenses that we do not need, since we have understood but not have understood and the like, but I am not sure. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

明くる日

SoP. Appropriately enough the entry itself is an example at 明くる. Haplogy (話) 01:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep. The distribution of 明くる is very limited and listing all combinations is not a bad idea, as they do on Goo Dictionary. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete. --WikiTiki89 19:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Why? The "next day" is normally 次の日 or 翌日 in the reported speech. I agree with Shinji. 明くる is only used with temporal words - the next day, year or dates. 明くる日 is included in a few dictionaries. Keep. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Goo is not a dictionary. Goo is a name used by a company which offers several dictionaries which are licensed to them. We should be clear about that because of those several dictionaries hosted by Goo, only one, デジタル大辞泉, includes 明くる日. Incidentally the link was to あくる, not 明くる日.

This is a sum of its parts because the first part means "the following" and the second part means "day". This exception to the rule about idiomaticity is new to me but I'll accept it because the term is on 大辞泉, and checking my offline source it's on 広辞苑 and 明鏡 as well, and there are no better dictionaries than those. Haplogy (話) 15:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Weak delete Delete. While it is true that its combinations would be limited with temporal words, I think it is something more productive than set phrases. You can enlist valid expressions like 明くる1月1日, 明くる10日, 明くる10月, 明くる2014年, ... , infinitely. FWIW, 日本国語大辞典, a dictionary at least as good as 大辞泉 or 広辞苑 in my view, does not include 明くる日. --Whym (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Sorry, it does include. Accordingly I have changed my vote to weak delete. --Whym (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Be careful, the nonrestrictive あくる is productive as in you examples while the restrictive あくる is hardly productive. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

@TAKASUGI Shinji: am I understanding correctly that the 'restrictive' uses are 明くる日, 明くる年 and 明くる朝, more or less? I tend to agree that the 明くる in these three is hardly separable from the succeeding part; if you strip 明くる from a sentence like 明くる日、私は帰宅した, it will be meaningless. On the other hand, the 明くる in 明くる1月1日、私は帰宅した looks optional (for which we could perhaps add a "Adjective" section into 明くる). --Whym (talk)

Yes, exactly. In 明くる日, 明くる cannot be omitted, while in 明くる1月1日 it can be omitted. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reassurance. Changed to keep in light of the above discussion. --Whym (talk) 08:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

what hath God wrought

If indeed this is idiomatic, I really doubt that the current definition is adequate. As a rhetorical question, it doesn't particularly stand out, but I suppose its use is somewhat non-literal. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This is best known as the first message Samuel Morse chose to send over a long-distance telegraph line (see Baltimore-Washington telegraph line), with its biblical source being much less known. I wonder if there's some kind of sense that comes from this. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep. It is still productive, which is unusual given its archaic wording ("hath" and "wrought"). bd2412 T 04:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I have added three citations to the entry showing idiomatic use (particularly the third one, which is a 2011 publication, showing currency of the archaic phrase); note that none of these citations is from the two most obvious sources, those being the biblical passage and the first telegraph message. In other words, this is a set phrase that is used entirely outside of its historical context to convey meaning not immediately apparent from the phrase itself. As noted below, I have also adjusted the definition, per Μετάknowledge. bd2412 T 16:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep as redefined and cited. DCDuring TALK 16:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a keeper as currently defined. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep as redefined and cited. --Dmol (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Kept.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

to n decimal places

One of those "placeholder" entry titles, where n stands for a variable. Adequately covered by the definition and usage example at decimal place, I would think. Equinox ◑ 15:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete. --WikiTiki89 19:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Nitpick, not really relevant. Surely not only real numbers can have decimal places as stated. What about 1.1i? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

If this expression could be shown to be used outside the context of numbers or figuratively in a numerical context to mean something like "with as much precision as may be demanded" or "to a spurious level of precision", it would certainly be metaphorical which puts it well on the way to being idiomatic. Move to RfV (attestation unlikely, IMO). DCDuring TALK 12:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

How would you write 1.1i to any number of decimal places, since you can't get rid of the i part? Equinox ◑ 12:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this question for me? If so, I don't understand. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

1.1i is really 1.1 multiplied by i. The decimal places only have anything to do with the "1.1" part, which is a real number. --WikiTiki89 23:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom, or redirect to [[decimal places]].​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Deleted.​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

give a blowjob

SoP, as would be give a kiss, give a hug, give a hickey, etc. Translation table can be moved to fellate something suitably slangy, like suck off. Equinox ◑ 20:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems idiomatic to me. Anyway, I fixed, added and copied the translations to [[suck off]]. It looks it's not going to survive this RFD. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete. --WikiTiki89 20:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep, IMO. Just a hard thing to translate. Template:script helper 20:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

How is that relevant? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Because it suggests idiomaticity. Template:script helper 06:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I dispute that. Being harder to translate doesn't suggest idiomaticity. W:CFI doesn't mention it. As Equinox points out, there are synonyms which are undeniable includable like suck off which can house translations. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, difficult to translate is really more a question of how good you are at translating. It's easy to translate if you know the translation, you just have to recall it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete as sum of parts. --Dmol (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Delete, "give" is fungible here. bd2412 T 22:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DCDuring TALK 12:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• I'm for delete, it's a sop. Just out of curiosity - what would qualify as "other phallic object"? Would an intense sucking of an ice cream stick count as "giving a blowjob"? --Hekaheka (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

  Web example: "blonde cutie gives dildo a blowjob". Equinox ◑ 17:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom. it's not just "give" that is fungible; one can also "give someone a gobby" (see the citations at gobby) or presumably other synonyms. - -sche (discuss) 17:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom (and bd2412), or redirect to blowjob.​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 16:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

populous

Supposedly a misspelling of "populace". Far too rare to be included, AFAICT. See e.g. [18]. - -sche (discuss) 20:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

It's more common with a modifier: "general populous" (in Books and in Groups) seems to be the most common, but other adjectives work, as well. I'm sure some of these are cases of neighboring clauses grafted together by removal of punctuation and other syntactic cues, but I haven't seen any of that yet after looking at a few dozen hits. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

We already have it as a homophone. Would someone who needed this be any more likely to look to find the noun section than to look to the homophones section? It is almost always the case that homophones are an opportunity for misspelling.

And then there is the question of what common is supposed to mean in this context. DCDuring TALK 22:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• I just happened to notice that one of dictionary.com's example sentences for "populous"[19] uses it instead of "populace", if anyone finds that relevant. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 08:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

They almost certainly use some automatic system to accumulate example usage from some readily available corpus, as does Wordnik. How big is their sample of usage? What is the selection/review process? We have various bits of evidence that this is a "mispelling" that has some level of usage, both because we find examples and because almost all homophones are sometimes misspelled.

What we still need is evidence that this is common. We could relatively conveniently sample from COCA and BNC to come up with frequency statistics, but who will do the work without some consensus on what "common" means? I don't really see much respect for statistical evidence here as voters seem to prefer the opportunity to exercise their franchise to select "interesting" misspellings on some unknown basis. I'm not going to fight that. DCDuring TALK 13:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Since this word already has an entry, why not simply include a usage note in it stating "Not to be confused with (deprecated template usage) populace." and, if necessary, include the same usage note, mutatis mutandis, in the entry for populace? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Or better yet, "Frequently confused with (deprecated template usage) populace." --WikiTiki89 14:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

All homophones have a similar potential for confusion.

We have no basis for saying frequently. DCDuring TALK 14:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Fine with me; I just think a new POS section and definition line for the misspelling would be a bit OTT. The argument here would then reduce to one merely about which adverb ought to be used, which should be less contentious. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

This 2009 edit removed a similar, but prescriptive usage note and added the Noun misspelling PoS and the homophones line with no facts. We have advanced a little on the fact side, thanks to Chuck, but not on the determination of the meaning of "common" for our purposes. DCDuring TALK 18:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Shall we simply reverse that edit, softening the tone a bit? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

delivery

The following usage examples are given:

The delivery room is just down the hall.

The delivery man is here.

What are your delivery conditions?

This is attributive use of noun senses. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 22:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. --WikiTiki89 22:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• Delete I think we can dispense with RfV for this. DCDuring TALK 23:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

What they said. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 14:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete.​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Deleted by Mglovesfun, 4 December 2013 UTC.​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Markarian galaxy

Sum of parts. Defined at (deprecated template usage) Markarian. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

"Markarian" is a reduction from "Markarian galaxy", so it is not a sum of parts. The original term is "Markarian galaxy" -- 65.94.78.70

Keep, for patriotic reasons. --Vahag (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep; seems like e.g. Down's and Alzheimer's, abbreviating a longer canonical term. Equinox ◑ 21:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep per 65. and Equinox. Doesn't that reasoning mean that, in principle, we need two etymology sections at [[Markarian]]? DCDuring TALK 21:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep. This passes both the "in a jiffy" test and the "red dwarf" test (which is, to quote Dan P, "Imagine I get rid of red dwarf by adding to red the definition Of a dwarf star, small and relatively cool [and] of the main sequence"). - -sche (discuss) 03:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• RFD kept per consensus. (I support keeping and am closing the nomination.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

speculative bubble and others

How many specific bubbles are needed, as we have the sense "period of intense speculation in a market, causing prices to rise quickly to irrational levels" under bubble? In addition to "speculative bubble" we have the following, all recently added by Silent Sam:

• economic bubble
• financial bubble
• investment bubble
• market bubble
• price bubble

If we decide to folllow this line, there are other bubbles awaiting:

• tulip bubble
• South Sea bubble

All, and many more are attestable collocations, but aren't they kind of SOP-ish? --Hekaheka (talk) 06:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete the six listed. I can't speak for any others. (Also, this is not an appropriate use of {{alt form}}.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

sveda lingvo

Sum-of-parts entry created by Tbot (though it has been edited by a couple of other editors since). Mr. Granger (talk) 07:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Erm, it's pretty obvious what it means. However Special:WhatLinksHere/lingvo shows quite a few of these. Have any of them been nominated for deletion before? What was the result? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Evidently greka lingvo has. See Talk:greka lingvo. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 13:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete all (we need to list them to do that, of course). If you know what sveda and lingvo mean, you know what sveda lingvo means. And if you don't know what they mean, that's why we have entries for sveda and lingvo. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm listing the others below; if you have a comment specific to these, please put it in the language's individual section. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - they should all be deleted. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 17:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

 Delete Yes, all SOP. And remove derived term links at sveda, eŭska, vaska, itala, irlanda, and klingona. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep, outside of CFI. The incomplete inclusion criterion that I am using: it is a term denoting a concept or thing for which English has a single word; Esperanto probably does not have a single word to refer to Swedish. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Actually, the most typical way to refer to Swedish in Esperanto is "la sveda" (the Swedish). Saying "sveda lingvo" is a lot like saying "Swedish language" in English. (Maybe this is a sense that should be added to sveda, actually.) —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 15:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

  But then you need a noun sense at sveda, right? Anyway, striking my keep, since I believe you. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. --WikiTiki89 15:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 05:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep. In Esperanto, Swedish is called la sveda lingvo, or la sveda by abbreviation. Note that Esperanto nouns always end with -o, and sveda is clearly an abbreviation and not a noun of its own. It is not clear whether an adjective + lingvo stands for an actual language or not. Compare sveda lingvo (“Swedish language”) and amerikaj lingvoj (“American languages”). — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

date rape drug

Nothing more than date rape + drug. --WikiTiki89 20:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• I would keep this - it is not apparent from the sum of its parts that this is a drug that facilitates date rape, instead of treating it (as opposed to, for example, cancer drugs which fight cancer, rather than causing it, or even recreational drugs which are taken voluntarily for their effects). bd2412 T 22:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

  Date rape is not a condition you can treat. Also compare "party drug", "rave drug", "chill drug", "creativity drug", "sports drug". --WikiTiki89 23:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

  All of those are drugs that the person seeking the effect takes themselves (i.e., a person takes a creativity drug to boost their creativity, or a sports drug to boost their sports performance). A person does not choose to take a date rape drug in order to boost their ability to engage in date rape. A person might take a Viagra to enable themselves to perform the act, but it would be incorrect to call Viagra a "date rape drug" on that account. bd2412 T 23:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

  Ok, how about "mind control drug", "truth drug", it's hard to think of these on the spot... --WikiTiki89 23:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

  We have truth drug. bd2412 T 00:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

  "cooperation drug", "drop dead drug", ... --WikiTiki89 00:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

  Perhaps the definition needs to be tweaked a bit. Consider the Portuguese translation, boa noite Cinderela, literally "good night Cinderella". This reflects the general usage of the term to specify a drug that has a combination of sedative and mind-altering effects. Although alcohol itself has jokingly been referred to as a "date rape drug" because it reduces a person's psychological and physical ability to resist, the imagery commonly brought to mind with respect to the phrase is some sort of benzodiazepine being surreptitiously introduced into the victim's drink, specifically causing the combination of sleepiness, loss of inhibition, suggestivity, and anterograde amnesia. By contrast, a drug that merely causes temporary physical paralysis, but does not effect memory or inhibition, is not brought to mind by the phrase (even though such a drug would facilitate "date rape"). bd2412 T 15:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

  I'll make it clearer for you: I just added the definition "rape committed with the use of a sedative or memory-inhibiting drug" to date rape. Now we just have to decide whether it was the chicken or the egg that came first. --WikiTiki89 15:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

  I have sent that sense to RfV. I do not believe that the phrase has come to be used that broadly. bd2412 T 17:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

  I hate to use urban dictionary to advance my point, but it might bring you some insight if you read the definition given there (obviously it should be taken with a grain of salt and cannot be used as a cite, but it shows that the sense exists). --WikiTiki89 17:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete. There are anti-cancer drugs as well as cancer drugs, and they are the same thing. Some comprehension of how words can fit together is required by any language speaker. Equinox ◑ 23:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Seems more like a drug that is used to rape a total stranger, rather than the victim of a date rape where it the perp is known. --Dmol (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Now you may have a point. It depends on whether that sense of date rape existed before or after "date rape drug". Either way, we should add that sense to date rape. --WikiTiki89 23:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Why should we add that sense to date rape? Can you demonstrate that outside of the phrase "date rape drug", the phrase "date rape" is ever used to refer to rape of a total stranger? bd2412 T 03:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It is commonly used to refer to raping a stranger at a party. The essential difference from other forms of rape is that there is no violence involved. But like I said, this sense could have been derived from "date rape drug", or "date rape drug" could have been derived from this sense. I just don't know. If you want citations, feel free to RFV after the sense is added. --WikiTiki89 03:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete per Equinox. Virtually all noun-noun compounds have a certain element of context and common sense required to avoid the errors that machines make when interpreting them. Fortunately we are doing a dictionary for people. We are utterly incapable of proving an adequate dictionary for a machine anyway. DCDuring TALK 00:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

BD2412, I think what you say isn't relevant as no human being would interpret it that way. I'm getting irritated by hypothetical ways people can misinterpret something, even if nobody has never made that mistake ever. You're a lawyer, surely you believe in evidence. Well, get some evidence of someone making that mistake and we'll talk about it. Until then, it's just an amusing thought experiment. Oh and delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

No human being? How about a non-English speaker, which is precisely the sort of person who would look something like this up in a dictionary? bd2412 T 03:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I stand by what I said. Find evidence of this error and then we'll discuss it further. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nomination.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep it. Donnanz (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

dumb as a bag of hammers

SOP. Any seeming nonSOPness is exaggeration rather than what we call idiomaticity.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I concur.  Delete. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 09:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiTiki89's comparison to dead as a doornail persuaded me to change my mind. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep. I don't think a bag of hammers particularly implies stupidity, yet this has become a fixed phrase in English somehow. Equinox ◑ 12:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It's of a pair with dumb as a box of rocks, this time built on a different vowel. I guess "dumb as a bag of rags" wouldn't have worked semantically, so another word with the same vowel was substituted. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. Not interchangeable with, e.g., dumb as a bag of wrenches or dumb as a bag of mallets. bd2412 T 14:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep since it's a fixed phrase. Of course you could say "dumb as a bag of wrenches", "dumb as pile of potato pancakes", or "dumb as a whatever", but those are not fixed phrases. --WikiTiki89 14:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep per Equinox. The ideal solution would be if we had an accepted way of representing the class of idiomatic constructions of which this is one of the more common representatives. For example, we could have an entry like [[dumb as an X of Ys]] which was reached by redirects and by searches. The translations could contain any somewhat similar constructions in other languages or "see" references. An alternative would be to have several of these as unlinked derived terms at [[dumb]], though {{rel-top}} would serve to confuse casual users when they arrived at the entry. DCDuring TALK 14:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Other representatives of the class of idiomatic similes include bucket of (wet) hair, glass of water, dish of kraut, bucket/bag/sack/box of nails/doorknobs/used-up spark plugs/cookies/shredded wheat/dirt/bras DCDuring TALK 15:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Does it even have to be "dumb as an X of Y"? "X of Y" is just a special case of a noun phrase. You can be dumb as any noun phrase, regardless of whether there's an "of". --WikiTiki89 15:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand the nomination though, it's in the form as dumb as X where no matter what the 'X' part is it means 'very dumb'. So the meaning is predictable. I also understand the keep votes. Perhaps there's enough reasonable doubt here to keep it, but I'm not sure either way. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

