Wiktionary: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

This is for pages in the main namespace. For all other pages, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others.

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

Notes

• Terms that failed a request for verification are presumed invalid. They should not be resubmitted as the same term without adequate verification (see verification archives) and do not need duplicate listings here.
• Terms should be listed on Requests for verification if their attestation is being called into question.
• Section title should be exactly the wikified entry title, only. The entry should have the tag {{rfd}} at the top.
• Very blatantly obvious candidates for deletion should only be tagged with {{delete|Reason for deletion}} and not listed (here, nor elsewhere).
• The deletion of just part of a page may also be proposed here. If an entire section is being proposed for deletion, the tag {{rfd}} should be placed at the top; if only a sense is, the tag {{rfd-sense}} should be used, or the more precise {{rfd-redundant}} if it applies. In any of these cases, any editor (not necessarily an administrator) may act on the discussion.

---

Good nomination guidelines - Page deletion guidelines - Overview of the deletion process - List of deletion templates, categories, etc. Start a new deletion nomination

Oldest tagged {{rfd}}s
No pages meet these criteria.

January 2008

in the ballpark

Is this just sum of parts, depending a definition of ballpark (as in ballpark estimate)? --EncycloPetey 21:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the figurative noun sense of ballpark ever used outside of this phrase, except maybe jokingly? DAVilla 17:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ever? Yes. google books:"in the general ballpark", "in the rough ballpark", and "in the vague ballpark" all get hits (though that last only gets one hit). Even so, I think this might be worth keeping in some form or other. —Ruakh_TALK 03:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

But that's basically the same expression, and if anything more evidence to keep it. I was thinking more like outside the ballpark or big ballpark or something. DAVilla 14:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this qualifies as a keep on the basis of being idiomatic. Globish 03:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep - a set phrase. --Keene 12:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

All that it seems to take for a phrase to kept is not that it meets a strict standard, just that it be in the right ballpark. It really sticks in my craw that our standards are so accommodating, but so be it. DCDuring 16:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept. —Ruakh_TALK 04:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

man's

I thought we voted to not include possessive terms, unless they had a separate meaning like people's. --Keene 12:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak delete. Applies to all senses. However, we should distinguish man's from men's for the collective sense, and I'm not sure of the most appropriate way to do so. DAVilla 14:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep to distinguish "belonging to" and "domain of" senses. E.g., "it's a man's world". bd2412 T 20:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

BD: What distinction are you talking about? If I understand it at all, it seems to be a modest potential distinction (not implemented in the current one-sense entry for man's) that might apply to many possessive forms. If so, it is presumably covered by whatever "policy" discussion has taken place to drastically limit the number of separate entries for possessive forms in English. But perhaps if we could see a concrete example of the distinction we might become persuaded. DCDuring 22:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, how about man's man? A man's man is not the property of a man, but a man who is a particular example of manliness. Same for a man's game or a man's cigar. I guess I'm trying to say these things show something to be in the domain of manliness, rather than belonging to a particular man (in the sense of "the man's umbrella was resting against the wall). bd2412 T 01:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you have over-particularized the concept of possession. It is not legal ownership or practical possession of a tangible object. A "rock's absence", a "rock's proximity" to me are examples of more general uses of the concept of possession. A "rock of rocks" (See g.b.c.) is an expression entirely analogous to "man's man" at the concept level. A "slope's slope" is analogous at the level of words. My difficulty is in understanding what is unique about the possessive form of "man". DCDuring 03:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not quite - you could refer to a man's absence, or a man's proximity, but a rock's game? A rock's world? A slope's game? But a man's game... bd2412 T 04:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

So what? Of course there are semantic differences between words. But what is the feature of "man's" that would enable it to be excluded from the effect of a general policy against possessives? There may be such a feature. I don't see it and invite you to suggest it. I think the burden is on you to make the argument. DCDuring 05:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

So, with the rock, it suggests the possession of a single rock; with "man's" it can mean that of a single man, or that of men in general. We say, e.g., that football is a "man's game", not a "men's game", even though we are really talking about men. bd2412 T 05:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is the right path to locating what might be distinctive: counterexample: "granite's hardness" refers to the hardness of all rock deemed to be granite; "the granite's hardness" is more restrictive. I think that in picking rock as my exemplar, I was lucky or, more flatteringly, unconsciously smart. "Rock" can be used collectively, just as "man" can. DCDuring 13:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

But if you to refer to "man's hardness" as opposed to "a man's hardness", you could be understood as referring to the hardness of all mankind (e.g. all humans, male and female). Maybe this is implicit in the existence of that expansive definition of "man", but you just have to be able to sort from the context whether "man's" is referring to that of a man, that of all men, or that of all humans. In any event, I still think referring to football as a "man's game" is not a reference to it being the property of men (even in the abstract sense, as in a "man's absence"), but using "man's" as a stand-in for "manly" - as in, he wore a "man's beard", he filled a "man's shoes". bd2412 T 16:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I could speak about "rock's hardness" (the class) or "a rock's hardness" (this one) or "the rocks' hardness" (these rocks).

There must have been in earlier modern English a lot of similar usage of possessive forms like the "manly" sense of man's. I think of expressions (much from King James bible, I think, but perhaps from koine greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew) "song of songs", "king of kings", "sea of seas", "rock of rocks", "peak of peaks", and so on (castles, circles, hills, et al.). And also "of kings" or "King's" (King's ransom), "dog's" (dog's breakfast?), "child's" (child's play), "woman's"/"women's" (women's work), and others. The uniqueness of man's still eludes me. But this dialogue has given me more appreciation of the additional functions of possessive beyond the most literal kinds of possession. And of usage forms not captured by idioms. Do we need a wikigrammar, wikiFollettFowler, or a NoamChomswiki ? DCDuring 17:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Widsith 16:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete.—msh210℠ 17:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. This functions as a pronoun in some cases. (How could one of English' top 1,000 words not meet CFI?) --Connel MacKenzie 17:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  If it functions as pronoun sometimes, could you enter that sense? (I have no idea how it does so.) That might help people (e.g., me) see the light.—msh210℠ 17:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted; but Connel (or anyone else), please feel free to re-create this if you can demonstrate the pronoun sense. —Ruakh_TALK 04:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

woman's

As above. --Keene 12:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, as above. --Connel MacKenzie 17:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted, as above. —Ruakh_TALK 04:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

could one be any more

Old WF entry. - Algrif 11:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably worth keeping. A cleanup job though. It might be worth adding something about it being a rhetorical question. And that the verb doesn't need to be "be", i.e. "could he DO any more drugs". Furthermore, there doesn't even need to be a pronoun i.e. "Could there BE any more people here?". Possibly a page move too, to something like could one X any more Y or could one X any more?. Odd edit history too. --Keene 11:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, keep or move until we are certain that there is no elegant way to handle these. DAVilla 15:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Has been mentioned before at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Archives/2006/01. --Keene 11:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Implicit in the meaning of be (or do). It's a matter of intonation, not a set phrase. bd2412 T 01:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about that; given that the intonation pattern associated with this frame is quite distinctive, this arguably passes the rocking chair test. -- Visviva 15:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Consider the following sentences: You want me to go to the zoo. You want me to go to the zoo? Common intonation pattern; the nominated phrase is merely a different example of a common intonation pattern - which could be applied to any verb: Could we go any slower? Could they buy any more porcelain figurines? Could that professor assign something more boring? bd2412 T 02:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep, non-compositional at several levels (literal meaning, pragmatic intent, intonation). Seems to be quite a recent coinage -- all b.g.c. hits from before 2000 are in the literal sense. -- Visviva 15:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete or add many variant forms that the search engine would find. Virtually useless entry. A user could not find it on first search page without including "could", "more", and "any". Variants involving "less" are not covered. Including a verb other than "be" or a particular personal pronoun other than "one" make it less likely to be found. The problem is that we are not dealing with words, we are dealing with a construction with three (3) variable arguments (2 embedded), whose 2 or 3 invariant terms are common to many entries. '"could" X-noun Y-verb "any" ["more"|"less"] Z-comparative-adj' DCDuring 17:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and add the boat-load of hard redirects for it. I think "could I be any more clear?" is itself a set-phrase, even if the formulaic form is questionable. To be clear (pun intended) I think keeping could one be any more... is the best approach for this. --Connel MacKenzie 17:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to the phrase as an entry, but am frustrated at what it seems to take for a user to find an entry that we labor over. Do we have any good guesses as to how users would think to look up a phrase like this once they had gotten to Wiktionary? Would they just enter the phrase exactly as they read or heard it? Would they begin to "lemma-ize" it? How? Would they think to drop the adjective (Z-adj)? I find it hard to believe that very many would ever substitute "one" for a personal pronoun. Until the search engine is better, we should probably do what Connell recommends and enter hard redirects. Which ones? DCDuring TALK 18:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I do object to the phrase because the structure is what merits an entry, not any of the words in the entry headword. DCDuring TALK 18:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept, but I'd like to encourage those who voted "keep" to justify their vote by making this entry actually useful. As it stands, no one looking for this would ever find it. I don't even understand how Algrif came across it to list it here. —Ruakh_TALK 04:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