"dumb as X" is a generalization logically, but certainly not historically, for "dumb as an X of Ys". But "X as Y" is simply the generic form for all similes ("crazy/pretty/drunk/horny/smart/crafty/sharp/fat/thin/cold/hot as (an) X"), which is much more easily dismissed as non-lexical, as part of the grammar of English. I wouldn't think we would want any of them, except possibly as redirects to either the adjective section for "X" or a separate simile page for all "X"-adjective similes. "dumb as an X of Ys" is not open to a large range of substitutes for dumb and has a particular structure, but allows several Xs and a fairly large number of Ys, though prosodic and phonetic factors favor certain combinations. DCDuring TALK 17:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I see nothing special historically or logically or anythingelsically about "dumb as an X of Ys". The reason I voted to keep is not because of the structure, but because the commonness of this particular case makes it idiomatic. dead as a doornail is just as idiomatic and it has no "X of Ys" structure at all. --WikiTiki89 17:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You do recognize that it is clearly not a set phrase and that substantial variation is possible over both nouns in the expression, right? Even if one defines set phrase as not always perfectly invariant, ie as one that has exactly the same form (except for inflection) just, say, 75%, 67%, 60%, or even 50, 40%, 33% of the time, this is still not a set phrase. If we depend on mere attestable restrictions on pairings of nouns in the two slots after dumb, then there are probably half a dozen or more of these to be found and more are being created in speech every day. DCDuring TALK 17:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Do box of rocks and bag of hammers have a special position among all the candidate pairings? Yes. Both of them are Usenet-attestable used as intensifiers of dumb, ie, bag-of-hammers dumb and box-of-rocks dumb. By the arguments being made these would seem also to be includable. DCDuring TALK 17:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

A lot of things are attestable. I am saying that "dumb as a bag of hammers" is idiomatic if it is overwhelmingly more common than similar phrases, not just because it is merely attestable. --WikiTiki89 17:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

But it is not "overwhelmingly more common" than similar phrases.

Interestingly bag of hammers and bags of hammers are both readily attestable outside of the expression. They are used metaphorically to refer to stupid people. Grammatically they can be the subject of sentences and do not depend on prior use in the same discussion or work.

If we are to maintain a high standard of completeness with our current approach to "idiomaticity", we need to memorialize each attestable variation in this evolution with entries for each attestable instance of the construction. We need at least "(as) dumb as a/two/... box(es) of rocks" (N entries), "dumber than a/two/... box/boxes of rocks" (M entries), "box(es) of rocks" (2 entries), in addition to those involving "bags of hammers", "buckets of hair", etc.

An alternative of approach of including only redirect entries seems much better, but having as target only one, two, three or ten examples of the construction still misses the productivity of the construction. That is why I am arguing for a different kind of main entry for relatively open-ended constructions like this. DCDuring TALK 18:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean similar versions of the same phrase, I meant similar phrases (like "bag of mallets"). Clearly "bags of hammers" is just a less common variant of "bag of hammers", not a different phrase. --WikiTiki89 18:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

For that kind of argument to work wouldn't you want to be able to show it with "hammer" fixed and the container word varying too? Why is the tool function even salient, given that there is no special connection between the toolishness of hammer and its semantic role in the expression?

At bgc "dumb as a bag of hammers" outnumbers other "bag of" nouns 16:8 on a first-results-page count (other 6 weren't visible). Is that "overwhelming"?

Are you arguing that any such quantitative selectional restriction makes something an includable set phrase? That would argue for including at least one phrase for hair (with bucket), rocks (with box), but not hair because attestable usage of the container-word is more evenly distributed (among bag (5), box (4), bucket and sack (2), and barrel (1). Or would you combine bag and sack on grounds of semantic equivalence making a total of 7, overwhelmingly more the 6 for the others? DCDuring TALK 19:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about comparing the occurrence of "dumb as a bag of hammers" with the occurrences of all other "dumb as X" phrases. --WikiTiki89 19:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

But is NOT by itself overwhelmingly more common than the others, not being even the majority of cases, as dumb as a box of rocks is probably more common or about as common. If you are saying that the representatives we have should in combination be overwhelmingly more common than the excluded ones, we can almost always add more representatives until that is true. DCDuring TALK 21:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep either as a non-SOP, or as a simile outside of CFI. This is what I wrote at Talk:flat as a pancake: Similes are often uninteresting for the decoding direction ("What does 'flat as a pancake' mean?"), but are key for encoding direction ("How do I say 'very flat' using a simile?") and for translation ("How do I render 'flat as a pancake' using a Spanish simile?"). --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Similes might be a good place to test out the general "idiomatic construction" approach. They are relatively well defined, I think, and have arguments in support of them that are in addition to the "semi-open idiomatic construction" arguments. I think the main simile page, say, [[flat as a pancake]], should contain many of the less common, but attestable similes ("flat as a board") and the historical ones ("flat as a flounder") and be the target of many redirects, for purposes of economizing on translations, entry effort, and user time and effort. The similes are each of restricted applicability, too, which would require more explanations. (In the US, topography is "as flat as Kansas", not "as flat as a pancake" nor "as flat as a board".) We do have to work out ways of distinguishing less common similes such as those of other senses of flat and cross-sense similes "The proposal fell as flat as yesterday's beer." DCDuring TALK 21:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Kept --ElisaVan (talk) 10:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

  Striking the heading. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Kelvin scale

Kelvin + scale; pure SoP. bd2412 T 16:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete. But for one thing, we need to update Kelvin to be either the lemma form or an alternative form of kelvin. --WikiTiki89 16:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought the etymological priority went to Kelvin scale and that Kelvin is a reduced form of that. Thus we would need both as there was nothing in the name Kelvin itself that determined this meaning at the time of coinage. I thought I'd read that argument in some recent discussion in this very forum. Not only that, but “Kelvin scale”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. shows several glossaries and AHD, Collins, WordNet, and Vocabulary.com having the term. Keep DCDuring TALK 19:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

But is that the case? We would need to RFV it as being attested before kelvin or Kelvin. --WikiTiki89 19:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

We don't even have the supposed component sense of Kelvin at [[Kelvin#English]]. DCDuring TALK 19:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

@ BD: Why isn't this a "non-parseable word used to identify a specific thing, as with Grévy's zebra and Bose-Einstein condensate." See #Pauli exclusion principle or Talk:Pauli exclusion principle. DCDuring TALK 20:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

@Wikitiki: You are joking, right? Why don't you or BD attest to Kelvin being used as it would have to be for this to be SoP?

Do you really think that the first use of the concept was somebody putting a number next to the letter "k" or "K" or the word Kelvin", expecting readers to understand the meaning "absolute zero-based scale"? The existence of dictionary entries would seem to shift the burden of proof a little bit, unless we would like to simply dismiss their expertise as professional lexicographers for purposes of these little discussions. I wouldn't think we would be so arrogant as to do so. DCDuring TALK 20:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

How does this differ from Grévy's zebra and Bose-Einstein condensate? There is no equivalent to saying degrees Grévy or degrees Bose-Einstein. The Kelvin scale measures units, which are called kelvins. There is no unit called a Grévy for which the collecting measure of the units adds up to a zebra. bd2412 T 22:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Since 1968 the unit has been the kelvin. Before that it was degree Kelvin, commencing shortly after Kelvin's death. Apparently Kelvin scale is just an honorific name for the absolute scale, which w:William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin himself called Thomson's absolute scale. DCDuring TALK 23:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

@DCDuring: you may be thinking of the "in a jiffy" test. - -sche (discuss) 20:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so, though history has a bearing on this. I think it's a new principle: the Pauli inclusion principle. DCDuring TALK 20:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I've been convinced. Keep. --WikiTiki89 23:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. I am not sure this is a sum of parts. To me, it seems that "Kelvin scale" is a scale named after Kelvin. I assume the SOP argument rests of Kelvin ("Alternative capitalization of kelvin"), and thus kelvin ("base unit of thermodynamic temperature"). If the SOP argument rests on Kelvin ("A surname​."), it is plain wrong. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a whole other argument to be made based on the official definitions of "degree Kelvin" and "kelvin" and of the scale itself. See w:Kelvin, especially w:Kelvin#Usage conventions. DCDuring TALK 20:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Should be kept, listed by Oxford. I'm not sure about the plural though, I doubt that there is one. Donnanz (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

misgendered

Oughta be {{form of|misgender}}. Not sure about misgendering. -- Liliana • 13:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I have changed both entries (which I created) to verb forms. I assume the lemma entry for misgender had come later. Equinox ◑ 15:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

same sex

opposite sex

Two truly terrible entries. What is there to be inferred that isn't obvious from same/opposite and sex? -- Liliana • 13:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete both. --WikiTiki89 18:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep as common collocations. Orders of magnitude more common than ‘other sex’, ‘contrary sex’, ‘opposing sex’ etc. Needs a better definition and some good citations though. Template:script helper 15:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

If we were to keep this, how would we define it in a way that's not worse than having no entry at all? At the moment we just say it's the sex that's the same and the sex that's opposite. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, as an example, the OED defines opposite sex as ‘women as opposed to men (or vice versa)’. I think most definitions are better than none at all, especially if the entry has a good representative sample of citations showing how the term is used in practice. Template:script helper 14:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete both.​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep, although not really sure. For "opposite sex" I am a bit more certain, since sex is basically a complementary characteristic rather than polar one and thus "opposite" is something of a misnomer and thereby idiomatic; furthermore, “opposite sex”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. shows some other dicts keep it; finally, it seems to be a set phrase. “same sex”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. shows some dictionaries have "same-sex" ranked as an adjective. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

  The word opposite frequently refers to other in a set of two complementary terms. Even look at our definition number 3 and its usage example. --WikiTiki89 21:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

  Well, we have a definition 3 of "opposite" but it is unclear in which cases other than "opposite sex" it is being used and how common it is. One more thing: translation target, for German "anderes Geschlecht". --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

  "opposite charge", "opposite polarity", "opposite value" (for booleans), "opposite team", etc. It can be used with anything that there are two of. As for German, the term Template:term/t can be given as a translation for definition 3 of opposite. --WikiTiki89 22:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion in well-known dictionaries is a good indication that someone already considered this term a word. Not only German but in East Asian languages (Chinese, Japanese, Korean), where 異 means "different", "other" is part of the word - 異性 (异性), 이성. Chinese, Japanese, Korean translations are all considered words. Keep as idiomatic. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I suggest the definition from the opposite sex in Collins dictionary - "women in relation to men or men in relation to women" and adding "the " to the headword. I have also added [[same sex]] as an alternative adjective form for [[same-sex]]. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep, the degree to which this is a common combination makes it likely that readers will look it up as a phrase. bd2412 T 03:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

  According to which study that you've conducted? --WikiTiki89 03:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Common terms are frequently looked up. Gender, sex and sexuality are known to be popular topics, this also shows in Wictionary entries. "opposite sex" in Google Books - about 1,260,000 results, "same sex" in Google Books - about 1,480,000 results (this includes adjectives and spellings with a hyphen). The equivalent foreign language terms are similarly common. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say they aren't common. I just meant that we have absolutely no way of knowing what people are likely to look up. We really need to have some kind of hit counter on each entry so we can do some kind of statistical analysis. --WikiTiki89 03:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep both. Lemmings (“opposite sex”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. “same sex”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.) etc. DCDuring TALK 04:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

While OneLook gives some support to "opposite sex", all hits for "same sex" are for the hyphenated form same-sex. Delete at least "same sex". --Hekaheka (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

If the noun [[same sex]] is not confirmed as idiomatic, it should be converted into a translation target only entry and kept anyway, in East Asian languages the term is definitely considered a single word and exists in dictionaries. They are also bases for expressions like "same-sex marriage", etc., in these languages, where the first part is a noun. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 19:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

They seem pretty SOP to me, both the Han version Template:term/t + Template:term/t and the Hangeul version Template:term/t + Template:term/t (although we are missing the definition "same" of Template:term/t). --WikiTiki89 19:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Not unless we go back to Classical Chinese, which was monosyllabic. Most Japanese, Chinese, Korean dictionaries disagree with you. Besides, 性 is a also noun forming suffix, not just "gender", like -ness, so "同性" is also "sameness", not just same sex but "homosexual" (n. and adj.) and "homosexuality", "共同性" is "common feature". 同性 has a number of derivations to do with sameness, congeniality and homosexuality, e.g. "同性质" - congeniality - quality (質/质) of being the same in nature. An example: "同性相斥，异性相吸" (tóngxìng xiāng chì, yìxìng xiāng xī) - "polarities repel each other, opposites attract", which can also be used in reference to genders but also of something similar and different in nature (the expression uses both Chinese "same sex" and "opposite sex" terms, which have more meanings). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Nothing you just said makes it any less SOP. Basically what you just said is that the second part of "性" has at least two definitions ("-ness" and "gender/sex"), both of which carry on to "同性" ("sameness" and "same gender/sex"). If anything, that makes it even more SOP. The "homosexual(ity)" meanings of "同性" might be idiomatic, but they would be listed as translations of [[homosexual]] and [[homosexuality]], not of [[same sex]]. Also, the fact that it has idiomatic derivatives doesn't make the term itself idiomatic. So as far as the entry [[same sex]] is concerned, there is no absolute need for it to house the translation "同性". --WikiTiki89 23:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems like obsession with SoP-ness. Go ahead and RFD 同性, 동성, I'm not subscribing to this. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason to RFD them. As you said they can be used idiomatically. I was only saying that the "same sex" definition is SOP and therefore cannot be used as an argument for keeping [[same sex]] as a translation-only page. --WikiTiki89 23:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

By the way, what is the difference between 性 and 性別? I'm trying to understand why 性 is not listed in translations of sex or gender. It could be that I was wrong the whole time due to the poor design of our Chinese entries. --WikiTiki89 23:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: the difference between 性 and 性別. The latter is used as a separate term, the former usually as a component, suffix of another, longer term but can be used separately in some cases. An individual character carries a general meaning (often without a clear part of speech) but not necessarily is used on its own, which causes problems in defining, it needs a lot of examples and long lists of derivations. They are like building blocks to form words and phrases. 医药 is medicine (medical + drug) (药 on its own is too ambiguous) but "to take medicine" is 吃药 (eat + drug), using a single character, because the context is clear. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

So would it be wrong to list 性 as a translation of sex and gender? --WikiTiki89 00:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

性 is only as a component in this case. Some cases are arguable, like 香烟 - cigarette but 烟 is also used separately in this sense, we had a bit of disagreement with Tooironic over this in translations of cigarette. The fact that 性 is not used separately is neither helping nor contradicting your argument. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

My argument is that "同性" can be derived from the translations at [[same]] and [[gender]]/[[sex]]. So, yes, it does matter. --WikiTiki89 00:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

As I said, 性 is usually not used separately but as a component or a word in expression from Classical Chinese, e.g 阳性 (yángxìng), 阴性 (yīnxìng), which can be translated both as "masculine" and "feminine" (nouns) or "masculine gender" and "feminine gender" (collocations) but characters 陽/阳 (yáng) and 陰/阴 (yīn) have too many meanings to define them separately as "masculine" and "feminine", to make 阳性 and 阴性 SoP's. By usually I mean it's not a clear-cut case (if it's possible in Chinese). 性 may also form attributive noun expressions like 性的要求 (xìng de yāoqiú) - "sexual desire", where 性 is an attributive noun with a possessive particle 的. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