free*

--Connel MacKenzie 04:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite humorous, but delete. It looks to me like the article's creator has a grudge against iPods! --Keene 11:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I only saw the story on Digg, Keene. Otherwise, I'm indifferent. By the way, look at what Ruakh did to the article. --Takamatsu 15:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I still don't like the entry. --Keene 20:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is an RfV case, rather than an RfD case. Genuine citations, please. bd2412 T 20:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an RFD on merit of the fact that we don't do punctuation in entry titles. The content can be merged into free if it meets CFI/passes RFV (I don't care about that) but it can't be at the entry title name free*. --Connel MacKenzie 23:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We certainly do "do" punctuation (ergo, we have can't and cant, auto- and auto, man. and man, a.m. and am. You are objecting to an unusual punctuation mark, but it's being presented as part of the word, not as something like a comma, question mark, or end-of-sentence period. If people use the term "free*" without the "*" actually referring to a footnote, then it is part of the word, and should be included. I'm inclined to think it will fail that latter qualification, and would send it to RfV for that determination to be made before we trouble ourselves with determining whether such as entry ever ought to exist. bd2412 T 00:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No need to be silly BD2412 - of course I'm not talking about " " nor "-" nor "." nor "'". That doesn't affect the fact that this entry is intended to cause harm. --Connel MacKenzie 17:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Intended to cause harm? Look, it may or may not properly be called a word; your position seems to be that a form including a "*" by definition can not be a word. I say it can, although (as I noted before, and have clarified below, I doubt this one will qualify. Isn't it just as well for it to be deleted for failing verification? bd2412 T 23:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Send to RFV (looking for no footnotes) and bring back Micro$oft while we're at it. DAVilla 14:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"Deleted with prejudice," wasn't it? No, that particular nonsense caused the [[$1]] bugs in MW itself, let alone elsewhere. --17:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well we're deleting the company definition of Microsoft anyway, so never mind about that. DAVilla 03:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete, sum of parts. Note that * is sadly incomplete at the moment. -- Visviva 04:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's only sum-of-parts if the * indicates the presence of an actual footnote. What if there is no footnote, and it only stands for the proposition that the word coming before it is an incomplete statement of the truth? bd2412 T 05:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, certainly that would no longer be compositional. But no such citations have been provided as yet, and finding them would seem a rather Herculean task. Basically this falls into that RFD/RFV gray area of "citations demonstrating idiomatic use." So I will change my vote to the appropriate grayscale value, delete unless idiomatic citations are provided. Cheers, -- Visviva 04:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that formula completely - delete unless idiomatic citations are provided. bd2412 T 23:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem of verifying this using Google makes me wonder whether Wiktionary would benefit from putting items that can't be readily cited using Google into some kind of more-extended RfV limbo. Words not likely to appear in print (esp in works online), rare uses of very common words, constructions with multiple potential occupants of positions within the phrase, expressions using reserved words or symbols (such as "*") are the classes that come to mind. If it existed, I would vote RfV limbo for this. DCDuring 16:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a red-herring. Either it belongs here, or not. We've seen that allowing "pseudo-exceptions" like WT:LOP, Appendix:, etc. are only (I repeat only) an end-run around process. With such astronomically low hurdles to pass, it seems more dubious than ever, to allow more exceptions. Particularly, when the entries themselves are harmful. In this case, moving it to WT:LOP is a possibility, but keeping it in NS:0 is not. --Connel MacKenzie 17:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Keep. It would seem to meet criteria for inclusion, though it is not yet well attested. I don't see what is especially sacred about any particular process. We live within the process we have and we consider changes. The possible need for changes arises from instances like these that dramatically illustrate problems. I don't see how this entry wouldn't potentially meet CFI given attestation. The problem with its ready attestation usuing Google is serious because of the wild-card character. I would not object to sticking to the normal deadlines for deciding questions, but would object to having them apply uniformly to the hard cases of unwritten colloquialisms and the other cases mentioned above. Why we keep unexamined our effective procedural bias toward the colloquialisms favored by usenet groups and against other particular types of expressions is beyond me. DCDuring 18:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a Wiktionary:Limbo has merit, if it is restricted to cases like this and end of, where the usual techniques for locating citations can't be used. That said, I still find the claim that this exists in idiomatic use highly dubious. "Free-with-an-apostrophe" maybe, but just "free*" seems implausible even for geekspeak. -- Visviva 14:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Move to RFV - this issue is settled by citations. Widsith 16:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but not just any citations; RFVs are supposed to be settled if a word/sense has three valid citations; this requires three valid citations (an RFV issue) that show idiomaticity (an RFD issue). So wherever it goes, it's going to be somewhat out of place. We are facing an increasing number of such cases, but I'm not sure what the ideal solution would be. -- Visviva 13:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Might as well keep it here. It won't make our conclusion any less valid. bd2412 T 15:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this serves as an archived use of free*, but if not, it is still quite amusing anyway. -- Algrif 11:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Move to RFV. Then, in a month or so, delete. —Ruakh_TALK 04:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Moved to RFV. —Ruakh_TALK 04:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Scouts

[ Scouts redundants senses (again)]

I am listing Scouts again, as it is still unresolved since last June, now more than 6 months ago.
The discussion was closed off by it being moved to RFV for the original sense, but the two are not mutually exclusive.--Dmol 09:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

PS, the original discussion is on the talk page for Scouts. Aslo, I think after six months, and many cites, the first sense RFV could be considered passed.--Dmol 09:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I also want to keep senses 1,2 and 5. 3 and 4 are clearly redundant, or one could add Canadian, Scottish, Irish etc. to the list. Besides, they are included in #2, since both Australian and US Scouts belong to the international movement. If they were separate from it, one might consider.Hekaheka 11:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The retrospective on the original RFD here is confusing. The original RFD was for the Baden-Powell sense...moved to RFV and never cited, as far as I can tell. In POV-pushing fashion, the most ridiculous "definition" was reordered to be the primary definition, yet the actual common meaning of the term was questioned. I doubt the reordering was intended to confuse subsequent review, but that seems to have been one effect. The word "scouts" is used worldwide to mean BSA, despite one person's objection (not backed up with any evidence.) Citations were provided to possibly justify a second definition line, to cover UK, Canada, AU, Irish, etc., but the Baden-Powell information (definition #1 at the time this is being written) belongs in the etymology section. --Connel MacKenzie 17:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete 3 & 4, of course. Widsith 15:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Connell, the Baden-Powel definition IS cited, four times, in the quotation section. We should now consider this passed RFV.--Dmol 12:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to propose a solution to solve this issue. First: as mentioning Baden-Powell is a problem to some, we could leave it out alltogether. Those interested in the history of the movement may follow the Wikipedia link. Second: the word "Scouts" is probably used in all English-speaking countries primarily to refer to the national organization and its members. Third: United States (15 to 20% of worldwide membership) is not that dominant in the Scouting world that rest of the world would be referring to BSA when saying "Scouts". Taking these points into consideration, the entry might look like this:

1. A worldwide youth movement with the aim of supporting young people in their physical, mental and spiritual development, so that they may play a constructive role in the society [1].
2. Any of the national Scouts organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America.
3. The members of that movement collectively.
4. The Selous Scouts, a special forces regiment of the former Rhodesian Army. Hekaheka 07:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That gets my vote. Thryduulf 11:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds workable. Maybe Baden-Powell should be mentioned in the etymology. Widsith 11:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. It would be nice if we had the nicknames (?) or abbreviations (BSA) for the constituent organizations or for the members for each organization. DCDuring TALK 12:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be, but there are about 135 nations in the World Organization of the Scout Movement, and some of them have separate organizations for boys and girls. Wouldn't it be enough to have a link to the website of the world organization? Hekaheka 13:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I expect that there will be a lot of additions, but English organizations and names will predominate at first. Maybe the right thing to do would be to prepare rel tables: one for abbreviations and one for nicknames, at least. It reminds me of the issues about the various words for postal codes and their coverage. There are structural complexities, but it may not be a real issue to be faced any time soon. DCDuring TALK 14:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

As no major protests arose, I proceed with the above proposal. As for the nicknames, there's a link to the website of the world organization. Hekaheka 15:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Japanese food

Japanese + food. SoP. --Keene 02:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. bd2412 T 02:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  -ed. —Ruakh_TALK 04:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• No strong objection to the deletion, but, um, the referent is a concrete item (no, I don't mean the rice is rock-hard) not something completely abstract. Could you explain why this class of food is considered sum-of-parts? --Connel MacKenzie 06:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This sense is generally a sense of (deprecated template usage) food. If I used the term (deprecated template usage) Kalamazooan food, you'd know what it meant, even though that's not a term you'd ever heard before. Even so, since there seems to be disagreement about this, I've restored the entry pending fuller discussion. —Ruakh_TALK 14:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete.—msh210℠ 18:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

How is this different from Egyptian pyramid ? Kappa 02:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Humorous answer: Japanese food isn't as gritty, though an Egyptian pyramid will stay with you longer.

Serious answer: An Egyptian pyramid is a very specific kind of architectural structure, with very few known examples. Japanese food is a broad class of items. --EncycloPetey 02:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And? Kappa 02:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And what? One term is a specific sort of item, the other is a broad class of items. That's a significant semantic difference. --EncycloPetey 02:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

One year ago, we talked about this word. (see. [2]) We reached the conclusion "Keep". and again we need to talk? I should put out same comment as 1year before.

As far as they have the specific cuisine and the restaurants of their own styles are familliar, yes, we should keep. And there are already entries of Chinese cuisine and Chinese food.

FYI:

• google search with "Japanese food" 1,280,000 hits (currently 2,090,000 hits).
• google search with "Japanese cuisine" 1,050,000 hits (currently 1,220,000 hits).
• google search with "Chinese food" - 1,480,000 hits (currently 5,430,000 hits).
• google search with "Chinese cuisine" - 1,200,000 hits (currently 1,550,000 hits).

If you think Japanese ones violated the wiktionary policy that you think, I think you should tag {{rfd}} to the Chinese ones either. But you didn't. why?

FYI2: wikipedia holds the article of Japanese cuisine

So I'd like to request to revive the deleted word, Japanese cuisine. Thanks --Carl Daniels 04:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

At least someone is paying attention here. I'm inclined to say that polywords should not be deleted unless there is no reasonable doubt that they are unworthy for inclusion. There clearly is reasonable doubt in this case; ergo, keep. -- Visviva 04:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

How about French cuisine, Italian cuisine, Spanish cuisine, Finnish cuisine, Australian cuisine, French food, Italian food, Spanish food, Finnish food, Australian food and so on? They all get a lot of Google hits. Even Finnish food, when made proportional to the population of the country, gets almost as many hits as Japanese food. That an attribute+noun pair gets a lot of hits does not necessarily mean that it should have its own entry. Hekaheka 19:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If Hekaheka wants to delete all of them, you should not forget to tag {{rfd}} on Chinese food, and Chinese cuisine. I have already showed the compared results of the google hits above. If you WILLFULLY exclude Chinese ones, I believe Japanese ones also survive. --16:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not primarily want to delete Japanese or Chinese or any other cuisine, I just want to be logical. If Japanese food is defined as Japanese style food, it looks like a mother of SoP's to me. Obviously, the other way to be logical is to add the cuisines, foods and kitchens in my list plus a lot of others. The question is, how many of these X-cuisine entries we want, and what added value they bring to Wiktionary or anything else. I don't think anyone would ever want to look for X-cuisine in a dictionary (not that there would be too much harm either). Hekaheka 18:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I need the logical reason why you didn't mention about Chinese cuisine, and Chinese food. Only Japanese food, and Japanese cuisine have been TWICE tagged with {{rfd}} for the last one year. Who doesn't think it's kinda harrassment to Japanese X? On the other hand, the Chinese ones have NEVER tagged. I need to ask the reason why you excluded Chinese ones.

I did not want harrass Japan, its food or any other aspect of it. I assumed it clear from the context that I'm against all X-foods and cuisines as they add no bloody value. But obviously I'm in the minority and I drop my case. Hekaheka 11:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: "obviously I'm in the minority": That's not obvious to me. I count five not-permanently-banned editors who seem to have supported deletion (you, me, msh210, EP, BD2412) and four who seem to have opposed it (Connel, Kappa, Visviva, and Carl Daniels). That's a bit subjective, though, as not all the editors in question have included explicit votes; I'm not 100% sure about Connel, Kappa, and EP. At the very least it seems to be evenly split, and there might be a 5–2 majority supporting deletion. —Ruakh_TALK 11:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not expressed a decisive opinion, because I don't have one for this particular item. I voted to keep Chinese food, and would vote to keep Mexican food or Indian food, but would vote to delete German food, American food, or Spanish food. I'm not sure that Japanese food has the same lexical issues that Chinese food has, so I'm leaning towards weak delete for this one. — This unsigned comment was added by EncycloPetey (talk • contribs) at 12:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for clarifying that. :-)   —Ruakh_TALK 12:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to go logical, then I should ask you... We have "DERIVED TERMS" and "RELATIVE TERMS" in the word collections. Those terminology won't help you? We have chances to reach the X-cuisine. And we can make use of "Translations" either. And even more... When you need to translation Japanese food into Japanese, how do you translate it without the entries Japanese cuisine, and Japanese food into a simple native word? Maybe you'll just translate it to 日本の食べ物. Though there are other simple candidates, 日本食, 和食. How do you reach those words? If we remove those Japanese food, Japanese cuisine, you cannot. In Finnish, you have the simple word eduskunta for Finnish Parliament. Currently we have no entry for Finnish Parliament. Though I believe we should hold it. If you need to translate Finnish Parliament into Finnish with just English knoweldge, we have no chance to translate it to eduskunta. Don't you think so?

Now we have, since I improved the entries parliament and eduskunta.

so I believe wiktionary should have the standard for inclusion "If a word is translated to a simple word in a language, the word should be collected in wikitionary". yes, I know we should bring this talk to Wiktionary_talk:Criteria_for_inclusion. --01:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my signature has lacked. And... I have a question, do we condone double jeopardy?(see [3]) we've reached keep on this entry one year ago. --Carl Daniels 17:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't consider any decision, including acquittal of a deletion-penalty offense, to be permanent and set in stone; but I think it's a bit of a faux pas to knowingly re-nominate a term that was discussed and that had consensus to keep, unless there's a specific reason (e.g., if the WT:CFI have since changed in a relevant way). —Ruakh_TALK 00:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The "related terms" on that page are not "related" etymologically, so shouldn't be there. I suggest moving it to Appendix:Menus/Japanese. In fact, I'll do that now. Keene2 13:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep If I open a frenchbread shop in Japan, that doesn't make it Japanese food. Language Lover 01:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Khrushchev

Russian politician? This doesn't meet CFI --Keene 01:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Historians and reporters researching the Cold War, Soviet Union, etc., need such information, especially the translations. —Stephen 01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And, perhaps, as a surname. bd2412 T 04:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As a surname it would seem valid prima facie. Knowing whether it was a common on would have a little value. A link would be nice to WP dab page if there is one or to Nikita's WP entry. Are there any issues in its transliteration? DCDuring 12:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, as a surname this returns us to the bald-faced foolishness of considering surnames and other proper nouns to be language-specific; do we treat this as an English, French, Italian, German, Icelandic, and Indonesian proper noun, with separate language headings, do we decide to pretend that Russian is written in Roman characters, or do we finally bow to the inescapable fact that these are in fact ==Translingual==? -- Visviva 15:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As nice as it might be to treat proper names as translingual, they are very much short of that ideal. Khrushchev is clearly an English word, since English may be the only language in which the name is spelled that way. I checked about ten languages in Wikipedia, and at least those were all different from each other. "Bush" is not translingual either, since the name is spelled that way only in the languages which use Latin alphabet. Hekaheka 16:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected on Khrushchev, thanks. As for Bush, I don't buy it. Translingual need not mean pan-lingual. Even classic cases of translinguality such as scientific names require translation in certain languages. For instance, Canis is 개속 in Korean and イヌ属 in Japanese. But this discussion really belongs elsewhere, if we're going to continue it. -- Visviva 06:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, there is a discussion on translating translingual words in Beer parlour. Hekaheka 11:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

avering

Misspelling, averring has two Rs. RJFJR 03:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have converted it into a misspelling entry. (But you can delete it if you want) SemperBlotto 09:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. It looks like it maight have been an alternative spelling at one time. It appears in 19th C. in law reports and some more substantial works. It is certainly not a common misspelling. Most occurrences seem to be scannos/OCR fails. Would "dated" alternative spelling" be OK? DCDuring 12:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ugly Betty

Seems dubious, as this show has only been on telly for about 15 months. Having 3 attributive quotations "spanning a year" as required by WT:CFI probably isn't plausible. Mind though, as there will be lots of noise when searching for reliable quotes. --Keene 19:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The English version has been on for about 15 months. It was originally produced in Colombia and ran on Spanish stations in the US for ages. I knew about the show long before there was an English language adaptation. That's not to say that I would keep this term; I'm just clarifying the word history a bit. It is conceivable that quotations predating the English version of the TV show might exist. --EncycloPetey 02:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The Colombian version was officially known as Yo soy Betty, la fea (literally "I am Betty, the ugly"), with the short name Betty, la fea (literally "Betty, the ugly"). Did anyone refer to it as Ugly Betty? —Ruakh_TALK 03:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The title was contracted to Betty, la fea by American Spanish television stations, which translates as "Ugly Betty". I had seen the show referred to as such. --EncycloPetey 03:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hornburg

Tolkien place. --Keene 14:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It is also a town in Lower Saxony, German proper noun, i added that. Mutante 14:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Appendicize to Appendix:Place names/Hornburg or points beyond. No attributive use. -- Visviva 10:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

RFV under proposed criteria for fictional universe. Will probably wind up being shredded. DAVilla 21:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Indus Valley Civilization

It doesn't quite seem right. Almost sum of parts, but it strikes me as an encylopedia article more than for Wikt. --Keene 14:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Good work has been done on the entry, but it does not meet mainspace CFI. Move to appendix, suggest Appendix:Proper nouns/Indus Valley Civilization as part of larger merger. -- Visviva 13:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

In the past terms such as this have consistently been deleted, but I have always voted to keep names of such entities. This is not SoP because not any civilization in the Indus Valley is properly the Indus Valley Civilization. DAVilla 21:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep; this is a specific culture known by no other name. We allow names of nations and ethnic groups; this fits the same mold only with a more cumbersome name. --EncycloPetey 02:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the pedia article, it's also known as the Indus Ghaggar-Hakra civilization or the Indus-Saraswati civilization, and in my experience it is often called the Harappan civilization even if that is not quite accurate. Probably more names can be attested if one looks through the literature. -- Visviva 11:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sheetrock

rfd-senses:

1. A wall made of Sheetrock.
2. Verb. To install a wall made of Sheetrock.

This is a trademarked term. We have an uncapitalized entry as well. I don't see how the trademarked, capitalized term can have these senses. I suppose it is possible that usage of the cap term includes these senses as well. I may be confusing the trademarking and the capitalization. DCDuring 01:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Uncapitalized sense is the one people use when they actually use the term. bd2412 T 02:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any citations supporting the wall sense in either capitalized or uncapitalized forms. Unfortunately there are plenty of cites available for the verb sense in capitalized form, which muddies the waters a bit. DCDuring 02:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This term is encountered very frequently in architecture/construction documents and translator’s dictionaries include it because so many translators have difficulty with it. For one thing, it is used very frequently in the industry as a generic informal synonym for drywall. Keep. However, I would say that the verb is always lowercase, and I don’t believe either Sheetrock or sheetrock is used to mean the wall itself. Sheetrock only means the gypsum panels, individually or collectively. —Stephen 20:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

As a homeowner I couldn't imagine deleting such a term. I actually added the lower-case version. The upper case version had some senses I didn't believe as well as the basic noun sense, which is hard to deny. I am just trying to sharpen up the entries. I was surprised at how often Sheetrock is used in print as a verb where I would have expected sheetrock. It looks like an author would be well advised to use drywall as a more generic term (noun and verb). Are you voting to keep the two disputed senses? DCDuring 23:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No, not those, just the sense that we know to be right. I know that carpenters and architects are likely to capitalize the verb, but I think that they always mean the lowercase word when it’s a verb. I can’t imagine a valid need for the trademark as a verb. —Stephen 23:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

As an employee at the Home Depot, I will vouch for the first noun sense (drywall, plasterboard), as well as the verb. I suppose the third sense (a wall made of sheetrock) is valid, but I think it should be deleted anyway, since it's really just a part of the first definition (or perhaps simply appended to def #1. I have never heard the word used in the second sense, nor have I ever heard a plural form. It seems to me that the only sense which should be at the uppper-case entry is the brand name, with all the stuff we're currently looking at placed at the lower-case. Atelaes 23:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I found it used in the plural in legal documents, where it may be written in the plural as a way of including any possible alternative. I could probably find three, but I don't think such documents are great examples of usage. DCDuring 23:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Kasetsart

A uuniversity in Thailand? Doubtful, but we do have Yale, Harvard and Oxbridge, although they have other meanings.--Keene 20:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you look at the Wikipedia article? --EncycloPetey 02:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it said it was a big university in Thailand. So what? --Keene 11:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per WT:CFI: "A person or place name that is not used attributively (and that is not a word that otherwise should be included) should not be included." -- Visviva 12:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Over 340,000 hits on Google, and Thailand’s principal university. 'Keep. —Stephen 00:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Spurs

Spam. --Connel MacKenzie 16:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• I tracked down an http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Archives/2006/08#Athletics old deletion discussion] which is related. --Keene 17:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Subject this to a request for verification of use without context.—msh210℠ 18:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• This seems like a dangerous precedent - do we add the San Antonio Spurs as well? Globish 18:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  Not in my opinion: see my comment s.v. #Athletics, below.—msh210℠ 18:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Move to RfV DCDuring TALK 18:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Definite Keep. There is absolutely nothing about this entry that is spam. The term is a widely used nickname for a well known football team, something which is not obvious from the name itself. No need to RFV as it is clearly widespread, long-term usage.--Dmol 21:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sports team nicknames seem like a ripe subject for an appendix. bd2412 T 22:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