So are there words formed with 性 (like 性的要求) that are considered SOP? --WikiTiki89 01:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if you insist, only I have a different view on SoP. 性的 is a perfect translation of "sexual" (adjective), even if the lemma is 性, it's an attributive noun with a particle and 性 is not used separately to mean "sex", "gender". Like 阳性, 阴性, 同性 is considered a word, not a collocation in Chinese (note for Japanese speakers - 性的 is a separate adjective (adjectival noun) in Japanese but not in Chinese). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

In English, the word Template:term/t is 100% SOP, even though it is a "word". The only reason we include it is because of a rules in CFI that says that anything that is written as a word (without spaces) can be included (some say this is in case a reader does not know where to split the word). I don't know much about how compound words work in Chinese, but there is certainly no distinction between a compound with a space and one without a space because Chinese does not have spaces. Therefore, this rules about things being written as one word cannot apply to Chinese or else we would have to include entire sentences as "words". So my question is, what is the difference in Chinese between a "word" and noun phrase? --WikiTiki89 01:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep In no particular order: it's a common collocation, there is 異性(いせい) (isei), there are more than two sexes, and sex is a continuum. "opposite sex" contains faulty assumptions like weaker sex. Haplogy (話) 00:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  Let me bring in an example from American politics: The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are often seen as opposites. There are other parties, but for many people it's just a two-party system. The existence of other parties does not make "opposite party" and "same party" idiomatic. --WikiTiki89 01:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  Doesn't that make a stronger case for keeping "opposite sex"? If you referred to two people as being of "opposite parties", the reader might well guess that you meant one was a member of the communist party and the other was a member of the Nazi party (or some other approximation equating party identification with a political extreme). Where two people are of the opposite sex, however, it is taken to mean that one is male and the other female, no matter their sexual identity or sexual politics. bd2412 T 02:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  That made no sense to me. When a member of the Republican party is meeting with some of the "opposite party" it means a member of the Democratic Party (like I said, I'm referring to American politics), not the communist or Nazi party. --WikiTiki89 02:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• 'keep both, per Polansky Pass a Method (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep both, especially opposite sex. Donnanz (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

trans guy

(LGBT, slang) A female-to-male transexual or transgender person. - i. e. a trans guy. Note that we don't have the female counterpart trans girl. -- Liliana • 14:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete. --WikiTiki89 18:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep per policy (WT:COALMINE), since transguy exists. Compare transman, trans man. - -sche (discuss) 19:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I doubt transguy (and, in converse, transgirl) is attestable. Should be sent to RFV. -- Liliana • 19:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

To save you the trouble, I went ahead and added three citations to the entry. There are several dozen more available on Google Books. Cheers, - -sche (discuss) 19:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Pfff, stupid misogyny. One is attestable but not the other. I don't want to live on this planet anymore. -- Liliana • 19:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Nah, transgirl and trans girl are attested, too. - -sche (discuss) 19:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

You must have a different Google Books than me. -- Liliana • 19:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Google books behaves differently in different countries (I'm assuming you're in Germany). --WikiTiki89 20:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, so is -sche... no? -- Liliana • 20:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah... that's strange. With the help of a few proxies I just compared google.de, google.com and google.fr's Books results for "transguy"; a few books showed up in a different order, but books did show up. I dunno... perhaps Google is, as it long promised/threatened it would, "showing results relevant to you", and for some reason decided books were not relevant to you. Maybe Google noticed your Babel box! lol - -sche (discuss) 21:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

If it were to show results relevant to me, it should come up with a million books. -- Liliana • 04:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per COALMINE pointed out by -sche. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Kept per policy. - -sche (discuss) 01:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Kashmir entries

Indian-held Kashmir

Discussion moved from WT:RFV.

As above.--Dmol (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This one (unlike "Indian-annexed Kashmir") is well-attested. Did you mean to RFD it? - -sche (discuss) 04:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: "above" referred to WT:RFV#Indian-annexed_Kashmir, which I had commented was unattested. But "Indian-held Kashmir" is trivially citable. The problem is simply that it is SOP: it is that portion of Kashmir which is held by India, rather than be Pakistan (or China). Hence, I have moved it here. - -sche (discuss) 10:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Indian-controlled Kashmir

Discussion moved from WT:RFV.

As above. If nothing else, they are all SoP. --Dmol (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This one (unlike "Indian-annexed Kashmir") is well-attested. Did you mean to RFD it? - -sche (discuss) 04:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

PS, see also Pakistan-administered Kashmir. - -sche (discuss) 05:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

SOP. (Delete.) - -sche (discuss) 10:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Indian-occupied Kashmir

Discussion moved from WT:RFV.

Another one. SoP. --Dmol (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This one (unlike "Indian-annexed Kashmir") is well-attested. Did you mean to RFD it? - -sche (discuss) 04:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

SOP. (Delete.) - -sche (discuss) 10:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Pakistan-administered Kashmir

SOP: this refers to the portion of Kashmir which is administered by Pakistan. The entry doesn't even try to obfuscate that; the definition is "the part of the Kashmir region controlled by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan". - -sche (discuss) 10:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete all (and any other entries in the form of Country-[verb indicating status] Region). bd2412 T 13:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • This is no doubt the same contributor who created a bunch of Pakistan-themed entries in late August- the IP is different, but the editing is identical. Someone needs to look through their edits, because the concepts behind the entry names and the definitions tend to be loaded with a jingoistic Pakistani/islamacist POV. I deleted or massively edited some of their entries because they contained all kinds of territorial claims that no one outside of Pakistan accepts (for instance, listing divisions of Bangladesh as part of Pakistan, even though Bangladesh gained its independence 40 years ago, and they had an entry for a Chechen rebel state that only exists as a figment of a rebel leader's public pronouncement), and they toned things down a bit after I explained NPOV to them, but someone needs to do some research about the actual status of the territories and divisions they describe. India and Pakistan are right on the edge of war over the status of Kashmir, so any little detail is bound to have significance. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Delete all, and any more that are found. I could easily create an entry for "British-occupied Ireland" and find a dozen cites for it, but that, like the other entries, is Sum of Parts.--Dmol (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete all.​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete the four nominated "* Kashmir" entries: Indian-held Kashmir, Indian-controlled Kashmir, Indian-occupied Kashmir, and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 02:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Jesus fucking Christ

Any takers? --Æ&Œ (talk) 11:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. Straightforward infix (compare Jesus H. Christ, which is a highly unorthodox infix). bd2412 T 13:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed. The infix has the peculiar property that it can be placed anywhere it prosodically fits- including between syllables of a word. We include the within-word cases, but there are too many permutations to include all the multi-word ones, too. Delete. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to [[fucking#Adjective]].​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep, since it is not obvious that this can really be formed, yet it is very common per google books:"Jesus fucking Christ", unlike e.g. google books:"Jesus damn Christ" or google books:"Jesus fricking Christ". If this is not idiomatic, it is at least a set phrase (a non-CFI consideration). --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

hard work

What else are we still missing? Easy job? --Hekaheka (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems SoP to me, in contrast to hard labor, which is idiomatic because of its use in a legal/penal context. DCDuring TALK 22:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. --WikiTiki89 22:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
• What they said.​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

And delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Should be kept. The fact that it's a mass noun should be noted; besides that it's listed by Oxford (online at least). Donnanz (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

  It's a mass noun because "work" is mass noun. There is nothing idiomatic about it. --WikiTiki 89 19:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a mass noun in this sense, but work has a plural in other senses; e.g. literary works, reference works, works of art. Donnanz (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• There is no RFD attached to this entry, and no record in the entry's history. Donnanz (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  Fixed. --WikiTiki89 19:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

frozen cow juice

I forget what the word for this is, but this is just a case of referring to something by its description. "frozen milk" can probably also be cited as referring specifically to ice cream, just like "spoiled grape juice" can be cited as referring to wine, or "magic metal box" to a computer, or "little green man" to an alien. --WikiTiki89 00:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Try putting some mile in your freezer, even with sugar and flavoring. The result is not ice cream. By the misnomer principle, therefore, this is an idiom, perhaps a lame and transparent one, but that hasn't stopped us before. DCDuring TALK 00:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Nor can you make wine by spoiling grape juice or a computer by magic-ifying a metal box. --WikiTiki89 00:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

But we have an entry for little green man and also for cow juice which is equally humorously descriptive. I would also point out that this could be parsed as "cow juice" = "cow blood". Unlikely perhaps, but cow blood is the major ingredient of black pudding after all, so I could legitimately, but incorrectly, interpret this as "frozen black pudding". — This unsigned comment was added by Spinningspark (talk • contribs).

So should we add heated dead cow for "steak", box on wheels for "Honda Element", round spotted sphere for "soccer ball", chopped frozen water for "ice cubes", fried unborn chicken for "fried eggs", big yellow disk for "sun", slide on two planks for "to ski"? --WikiTiki89 01:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Do any of those have currency? Several of them are more transparent then "frozen cow juice" and some are less. I'd have to analyze based on context and usage in each case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Does "frozen cow juice" have much currency? I don't think so, as it's pretty rare. Nevertheless an English speaker who has never heard the phrase before usually gets what it refers to. --WikiTiki89 13:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The cites pass CFI. The point is, I'd have to analyze all your cases in the light of the cites at hand.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

For the purposes of this argument, you can assume they're all citeable. --WikiTiki89 20:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question; I would have to look at them in the context at hand, whether they were being used as descriptive or as actual names and whether they actually applied exclusively to the other object. If, for example, there were cites for "magic metal box" such that it was actually being used to mean computer, not merely an analogy, I'd be all for it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

For spoiled grape juice: [20] [21] [22] [23]. You want me to do the others? --WikiTiki89 19:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the second one (which appears to literally reference grape juice that has become spoiled, the other three are legitimate evidence that the phrase "spoiled grape juice" is a slang term for wine, and that we should have an entry on it. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that if all of those terms are citeable with comparable cites, then we should add all of them? --WikiTiki89 20:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Only if they are not transparent. Since our definition of "spoiled" is "deteriorated to the point of no longer being usable or edible", and the citations support use of this phrase with respect to something that is generally considered usable and edible, what we've got here is an idiom. By contrast, "chopped frozen water" and "round spotted sphere" offer nothing idiomatic (and it is probably no coincidence that they do not appear to be citable anyway). bd2412 T 20:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I remember a place in w:Apia when I was there 25 years ago that sold sweetened, frozen cream as "ice cream"- I can indeed verify that it's not the same thing at all... Chuck Entz (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

How ice cream is made is completely irrelevant to the points I'm making. --WikiTiki89 13:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep, per Mglovesfun. bd2412 T 14:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep, SpinningSpark 17:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Ice cream is not simply frozen cow juice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep: misnomer => idiomatic AKA not sum of parts. No CFI-relevant reason for deletion has been provided. As pointed out by DCDuring. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Weak keep, per precedent: the "fried egg" test. "Frozen milk" = "ice cream" is near the line between idiomatic phrases and unidiomatic, transparent-even-if-not-entirely-accurate descriptive phrases. But if "fried egg" is idiomatic (and note the arguments made on Talk:fried egg that resulted in its being kept, e.g. "scrambled eggs are fried eggs, literally, but if someone asks for fried eggs and I give them scrambled, they're likely to be disappointed"), then "frozen milk" must be idiomatic, too. And "cow juice" = "milk" is clearly idiomatic, in my view, so "frozen cow juice" is even less transparent and more idiomatic than "frozen milk". - -sche (discuss) 21:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Note that my nomination is not based on it being SOP, but based on it being metonymous, and no one has yet said anything to contradict that. --WikiTiki89 21:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

metonymous - of, or relating to, a word or phrase that names an object from a single characteristic of it or of a closely related object. For this to be metonymous you would have to argue that cow juice is a single aspect of cream: which I think is a dubious argument to start off with. But even if it is not, I don't see metonyms excluded by any section of the CFI. SpinningSpark 00:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Only that's not a complete definition of metonymy and certainly not the way we use it in RFD. --WikiTiki89 01:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Where has metonymy been the decisive argument for deletion? It is not a criterion in WT:CFI. DCDuring TALK 01:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Well that's the problem, I've been trying to remember specific examples, but none have yet come to mind, even though I remember there being examples. --WikiTiki89 02:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Kept. DAVilla 10:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

emergency physician

Looks like sum of parts to me. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

emergency doctor

As above. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

My first thought is an emergency physician is one you call in an emergency, not one that works in an emergency department. Having said that, I'm pretty sure it means both. So delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

if anything should happen

"In case of emergency." Just like (deprecated template usage) if anything happens, (deprecated template usage) if something should happen, (deprecated template usage) if there's any issue etc etc. Template:script helper 15:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Indeed. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Strong delete. Equinox ◑ 14:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

What they said.​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

без посторонней помощи

SOP for без (bez, “without”) посторо́нней (postorónnej, “outside”) по́мощи (pómošči, “help”). --WikiTiki89 17:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It can be considered either way, it's borderline. To me it seems quite idiomatic. It's similar to невооружённым гла́зом (nevooružónnym glázom) - "with the naked eye", which is in instrumental case. "невооружённый глаз" "lit.: unarmed eye, i.e. naked eye" is not actually used in the nominative. Keep. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

высота над уровнем моря

SOP: высота́ + над + у́ровнем + мо́ря (vysotá + nad + úrovnem + mórja) --WikiTiki89 17:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Is this the shortest or most common way to say this in Russian? If so, I would keep is as the most common way to render "altitude" (the height measured from sea level up to any given point). In Czech, we have "nadmořská výška" rather than "výška nad úrovní moře". google:"высота над уровнем моря". --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

  Normally you'd just say Template:l/ru unless you want to specify specifically that you mean "above sea level". --WikiTiki89 21:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep as idiomatic. Yes, it can be broken up into components but this is the shortest and standard form for the narrow sense - "height measured from sea" of altitude. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear here, "altitude" does not have to be measured from sea level. That is just a convention. --WikiTiki89 22:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's a precise term, which is often used to distinguish the absolute altitude from the relative. In this precision sense альтиту́да (alʹtitúda) is a synonym of "высота над уровнем моря", even if the English term "altitude" does not have to be measured from sea level. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

чуть-чуть не считается

SOP phrase that is not idiomatic. --WikiTiki89 17:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

But it is. It's equivalent to English close but no cigar, a miss is as good as a mile, almost doesn't count. An alternative form is почти́ не счита́ется (počtí ne sčitájetsja). Keep. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It is equivalent to "close but no cigar", but that doesn't make it idiomatic. It literally means "a little doesn't count", which is also its definition. And "почти не считается" literally means "almost doesn't count", except that the grammar is correct in Russian, while it the grammar is technically not correct in English which is the only reason it is idiomatic in English. --WikiTiki89 22:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. We don't say "немножко не считается" but "чуть-чуть не считается". It's used in bilingual dictionaries. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Who doesn't say "немножко не считается"? Maybe you don't, but others clearly do, as seen in these searches: Google Books, Google Web. --WikiTiki89 22:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I mean it's more common and idiomatic than any of the above + "не считается". It's presumably was used in billiards first and there's also a song called "чуть-чуть не считается" by Natasha Korolyova. This idiom can be used in case of a near miss, where the literal meaning of "чуть-чуть" (a little, slightly) doesn't really match. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

In translations form other languages, such as German, "einmal ist keinmal" is also translated as "чуть-чуть не считается", even though the German expression literally means something "once is not a single time/never", for which a vulgar and offensive Russian translation would be "оди́н раз — не пидора́с (odín raz — ne pidorás)" ("once is not a faggot (yet)"). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I was not aware of that usage. I withdraw the nomination. Just for the record, being the title of song does not make something idiomatic. --WikiTiki89 23:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sure. Thanks. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

player

Shown as an adjective entry, but really a noun modifier. The entry under derived terms (bit player) is a derived term of the noun. Donnanz 00:26 11 December 2013.