All sports nicknames, even unattested ones, could go there. Team nicknames that are not trademarks should have to meet regular attestation to remain in main namespace. I really like the idea of linking trademarked names to royalty-free untrademarked popular and generic names. DCDuring TALK 22:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've created Appendix:Names of sports teams. Right now, it's rather a sloppy cut and paste job from various Wikipedia articles on the individual sports. Ideally, I'd like to make it a single long pivot table so people could see nicknames by alphabetical order of nickname, team, or sport. bd2412 T 02:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've moved this page to Appendix:English names of sports teams to make the appendix language specific. Otherwise, it could accumulate many languages quickly. --EncycloPetey 03:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I can live with that. :-) bd2412 T 04:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Even I (a Norwegian with less-than-average interest in football) knew that Spurs referred to Tottenham Hotspurs (though I have no idea what one spur is, or a hotspur even). Exluding these well-known nicknames from regular entries would leave a glaring gap in the dictionary, I find. I came here because I am working on creating Enga which is the nickname of one of Norway's most popular football clubs. I also think it's a good idea to have the appendix(-ces), but one doesn't preclude the other. __meco 14:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The draft Appendix:English names of sports teams is now done and open for business. bd2412 T 14:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hammers

Spam. --Connel MacKenzie 16:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete team nickname; keep surname if authentic.—msh210℠ 17:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Subject this to a request for verification of use without context.—msh210℠ 17:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Move to RfV DCDuring TALK 18:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Definite keep, for reasons listed at Spurs above.--Dmol 21:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Move to Appendix:English names of sports teams, now under construction. bd2412 T 00:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The draft Appendix:English names of sports teams is now done and open for business. bd2412 T 14:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Gunners

Spam. --Connel MacKenzie 16:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete team nickname.—msh210℠ 17:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Subject this to a request for verification of use without context.—msh210℠ 17:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Move to RfV DCDuring TALK 18:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Definite keep, for reasons listed at Spurs above.--Dmol 21:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Move to Appendix:English names of sports teams, now under construction. bd2412 T 00:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The draft Appendix:English names of sports teams is now done and open for business. bd2412 T 14:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Red Devils

Spam. --Connel MacKenzie 16:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Move to RfV DCDuring TALK 18:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Definite keep, for reasons listed at Spurs above.--Dmol 21:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Move to Appendix:English names of sports teams, now under construction. bd2412 T 00:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Same rationale as I presented at #Spurs. The appendix is a good idea as an addition, and the lesser known nicknames could go there without the verification requirements of main namespace entries. __meco 14:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The draft Appendix:English names of sports teams is now done and open for business. bd2412 T 14:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Bums

As above. But this deals with a US sports team. --Keene 17:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Why no RfV??? By what criteria is this per se deletable? DCDuring TALK 17:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's only listed here because it's a US term, in response to Connel's nominations of UK terms - so that all are treated equally. --Keene 17:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Delete as obvious spam. --Connel MacKenzie 17:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not obvious to me that this is spam, except in the sense of spam meaning any bit of internet posting that is not to one's taste. DCDuring TALK 18:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Subject this to a request for verification of use without context.—msh210℠ 17:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Move to RfV DCDuring TALK 18:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The draft Appendix:English names of sports teams is now done and open for business. bd2412 T 14:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Move to Appendix:English names of sports teams, now under construction. bd2412 T 00:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Cited DCDuring TALK 15:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Jints

As above. But this deals with a US sports team. --Keene 17:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete as above. --Connel MacKenzie 17:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Subject this to a request for verification of use without context.—msh210℠ 17:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Jints is a nickname for the New York Giants baseball team, derived from eye-dialect for New York dialect for Giants. Accordingly, I wuld think that we would be happy with it being in a sentence that did not include the words "New York" or "Giants".

Why is there a contest about RfDing sports team names? Most sports teams nicknames would seem to be fine if they are actually used. We may need some way to accommodate them when there are numerous referents of the same word {Broncos, Hornets, ...). Or we may insist on mentions outside of newspapers. DCDuring TALK 18:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a sentence, a broader context, I think.—msh210℠ 18:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Move to RfV DCDuring TALK 18:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Move to Appendix:English names of sports teams, now under construction. bd2412 T 00:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The draft Appendix:English names of sports teams is now done and open for business. bd2412 T 14:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Cited DCDuring TALK 15:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Athletics

Previously marked as "kept" - fell through the cracks, apparently. --Connel MacKenzie 17:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. That link is of course Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Archives/2006/08#Athletics, as Keene noted.—msh210℠ 17:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete this one: unlike the others nominated for deletion above, this is the official name of the team, and is capitalized (initial letter). Anyone wanting to know what it is will check WP or the like. As CFI notes, "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.". This is, after all, a company name, in two senses ("group of individuals with a common purpose, as in a company of actors" and "business")  ;-) . I'm willing to change my mind if citations can be brought that fit the standard explained at Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Brand names, which I doubt.—msh210℠ 17:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I thought the "official" team name was "Oakland A's." (IMO, all team names are still spam, regardless.) --Connel MacKenzie 18:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

move to RfV DCDuring TALK 18:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Move to Appendix:English names of sports teams, now under construction. bd2412 T 00:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The draft Appendix:English names of sports teams is now done and open for business. bd2412 T 14:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Added sense as nickname for many teams whose full name includes "Athletics". US sports context. DCDuring TALK 15:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

QPR

As above (try to keep these all together.) --Connel MacKenzie 18:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Definite keep, for reasons listed at Spurs above. Also it is an abbreviation.--Dmol 21:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Move to Appendix:English names of sports teams, now under construction. bd2412 T 00:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The draft Appendix:English names of sports teams is now done and open for business. bd2412 T 14:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

special purpose language

Originally tagged for speedy delete, but it looks OK to me. That is, it is a valid class of programming languages. --Connel MacKenzie 21:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks more SoP than most things that have been on this page. But it's not my area, so I'd like to hear more. DCDuring TALK 22:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, keep on this, it's not especially SoP (I'd've assumed 'language' referred to, y'know, human languages, had I not known the term). So, since it's not immediately obvious outside of context and someone might legitimately go to a dictionary to look it up, I want it to stay. --Wytukaze 14:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that the standard, that we would have to understand which specific meaning an entry had without knowing anything about the context? Lets say that we had two possible meanings of "language", but only one possible meaning of "special-purpose" (the simplest possible case). Then we should have two senses of "special purpose language". Then the user would need to be able to select which of the two meanings applied. That would presumably be based on -- context. What would we have we saved the user? DCDuring TALK 15:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is valid to ascribe a rule to every "decision" on RFD. It helps, when a rule is obvious. But the rule not being obvious, shouldn't prevent a decision; several similar decisions are what might imply a new guideline. In this case, we've saved a user from re-starting their search, piecemeal, if they searched for the set-phrase. --Connel MacKenzie 10:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If we aren't making decisions based on a mechanically applicable rule {and we often can't), then we are calling on precedent and/or setting precedent. In this case, I am a bit concerned as to the precedent being set. If this precedent were followed there are a great number of low-value entries that could not be rejected except arbitrarily. Arbitrariness is the last thing we need. DCDuring TALK 16:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It it required to use a pragmatic assessment for the selection of meaning in interpretation of the term. To me, this is clearly sum-of-parts, as it would only occur in a context that makes the meaning of "language" clear. The question then is if it is computing terminology. Given our depth of coverage in that topic, I would suspect that we've gone a bit further than necessary. Delete. DAVilla 22:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Not sum of parts. I had no idea what it was until I read the definition, even after looking at the words. — [ ric ] opiaterein — 16:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't you have known what it was in the correct context, or as special-purpose computer language? DAVilla 22:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep - but move to the correct spelling special-purpose language (and add general-purpose language. SemperBlotto 16:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Searching b.g.c. seems to show a pretty even split. --Connel MacKenzie 10:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Question on recent edit: Why was the mention of AI deemed to be POV? I don't like LISP, but it seems to be the most oft-named language example of this, in other secondary sources (i.e. that I just saw, searching now, comparing the hyphenation.) --Connel MacKenzie 10:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with it. That's was LISP was designed to do. It may have outgrown that, or more likely it may want to outgrow that, but it's still a good example as being well-known among relatively obscure languages. DAVilla 14:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

According to w:Lisp (programming language), "Lisp was originally created as a practical mathematical notation for computer programs, based on Alonzo Church's lambda calculus. It quickly became the favored programming language for artificial intelligence research." Now, your claim is a bit more valid than that quote suggests, because Lisp has evolved significantly, and since it was most popular in the AI world, you could argue that some elements of modern Lisp are borne of the needs of AI; but it's not a statement we can just make and wash our hands of. If you want to make an example sentence out of it, that's fine, since I don't think example sentences read as reflecting Wiktionary's own opinions, but it shouldn't go in the definition. —Ruakh_TALK 16:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. This is just "special purpose" + "language". The reason it usually means "special-purpose computer language" is that special-purpose human languages are comparatively rare; but, as google:"special purpose language" pidgin (for example) shows, they are possible, and people do use this term to describe them. —Ruakh_TALK 23:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete meaning of term is simply compositional depending of the contextual meaning if its components. If kept, needs to reflect added sense(s) for professional languages (the first mentions in bgc) etc. DCDuring TALK 00:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Middle-earth

Tolkien-cruft. --Keene 14:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• 1994, Academic American Encyclopedia, Grolier, ISBN 0717220532, page 141

  Not only are there maps of fantasy, such as those of Oz or Middle Earth, there are also hypotheses that have been made on the basis of mapped information

• 1999, Frederick Turner, Shakespeare's Twenty-First Century Economics, The Morality of Love, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0195128613, page 180

  The place might as well be called Noplace; it is a sort of magic island, like Thomas More’s Utopia or Homer’s Ogygia or Aristophane’s Cloudcuckooland—or Oz, or Narnia, or Middle Earth, or Disney’s Magic Kingdom.

• 2002, Brian Bates (author), The Real Middle-Earth, Magic and Mystery in the Dark Ages, Sidgwick & Jackson, ISBN 0283073535, abstract

  Drawing on historical and archaeological research, Brian Bates uncovers the Middle-Earth that centres on England - a home to dragons, elves, dwarves and demons - a land where spells had real force.

• 2003, Erik Bethke, Game Development and Production, Wordware Publishing, ISBN 1556229518, page 76

  Some game ideas (such as the fanciful recreation of Middle Earth where the whole world is modeled with strong AI, 3D graphics capable of great indoor and terrain rendering, where an unlimited number of players can join in on both sides of epic conflict between good and evil) cannot be reconciled with the business parameters of two artists and a programmer...

• 2004, Sam Harris, The End of Faith, Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, W. W. Norton & Company, ISBN 0393035158, page 27

  This is not an account of the Middle Ages, nor is it a tale from Middle Earth. This is our world.

There also appears to be an attestable underground music venue called Middle Earth. DAVilla 21:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Middle Earth is a common expression in Paganism (nothing to do with Tolkein!)- see Brain Bates quote above - I will be adding references soon. Thorskegga 13:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have done some work on this one - I have added two new definitions - one mythological - second from modern paganism, both of which appear to meet criteria for inclusion. I will dig out a couple more citations in due course. I would suggest the Tolkein sense is kept as it is supported by the other meanings of the word. Thorskegga 17:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

random

Of the 9 separate senses supplied, I can't see how this is more than one sense in English. If you are really picky, a second figurative sense, maybe. But the Finnish distinctions just don't seem to fit. --Connel MacKenzie 22:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I did the Finnish part. Exactly what does noet fit? I remember having had difficulty in understanding the differerence between the senses. The Finnish words are partly chosen on the basis of the example sentences, i.e. they are words that fit the examples better than satunnainen, which is the "standard" translation of "random" into Finnish. But it simply does not fit into some of the senses provided. Hekaheka 06:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a request for deletion of English senses. It has nothing edit: little to do with Finnish. If there are more than one applicable translations into Finnish, then list them all, and define each one well within the Finnish article. Please do not adjust the English definitions to correspond with Finnish meanings. DAVilla 14:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I did that. I asked about Finnish translations because Connel said they don't fit. I just want to know how, in order to correct them. Hekaheka 19:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. I believe the nomination was only indirectly concerned with Finnish, though we can let Connel speak for himself. I would wait until the definitions are set before adjusting the translations. DAVilla 20:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say there are at least six:

1. Having multiple possible outcomes or values, with one putatively being assigned by chance (probability) rather than a deterministic process.

   A good coin toss is random, with equal probabilities of heads and tails.

2. Being the result of a random selection process. (This differs from sense #1 in that random₁ describes a process or event, while random₂ describes a result.)

   In a random sample of twenty American teenagers, twenty-five preferred ____ over the leading brand.

   I don't think the above two are different. See comments below. DAVilla

3. Pseudorandom; intended to resemble the result of a random selection process. (This differs from the previous sense in that one can use random this way while acknowledging a deterministic process. It might be a computing-specific sense.)

   The rand function generates a random number by applying a certain algorithm to the supplied seed number.

   Strong keep. DAVilla

4. Typical, average, representative. (This follows from sense #2, the idea being that usually, a random process will choose a typical example. That's not how probability works, obviously, but don't tell me, tell English.)

   A random American off the street is not going to be interested in whether LISP or C wins out. He should, obviously, but he doesn't know it.

   I've kept the definition "from the population at large" at left it to someone else to merge it into this one, if desired. To me, the two example sentences illustrate different meaning. DAVilla

5. Unexpected; seemingly disconnected from its context. (This also follows from sense #2, the idea being that a random process will choose a pre-hoc unpredictable and therefore post-hoc unexpected result. That's also not how probability works, obviously, and equally obviously, this is the opposite conclusion from that in sense #4, but again, don't tell me, tell English.)

   “As we sat there, a man walked in, looked me in the eye, took a deep breath, and said, ‘Your shoelaces are untied.’ How random! Did I mention I was wearing sandals?”

6. (deprecated template usage) Given to unexpected behavior. (This is a generalization of sense #5.)

   “Wait, did he have red hair? I know that guy! Yeah, he's really random. He also likes to tell people wearing blue that green isn't their color.”

   This might be what was meant by the rfv'd sense "lacking poise". Such behavior would be considered absurd and humorous. Worth keeping distinct, in my opinion. DAVilla 14:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think all of those absolutely need separate sense lines — 1 and 2 could be merged, as could 5 and 6, and 3 could be dropped entirely as encyclopedic entailment — but it would be nice.

—Ruakh_TALK 00:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Ruakh here. I believe the current defintions 8 and 9 are dubious, and have been RFV'd rightly. the 6 definitions given by Ruakh are all different, worth having--Keene 00:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The Ruakh version would be great. It lacks the common sense: "equiprobable", relating to simple probability explanations. The word random has gained much wider use over the past 20 years or so and picked up senses it did not previously have. Because so many are taught of the desirability of randomness, non-random sampling methods are routinely claimed to be random. The sense(s) of conversationally "disconnected" is particularly popular with my high-school aged nieces. Randomly, I also note that MW3 says that the the word is cognate to Alemannic "rand" (run). (See Swiss German.) DCDuring TALK 02:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Before this narrative takes a course that lacks statistical correlation, as Connel would have us say, I've gone ahead and incorporated Ruakh's comments, merging what I agreed should be merged, and unmarking what I agreed was distinct. The result is that there are now 4 of 8 senses that are marked for deletion, only the last of which I think ought to be, perhaps, except the rfv'd sense isn't clear.

My treatment of the first two senses requires special discussion. I felt unright about merging all four examples, and likewise about labeling as mathematical the definition of "equally probable" that DCDuring notes above. I've come to the conclusion that in the common mindset, random relates more to this idea of no pattern than it does to the mathematical definition of distribution. More than likely probability theory developed out of this concept, not the other way around.

For instance, we wouldn't consider a field survey to have a random result if one outcome was more prevalent than the others, even if they were in a random pattern. Also, a survey that was biased toward blue-eyed American teens wouldn't be considered random either, although technically it is. Even some mathematical questions are poorly framed, requiring the selection of a "random" number from the integers without specifying distribution, and resulting in a contradiction. (The paradox involved switching envelopes with money. Unfortunately I think the Wikipedia article on this was deleted.) DAVilla 15:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd consider it random, but not random enough. But, if other people use it differently, obviously that needs to be reflected in the entry. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 22:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Would someone English -speaking like to clean up the page? There was an intelligent and interesting discussion, but the entry is still intact. Hekaheka 15:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Please express your views or make further changes to the entry in line with the discussion. I have deleted the 2 redundant sense, deleted two delete tags, and opened an rfv for the rfv'd sense. DCDuring TALK 16:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Calvinball

[calvinball]

A fictional game? Or can this be used attribuively?--Keene 11:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I usually play this after having my Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs in the morning. ;-) DAVilla 11:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this was created after hearing someone (I think it was User:Dmh, but it migh have been User:Muke) use it attributively to describe WT:RFD (of 2006) as justification for creating WT:RFV. I think by today's standards, this is a delete as promotional. --Connel MacKenzie 16:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, those were yesterday's standards. By today's standards, it would pass RFV as now cited by Visviva. DAVilla 21:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Except that the cites are almost all for (deprecated template usage) Calvinball. Maybe this entry should simply be moved to Calvinball? —Ruakh_TALK 23:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. DAVilla 01:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Majesty's

We're getting rid of most possessives, right? It's worth consideration rather than speedy, I think. DCDuring TALK 17:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete.—msh210℠ 20:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No good as it is now. Is it often used by itself, to stand for something else, as an ellipsis? DAVilla 21:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

accouched

Defined as the past of accouch, which we don't have. (Says it is English, possibly foreign word). RJFJR 03:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

3 inflected parts had been added as if the infinitive were "to accouch". It is actually "to accouche". We also have accouchement, which has a more illuminating def. Perhaps one of the lemmas could use an RfV. It's in references, but I'd never heard of it before. DCDuring TALK 03:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Montego Bay

Does this meet CFI? --Connel MacKenzie 21:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd suppose so. It's the fourth largest city of Jamaica with 120.000 inhabitants, and we do have a lot of cities.Hekaheka 21:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Appendicize. No sign of attributive use that I can see. Oh, how I wish I was in Sherbrooke now! -- Visviva 06:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not in Dover, Swansea, Salisbury (Wiltshire) or Trondheim? They are not more attributive than Montego Bay. The point is that we need a policy here, not deletion or appendisation of names of individual cities. Hekaheka 09:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

See Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-06/Placenames 2-A for a process that never got finished, I believe the aim was to start big and to narrow it down in a series of votes so that we could be sure where the line should be drawn - not an ideal approach (very bureaucratic and slow) but it would have got there in the end. I am keep on this and all placenames; until we have automatic redirects to 'pedia we need to provide them by hand (the "look this up in our sister projects" box is not good enough) Conrad.Irwin 02:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I would vote Keep for any and all placenames. I highly disagree with a place name having to be used attributively. Some words, I agree, should be verified in use attributively; but place names obviously exist. If it can be verified as in use on maps, Wikipedia, etc., it should be kept. There is zero harm in including all place names. For some reason people fear large categories such as this; in a virtually limitless dictionary, I think we are the perfect place to have entries for any that come about. sewnmouthsecret 16:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

akennedness

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

uh, wait. Middle English dict. shows akenned. But that doesn't support akennedness. RJFJR 18:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be OE: on cristes akenned-nysse daege from Aelfric's Lives of the Saints] DCDuring TALK 18:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

get sick

Edit: To become ill. Per [[get fill-in-the-blank]]. DAVilla 17:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"To become ill" is almost idiomatic. Keep? --Connel MacKenzie 05:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This can also mean "to vomit." So can "be sick," of course, but I don't think "sick" by itself normally has this meaning. -- Visviva 15:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm okay with that definition. Changed to rfd-sense. DAVilla 07:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow it means "vomit"? Just in American English, right? Kappa 01:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's regional; I've heard it, and I'd understand it, but I'd never use it, and I don't think most Midwesterners would. (Of course, ~30–40% of the time I say on Wiktionary that a word/sense/construction doesn't exist in my region, it's less than a month or two before I hear someone use it in real life, so who knows?) —Ruakh_TALK 02:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

flatulence tax

Quite real and certainly verifiable, but seems sum of parts in the sense that the Iowa caucuses were, i.e. it has no meaning outside of one specific event. Most citations use quotes around the term anyway. Globish 23:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Encyclopedia material, looks like to me. — [ ric ] opiaterein — 14:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sum of parts; the definition is certainly not what I would have expected from flatulence + tax. But like Opiaterein, I cannot think of any particular merit in having an entry here. Weak neutral. -- Visviva 14:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Technically sum of parts, but still idiomatic in that e.g. it does not apply to individuals (like people who don't soak their beans long enough before cooking). DAVilla 07:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

idiosyncracy

idiosyncracies

Given as alternative spellings of "idiosyncrasy" and "idiosyncrasies", respectively, when, at best, they are common misspellings. The references linked to that are said to give this as an alternative spelling do not. — Paul G 14:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

We just finished discussing this; see Talk:idiosyncracy. Note how easy it is to reference discussions when they've been archived properly. Based on that discussion, I would say there is (weak) community support for labelling this a misspelling. So why not just do it? -- Visviva 14:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