I would have just speedied it because the definition looks like complete crap. --WikiTiki89 00:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

There wasn't a suitable sense of the noun, so it should definitely not have been deleted speedily. There is now such a sense, with citations. DCDuring TALK 02:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Gone. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

midnatten

The Danish entry should be deleted as midnat is not inflected at all. See history of midnat, and Den Danske Ordbog. Donnanz 15:56 11 December 2013 (UTC)

RfV? Perhaps it's a real but nonstandard term. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm, maybe. I'm not sure whether this link will work.

http://ordnet.dk/ddo/ordbog?query=midnat&search=S%C3%B8g It says (Grammatik) "især i ubestemt form singularis". (especially in indefinite singular form). But no inflection is shown. Donnanz 00:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not a primary source though. Secondary sources have their uses, but can never replace primary ones. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• If this isn't a primary source, what is? Name one. Donnanz 11:59 19 December 2013 (UTC)

motel

1. (as a modifier; used attributively) Of or relating to a motel.

   motel sign

While the part of speech is correct, there is nothing semantically special about this, it is just regular attributive use of the primary motel sense. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Not adjective-like; cannot take "how...?", "very", etc. Equinox ◑ 14:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this a property of the English language as a whole, not the word motel. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom. bd2412 T 20:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete the adjective entry. Purely a noun modifier. Any derived terms (?) can be entered as such under the noun entry. Donnanz 20:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

power structure

Seems like power + structure to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete. --WikiTiki89 19:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The lemmings at “power structure”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. seem to think it worth having. For example, MW Online has two definitions:

1. a group of persons having control of an organization: establishment
2. the hierarchical interrelationships existing within a controlling group .

I'll follow the crowd: Keep. DCDuring TALK 20:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. powerstructure is attested. [24] [25] [26] [27]. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep at least per WT:COALMINE and per OneLook dictionaries, so per DCDuring and bd2412. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm questioning myself as well now. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep it. I think it's a unique term, and the "sum of parts" argument can be ridiculous sometimes, and overused. Donnanz 18:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

  I think it's a fundamentally good argument, just no argument is good when it's used in the wrong context. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep as common collocation. Also in the OED. Template:script helper 18:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Are we ready to close this? Ringbang (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

chintzy

1. • John Betjeman, Death in Leamington

     "Tea!" she said in a tiny voice.
     "Wake up! It's nearly five."
     Oh! Chintzy, chintzy cheeriness,
     Half dead and half alive.

This is a bit of an odd RfD, but I don't know how to handle rfdefs. This cite is supposed to embody a sense of chintzy not otherwise included above. That certainly strikes me as cheap cheeriness, one of the definitions above.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I added the citation. I wasn't quite sure. I've moved it to your suggested sense now. Equinox ◑ 02:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Advanced Access Content System

Brand-like. Specific name of technological "product". Equinox ◑ 02:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - not dictionary material. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete DCDuring TALK 17:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

deleted -- Liliana • 23:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Obelix

"One of the protagonists of the comic-book series Asterix." Hardly a dictionary definition to begin with. Equinox ◑ 17:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete. I would have speedied this. --WikiTiki89 17:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete, but in process. DCDuring TALK 18:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. bd2412 T 02:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. Doesn't this word belong to the English vocabulary? I would have assumed that it's famous enough. And its etymology is interesting: I'm not sure (it may be coincidental) but I assume that it originates from obelisk (= dagger), a sign used the same way as the asterisk (*). Lmaltier (talk) 07:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• There are thousands of TV cartoons and comic books that have characters with funny names. I don't believe they have a definition (meaning) other than "name of a person", so they don't fit here. Equinox ◑ 07:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete. - -sche (discuss) 08:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep, since no CFI-relating reason for deletion was stated, and this single-word entry is useful at least for pronunciation. Asterix is a related entry whose translation table contains what to me appears to be lexicographical information. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

How about 'not idiomatic'? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

WT:CFI#Idiomaticity: "An expression is “idiomatic” if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components." "Obelix" has no separate components, and thus its meaning (the character it refers to) cannot be derived from the meaning of separate components. You and I have been over this before a couple of times over the last several years, right? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. No idiomatic usage claimed. Fame doesn't count.--Dmol (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. Dan Polansky votes keep on the basis that no CFI reason for deletion is given. There are several: Conveying meaning, Name of specific entity, and name of a character in a fictional universe. SpinningSpark 00:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  Re: "Conveying meaning": If "Obelix" fails to convey meanings, so does "London" or "Casiopeia"; it seems you are denying meaning to proper nouns and ignoring the fact that both CFI and common practice support a broad inclusion of proper names in Wiktionary. "Name of specific entity" is not a reason for deletion; see WT:CFI#Names of specific entities. As for "name of a character in a fictional universe", that could be a reason, in relation to WT:CFI#Fictional_universes, but that is not stated in the nomination, probably since it would lead to RFV rather than RFD nomination. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. There are dozens upon dozens of proper nouns in Tolkien's legendarium that are as rich or even richer in lexical details (not just conlang details- dwarves and wizards and men are given names from attested Germanic languages), but we don't include them. However much you may like the series, and however much you may appreciate their creator's respect for ancient European history, we're still talking about the name of a specific individual in a fictional universe, used only to identify that individual- so it doubly fails CFI. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  How would you know that it fails Wiktionary:CFI#Fictional_universes without RFV? The other thing is that Wiktionary:CFI#Fictional_universes is bad, since it excludes lexicographical material without providing a plausible rationale for how that is a good thing. I do not understand why we would want to include names of obscure villages while excluding e.g. Shellob, Ungoliant and Sauron, complete with pronunciation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete per Spinningspark. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Obélix

There seems to be consensus that Obelix should be deleted. I can't see any reason why the French and Spanish Obélixes should be treated different from the English Obelix. - -sche (discuss) 00:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

parquet

The adjective shown here is a noun modifier, according to Oxford. The derived terms could be transferred to the noun, and the quotations too. Donnanz 11:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete (or cite as unambiguously adjectival). Mglovesfun (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

air mass classification

"A system used to identify and to characterize the different air masses according to a basic scheme." NB we have air mass. I originally nominated it for cleanup and the suggestion was to clean up air mass and delete this. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

vi estas stultulo

This is in Category:Esperanto phrasebook, but it seems like a strange sentence for a phrasebook (at least to me), and it's not a translation of an English phrasebook entry as far as I can tell. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 04:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete; not useful for travellers and although perhaps very amusing to students under 16, not especially instructive. There must be a more appropriate phrase that has the same form "You are a ..." if we're interested in that sentence pattern. Haplogy (話) 01:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

rational numbers

rfd-sense: "The set of numbers that can be expressed as a ratio of integers (fraction) ^m/_n, where n is not zero. In set-builder notation, it is defined as {^m/_n|m∈ℤ,n∈ℕ}." Not that I doubt it, but is this a dictionary definition or a mathematical one? Does 'plural of rational number' cover the dictionary aspect? For example we don't define $\scriptstyle \mathbf {0} .\mathbf {\dot {9}}$ (0.9 recurring). Mglovesfun (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Added "rfd-sense:". --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

No objections (though I was simply expecting people to read the entry). Mglovesfun (talk) 13:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Is this term used outside of mathematics? I doubt it, which is why it has a mathematical definition. Also, I don't see what 0.9 recurring has anything to do with this. --WikiTiki89 20:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree it's an infelicitous definition. If the first sentence stopped at ‘integers’ it would be just as accurate (wouldn't it?) and less confusing. We need to be defining things like this for people who don't understand mathematics, that's really the whole point of a general-purpose reference work like a dictionary. (I did maths to A-level and the set-builder stuff still means nothing to me: is it necessary? Are we just saying the same thing again in a less accessible way?). Move to RFC, or possibly delete if it's SOP (you can also have rational roots, rational coefficients etc., where ‘rational’ just means ‘expressible as a ratio of two integers’ in all cases). Template:script helper 21:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the definition should be cut off after the word "integers", the rest is unnecessary. But I still don't understand what point Mglovesfun was trying to make with the 0.9 repeating. --WikiTiki89 21:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it took me so long to find out how to write it, I'd forgotten why I wanted to in the first place. I mean to define 0.9 recurring as a synonym of 1. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but what does that have to do with rational numbers? --WikiTiki89 21:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Nothing, never claimed it did. It was just a comparison. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean now. Sorry for not getting it before. --WikiTiki89 21:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. There's a difference between the plural of rational number and a reference to the entire set of rational numbers. I agree that the definition should be cut off after "integers" - the rest is a mathematical definition, not a dictionary definition. For comparison, we have definitions for real numbers and natural numbers, but only "plural of" entries for irrational numbers, complex numbers, hyperreal numbers, and imaginary numbers. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 21:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep, more or less as is. Non-experts will get what they need from the first part of the definition and glaze over the rest; experts (or. at any rate, formal math students) will get what they need from the whole thing. Definitions of complex topics in technical fields should be suitably useful both to the average reader, and to the member of that technical field. bd2412 T 21:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. I have edited the definition, but if you disagree, revert me. It should be kept either way. --WikiTiki89 22:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I restored the deleted material to a usage note, which should be sufficiently out of the way to avoid intimidating non-math majors, but contains the information that hardcore math fans will be looking for. bd2412 T 22:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I think it is unnecessary to have the information there. A link to Wikipedia should be enough. But if you really think it is crucial, I won't object. --WikiTiki89 22:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per Mr. Granger. The set Q is a mathematical object frequently referred to and is not simply the plural of rational number, it is the set of all rational numbers. I do agree, however, that the expression in set notation is not needed. It adds nothing to the definition, nor is it really a usage note. It is what it is; a formal expression in the language of sets. If we want that sort of thing we should put it under a different language head because it ain't English. Mathematical notation is either a language of its own or else it is translingual. By the way, for those that can't read gobbledegook, the expression translates into English as "the set of all quotients of m and n where m is an element of the set of integers and n is an element of the set of natural numbers". Pretty much the same as the definition we already have in words except that it is not necessary to explicitly exclude n=0 since zero is not included in N. SpinningSpark 00:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. A considerable number of non-native users are math-literate, and for them the mathematical definition given in addition to the verbal one is very clarifying. --Hekaheka (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

An additional point: most of our math-related definitions include a formula. Deleting this would logically indicate that we would prefer to remove them all. Probably all chemical formulae would have to go as well. --Hekaheka (talk) 06:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete the nominated sense as redundant to the definition in rational number, and we have "plural form of rational number" at rational numbers. I am unconvinced by the argument by Mr. Granger from 21:34, 16 December 2013; the other arguments above I cannot follow at all. Checked: “rational numbers”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. By the way, "{m/n|m∈ℤ,n∈ℕ}" is no more precise than rational number's "A real number that can be expressed as the ratio of two integers"; it is just a technical notation. If you want to present this notation to the reader, you can do so by adding "; any member of {m/n|m∈ℤ,n∈ℕ}" to rational number. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Since you found it necessary to add "any member of" to the front of the expression, I take it that you understand that the expression is for the set of rational numbers. The term rational numbers when used with the meaning of this set is not the same as the plural of rational number. That plural meaning is any old collection of rational numbers. The set meaning is specifically the set ℚ, the set of all rational numbers. SpinningSpark 03:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Re: "... the expression is for the set of rational numbers." You see, you yourself do not write "the set of all rational numbers", since all is implied. The plural of a noun can refer to all items, depending on context and use of articles: if I say "cats are animals", I mean "all cats" or "cats in general, with possible exceptions". Sure, I had to write "member of" to allow the use of the set notation in the singular entry for the lovers of the set notation; there is nothing necessary about using the set notation. Put differently, if you use a technical notation that naturally constructs collectives rather than predicates, you have to say "member of". The letter "ℚ" does not work like mantra, neither does the set notation; chanting mathematical symbols and notation as if they were some sort of mantra does not bolster any argument and brings one closer to mysticism. "ℚ" is just a convenience to enable writing things like "x∈ℚ", one that you want to have since you have a short symbol for "∈"--"member of"--while having no such symbol for "is a" AKA "instance of".
  • On another note, let us have a look at what other sources do. Let us first check “rational number”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. and “rational numbers”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. When you follow the latter link and click through Collins, Vocabulary.com, Wikipedia, and "Encyclopedia" (item 5 there), you land on pages that use "rational number" as the leading headword of term. As a second check, have a look at https://www.google.com/#q=define+%22rational+numbers%22, a search that uses plural, and check whether the pages that you find use plural or singular. From what I can see, sources online do not feel the need to define "rational numbers" as something separate that is not sufficiently covered by "rational number". --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
    • To prove that this sense is not covered by the plural of rational number, consider the term open interval. I have never heard someone say "the open intervals" to refer to the set of all open intervals. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 13:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't think that common use of "the rational numbers" in contrast to "the open intervals" to refer to the set of all of them proves that we need to have the entry for "rational numbers" defined as anything else but the plural. We certainly do not need two different or redundant definitions at rational number and rational numbers. If this common use of the plural to refer to all of them is considered an oddity to be highlighted, a usage note at rational number or rational numbers should do, IMHO. Somewhat similarly, we do not have a separate definition at computer to cover the use in which "the computer" does not refer to any particular item taking space but rather to the invention in general. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
      • A quick Google Books search turns up this and this. Given that there are only 19 hits for "the set of open intervals", the rarity of the expression may have something to do with the nature of open intervals as a class rather than with this construction. Perhaps it's because it consists of relations between pairs of numbers rather than numbers sharing a common property. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
        • Open intervals are sets, not relations between pairs of numbers. But okay, I'm convinced. Delete. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 00:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Reduce it to a plural of "rational number". Delete the set rubbish. Equinox ◑ 10:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps our resident mathematician would like to weigh in. Pinging User:msh210... :) - -sche (discuss) 01:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with this sense of the term, but that's an RFV issue. (A quotation like "function on the rational numbers" is not for this sense: it means a function on all of the rational numbers (i.e. the usual plural). I don't know of uses with "The rational numbers is", but cites will tell.) As to RFD: certainly it's a separate sense from the plural-of sense: keep.​—msh210℠ (talk) 07:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

@msh210: I don't think the point of the sense "The set of numbers that ..." is to claim that "the rational numbers" is grammatically used in singular just like "the set". The point seems to be that "the rational numbers" means all of them. I could send the sense to RFV, but I do not think I would be able to require that only the likes of "The rational numbers is" count toward attestation. Furthermore, the use of plural or singular with the likes of "the group of ..." seems to be pondian anyway, so the genus "the set" does not unequivocally force the grammatical singular. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK even in Leftpondia "the set of Xes" is singular; certainly in a math context. I understood the nominated definition as referring to, well, the set, which would always take a singular verb (in a math context at least). If it refers to rational numbers generally, then it's redundant to the other, and delete.​—msh210℠ (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

@msh210, two questions:

• One, when you say "even in Leftpondia 'the set of Xes' is singular", do you mean that you would say something like "integers is those elements of the infinite and numerable set {...,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,...}, and rational numbers is those numbers that [blah blah blah]"? Something about that sounds grammatically "off" to me. Or do you mean that you would say "the set of rational numbers is..."? In that case "is" goes with "set" and makes grammatical sense, but also seems irrelevant, since the entry under discussion is [[rational numbers]], not [[set of rational numbers]]. (We wouldn't add a usage note to [[phonebook]] claiming it is used with a singular verb just because it is possible to say "the set of all phonebooks is...")
• Two, is there any mathematical concept X for which the term that means "the set of all Xs" is not the same written word as the plural form of X? There are some non-mathemetical things for which there exist different terms, e.g. multiple people = "humans" but the set of all people = "humanity". (Even then, "humans" can also mean "the set of all people": "Humans are mammals that [blah blah blah].") It seems to be a rule that the general plural Xs of a word X can mean either "the set of all Xs" or "multiple Xs". For example, I can speak of the "trees" outside my flat, or of all "trees"...

...and if that is a general rule—that plurals can refer to either multiple Xs or the set of all Xs—then it seems appropriate to explain what it takes to be an X in the entry X, not the entry Xs.

(general comment) I think this RFD was ill-formed, and has thus turned into a discussion of whether or not we should give a precise explanation of what it takes to be a rational number. Really, it should be a discussion of whether to give that precise explanation in the singular entry, the plural entry, or both. (Accordingly, I have half a mind to start a RFM once the RFD concludes.) - -sche (discuss) 06:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Ad 1: I mean the latter, and it's relevant because the nominated sense is "The set of numbers that can be expressed as a ratio of integers…". See also below.