We wouldn't delete it; we would amend the entry to show it as a common misspelling if the facts warranted it. B.g.c. hits give the "-crasy" spelling only a 2:1 lead over the "-cracy" spelling. Older works and US works seem to be the primary areas for finding the "-cracy" spelling. That would suggest alt. spelling is accurate, but would warrant a usage note. I can't off the top of head think of how to do it with tags. BTW, a reference work said that this was the only word in English with the "-crasy" ending. Plausible, given that the morpheme is derived from Ancient Greek "crater", mixing bowl. But, is it true? DCDuring TALK 15:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The relative frequency of the two spellings has fluctuated over the years on b.g.c. The high interval was 1800-50 when the raw g.b.c. ratio was 682:703. Post 2000 is the second highest 631-950. I am surprised that the WT editors give any credence at all to google web searches for this purpose. If they show anything it would be that, if it is a misspelling, it is not all that common, at about 10%. At 2:3 (post 2000) g.b.c. it seems like an alt spelling. Some authors who have used the "-cracy" spelling include Hardy, Disraeli, C. Bronte. DCDuring TALK 15:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If you go by the [U.S.] National Scrabble Association's Official Club and Tournament Word List, Second Edition, that's true; but its British counterpart also includes (deprecated template usage) theocrasy, and the OED, as you might expect, has a bunch: †(deprecated template usage) acrasy, (deprecated template usage) dyscrasy, (deprecated template usage) eucrasy, †(deprecated template usage) idiocrasy, (deprecated template usage) idiosyncrasy, †(deprecated template usage) tetrasyncrasy (in its entry for (deprecated template usage) tetra-), and (deprecated template usage) theocrasy. All come from the same Greek morpheme. —Ruakh_TALK 01:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to note (particularly with an eye at the previous discussion) that this seems to partially be a regionally difference. In the previous discussion, I see only one person who claims to be American who thinks we should label it as a misspelling. The external dictionary links seem to be provided (as is our custom) to demonstrate that other dictionaries proscribe this spelling. They should be more explicit that no entry will be found at those destinations, however. Likewise, references to usage guides that proscribe the spelling ar missing. Adding a "proscribed" label to the definition seems reasonable, particularly if usage guide proscription references are provided. --Connel MacKenzie 19:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Spanish double l

Note: there exists a previously archived request that may be relevant to this one.

Bad entry title. --Connel MacKenzie 20:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This was matked as kept in November. I repeat my arguments here:-
Books DO refer to this as the "Spanish double l". gbc shows a couple, but more usage can be found in a simple google search, which finds a lot of current usage. Also any Spanish language teaching aid in English will mention the "Spanish double l". There is no other way in English to talk about this letter, which comes after "L" and before "M" in the official Spanish alphabet. -- Algrif 17:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to re-discuss this, I'll weigh in as weak delete or move to RFV: I think it's SoP (deprecated template usage) Spanish + (deprecated template usage) double l; it gets very few hits on b.g.c.; and your statement notwithstanding, I don't think 288 Web hits demonstrates "a lot of current usage". However, I'll also weigh in as weak wait a few more months before repeating a resolved discussion, unless we have a specific reason to re-evaluate the validity of that resolution. —Ruakh_TALK 00:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Double l is not the same as Spanish double l. The English spell travelling with a double l, unlike the Americans, who use a single l. This does NOT mean that the UK English pronunciation is eλe. This is, on the other hand, the pronunciation of the Spanish double l. -- Algrif 11:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep This is the English name for a specific letter of the Spanish alphabet. We have alpha, ess, long s, and Eszett. This follows the same pattern of being the name of a letter of an alphabet. This has already been discussed and kept. To re-open the discussion, we should have some new reason to do so, not the same reason as before. --EncycloPetey 04:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the reason is different this time. The entry title looks just fine to me, but Ruakh has brought up the question of idiomaticity. Certainly it's a descriptive name, which are sum of parts. It also happens to be the name of a single letter, rather than two, as in the English example EncycloPetey gave. That knowledge is not apparent from the name, so keep on those grounds. DAVilla 07:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

lapidate

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

In my experience, stone is at least a specific subset of "to throw stones at" (at least within biblical references, the only place I've ever experienced the verb "stone"). I would switch "sometimes" to "generally." Past, that I'm happy with the entry as it stands (although it wouldn't be the end of the world if the two senses were merged, as they're obviously closely related). Atelaes 21:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If stone only sometimes is to death (which is what you must say if you want to change "sometimes" to "generally", or, for that matter, if you want to keep the "sometimes"), then how does stone differ in meaning from throw stones at? To me they're completely synonymous, which is why I said these are identical senses. Is there some difference between them of which I'm unaware? (I.e., what "specific subset" is it?) (Note we have s.v. stone "to pelt with stones, esp. to kill by pelting with stones", which agrees with the entry lapidate and with my understanding.)—msh210℠ 21:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If I had to pick one sense I would pick one that included the idea of stoning to death, partially because "lapidation" is topical in connection with the use of lapidation as punishment in some cultures currently. DCDuring TALK 21:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

like okay

Sum of parts: verb like + adverb okay which latter is also found in "he did/fixed/drew/etc. it okay". — This unsigned comment was added by msh210 (talk • contribs).

Delete Not idiomatic. Atelaes 23:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, how is the the expected meaning of "like"? Marked as {{nonstandard}} or {{context|valley girl}} or something, but not delete. --Connel MacKenzie 02:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Move to RFC - needs a rewrite. --Connel MacKenzie 02:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The others are good examples of sum-of-parts, but because like isn't also an action, I'm not completely convinced the phrase is inacceptable. Okay, I'm not as certain of its idiomaticity now as I was when I had created the entry. However, I would keep it only because your example doesn't hold to want or to other verbs that reflect state rather than action. DAVilla 07:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete To me it is the "I guess" part of that sentence that provides the "weak interest" not the "like okay" - which indicates an OK amount of liking. Conrad.Irwin 11:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"I like it okay" by itself means about the same thing, but it would be a terrible, possibly the worst ever example sentence, in terms of exemplifying anything. DAVilla 07:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Your comparison isn't perfect, because "he did/fixed/drew/etc. it okay" = "he did an okay job doing/fixing/drawing it", while "he liked it okay" != "he did an okay job liking it". However, you can also say "he liked it well enough" and "he liked it better than he expected", so this construction isn't completely unique to "okay". (It's somewhat limited, though: I'd never say "he liked it very well", though b.g.c. suggests that many people would.) All told, there's something very striking about these expressions, but I can't put my finger on it. I'm not sure if it's idiomaticity. —Ruakh_TALK 00:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete At least as defined. The teen girl or valley girl sense as Connel points out is different, but still sum of parts. It's more of an interjection and is simply, like, OK (like pause OK - nothing in between - ever! - the people using it wouldn't bother spelling out OK as okay). See OK#Interjection. That's another reason to treat it as a sum of parts. The meaning is clear and the "like" is like, superfluous.--Halliburton Shill 08:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ruakh and DAVilla have good points, and, while I don't say "keep", I'm not sure any longer, so will un-say "delete".—msh210℠ 19:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete, please. bd2412 T 20:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Q for "delete" voters: How would someone find out that a phrase like "I like it okay" features in some but not all dialects? I would have regarded it as plain incorrect until I encountered in in Valley Girl or similar. Kappa 01:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You regarded it as incorrect, but did you understand what it means? If not, then it would be a more certain keep, falling under the fancy dress test. DAVilla 07:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really remember. I think I was taken aback but I guessed correctly. Kappa 08:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

chai

Wikipedia indicates this is not considered a language by ISO, or that a code was assigned tentatively then rejected, or something? --Connel MacKenzie 09:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It’s a creole (w:Jamaican Maroon Spirit Possession Language). It seems to me that words in that creole are worth having, and what other language would one call it? —Stephen 17:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of languages that have no ISO code (yet). Most of these languages are extinct languages or Australian Aboriginal languages, but often creoles and Pidgins are lacking an ISO code as well. The fact that a language lacks an ISO code does not automatically mean that it doesn't exist or doesn't meet CFI. For example, the Võro language has no ISO code, but does have its own Võro language Wikipedia [4] using the code fiu-vro. --EncycloPetey 17:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Header switched to Jamaican Creole, and Maroon Spirit Language put as a context. Tag removed. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

anti-truth

Previously failed RFD and RFV. See Talk:anti-truth. --Connel MacKenzie 12:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Did both senses fail RfV and both RfD? Even the anti-truth quark is not actually likely to be attestable with 0 scholar and only 1 b.g.c. hit. truth quark seems to be a fairly common nickname for the top quark. And there is an "anti top quark", so it is arguably not mere vandalism, whatever the motivation. I will RfV anti-truth quark. DCDuring TALK 12:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

look alike

look + alike. Sum of parts? This is different than the idiomatic meaning of look like. --Keene 14:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. look = appear or seem to be + alike = Having resemblance or similitude; similar; without difference. SOP = appear or seem to have resemblance without difference. Cf. dress alike, walk alike, sing alike, etc. -- Algrif 18:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It is commonly used in the sense of look-alike. If not kept for itself, it should at least be marked as a common misspelling of look-alike. —Stephen 17:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

As a noun or adjective. OK. But not as a verb. -- Algrif 18:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"Walk alike" = they walk in the same way. "Look alike" = they look (at things) in the same way? Keep since the phrase narrows the sense of look, which presently has five definitions, and probably needs a number more. DAVilla 05:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

成龙

Tagged, not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 19:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well-known Chinese name which cannot be deduced from its English form. Keep. —Stephen 17:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be a nickname, rather than his actual name; might merit inclusion as such. -- Visviva 12:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It was added by User:A-cai, whose judgment I generally trust. —Stephen 22:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

As a shortened name, should be kept if correct, and I don't doubt that it is. DAVilla 04:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Shortened or not, it refers to -one- living person and I don't think that warrants inclusion. — [ ric ] opiaterein — 18:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

intervene

2nd and 3rd redundant senses. (Perhaps more of an RFC than RFD.) --Connel MacKenzie 19:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

ripe

Redundant senses. --Connel MacKenzie 19:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I could agree with deleting the 5th and 6th definitions. 99.230.152.143 18:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Senses 5 and 6 seem redundant to me as well. --EncycloPetey 19:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure... I think sense 5 refers to the sense of "ripe" found in "ripe for", as in "the entry was ripe for deletion." That seems a bit different from the "ripe wine" sense, although perhaps it isn't. For sense 6, I really don't see which sense it would be redundant with (not the "suppurating" one, surely). -- Visviva 12:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The quotations really help. I didn't entirely understand what they meant before, but the differences between the senses are a lot more pronounced now. DAVilla 05:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Plinko

A game on a game show? Unlikely to be used attributively. --Keene 12:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If someone wanted that info they would look on Wikipedia. 99.230.152.143 16:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Cited with 3 attributable uses. What are the grounds for deletion in WT:CFI ? If I were reading a sports story from the Univ of Kansas newspaper and came across "Plinko", why shouldn't Wiktionary address the need? DCDuring TALK 16:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep per citations. DAVilla 04:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

barbariousness

defined as "The state or quality of being barbarious." but that is a misspelling of barbarous. — This unsigned comment was added by RJFJR (talk • contribs) at 17:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC).