Ad 2: You're not using set the way a mathematician uses set, and I read the entry as using it the way a mathematician uses it. So we're speaking past each other a bit here. Let me try to clarify: By set of Xes I mean a single entity, the collection of all Xes. That phrase (set of Xes) takes a singular verb, always. Humans are mammals refers to all humans, not to the set of humans. The set of humans contains some seven billion members refers to the set. Rational numbers refers to any, possibly all, rational numbers, not to the set (AFAIK; again, that's an RFV issue). The nominated sense "The set…" thus is different from the usual-plural sense, which is why I said to keep it, and it one that I doubt can be cited (not that I've looked). I hope I've made my point more clearly.

​—msh210℠ (talk) 07:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Since this discussion is moving in the direction of RFV, let's start looking for citations. Here's one that seems to meet MSh210's criterion,

First, we review his method for showing that the cardinality of the rational numbers is the same as the cardinality of the natural numbers.[28]

The set of rational numbers is clearly meant here even though "rational numbers" is not explicitly preceded by "set of". The claim that the cardinality is the same implies this: clearly, taking any old bunch of rational numbers and comparing with any old bunch of natural numbers will not necessarily result in equal cardinality. SpinningSpark 17:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You cannot pick "any old bunch of rational numbers" using an expression that contains a definite article: "the rational numbers". Your quotation has some merit, but the idea that "the rational numbers" could possibly refer to any old set containing some rational numbers but not all of them not so. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The prefix "the" is relative to context, as is "you". The set of rational numbers given by the number of urinations my dog makes in any day over the number of different trees he uses is not the set in the quotation. Cantor is not talking about my dog pissing up a tree, he is talking about ℚ. SpinningSpark 19:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Using "the" without qualifiers and without cues to the contrary in the context means that you're talking about about the entirety of that which follows, either as a whole or as a class. The fact that someone might say "the British speak English differently than the Americans do" doesn't mean we're talking about left-handed accountants from Derbyshire vs. people who watch w:Duck Dynasty from the Midwest. It's a well-known construction that can be applied to any class of numbers: the irrational numbers, the integers, the natural numbers, the imaginary numbers, the powers of two, the even numbers, the odd numbers, etc. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

After following the above links, I can see that we have a real inconsistency problem in analogous terms, with some entries using this concept, and others using simply "plural of". Chuck Entz (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This really needs to be moved to RFV. If it can be shown to be used with set-related terms, then it should be kept. For example "member of the rational numbers", would support this if it is cited. --WikiTiki89 00:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't support it, any more than "one of my children" would support "children" being anything more than the plural of "child". Equinox ◑ 00:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood me: "one" is not a particularly set-related term, while "member" is. You would never say "this child is a member of my children" unless you were thinking of "my children" as a mathematical set. --WikiTiki89 00:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It makes no difference. If you think we need separate senses at prime numbers (plural), odd numbers (plural), numbers!!! (plural) etc. merely because they can be sets, then perhaps you're right in some arcane branch of mathematics but you are not right in English. This dictionary is English. Equinox ◑ 02:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

And to attempt to put it in slightly more mathematical terms: take any two elements x, y from the set of rationals. I ask you, "Are x and y rational numbers?" Yes, obviously. Each one belongs to the set. It doesn't matter that they don't make up the entire set. It's the same as Fido and Rover being dogs, even though there are other dogs in the world. There is no precedent or lexicographical reason for trying to restrict the plural term to the entire set. Equinox ◑ 02:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

We're not "restricting" the definition; we are adding a second definition. There is a linguistic distinction between using "rational numbers" as the plural of "rational number" and using it as a set. You are right that "prime numbers" and "odd numbers" can be used this way too, as can the plural of any type of anything ("regular polygons", "unit vectors", etc.), which is why I'm starting to think that it would be impossible to include the set definition on each of these terms. I guess it could be considered SOP (or something like that) to use a plural as the name of a set. --WikiTiki89 03:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The best proof of a set-only sense would be: "The rational numbers are made up of rational numbers". Do you think anyone would ever say such a thing? Chuck Entz (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The "best" proof is not always available, so we'll have to settle for the second best. --WikiTiki89 17:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep: Another one of these "shoot-first-ask-questions-later" RfDs. This is a valid definition and I see no reason to arbitrarily limit this project Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 02:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

LOL, if anyone ever "shoots fist" (sic) it's you, Purple. I doubt you'd even want to delete "man wearing a blue hat", because hey, it's words that have a meaning. Equinox ◑ 02:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

We're a dictionary of words, not a dictionary of words...except for a bunch of words a few editors who vote in RfDs arbitralily decide to delete. And, no, I don't shoot first, or fist, because I don't nominate a lot of entries for deletion. Also, my proclivities for voting are hardly germane here because this isn't a SOP RfD. TBH, the only rationale I'm seeing is that the nominator doesn't understand the definition. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 15:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

As suggested by several users above, including some who have voted "keep" in this forum, I have opened a Request for Verification. (That does not, IMO, prevent this RFD discussion from continuing, though it should probably not be closed until the RFV is resolved.) - -sche (discuss) 03:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Isn't the challenged sense a proper noun sense? DCDuring TALK 14:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

mathworld has an entry only for the singular. In that article it says The set of all rational numbers is referred to as the "rationals," and forms a field that is denoted Q. (my bold) SemperBlotto (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, "rationals" is short for "rational numbers" in both the plural sense and the set sense. --WikiTiki89 17:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I will note that statements like "rational numbers form a field" are true only if by "rational numbers" you mean the set of all of rational numbers (equipped with the appropriately defined addition and multiplication). If you choose to interpret this as "given some unspecified set of rational numbers, it forms a field", you will get an obvious falsehood: a single number can never be a field. No, field with one element does not count.

On the other hand, I would expect most languages conflate the two interpretations just like English does. So from a practical standpoint, splitting translation tables would only create editorial burden for little benefit. Keφr 19:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

スカイプ

According to CFI "To be included, the use of the company name other than its use as a trademark (i.e., a use as a common word or family name) has to be attested." スカイプする (Sukaipu suru) gets 50K web hits and 4 book results... Can we call this a -suru verb? Haplogy (話) 01:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

In retrospect it seems like a clear case so maybe I should've just deleted the proper noun section right away and added the common noun and -suru verb myself... I've added them just now. I cheated with the quote however, so if anybody can quote a use of it before this year that would be fantastic. Haplogy (話) 08:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment: スカイプする generally means to have a video chat. If you use Skype as a sound-only free phone, you say 電話する or 通話する. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

vegetable garden

Ummm... sum of parts? Keφr 05:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Either delete or provide an actual definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. --WikiTiki89 09:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. To me, at least, it's a set term for a specific thing. Template:script helper 09:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  Is it a "set term"? I'd like to know what your definition of "set term" is then. The word "vegetable" can be replaced with pretty much anything else that can be grown in a garden. --WikiTiki89 10:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  I suppose I mean that I think of it as a single lexical unit which describes a single specific concept, i.e. I consider this the idiomatic way to express the idea in English. Other languages convey the idea very differently, as the Translations section shows; you can't just translate it by translating "vegetable" + "garden". Template:script helper 15:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  I think we are missing a sense at [[garden]] that implies small size and personal use. All of the translations at [[vegetable garden]] that don't translate to "vegetable + garden" really should be listed as translations of that sense of "garden" (note that I am not speaking generally, but specifically about each of the translations Template:term/t, Template:term/t, Template:term/t, and Template:term/t, all of which I have verified to simply mean "garden"). --WikiTiki89 16:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  Never would you translate French (deprecated template usage) potager as ‘garden’. It means a vegetable garden, or a kitchen garden (literally, somewhere you grow things that go in soup). Template:script helper 16:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  I agree that English "garden" has a broader range of definitions than French "potager", but the definition of "potager" is 100% covered by "garden". In English, you'd be more likely to say "I put some cabbage from the garden into the soup." than "I put some cabbage from the vegetable garden into the soup." --WikiTiki89 16:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  I'm afraid I disagree that it's 100 percent covered by "garden". If someone in French says they're starting a little potager, you cannot say that they're starting a little garden, that's not what they mean at all. Also, bear in mind that a vegetable garden is not necessarily (or even usually) a whole garden – it's a part of a garden where veg is grown. I also note that the OED and Collins, among other dictionaries, have definitions for it. Template:script helper 16:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  What I mean is that "garden" entirely ecompasses "potager", while "potager" does not entirely encompass "garden". If you are starting a potager, you can certainly say that you are starting a "little garden", you'd just be being less specific. The fact that a vegetable garden can be part of a garden means nothing, for example, a "redwood forest" can be part of a larger "forest", but that doesn't make "redwood forest" idiomatic. --WikiTiki89 16:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  No I understand your point (I think), I just don't agree. For me, a vegetable garden is idiomatic in a way that "redwood forest" is not; I think of the first as being one lexical unit and the second as two. Perhaps partly this is because I know it translates to one-word terms in certain languages, perhaps it's just because of the way it's used in sentences. It's hard to quantify, but for me it's absolutely dictionary-worthy (and other dictionaries clearly agree). Template:script helper 17:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  Could you give an example of how you would use it in a sentence in way that demonstrates your point? --WikiTiki89 17:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• The Dutch translation seems non-trivial to me. This, that and the other (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Green grass is a set term, so what? This a dictionary. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't imagine anyone looking this up, unless they don't know what vegetable and garden mean. And if they don't they should see vegetable and garden. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I now think that we should keep this. Though I am struggling to explain why. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep it. Those translations are useful, and would be left dangling in mid-air if this entry was deleted; other languages don't regard compound words as a problem. Donnanz (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete; it's a garden where you grow vegetables. I don't know how to deal with the translation issue, but I don't think translators are going to look up vegetable and garden and then randomly look up vegetable garden (and then maybe enclosed vegetable garden or patio vegetable garden or family vegetable garden).--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

  Well they are if they're trying to translate ‘vegetable garden’. Template:script helper 07:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

  I doubt they can afford to work as a translator if they charge by the word and get a lot of two word translation jobs. Stuff like "It was from Thomas Main that Jefferson bought the thorn plants that enclosed his two orchards and the vegetable garden." is more likely, and I don't see anything that would tell them that they need to look up "vegetable garden" and not "thorn plants".--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep per Widsith. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep at least as a translation target. My tentative personal inclusion criterion: The term has to be useful for translation into at least three languages and the three translated terms (i) must be single-word ones and (ii) they must not be closed compounds. The three single-word non-compound translations: French: potager, Russian огоро́д, Italian ortale. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.​—msh210℠ (talk) 07:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete except if needed as translation target. Not sure what the rules are on that. DAVilla 13:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
• Strong keep, at least as a translation target. Many languages, including mine, have many terms for different kinds of vegetable gardens. We need to be able to collect and compare such terms on a single page. The poverty of the English tongue should not create problems for other languages. --Vahag (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

electric vehicle

Sum of parts. Definitely not a proper noun. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. --WikiTiki89 09:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete obviously, nothing worth discussing. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Deleted SemperBlotto (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Restore and keep this entry, which was deleted too quickly. Nothing obvious here. What's next - steam engine, fire brigade? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, needs to run its course. Restored. DAVilla 12:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess it's worth noting that a hybrid car is not an electric vehicle, so there really is something to define here. DAVilla 12:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, keep it. It was deleted far too quickly. There are a number of types of electric vehicles, including trolleybuses: I have to go to Belgium to find them. Donnanz (talk) 13:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

power flow

As previous. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. --WikiTiki89 09:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I removed all the content that was definitely wrong, and after that the page was empty, so I deleted it. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

インターネットアクセス

SoP -> Internet access? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete インターネット = Internet, アクセス = access in the same senses. "インターネットのアクセス" gets 14 million hits results. Not in any dictionaries except EDICT but it doesn't count. Haplogy (話) 11:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep. It's interesting that the English collocation was borrowed in full into Japanese as one word, "インターネットのアクセス" is a synonymic form with the same meaning. It's verifiable. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

take one's leave

Redundant to take leave. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Should probably remain as a redirect to [[take leave]]. But I'm open to whether there might be differences in usage, eg, degree of formality, dates of usage prevalence of one form or the other, that might warrant including both. DCDuring TALK 12:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• The past participle is wrongly shown for a start, should be taken one's leave. But I think it has a different meaning to take leave, which I would interpret as having a break/holiday/ vacation etc. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/leave-2?q=take+leave#leave-2__10

Donnanz 12:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• It is/was possible to say something like "He took leave of his friends and retired to his quarters." I'm not sure that it has exactly the same meaning or usage distribution as "He took his leave of his friends....". It is at least dated, so that the "take a leave of absence" sense seems much more transparent, ie, SoP. DCDuring TALK 14:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a different expression. --WikiTiki89 15:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  Also, I don't believe it means "to say goodbye", but rather simply "to leave". --WikiTiki89 15:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  take leave has as a sense "to depart"; as definitions depart has "to leave" and leave has "to depart". I'd feel more comfortable if take one's leave were like excusing oneself. "I take leave of you" vs "I take my leave of you" as form of departure and/or excusing yourself. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• There is at least one dictionary for each of take one's leave (2), take leave (14), and take leave of (1), but some of the entries recognize the other forms of the expression. I think all of them should be covered, at least by redirects. Probably take leave of is the one most deserving of being merely a redirect, to [[take leave]], which can take a label noting the "of"-complement.

21st-century usage in the "depart"/"say goodbye" is very uncommon, except in some language-learner books and dictionaries.

Take leave seems to usually mean only "to depart", whereas take one's leave seems to more often refer to a process that includes saying goodbye or excusing oneself, though it is also used to mean simply "to depart". DCDuring TALK 22:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Soft redirects / alternative-forms-of are fine; that's why I said it was redundant when I nominated this. I don't think a separate sense should exist for take one's leave, I think it should tell people it's simply another form of take leave. Any connotations could belong in the Usage Notes section instead. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep either as "alternative form" or as a separate entry. Equinox ◑ 07:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep as soft redirect, BUT we also need to add the reflexive sense to (deprecated template usage) take leave. Template:script helper 18:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

What reflexive sense? --WikiTiki89 18:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Er…I'm not quite sure what was going through my head when I wrote that! Keep, anyway, as alternative form. Template:script helper 19:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

1984

Not quite sure what to do with this. Not an adjective but the proper noun used attributively. Having said that the formal title is Nineteen Eighty-Four not 1984, though 1984 is a Template:term/t working title for Nineteen Eighty-Four. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Not that this particularly means anything, but I have found a few uses like this:

• 1996, Kate Allen, Takes one to know one: an Allison Kaine mystery, page 106:

  There's currently a very 1984 overtone to the whole camp.

and a lot of uses like this:

• 2011, Charles Forbin, The Diaries of Ay'esha: Trapped and Trained, page 171:

  A truly 1984-ish paradox. What had gone down the memory hole?

• 2007, Jerome Sala, What if someone were listening? Contemporary poetry and the problem of popularity, p. 140:

  The poems were then posted on a Library of Congress website, and high school principals were encouraged in the slightly 1984-ish task of reading them over their loud speakers each morning at the beginning of the school day.

• 2011, John E.B. Myers, The APSAC Handbook on Child Maltreatment, page viii:

  All these technologies sound a bit ominous and 1984-ish when taken out of context.

• 2000, G. R. Evans, ‎Martyn Percy, Managing the Church?: Order and Organization in a Secular Age, page 128:

  I have no idea what this 1984-ish-sounding organization actually does, though I suspect it has something to do with industrial processes.

The attachment of "-ish" suggests to me that the unadorned term is not an adjective by itself. bd2412 T 19:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, we should convert this to a noun entry ("a totalitarian society" or something) with the note "often used attributively". Template:script helper 20:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps Template:term/t merits an entry as a single word which is attested. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• I treated this as an RFC and converted the page into a noun entry with citations. Also I created (deprecated template usage) 1984-ish. Template:script helper 07:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Closing, please re-open if disputed. DAVilla 12:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

homo marriage

Obvious SOP added by the author because it applies to his gay lifestyle. --Æ&Œ (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

First of all, you added it yourself. Second of all, you also added homomarriage, so now WT:COALMINE applies unless homomarriage is not citable. If you want it to be deleted, why did you add it? --WikiTiki89 17:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

homomarriage is just homo + marriage. --Æ&Œ (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

You do know about WT:COALMINE, don't you? --WikiTiki89 17:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Is WT:COALMINE a Wiktionary policy? If it is, then that automatically makes it worthless. All that matters is common practice. --Æ&Œ (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes it's a policy, and the common practice happens to be to follow it, despite the editors (including me) who disagree with it. --WikiTiki89 18:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

We don’t need policies; Wiktionary can exist without any policies. --Æ&Œ (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Without policies, there would no criteria for blocking people for making bad edits. --WikiTiki89 18:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah who cares. Let the admins block whomever they want! It’s not like they ever needed reasons, well, aside from the fact that blocking is fun. --Æ&Œ (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Move homomarriage to RFV (and delete both once it fails). Template:script helper 18:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Does this ever mean a gay person's straight marriage of convenience? Including this would seem to be justified, nay, required by our slogan with no justification in CFI for excluding it (even without COALMINE). Similarly for breeder marriage, which is attestable on Usenet from a few different groups. DCDuring TALK 22:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, I would to request the deletion of this entry on the grounds that it’s an idiotic word and I don’t want to be associated with it. My comments above were just me making a damned idiot out of myself as usual. --Æ&Œ (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Liberdade

The name of a neighbourhood. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• On what grounds? SemperBlotto (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

  Being too specific a placename. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. A single-word name of a specific entity. Per WP, it is a part of São Paulo with population over 60,000. Similar entries that we have: Soho--An area of central London’s West End, Tottenham (suburban area), Westminster (A borough of London), Twickenham ("A town in southwest London"), Kensington ("An affluent area of west London"), Wimbledon (A borough of London), Manhattan (borough of New York City). Pertinent regulation: WT:CFI#Names of specific entities. Note, however, that liberdade is a Portuguese common noun meaning liberty. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Updated. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dan Polansky. We have entries for much smaller places. It should also be noted that the place is known for its large Japanese population. While that alone is not a reason to include, we do seem to list places known for a particular reason, such as London's Harley Street, (doctors) and Threadneedle Street, (finance). --Dmol (talk) 07:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

WT:CFI specifically (and correctly) says there is no consensus on this issue, so it is just a matter of voting. I really don't care tbh. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

brimstone

The adjective PoS does not suggest a true adjective rather than attributive use of the noun. The citations could use clean up as they illustrate literary use of the noun attributively. DCDuring TALK 20:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, delete the adjective entry. The citations can be listed under the noun. Donnanz (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

ride the circuit

SoP -> ride + the + circuit court? Also could not find sources apart from this literal sense. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any SoP argument here, did you mean to RFV? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep, if the argument is that this is SoP, because it certainly wasn't obvious to me. Haplogy (話) 11:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Strong keep A lot is wrong with this nomination. For one, it would have to be ride the circuit court to be SoP. For two, the definition pertains to circuits other than those of circuit courts, namely circuits of smalltown churches. For three, the most commonly used definition of circuit is the one dealing with electricity, and this has nothing to do with electricity. For four, since there are multiple definitions of circuit, SOP isn't particularly relevant in this case. For five, SOP is bunk. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 15:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You're right, I meant to RFV. You can move it as appropriate, or cite it here. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

In my experience, the phrase is just "ride circuit", no "the". bd2412 T 21:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I've usually heard "ride the circuit" Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 00:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Motion to close without an RfV: Everybody has voted keep, and the nominator has admitted he'd rather it go to RfV and RfD. However, there are now four references for the term (two each for law and for ministry), spanning at least a decade. Therefore, an RfV isn't need Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 00:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Christmas present

SOP. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete. --WikiTiki89 19:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

SOP. Keφr 19:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

...and birthday present/birthday presents? SpinningSpark 20:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete this, birthday present, and your little dog too. Ba humbugi. DCDuring TALK 21:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Christmas present and birthday present as SOP, but keep and your little dog too. bd2412 T 21:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Santa is noting down all the names that vote delete for this. You'll all be sorry next Christmas. SpinningSpark 21:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep it. Are you spoilsports going to leave all those translations homeless?? Donnanz (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the appeal, but suppose there are a few languages that have a single word for the concept of a blue umbrella, or the smell of spring, or the time half an hour after midnight - would we have entries to accommodate those translations? bd2412 T 23:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes. DTLHS (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
      • There are languages that have words for all of those things, so you'd better create the entries. :] You should also create [[possess a bunchberry plant]], since there's a language which has a word for that. - -sche (discuss) 03:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I no longer believe in the concept of words. DTLHS (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
          • I don’t oppose converting it to a translation target. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete Christmas present and birthday present per nom. - -sche (discuss) 22:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per Donnanz and DTLHS Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 23:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete both Christmas present and birthday present. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 03:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. The whole project is so rife with SOP's that these two don't make the situation any worse. I just added Finnish translation (per request) to illegal immigration and wondered, why the heck we have it. But I guess it's lesser evil to let them be, because RFD'ing them all would totally jam this page. Then I checked illegal immigrant and it has been around since 2006. If I would have to choose between keeping "Christmas present" and "birthday present" versus keeping the two immigration terms, I would certainly choose the presents. Perhaps we should have an authorized "execution squad" which would be authorized to kill SOP's without any formalities. --Hekaheka (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that is that there are cases where one person thinks a term is SOP, but it really isn't. No one on the authorized execution squad would be infallible in their decision. --WikiTiki89 03:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

illegal immigrant is gone. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know how you explain an anti-SoP entry policy to the editors of foreign-language Wiktionaries. https://no.wiktionary.org/wiki/julegave

I suppose if you delete every Christmas-related entry it would keep the atheists, pagans, Jews, Moslems and other non-believers, as well as the North Koreans happy. Donnanz (talk) 10:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

This comment seems off-topic and inflammatory. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete as transparent, if you know what Christmas means and you know what present means, you know what this means. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic? Definitely not - look under Christmas (derived terms). Inflammatory? I guess it depends on how thin-skinned you are. My comment did not target any group in particular, and there's plenty of people who would criticise the celebration of Christmas in any form. Donnanz (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Implying that opposition to the inclusion of Christmas present in a dictionary is opposition to Christmas itself is about as useful as implying that opposition to red tricycle is opposition to tricycles (and also strikes me as somewhat "thin-skinned" itself, but that's beside the point). Do we have entries for graduation present, wedding present, housewarning present, Mother's Day present, Father's Day present, etc.? Is that because we have an agenda against mentioning graduations, weddings, housewarmings, Mother's Day, Father's Day, etc.? I love Christmas. I've given and received Christmas presents, participated in Christmas Eve services, put up Christmas lights and Christmas decorations, not to mention putting Christmas-tree ornaments on Christmas trees. I have fond memories of my family's Christmas traditions and the activities my mom had for us to do during Christmas Vacation. I still need to see good reasons why someone will need to look up Christmas present if they already know what Christmas and present mean. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You seem to think that people only look things up in a dictionary to find out what they mean. Which, firstly, isn't the case, and secondly does not resolve anything because ‘present’ means all kinds of things, most of which are irrelevant to the meaning of ‘Christmas present’. Template:script helper 17:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

What’s this? The Spanish Inquisition? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, who put the cat amongst the pigeons? Donnanz (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I haven't completely made up my mind on this: there have been solid, well-reasoned comments on both sides of the issue. The ones I responded to weren't among those. To first throw in a gratuitous reference to "atheists, pagans, Jews, Moslems and other non-believers, as well as the North Koreans", then to use "thin-skinned" when challenged, seemed a bit much. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

If my comment caused any offence, I apologise. Donnanz (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. It's not that I was particularly offended, but that I didn't like the direction things seemed to be going, and wanted to stop it from going any further in that direction. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. To be honest, I don't know where the main objection lies - is it terms derived from present, or terms derived from Christmas? As far as present is concerned, I have no objection to birthday present or Christmas present, which are very common in usage, and this is reflected by the translation entries in both cases. But I would perhaps draw the line there. Strangely enough, there is no ""Derived terms" section under present (Etymology 2). Donnanz (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep. In the OED (first citation from Samuel Pepys! This is the sort of surprising information that good dictionaries provide). Also, remember that Scrooge is visited by the Ghost of Christmas Present: there the collocation is sum of parts, but in normal use it's a set phrase which calls on a specific noun use of (deprecated template usage) present. Template:script helper 15:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I did not realize we had a second sense of "current Christmas". If that sense is attestable then the entry should be kept, because it is not SOP, as it is not the usual word order for "present Christmas" and stems from its usage in A Christmas Carol. But delete birthday present. --WikiTiki89 19:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Clarification of my vote: Keep the Dickens-derived sense. Delete gift given on Christmas sense. --WikiTiki89 19:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Just added it and I believe it's attestable, A Christmas Carol's' legacy is far-reaching. It should also be kept on the grounds that it's not obvious what sense of present is being referred to in the set phrase Christmas present, whether the literal SOP one or the sense I just added. I have not found a reason not to delete birthday present however, but I'll continue looking for one. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It all goes to show how fickle Wiktionary policy is regarding SoP entries. Donnanz (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's probably more a problem with notions of language than a problem with Wiktionary itself IMO. Wiktionary's mission is to include "all words in all languages", and tries to apply an objective inclusion criteria to inherently subjective interpretations of "words" and "languages", which are constantly changing and evolving. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Further thoughts: Christmas present in this sense uses present as a postpositive adjective, and may be uncountable. Anyway, "Christmas presents" would be the wrong plural. "Christmas present and Christmases past" is quite feasible though. Donnanz (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Further thoughts on this: not all presents given at Christmas are Christmas presents, and not all Christmas presents are given at Christmas. I received some Christmas presents this year in August (from relatives that I rarely see): the point is that I keep them and open them on Christmas Day. Similarly, if I give a friend 20 quid on the 19th December, I might say ‘Consider this a present’ but it would not be a (deprecated template usage) Christmas present – unless I wrapped it up in a box and he put it under his tree until the 25th. There are all kinds of cultural and traditional assumptions involved in this term that are not obvious from (deprecated template usage) Christmas + (deprecated template usage) present. Template:script helper 07:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

  That's not a linguistic phenomenon. They are presents given for Christmas, whether it is on Christmas or in August. --WikiTiki89 20:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

birthday present

Since many have already expressed their opinion that this should also be deleted (and I agree), it should also be explicitly RFDed. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Nope, keep it. I have no objection whatsoever to this entry. Donnanz (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep of course. Template:script helper 20:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete, but I suspect that there may be a second sense of just "wrapped presents", which should be kept if attestable (for example, "The store was decorated with stacks of birthday presents."). --WikiTiki89 20:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• (In case it wasn't clear from the previous section) Keep Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Note to whoever closes this, my vote on this entry (like some other users' votes on it) is in the previous section. - -sche (discuss) 20:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Same (which was delete). Mglovesfun (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Same here (also delete). bd2412 T 19:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 19:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Once again, don't forget the translations which several users have taken the effort to enter (not me - yet). Donnanz (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

  Translations are really not a good reason to keep an SOP term. --WikiTiki89 16:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

  I disagree. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

  Take for example "I eat" or "I am eating". As far as I know, a large percentage of all languages that exist can say that in one word: Arabic آكُلُ (ʔākulu), Spanish como, Polish jem, etc. That does not mean that we need to include I eat and I am eating to host those translations. --WikiTiki89 23:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

  Wiktionary's mission is to include "all words in all languages". I want to see your definition of what "word"/"term"/"lemma" you consider to be appropriate or legitimate in a dictionary. Does man wearing a blue hat (Equinox) constitute a legitimate "word"? Or I am not a potato. But I'll give a brief explanation of why I don't consider myself a potato? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

  User:Wikitiki89, while we might not have I am eating, it would probably behoove us to have an explanation of the progressive tense, which exists in English but not in romance languages. However, in general, I believe that we are being too hasty in deleting entries of more than one word. This is an example of one that shouldn't be deleted. television show is another. Our job is to have a dictionary that can explain any definition anybody anywhere could possibly want Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 00:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

  The progressive tense is irrelevant to the point I was making. I was saying that we don't need to include those terms just because a single-word translation exists in a multitude of languages. As for explaining definitions, birthday and present explain perfectly well what a birthday present is. --WikiTiki89 00:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Having researched the term, I cannot find any conclusive evidence that this is not sum of parts. Therefore, delete TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's a pretty accurate observation, it's a sum of parts, three to be precise: birth + day + present. By some quirk of fate birth + day were combined in this sense, so that leaves us dealing with birthday + present. The page for present redirects users to gift for translations, but how often is it referred to as a birthday gift? Yes, there's an entry for that too, so you can have even more fun! Personally, I prefer the term birthday present; it's what I'm used to. Donnanz (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

in en-US or en-GB? I believe the term present by itself is used more widely than gift anyway, so the comparison between "birthday present" and "birthday gift" would be redundant. If you want we can nominate "birthday gift" as well. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I use British English. Donnanz (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

There are many set terms whose meanings are perfectly transparent, it doesn't mean they should be deleted. I don't see how this is any different from, say, (deprecated template usage) tennis ball. Template:script helper 11:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it may be cultural and not completely obvious that the present is given to the person celebrating their birthday, not the other way around. Still, keeping on those grounds would allow for pretty much every type of present, for which that's almost universally the case. Weak delete this and gift, though I would consider allowing as a translation target despite the slippery slope arguments above. DAVilla 12:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 18:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

birthday gift

Same as above. --WikiTiki89 00:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete as above. bd2412 T 00:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete for the same reasons as Christmas present. - -sche (discuss) 01:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete as above. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 02:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 06:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• I knew this would happen. Both should be kept for a variety of reasons. They are synonyms for a start, and not everyone may be aware of that, especially foreign users who may not have the time nor inclination to work it all out if both entries are deleted. Donnanz (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

  They are synonyms because present and gift are synonyms, making them all the more SoPpy. --WikiTiki89 18:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete as I foretold. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. Template:script helper 15:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons I outlined in Christmas present and birthday present above Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 20:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• I would like to make one qualification to my above !votes. If Christmas present is kept, then birthday present should also be kept as an example of the same formation, and vice versa; if birthday present is kept, then birthday gift should be kept as a synonym. Therefore, if there are any of these does not end end up having a consensus to delete, then I would prefer to see all of them kept, for consistency. bd2412 T 21:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

  Even if Christmas present is kept just for its other sense? --WikiTiki89 01:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  I think that it is highly unlikely that the determination as to Christmas present will hinge on the second sense introduced. bd2412 T 19:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  Oh really? --WikiTiki89 19:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  Given that you are the only editor who would keep one and delete the other, yes, really. bd2412 T 21:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  1. Considering how close the vote is currently, my vote could be the deciding one. 2. I think most people who voted to delete the original RFD'd sense would support keeping the Dickens-derived sense. --WikiTiki89 21:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  We don't really have "deciding votes"; the closing administrator will make a determination based on policy and consensus. bd2412 T 22:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  And also based on the votes. --WikiTiki89 22:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  I don't know why you have that impression, but we have "RfD", not "VfD" here. bd2412 T 13:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Note: both of these terms seems to pass the "tennis player" test at WT:IDIOM. Template:script helper 09:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  Please explain, because I don't see how they could pass. Frankly, I don't see how tennis player passes either. --WikiTiki89 19:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Because there's no other word - tenniser doesn't exist, though it's tennisser in Dutch. Donnanz (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

There's no other word for the cat stuck in the tree, that doesn't mean we should include it. --WikiTiki89 20:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

But no one thinks we should. Unlike this. Template:script helper 08:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The entry for tennis player was kept because we decided to keep similar entries, mostly on the grounds that they were professional titles. You wouldn't call anyone who plays tennis a tennis player. Your argument for keeping it doesn't explain why we have soccer player despite footballer. DAVilla 12:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

That decision was a bad one. The frequency of phrases like "bad tennis player", "poor tennis player" shows that it is often used for non-professionals. Equinox ◑ 20:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Even tennis player doesn't pass the tennis player test. The discussion just got botched. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete (ergo same as my vote above). Mglovesfun (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 18:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

chè sâm bổ lượng

Sum of parts: chè + sâm bổ lượng. The latter is a noun taken as an adjective, but any construction of chè + <name of dish> is unnecessary. Suggest deleting definition and moving it as alternative form of sâm bổ lượng. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Occupied Kashmir

SOP: [[occupied]] [[Kashmir]]. As demonstrated by the citations I just added, the Indians use it to refer to the parts occupied by Pakistan, the Pakistanis use it to refer to the parts occupied by India. Compare Occupied Ireland, the Occupied Golan Heights, Occupied Tibet, Occupied Palestine, Occupied Israel, Occupied Germany ({{cx|historical}}), Occupied Japan ({{cx|historical}}), Occupied Gibraltar ({{cx|rare}})... - -sche (discuss) 02:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete as SOP. All entries from this user (currently blocked) need to be checked. Widespread POV violations and many others are SOP. I'll try and go through some later.--Dmol (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Good luck! I did my best to keep up with them back in August, but eventually got tired of it. The main problem is that they're going into great detail about things that nobody outside the region really knows or cares about- it takes a lot of research to spot where they're taking liberties, and even more to figure out the best NPOV alternative to their version. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I was going to say add the sense to occupied but it's already there. Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. This is a political status, not an etymological status. bd2412 T 15:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Molotov cocktail

The second definition of this entry appears to be nothing but a technical variant on the basic concept of a simple bomb consisting of a bottle filled with flammable material designed to explode on impact. Defining a highly specific type of design as a separate dictionary definition would be akin to having separate definitions for firebombs for numerous technical solution. And as pointed out at WT:RFV#Molotov cocktail, it would be difficult to motivate that numeros other "recipes" for Molotov cocktails should not have separate definitions as well.