Barbariousness gets 32 hits on b.g.c. If it were really strictly a misspelling, I'd say it didn't warrant a "common misspelling of" entry, but it's not quite; it's a misconstruction, perhaps combining (deprecated template usage) barbaric and (deprecated template usage) barbarous, and has a very distinct pronunciation. So, keep, but mark nonstandard. —Ruakh_TALK 22:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

military exercise

—Ruakh_TALK 22:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. The definition is covered under one sense of (deprecated template usage) exercise, with (deprecated template usage) military clarifying what sort of exercise/training. --EncycloPetey 22:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete as very obvious SoP. --Dmol 15:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, delete. —Stephen 16:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The translations of "military exercise" to other languages are not necassarily equal to translation of "military" + translation of "exercise", e.g German Militärmanöver and Finnish sotaharjoitus. I do not know whether we have an adequate solution to this. Of course one solution is simply not to care. Hekaheka 19:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

We usually don't consider that. After all, "This is my bag." doesn't translate word-for-word in all languages, but that doesn't mean the phrase deserves a dictionary entry. In the case of military exercise, it should be possible for someone to look up the individual words to determine the meaning. Presumably also, words like Militärmanöver should be listed as derived terms under Militär, so that a person can find such words. --EncycloPetey 19:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Del as SoP in the 1st sense and "encyclopedic" in the 2nd. (FWIW, i speak as the creator, a WP-admin who finds himself valuably educated by this discussion. And i thot only "unencyclopedic was a pejorative term!)

At the risk of going off-topic, tho, should i understand "PoV" re the second sense as a claim that the following assertion involves no question of fact, but merely a matter of opinion?

Journalists routinely write "military exercises", when they believe that in planning the events, any training value to be realized has been subordinated to ensuring effective saber-rattling.

Thanks.
--User:Jerzy·t 21:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete the second sense outright. DAVilla 04:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that depends on whether you can find sufficient citations to demonstrate such use. Ideally, we want quality citations to back up all senses and definitions. In practice however, the most controversial get such quotations first, precisely because they are controversial. Commonly accepted senses may get only an example sentence to start with or may have no usage information at all, as a result of Wiktionary being understaffed. --EncycloPetey 21:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This is my very first visit to this page. I am very disappointed.

First, I encourage participants here to avoid opaque jargon, like "SoP". Its use makes this page impenetrable for those of us who aren't insiders. It took me ten or fifteen minutes to figure out it meant "Sum of al parts".

Maybe I am missing something, but in this particular case I am mystified by the suggestion that "military exercise" is merely "military" + "exercise". I suggest that "military" + "exercise" is much more likely to bring up images of platoons of soldiers doing pushups, jumping jacks, or precision marching.

It seems to me that there is no kind of non-military exercise that is like a military exercise. Do we have "Fire Department Exercises"? Do we have "Boy Scout Exercises"? Do we have "Science Exercises"? "Day care exercises"?

Up here school boards have all their teachers take a day or two per year off from their regular duties for "professional development days". Kids call them "PD days", and love them because they get an extra day of vacation. We don't call them "Teacher exercises". No one would know what you meant if you called them "teacher exercises".

I spent some time looking at this page today. And I am going to offer my overall impression. Sorry, I see a general lack of deep reflection in the judgments placed on this page.

I have to wonder whether those who aren't willing to spell out "sum of all parts", who aren't willing to wikilink it to an explanation, so these discussions are meaningful to those who aren't in the club, are showing they have the patience to give these candidates for deletion the necessary serious deep thought.

Philosopher of Science Jacob Bronowski wrote that the word "Revolution" had no hint of over-turning the established order until Copernicus wrote "On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres". Words and phrases have meanings that seem obvious, but really have no tie to their literal meaning. There is no reason, other than Copernicus's work, for us to associate the word revolution with political, scientific or cultural upheaval. And similarly, I suggest, the combination of "military" + "exercise" has no obvious connection to soldiers setting aside their regular duties to engage in training -- other than traditional usage. I suggest this connection only seems obvious through familiarity.

If the wiktionary is going to be a serious project those weighing in on the possible deletion of words have to be able budget the time to think deeply about what they write, and they have to be prepared to think deeply before they write.

Cheers! Geo Swan 03:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful critique.

While it's true that "exercise" is not frequently used in this meaning, it is used in many similar constructions such as "anti-terrorism exercises," "security exercises," etc. It does not seem reasonable that we would have entries for all such terms. The restricted collocational range is probably best covered in a usage note at exercise.

Also, it's a small point, but it appears that Bronowski may be mistaken; at any rate it is claimed that the term "revolution" was in use in this sense a good 90 years before De revolutionibus appeared in print. But of course you can't believe everything you read online, and I'm not sure where to begin with verifying such a claim. Cheers, -- Visviva 06:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: the 1450 citation of revolution; it's listed in the OED under III. --EncycloPetey 17:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

There are a large number of mathematical texts that will say something like "Proof of this assertion is left as an exercise for the student." There is a widely understood meaning of exercise that entails practice rather than simply "physical exercise". And in regards to you argument by analogy with (deprecated template usage) revolution, you are arguing that the original meaning is the primary one, and the secondary meaning is only through association. Such as argument would actually argue against what you say about (deprecated template usage) exercise. You see, the original meaning of that word is "busywork, practice, training". It is only since about 1533 that exercise has been applied to specifically military maneouvers or physical practice to improve the body. And interestingly, those two new senses are grouped together in the original edition of the OED, from about 100 years ago. So, a distinction between the two senses you are discussing has only been made in the past century. --EncycloPetey 17:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Not the most obvious sense of exercise (despite the fact that soldiers do plenty of that kind as well). bd2412 T 21:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The sense at least needs its own definition line at exercise. Keep per prime number. (What kind of prime? A prime number.) This is a common collocation, and it is the way that the sense is clarified. (What kind of exercise? A military exercise.) Sum-of-parts is not an exclusive rule. DAVilla 04:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

So, we're going to have mental exercise, teaching exercise, training exercise, mathematical exercise, physical exercise, lexicographical exercise, illustrative exercise, etc? All of these clarify the kind of exercise by adding a descriptor. The fact that the sense is clarified by the addition of a word does not argue for inclusion any more than it would for candy heart or apple cobbler. Consider: "The military will be conducting exercises today." and "The armed forces will be conducting exercises today." Both of these carry exactly the same sense as military exercise, but without the proximity found in the "collocation", and the second example doesn't even include the descriptor "military". This is not analogous to the case of (deprecated template usage) prime number, since removal of the portion (deprecated template usage) prime compromises the meaning, which is not the case with (deprecated template usage) military exercise. --EncycloPetey 05:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing surprising about the definition of mental exercise and the others, but I think it's worth pointing out that military exercise implies large-scale manoeuvres and not just physical training, which would be expected from sum-of-parts. One could, I suppose, attempt to include this information in the exercise page. Kappa 00:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The analogy to (deprecated template usage) prime number is that the removal of (deprecated template usage) number does not compromise the meaning. (As I said above: What kind of prime? A prime number.)

The sentences you give don't prove anything to me because context can always make the meaning clear. You don't always need a collocation, but that doesn't detract from the fact that it is.

I don't know about most of your examples, but (deprecated template usage) physical exercise would qualify since it exactly delineates definition 2. There may be another way to allow (deprecated template usage) mental exercise and (deprecated template usage) training exercise, which are collocations that to me are not summed mentally. I wonder if there's always a reason why.

This wouldn't be the best test to use though. At this point we'd have to bring into question how we delineate senses. For instance, Random House, AHD, probably others do not distinguish mental from physical. I think Kappa's take is a little stronger, though I take it as evidence to keep the page, and not just write it off as a note. DAVilla 00:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

My point is that for (deprecated template usage) prime number, the analogy is seriously flawed. The expectation is that (deprecated template usage) prime is a modifier of (deprecated template usage) number, but in fact the removal of the second component does not damage the meaning. For (deprecated template usage) military exercise to fit the analogy, you'd have to remove (deprecated template usage) exercise and preserve the meaning, which isn't the case. The order here matters, because in such a combination the first component is typically the modifier and the secoind the noun being modified. The term prime number breaks with this usual pattern in a way the military exercise just doesn't do. I'm sorry, but you've made a flawed analogy. --EncycloPetey 05:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well now I understand that one, at least. I'm not sure what would be a perfect example. What about opposable thumb, presuming you would agree to keep that. Even the thumbs of raccoons are somewhat opposable, if not as much as our own. But anyways Visviva and BD already have a better angle on this. DAVilla 03:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Set phrase, idiomatic. --Connel MacKenzie 04:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

insurance company

Can someone please tell me how this is idiomatic? Atelaes 08:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not idiomatic in any way. Delete.--Dmol 11:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I sure can't. Delete. -- Visviva 12:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• weak keep - looks like it was created as a handle for translations. SemperBlotto 12:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if it was created as a handle for translations (that was my impression as well), does that justify its existence? Invariably other languages are going to have words for things that English doesn't. Does that mean creating phrases that we wouldn't normally have just so they can have a one-link translation? That's going to throw CFI out the window. Atelaes 18:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Enh, the CFI are growing tiresome anyway. :-P   Seriously, though, delete. —Ruakh_TALK 23:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

EP has argued against this rationale at #military exercise just above, and his logic seems convincing to me. As far as I'm aware, outside of Phrasebook entries there are no cases of entries being kept by consensus solely for translation purposes. -- Visviva 09:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Does this pass the dictionaries jumping off a cliff test? And incidentally, is there a better name for that? DAVilla 05:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does; it has an entry in Black's, which indicates that it's regarded as a meaningful unit in legal English by those who ought to know. I like to call this the "lemming test," though this may be regarded as an unfounded slur upon that noble rodent. -- Visviva 07:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep, passes the lemming test. -- Visviva 07:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

vector

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

not in 2 psych dictionaries in this sense, incl APA 2006, contibutor cites one author in edit summary. DCDuring TALK 15:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