193.181.1.138 07:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC) (Peter Isotalo as IP-user due to vandalism block for this edit)

• Delete. Difference is merely technical. Same basic idea. Kaldari (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. As was already mentioned somewhere, different recipes for cakes don't need separate definitions. --WikiTiki89 01:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per WikiTiki. - -sche (discuss) 01:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
• Broaden the first sense to encompass the second, and then delete the second. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 08:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

  Agree. First def is particularly the case. DAVilla 11:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

multi-word

Sum of parts. Multi-(insert noun here) can be used to construct any adjective, and this does not add anything new semantically. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep without question. multiword is a variant spelling. Donnanz (talk) 10:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Hm, didn't know we had that one. I suppose I can wait and see what other editors think about this one; would probably have to apply WT:COALMINE judgement though. And possibly result in this being labeled {{alternative form of}} to softredirect to the other one. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per WT:COALMINE. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 11:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't keep per COALMINE but because of 'all words in all languages'. It's a single word, not two words linked with a hyphen. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

On that basis you would delete a sizeable chunk of Wiktionary. Would you delete words such as multi-ethnic because it doesn't meet your personal criteria? That spelling is listed by Oxford. There can be variations between American and British treatment of words, I find that words like this are more likely to be hyphenated in British English. Donnanz (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood: he's saying keep because of the other reason, not because of COALMINE. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

If I misunderstood, I was misled by the last sentence "It's a single word, not two words linked with a hyphen." Is it ambiguous? Donnanz (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

No, not saying it's ambiguous. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

On the off-chance you want to continue this, WT:CFI says all words in all languages. It also says they must be attested and idiomatic. Further down, it actually says "An expression is “idiomatic” if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components." Debatably multi-word isn't an expression, it's a word, so this sentence doesn't apply. There are no criteria for what makes a word idiomatic or not. Ergo default to line #1 “all words in all languages” and this passes. Objections? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

No objections to closure. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep without question. DAVilla 12:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep. Equinox ◑ 20:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Kept --Back on the list (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

commit suicide

Sum of parts: commit + suicide. As the same with commit homicide, regicide, genocide, patricide, infanticide... etc. Also on commit#verb sense 3 we have: "Thou shalt not commit adultery." TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Well, looking from another angle, you don't do suicide, nor make suicide, you commit suicide. It should be kept. And there's a load of translations. Donnanz (talk) 10:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict)You sure you can't "do suicide"? You can make all the same arguments for all the other constructions, and they'd still be sum of parts; our entry at commit already covers this. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

  The fact that you "commit" rather than "do" suicide has more to do with the peculiarities of -cide: if there were a Latin-based morpheme blurg, you would "commit blurgicide" rather than "do blurgicide". Chuck Entz (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: I didn't have time to develop my thought because I was going to be late for work. Here's what I meant to say: basically commit is the preferred verb in a specific semantic environment: you commit "a crime, sin, or fault", as it says in definition #3 of the verb. When someone jokes about "committing insecticide", the humor comes from the way that it sets up a conflict between the idea of insects being lower life forms that you buy chemicals to kill and the "commit Xcide" construction that you would use for various classes of murder (patricide, matricide, fratricide, sororicide, etc.). Suicide, being a very terrible deed, is quite regular in taking commit. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. No one says ‘commit homicide’ except police spokesmen (let alone ‘matricide’ etc.), but ‘commit suicide’ is the normal idiomatic way to express the idea in English. Template:script helper 08:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• Delete SOP. The translations can be hosted at suicide#Verb. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 11:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep if only for the translations ("translation target"); while German "Selbstmord begehen" is a word-for-word translation, Romanian "sinucide", Italian "suicidarsi" and Spanish "suicidarse" not so. suicide#Verb is a poor location for translations, since the verb is unidiomatic in the sense of "not most characteristic or usual means of expression"; for this check committed suicide, suicided at the Google Ngram Viewer.. As for other dictionaries, Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary has this; see also “commit suicide”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. See also commit suicide, kill oneself, kill himself, kill herself at the Google Ngram Viewer., which shows "commit suicide" to be the most common expression of the notion. See also commit suicide, commit homicide, commit genocide, commit infanticide, commit regicide, commit patricide at the Google Ngram Viewer. to see how common this is relative to the other phrases. So the other non-CFI card I would play is "set phrase". My personal tentative criterion for translation target: The term has to be useful for translation into at least three languages and the three translated terms (i) must be single-word ones and (ii) they must not be closed compounds. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Irritatingly I think this is a delete as not idiomatic. I suppose per Dan Polansky, what's the point of having Category:English non-idiomatic translation targets if you then delete all the non-idiomatic stuff from Wiktionary. Still, I think WT:CFI and the de facto CFI both say delete on this one. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

 Delete as SOP. If you think it's that important we let readers know that "commit suicide" is the customary locution, you could supply an appropriate usex or two under suicide. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Usage examples in "suicide" entry do not allow translation. They do not make it possible to link all the synonyms in other languages to commit suicide and traverse the translation graph through it, such as Spanish suicidarse --> English commit suicide --> German Selbstmord begehen. By the way, here is Duden: Selbstmord begehen, where "Selbstmord begehen" can be understood from Selbstmord and begehen. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. --WikiTiki89 18:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete as SOP, even though suicide does show a great deal of commitment. Note that there are also a fair number of hits for "perform suicide". bd2412 T 19:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

  The frequency ratio is overwhelmingly in support of "commit suicide": commit suicide, perform suicide at the Google Ngram Viewer.; committed suicide, performed suicide at the Google Ngram Viewer.. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

  The frequency ratio of "eat breakfast" is overwhelmingly in support of that usage over any other synonym of "eat", but that only shows that when it comes to consuming food, the most common verb to use is "eat". When it comes to engaging in an act that is generally deemed criminal or wrongful (suicide, murder, adultery, burglary, a faux pas), the corresponding verb is "commit". bd2412 T 05:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  With breakfast, the verb breakfast seems to be nearly as common as "eat breakfast". Thus, if the sense is only hosted at the verb breakfast, it is on a term that is actually very often used for the sense, unlike when "to commit suicide" would only be hosted on the verb suicide. Searches: had breakfast,breakfasted,ate breakfast at the Google Ngram Viewer.. "ate breakfast" is not even the most common term of the three. By the way, I searched for past tense, since otherwise the present-tense "breakfast" would also find noun occurrences. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• One more note: You can think of this as a semantic analogue of WT:COALMINE: if a concept AKA sense has two synonyms of which one is unequivocally a single word while the other one is more common, the more common one should be kept. In this case, the verb suicide will clearly be kept even though it is quite rare; the concept or sense will be there in Wiktionary, albeit on the wrong headword: suicide (verb). --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

  By that logic, the existence of I'm is a reason to have I am. You can't just make up policies on the spot, they should be voted on. --WikiTiki89 01:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  The term "muckamuck" gets 2810 hits at Google Books. The phrase "someone important" gets 49,100, "a person of great importance" gets 43,400, "an important guy" gets 6,970- do you see where this is heading? Chuck Entz (talk) 03:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  big cheese,big gun,big kahuna,top dog,big noise,big shot,bigwig,big wheel,head honcho,someone important,person of great importance,important guy at the Google Ngram Viewer. shows that the terms you listed are not the most common terms for the sense. I admit that my formulation of the semantic coalmine has to be fixed, to only allow the most common synonym even if it is semantically transparent. The idea is that when we include a sense, we should also include it on the headword that is most characteristic for the sense; if the most characteristic headword turns out to be sum of parts, that should not prevent us from including it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. Template:script helper 07:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. As Dan Polansky said, the value of translations is enough to keep this entry. ¦ hyark digyik 12:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Dan Polansky. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
• Keep --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

starting price

"The opening price for an item at an auction", redundant to "Used other than as an idiom." Mglovesfun (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think it's different from the reserve price. An item can be withdrawn from an auction if it doesn't reach the reserve price set by the seller. I guess an auction has to start somewhere pricewise. Donnanz (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  I don't see what point you're trying to make. An auction needs to start at some price, and that price is referred to, unidiomatically, as the "starting price". --WikiTiki89 19:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Donnanz, what relevance are you proposing, if any? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

An auction has to start at a certain price, whether it's a penny, pound, £100 or whatever. I guess it depends on the perceived value of the item. The reserve price could be set above the starting price - "bidding did not reach the reserve price". Donnanz (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok perhaps I was unclear, what relevance to the discussion of the deletion of this sense of 'starting price'? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• If you think it's redundant to "Used other than as an idiom", then why did you add that sense? Anyway, it's a set term in bidding/auctions, otherwise I don't see how it's obvious what exactly is being "started". It's no more literal than the horse racing sense, even though the meanings are diametrically opposed: in bidding, it's the first price (i.e. when the bidding starts), in racing it's the last price (i.e. when the race starts). Template:script helper 19:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
• See also the OED: "starting-price n. (a) the price at which the bidding at an auction is started; (b) Horse Racing the final odds on a horse at the time of starting". Template:script helper 19:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  In the horse-racing sense, the meaning is the opposite of what you'd expect. In the auction sense, it is exactly what you would expect. --WikiTiki89 20:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  I feel that we just have different ideas about what a dictionary is, because to me the fact that you find the meaning obvious is completely beside the point. There are lots of things in a dictionary with transparent meanings. But it is by no means obvious that English would express the idea in this way. In French, it's called the "initial price", which would be equally obvious in English, but we don't generally say that. We say "starting price". It's a set term, and the only one that you would use in this situation. If you don't know about bidding at an auction, you would have no idea what to call it (even though you would obviously understand what someone meant if they said it). That is what good dictionaries record: what terms are actually used for such things, how long have they been in use, how would you translate them, where does the stress fall in pronunciation of such two-word terms, etc. etc. Template:script helper 20:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not a set term in bidding, bidding uses the unidiomatic sense. Saying it's a bidding terms isn't untrue it's just misleading. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Basically your definition is unacceptably inaccurate, mine isn't. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• You could say "initial price". It may be less common, but it's the exact same thing. --WikiTiki89 20:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  To me there s a clear difference between what people could say and what they do, in fact, choose to say 90 percent of the time, and that is perhaps partly what I mean by ‘set term’. Template:script helper 20:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  So what's the threshold percentage? --WikiTiki89 20:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't realise that this is a brand new entry. I suggest it is restored to the original as entered by Widsith. Donnanz (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  A lot more than just auctions have starting prices. That is what {{&lit}} is for. --WikiTiki89 20:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  You might be right, but like what exactly? If the vast majority of citations are about bidding, then to me it makes sense to have a definition line which explains it properly, rather than just saying "look up (deprecated template usage) starting and (deprecated template usage) price" (by the way, what sense of (deprecated template usage) starting do you think is being used here?). I don't think it's helpful to users, I think it's a way for editors to score points. (I see that there may be a specific sense in stocks and shares as well.) Template:script helper 07:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, fine. I have added the abbreviation SP to the horse racing sense. Donnanz (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• I have created an entry for reserve price, and linked it to this one. Donnanz (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

That one's totally not obvious from the sum of its parts. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's kind of stupid to have a reserve price higher than the starting price. Why is that done? --WikiTiki89 22:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea. Maybe the reserve price is not disclosed before the auction. Donnanz (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It is done to encourage bidding to begin and to get bidders fighting each other for an item. The reserve price is not known to the bidders. The auctioneer may start by asking for bids much lower than the reserve price. If he gets no bids, he asks for a lower bid until someone is willing to start. SpinningSpark 15:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, SpinningSpark. Donnanz (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes thanks! I did not realize the bidders don't know the reserve price. --WikiTiki89 23:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• If this were actually a true set phrase then we wouldn't find modifiers of price inserted after starting. But one can find, for example, asking, ask, and bid. And coordinate expressions can be inserted as well, eg, or reserve.

Opening price, starting price, and initial price all seem seem to refer to the same thing, all occurring in significant numbers in Books, none having even the majority of the total of usage in proximity to auction. I can't tell if there is some difference in the context in which they are used. This looks like our standard enthronement of a single SoP term when multiple SoP terms exist. DCDuring TALK 00:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Well in regard to your first point, (deprecated template usage) fried egg is enshrined as a set term in WT policy and it is very easy to find evidence for "fried hen's egg", "fried chicken's egg" etc. Template:script helper 08:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a pleasure, it's a great pleasure, it's been a pleasure, etc. Doesn't seem like a very strong argument. DAVilla 11:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Terms used in discourse are included not because they are set, but because they are commonly used in discourse. I think that set phrase is includable here principally because it is a misonomer. If we would care to define set phrase to include many kinds of insertions and not just inflectional variation, we may as well use the term snowclone instead. DCDuring TALK 17:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Does it make sense to say that the starting price of the iPhone was $599 if that was the price that it sold for upon initial release? At the very least, that's not a very clear way to express that little factoid in words. The phrase starting price implies an auction or at least some kind of negotiation, which is an understanding that can't be derived from the parts. Keep. DAVilla 11:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It speaks for itself. DCDuring TALK 14:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

"Technical term" is thrown about to often here when it's just the general term used in a specific field. We don't have special baseball and cricket senses for 'throw' and 'catch' because there aren't any; just the general use term used in those specific fields. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

This is perhaps going off on a tangent, but actually ‘throw’ does have a specific meaning in cricket inasmuch as it is distinguished from ‘bowling’ by being performed with the arm bent. On your general point though, you may be right, I think most of these discussions come from a basic disagreement between editors who either ‘feel’ something to be a set term or who don't, and a lot of the terminology like ‘technical term’ and ‘set phrase’ are ways for people to try to express that feeling which ultimately cannot be pinned down by legislation (no matter how much we try!). Template:script helper 14:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I'm stating the obvious here, but starting price for an iPhone is a completely different sense for starting price in an auction. The auction sense is the initial price offered, but not necessarily the price actually paid; the iphone sense is the the price of the lowest priced item (and the price actually paid) of a range of similar items of increasing value/quality. SpinningSpark 15:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that is the sense intended in most of the hits at my Iphone/starting price search. The one I picked is unfortunately ambiguous.

The mechanics are certainly different among, say, an auction, retail selling, and supply-contract negotiation. But even in a retail setting, the price the customer pays need not be the quoted price. For example, there are coupons and loyalty-program discounts. Retail pricing for tech goods is something like a long-term Dutch auction, with the retailer offering goods with lower and lower prices over time.

I just don't see that a dictionary is the place to document the vast range of institutional possibilities, when the terms used are not unique, even in one usage context. I also don't see that we should enthrone any one particular usage context's usage just because a contributor has a familiarity or a lack of familiarity with that context. DCDuring TALK 17:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You are missing the point. It is beside the point that a customeer can negotiate a price with the retailer. The iPod meaning of "starting price" is still not the price at which a negotiation started. It is the price of the basic model, as opposed to the model with all the extras, or the model with the faster processor, bigger engine etc. The auction meaning is not simply a different usex, it is an entirely different sense. The fact that you have just managed to conflate those two meanings convinces me that I ought to be saying keep to this. SpinningSpark 18:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It might be that for this single instance, which is ambiguous, the term might be synonymous with "base price". There are many usage contexts in which the phrase "starting price" can be used, with various possible meanings, none of which have any special status, given the evidence presented so far. The existence of multiple meanings is highly likely when polysemous terms are involved. DCDuring TALK 18:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

A starting price is the price at the start of something, whether it's the start of bidding in an auction or the start of selling a new product. When you say "starting price", you don't imply either one of these. You just have to know from context. --WikiTiki89 20:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

unspoken rule

Completely covered by (deprecated template usage) unspoken + (deprecated template usage) rule. --Hekaheka (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

unwritten rule

• Ditto.

Keep both; an unspoken rule remains an unspoken rule even if it is "spoken", and the same goes for an unwritten rule. For example:

• 2002, Susan Barksdale, ‎Teri Lund, Rapid Strategic Planning, page 22:

  The employees are well compensated and it is an unspoken rule that leaving early is not acceptable, and most employees are at their desks at least an hour before they are scheduled to begin the day's work.

Obviously, what is described here as an "unspoken" rule had to have been conveyed to the author at some point, probably by someone speaking the rule. bd2412 T 02:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

That isn't obvious at all. Reading this, I would assume the author deduced the rule from observation rather than because someone told her about it directly. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Even so, this author has now written it down. Is it still an unspoken/unwritten rule, once it has been spoken/written? I think it is, and therefore exceeds the literal meaning of the phrase. bd2412 T 13:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

What's the relationship between this and gentleman's agreement? It seems more like they are constructed as synonyms of gentleman's agreement rather than constructed as unspoken + rule. If it can be demonstrated that they are close to synonymous, we can perhaps preserve it as an {{alternative form of}} redirect to gentleman's agreement. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Is there something in the definition of "unspoken rule" that the definition #2 of "unspoken" does not cover? --Hekaheka (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

A gentleman's agreement is not the same thing at all. A gentleman's agreement is freely entered into; an unspoken rule may have an element of coercion, it at least does not imply willing compliance. A gentleman's agreement is a contract (albeit a legally unenforceable one) where both parties derive some benefit; for an unwritten rule the benefit is entirely one way - from the rule subject to the rule maker. A gentleman's agreement is not necessarily unwritten and it is certainly never unspoken. SpinningSpark 09:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It's closer to the idea of a (societal) norm, used within smallish groups (a village, a workplace, a family, or even between two people). Breaking one might be a faux pas, and may lead to sanctions like the silent treatment or ostracism (consider that people may not want to explain what you did wrong). — Pingku^dimmi 11:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think they should be treated as synonyms. An unspoken rule is something accepted tacitly, whereas an unwritten rule may be mentioned, but not recorded in writing. Not quite the same. Donnanz (talk) 10:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Weak keep unspoken rule, not sure about unwritten rule. DAVilla 12:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Delete both and add proper senses to unwritten and unspoken. Many things can be unwritten or unspoken such as __ secret, __ convention, __ lie, __ tension, etc., all of which apply even if these things are written or spoken. --WikiTiki89 14:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

  Apparently these senses are already there, so the terms are 100% SOP. --WikiTiki89 14:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete both. Neither unspoken rule nor unwritten rule are synonymous with gentleman's agreement in my experience. An unwritten or unspoken rule is one that is unwritten or unspoken at the time it is effective between the parties. The actions of observers and the subsequent actions of the participants are completely irrelevant. DCDuring TALK 14:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• I would keep them, but the definitions need revising; they are rather nonsensical. Donnanz (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep both at least as a translation target. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Keep both. Idiomatic. If an unwritten or unspoken rule is written or spoken that doesn't suddenly change their meaning. The definition needs refining though, since they are not really rules per se but conventions or norms. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

  But this is a property of the words Template:term/t and Template:term/t. Not everything unwritten or unspoken is actually never written or never spoken. We have senses at both terms that cover the meaning of Template:term/t and Template:term/t. — This unsigned comment was added by Wikitiki89 (talk • contribs) at 03:35, 3 January 2014.

• Keep both. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

‎in one stroke, ‎at a single stroke, at a stroke, at one stroke

All created at a single stroke. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Non-idiomatic Vietnamese words

The following pages contain classifiers, which serve the same grammatical function as English articles (though more descriptive). I think they should be deleted because they are non-idiomatic (the forms given in parentheses should not be deleted):

• cái võng (=võng)
• cây điều (=điều)
• cây keo (=keo)
• cây sa kê (=sa kê)
• cây thông rụng lá (=thông rụng lá)
• cây xương rồng (=xương rồng)
• con cóc (=cóc)
• con ếch (=ếch)
• con giòi (=giòi)
• con muỗi (=muỗi)
• con nhím (=nhím)
• con rận (=rận)
• đàn ghi-ta (=ghi-ta)
• quả sa kê (=sa kê)
• quả sầu riêng (=sầu riêng)
• quả táo (=táo)
• sự hy sinh (=hy sinh)
• sự giải quyết (=giải quyết)
• trái chà là (=chà là)
• trái mít (=mít)
• trái sa kê (=sa kê)
• trái vú sữa (=vú sữa)

I don't think Wiktionary should have articles like "cái võng", which means "a hammock" (as opposed to "võng", which means "hammock"). Also, "sự giải quyết" is considered a word with a classifier in front, not a word per se. (This means there will never be a Vietnamese entry with the definition "decision".) I'm less sure about deleting the tree (cây) and fruit (quả, trái) entries, because we do have entries like "apple tree". Note that not all entries named with classifiers are problematic: "quả đất" would be perfectly fine, because it means "Earth", not "ball of dirt".

See also Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits#Non-idiomatic Vietnamese words.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 10:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete those that seem problematic. I'm curious about nouns with the nominaliser "sự", though, such as sự hy sinh, sự giải quyết. Do you always treat them as non-lemma forms? What about sự kiện vs kiện? Is that a different case? We could use [[giải quyết]] as a lemma for "to decide" but [[sự giải quyết]] is a translation for "decision". So a valid translation for "decision" would be sự giải quyết (vi) where "sự giải quyết" is displayed but linked to the verb "giải quyết". Perhaps an approach for Japanese -suru verbs can be taken, e.g. 勉強 has both noun and verb sections. Thus, nouns with "sự" could all be linked to verbs/adjectives without them. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

What helps in determining whether or not a word fits the idiomaticity requirement of CFI is the prevalence of the expression in general use as well as the semantic weight each individual expression can carry. "frog" has as much semantic equivalence as "the frog" for example, and even when the latter is more grammatically correct and more commonly used, most people are apt to understand just the former by itself as well. Does the classifier carry any semantic weight with it? Your example quả đất is a good starting point, as it indicates that when the literal translation "ball of dirt" is extended to its logical conclusion, it becomes "Earth" in its totality. The initial classifier quả changes the meaning slightly yet significantly. I think we would have to make similar considerations, such as sự giải quyết ("the act of deciding" = "decision") for example. Does "decision" have anything semantically new that is not provided by "the act of deciding"? As for precedent, I think it's great in discouraging future redundancies such as "muỗi" and "con muỗi"; I don't think there should be equivalent entries at "mosquito" and "the mosquito" for example. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if you like the idea but I suggest to have sự-nouns in the entries without them. E.g. see this revision of hy sinh where I added a noun section (and other things) - {{vi-noun|head=[[sự]] [[hy]] [[sinh]]}}. To an English speaker "sự hy sinh" is a noun meaning "sacrifice", even if the lemma form is "hy sinh". "sự hy sinh" could be formatted as an "Alternative form of hy sinh" or a "sự-noun form (or similar) of hy sinh" if a template is created. I have created Category:Vietnamese sự-nouns, which now contains just one entry - "hy sinh" but perhaps "sự hy sinh" should be there instead? Not sure if redirect is the best option, users might want to know what this "sự" means and why we have two forms - "hy sinh" and "sự hy sinh".

With the living creatures too, a Vietnamese translation of "toad" is "con cóc". It seems both "cóc" and "con cóc" mean the same thing - "a toad". Many dictionaries use "con cóc" to translate "toad" even if "con" can be dropped. Not sure if "toad" and "the toad" is a good analogy here or even Mandarin or Japanese measure words (counters or classifiers). E.g. Mandarin 蟾蜍 (chánchú) is never used in dictionaries as 只蟾蜍 (zhī chánchú) (classifier + noun). Vietnamese "con" must have a much wider usage. Perhaps another category for "con-" nouns should be created. Sorry, my knowledge of the Vietnamese grammar is very basic but I'm thinking from the users' point of view. Using "cls=con" in Vietnamese noun entries is not a bad idea but perhaps con-nouns should also exist? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

As I have never used the word sự in regular Vietnamese I cannot speak to that, but what I can say is that the word con and the like are really semantically empty categories, save for a few specific situations. Why do we omit particles a/an/the from our entries even though they are so commonly and widely used? We have seen and heard many ESL learners even omit these words when they try to speak English, and their utterances remain perfectly understandable. It is because these particles are semantically empty categories, they are only used as specifiers in number and specificity. If you were to omit the word the from your paragraph above, it is still semantically parsable even as it is grammatically incorrect. Similarly, a Vietnamese speaker would simply tell you that omitting the classifiers is grammatically incorrect, but they'd still be able to understand what you were trying to say (save for a few ambiguous homonyms where classifiers are expected, but again homonyms exist in English too, and besides those may warrant separate entries). The majority of these are rather silly and redundant entries for a dictionary to have, like nhím and con nhím, duplicating the entire contents of one onto the other. This extra maintenance, we do not need, it provides more work for us should something change, and it takes up empty space. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I certainly agree that we want to help readers find out how to turn "hy sinh" into a noun, but calling "hy sinh" a noun is misleading. It really is a verb. The "sự" is understood if you try to use "hy sinh" like a noun; indeed, "sự" is very rare in spoken Vietnamese, only used to disambiguate e.g. "sự chết" (death) from "cái chết" (a death). Why not simply treat "sự hy sinh" as a usage example? We can definitely have Category:Vietnamese con nouns and the like for actual nouns, but I would expect Category:Vietnamese verbs classified by sự rather than Category:Vietnamese sự-nouns. If necessary, I can add a cls parameter to {{vi-verb}} that doesn't display the classifier but instead adds the entry to a "classified by" category.

"Con cóc" can be the Vietnamese translation of "toad" just as "hy sinh" would be translated as "to sacrifice" rather than just "sacrifice". That is, I have no problem with mentioning the classifiers in translation sections, but they don't usually warrant separate entries. And I think the classifier should be linked separately, if at all.

We should make an exception for Sino-Vietnamese terms like "sự kiện" (事件). As far as Vietnamese is concerned, "sự" and "kiện" are just syllables.

One point I neglected to make is that "cây táo" (apple tree) would probably be acceptable, because "táo" on its own refers to the fruit, as in English. "Cây" can still be omitted (e.g., "trồng táo" to grow apple trees, not just the apples). In contrast, "bạch dương" (poplar) on its own refers to the tree, so "cây bạch dương" is redundant.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 09:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, you yourself suggested to delete the "sự" nouns. I was just thinking of a way to allow such entries.

I want you to consider the Japanese analogy again, where the situation is the same but verbs and nouns swap their placec with Vitenamese. 勉強 (benkyō, "studying, studies") is a noun and a verbal noun. To form a verb, you need to add する (suru, "to do") to the end. Rather than having a separate entry for "勉強する", which means "to study". The entry for 勉強 contains a verb section, which displays 勉強する in the header. I've done the same thing for "sự hy sinh" (only it's a noun made from a verb, the reverse from Japanese), which is in the verb entry "hy sinh" but now has a noun section and displays "sự hy sinh" in the header. This resolves the lemma problem, IMO. It remains to be discussed whether "sự hy sinh" gets a special entry or a hard/soft redirect to the lemma form "hy sinh". Re: but calling "hy sinh" a noun is misleading. If you examine the "hy sinh" entry carefully, you will see that it's not "hy sinh" but "sự hy sinh", which is a noun. If they don't warrant a separate entry, they can be turned to redirects but the information should be saved into separate sections in the lemma entries. Cases like "sự kiện" may get separate entries, no problem with that. Other words like "con cóc" can be treated similarly but there shouldn't be any information loss for users.

I have renamed the category as suggested -Category:Vietnamese verbs classified by sự. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete. sự kiện is fundamentally different from "sự hy sinh". Wyang (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Keep, since I find the stated reason for deletion implausible: "The following pages contain classifiers, which serve the same grammatical function as English articles ...". The claim that the leading syllables serve the same grammatical function as English articles is hard to believe: "cây" is also a noun meaning tree, "quả" is also a noun meaning fruit and "trái" is also a noun meaning fruit. Admittedly, these are also entered in Wiktionary with the part of speech of "classifier". W:Vietnamese_grammar#Classifier_position contains no inline references, so its accuracy is hard to verify. On another note, the spaces seem to indicate separation of syllables rather than words; thus, to delete sự hy sinh ("sacrifice", noun) as sum of parts (sự "nominaliser particle" + hy sinh "to sacrifice") may be a bit like deleting "crucifying" as a sum of parts (crucify + ing). --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

wi-fi array

This is on RFC, but before I clean it up I want to establish whether it actually meets CFI. It's apparently a brand name used by Xirrus, beyond that I have no real opinions one way or the other. Template:script helper 12:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. It's a product and the entry is an advert even if it did meet CFI, which it doesn't. SpinningSpark 15:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. I wonder what sort of thing this could possibly be. Could it be an array set up to distribute wi-fi? I guess we'll never know. bd2412 T 15:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

  How many noun phrases involving polysemous words have a determinate meaning out of context? There are some for which one meaning is so dominant, at least in some usage community, that it squeezes out alternative interpretations in any usage context within that usage community. Can we show that this is one of those instances? DCDuring TALK 19:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

  There is still, in my experience, a most common use of "array" with respect to broadcast technologies generally, of which "wi-fi" is merely an obvious example. bd2412 T 20:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. SOP wi-fi + array. --WikiTiki89 21:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

  To clarify: The definition given is an ad for a product. The general definition of "an array that distributes wi-fi" is 100% SOP. --WikiTiki89 23:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• The definition reads like an advert, and was probably taken straight from one. Most references I came across indicate it is made by a company called Xirrus. It looks like a delete to me.Donnanz (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Sod knows but there's no definition anyway. Just kill it. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Spam with no actual definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

risk appetite

Another doubtful entry from the RFC sludge pile. Template:script helper 12:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

There's risk tolerance by the same contributor. I don't know. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

They are virtually synonymous. To me risk tolerance seems SoP. I'm not as sure about risk appetite, because if the two terms are always used synonymously, the senses of appetite do not include "tolerance" in any definition I've yet seen.

In the kind of rational setting suggested by three mutually redundant definitions, decision-makers do not have an absolute preference ('appetite') for risk, rather than a tolerance for risk associated with higher expected returns. DCDuring TALK 15:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

apple tree

I imagine someone might like to delete this as a sum of parts. I am doing this nomination for them, while not supporting the nomination. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Keep at least for translations ("translation target"). My tentative personal inclusion criterion: "The term has to be useful for translation into at least three languages and the three translated terms (i) must be single-word ones and (ii) they must not be closed compounds." The entry meets the criterion: Czech "jabloň", Latin "malus", Spanish "manzano", Slovene "jablana". Translations not contributing to meeting the criterion: German "Apfelbaum", Swedish "äppelträd", Dutch "appelboom". For interest: “apple tree”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. finds this in some dictionaries, but some of the great ones such as Merriam-Webster online, Collins, AHD, and Macmillan do not have it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Keep as above. Many languages have different words for trees and their fruit. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. Template:script helper 14:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Undecided. It is 100% SOP, but consider oak tree. The word oak has no other purpose than to precede the word tree (it can be used along, but that's becoming less common). It is basically a world (all existence) vs the world debate, since world in that sense must be preceded by the. --WikiTiki89 15:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Wow, loads of translations. Definitely keep it. Donnanz (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

  That's not a reason. By your logic, the definition should be replaced with {{translation only}}: (This entry is a translation hub.). --WikiTiki89 16:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

  It definitely cinches it. Donnanz (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

  And even in the unlikely event that this is deleted, the translations can be hosted at [[apple]], under the definition "apple tree". --WikiTiki89 16:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

  Sure, let's host the translations at the word that only rarely gets used to refer to apple tree. Pure genius. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

საშობაო მარხვა

Our Local Georgian Speaker claims it as SoP, but didn't add it to this page. --Back on the list (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)