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

United States Constitution

As a better man than me once said..."What more could it be?"--Keene 23:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete The entry Constitution is more useful and not SoP/encyclopedic. DCDuring TALK 00:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep as the name of a proper entity, which I believe deserve inclusion even if they appear to be SOP. DAVilla 02:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete as the name of a proper entity, and therefore not deserving inclusion whether sum of parts or not. -- Visviva 03:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well that's a harsh stance. But you wouldn't seriously delete Nile, would you? DAVilla 03:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably not, as there are interesting things that can be said about "Nile" apart from its encyclopedic referent ... but I would definitely want to delete Nile River or Nile C Kinnick High School, just as I would want to delete Michael Jackson or Microsoft Corporation, Inc.. There are probably as many (or more) proper entities in the world as there are words in all the world's languages ... and I think we have enough on our hands without trying to do Wikipedia's work over again on a smaller scale. -- Visviva 06:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I would definitely want to keep any verifiabile instance of X River, for reasons we have previously discussed. Not all river names appear with "River", and the form "X River" is an alternative form for those that do. In this particular case, I cannot ever recall a clear case of hearing "Nile River" as opposed to "the Nile" or "the Nile River". That is, it grammatically requires "the", which is one way in which names of rivers are unusual among proper nouns. --EncycloPetey 17:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to stray too far from the topic, but although quite interesting, that seems more like content for River (or perhaps a revised Appendix:Place names) than something that would need to be noted in a separate entry for every river. Are there really rivers that do not appear with "River"? In my experience even those river names that obviously shouldn't do so, such as "Rio Grande," often do. -- Visviva 05:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I could think of other reasons to delete Nile C Kinnick High School. In particular, it would fail RFV on an out-of-context criterion, while I'd seriously doubt that Michael Jackson would. Microsoft Corporation, Inc. is sum-of-parts to me because the I recognize Microsoft before anything else. Likewise for Nile River, except for the question of which is more correct, and anyways we have a bias against companies and full names of people in contrast to geographical features. It's terms like this one that aren't so clear. We deleted Vietnam War a long time ago, but more recently we kept United States Army. DAVilla 17:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

We did, although that discussion mysteriously revolved around idiomaticity rather than the more pressing point that names of proper entities, about which little or nothing can be said beyond describing their unique referent, add little or no value to a dictionary, just as they provide little or no value to the user. As I see it, there are two questions that need to be answered for such entries: "What value can we provide that Wikipedia cannot?" and "Where does it end?" Do we include every river and alternate name thereof? Every constitution and alternate name thereof? Every law and alternate name thereof? If not, why some and not others? Would we, for example, include American Constitution, Constitution of the United States, and US Constitution; Japanese Constitution etc.; Constitution of Illinois etc.? While the out of context criterion offers some promise of a boundary line, it also has proven very difficult to apply. In my opinion, the lines we draw need to be clear and sharp; if that means rejecting or restricting some borderline content, then so be it. -- Visviva 05:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right, we should leave that to 'pedia, and we would be straining ourselves to apply out-of-context. At least brand names have their own proponents, theoretically. Who's going to stand up for Seven Years' War? I just wish we could be more consistent. DAVilla 04:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Technically, the Constitution of Alabama is a United States Constitution, but it's not the United States Constitution. bd2412 T 21:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "United States constitution" is ever used to describe the constitution of a state. I've never heard it that way, at least. — [ ric ] opiaterein — 18:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That is precisely why it is idiomatic. It would be a correct use of words and grammar to describe any constitution originating within the United States as a "United States Constitution", just as the governor of Alabama is a "United States Governor" and a town in Alabama is a "United States town". But of all possible uses, only one is actually recognized as correct. bd2412 T 20:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Sum of parts, proper entry, encyclopedic. Atelaes 05:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete (sop, encyclopedic, etc.) — [ ric ] opiaterein — 18:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep; referent is both a concrete object and a figurative ideal. Eliminating it is something we leave to modern-day US politicians. --Connel MacKenzie 04:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thalassian

Warcraft language? CFI?--Keene 23:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

RFV per newly passed criteria on fictional universe. DAVilla 03:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

RFV per DAVilla. DCDuring TALK 16:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Teletubbies

A TV program? For some reason, I feel that Teletubby is OK...there was a possibly related discussion on Care Bears discussion ages ago. --Keene 23:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep, but convert to a "plural of" page. --EncycloPetey 00:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep and redefine, per 'Petey. bd2412 T 20:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

RfV-sense meaning given. Keep plural of sense. DCDuring TALK 16:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Nintendo

Information kept, discussion archived to Talk:Nintendo. -- Visviva 11:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft

In the sense of the computing company. Delete per Nintendo. DAVilla 03:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove sense (to etymology) per nom. -- Visviva 06:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree, Move proper noun sense to the etymology. --EncycloPetey 17:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Third that. Conrad.Irwin 17:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Move sense to ety. per above. DCDuring TALK 17:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

check it out

SoP - check out + it. Akin to fill it up, grind it down, let it go, bring it on (maybe not). --Keene 21:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(Yeah, not the last one.) Agree, delete or redirect. DAVilla 04:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. --EncycloPetey 05:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've heard people use this with the sense "listen to this": "Hey, check it out, I'm coming to town next weekend!". If so, keep and fix. —Ruakh_TALK 13:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

A speech act fromula is a keeper, if that's the case. It was one of Pawley's tests, though it doesn't come up often. DAVilla 15:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Street hawkers used this when handing out promotional cards for topless bars in NYC, for example, It would have been common use around here. DCDuring TALK 15:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep per Ruakh and DAVilla.—msh210℠ 17:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This meaning is already in check out. It would have to be a strong case to convince me that check it out is anything special. -- Algrif 18:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: "This meaning is already in check out.": I don't think it is. I have difficulty making this case, because when I use "check it out" I'm really just using sense #46 at check out, but as I wrote above, I'm pretty sure I've heard examples like "Hey, check it out, I'm coming to town next weekend!", where I don't think sense #46 fits, because there's nothing for the audience to examine, inspect, or even espy. (I think I've encountered this kind of usage in Dinosaur Comics, if anyone feels a burning need to look into it.) —Ruakh_TALK 00:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've sorted the transitive and intransitive senses of check out. Hopefully this might assuage your concerns? -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 00:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see how that changes anything, except the number in my comment. Am I missing something? —Ruakh_TALK 01:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no I think I missed something (i.e. the second half of your comment). My apologies. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to check out. Different minor variants of the same phrase get redirected to a single page. Atelaes 18:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep as a set phrase. Tell somebody "inspect it!" when you mean 'check it out' and see if they don't look at you funny :) — [ ric ] opiaterein — 18:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep as a set phrase, as per ric.--Dmol 21:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if someone could find 3 quotations to show me that it's used idiomatically. Kappa 00:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Started Citations:check it out. -- Visviva 12:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep as set phrase. (When you look at something, how does that apply a check mark to it, anyhow?) --Connel MacKenzie 01:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, then we should move it to check one out or check something out, because there is also "check this out", "check that out", "check these out", "check him out", "check her out", etc. This is not a set phrase, but a grammatical construction of a compound verb with a pronoun inserted between the components. This is a regular feature of English grammar, as with "throw it up", "knock it out", etc. --EncycloPetey 05:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Not all of the citations seem to be simply check out + it; this does in fact appear to be in use as a speech act formula ("I hereby call attention to this"). -- Visviva 12:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I've heard (deprecated template usage) check this out used in a similar fashion, but not check that out or certainly him/her. Check her out means exactly (deprecated template usage) check out + (deprecated template usage) her, likewise him and that, but the others are calling attention to the speaker, as Visviva says. This I guess is a natural way to do that, so it's a little iffy, but it is more obvious. “Check it out. I'm going to the store, right? And this girl...” What is the it? DAVilla 01:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

coño

Language. --Connel MacKenzie 20:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. Philippines is not a language. —Stephen 21:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Tagalog, however, is, which was what was meant. The Tagalog spelling apparently is konyo, but that was deleted for some reason... so while the Tagalog definition shouldn't be on the page of the Spanish word, being differently spelled, why remove the "see also"? Paul Willocx 21:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason not to have konyo as well as the "see also". —Stephen 20:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The only reason konyo was deleted in the first place was that it was defined as a Spanish verb meaning "to shit". It isn’t Spanish anything. —Stephen 20:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleting a language section immediately because the language name is wrong seems like a poor precedent. If no language name were given, it would have a month for the language name to be provided. I don't know the first thing about Tagalog but I've moved the information to (deprecated template usage) konyo since it seems like that's what has been suggested. Please correct this if it is wrong. DAVilla 23:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You should know me better than to think that I would delete a language section "because the language name is wrong". I deleted it because it did not pertain to coño, regardless of language. The information belonged not only to a different language, but to a different word. The only connection it had with the Spanish word coño was etymology. —Stephen 19:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. It was a comment, not a reason. Sorry I doubted you. DAVilla 01:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

tell lies

Um, tell + lies?—msh210℠ 21:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, (with devil's advocate hat on) I suppose someone might think it means to discern lies (Can you tell lies from truth?). SemperBlotto 22:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. I think this can mean just about anything that tell + lies does (such as SB's example). And, I don't think this is a fixed expression; the closest fixed expressions would be tell a lie and spread lies. —Ruakh_TALK 00:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If tell a lie is a fixed expression, then perhaps this could simply be redirected to that entry as a variant form. -- Visviva 07:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is absurd. Delete -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. You can "utter lies", "speak lies", or "spread lies", all with the same meaning as "tell lies". You can "tell stories", "tell fibs", or "tell untruths". The fact that either word is replaceable in the expression, but with the meaning retained, argues that it does not merit an entry. --EncycloPetey 04:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep but only as a phrasebook entry, unless someone can think of a more common expression of the same. How about (deprecated template usage) lie? Delete. DAVilla 22:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep after cleanup. The southern US dialect (eye dialect?) seems to consider this a particular past-time. They would sit out on the porch every evening and tell lies. Next, less weakly, keep as the translations that can be given for this type of entry are positively counter-intuitive (if not idiomatic themselves.) --Connel MacKenzie 21:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Arguments as per Ruakh, Atelaes, EncycloPetey. Keeping this would make a mockery of some of the strongly pro-argumented-but-notwithstanding-deleted entries we have seen over the past year. -- Algrif 14:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep as collocation. There aren't many things we can tell without including an indirect object, but lies are one such thing. — This unsigned comment was added by Keene (talk • contribs) at 01:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC).

It's true that (deprecated template usage) tell frequently requires an indirect object, but I don't think the exceptions are all fixed collocations: at least, my dialect has no problem with "He told a convoluted version of the same general story" and "She told the whole thing in one breath, or so it seemed." —Ruakh_TALK 02:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

prived

Probably spurious. def. given includes both deprived and spoiled. g.b.c. yields scannos and French language hits, but many of them. DCDuring TALK 23:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

nickname

Teddy and Shorty are both nicknames. I see no reason to make a distinction. DAVilla 10:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the distinction being made is actually between something like (deprecated template usage) Teddy or (deprecated template usage) Shorty, where it's genuinely used as an alternate name, and something like (deprecated template usage) the Body (for Jesse Ventura), where it's usually used with the name, or at least, you wouldn't typically expect a news article to use the term more than once. (“Teddy and Mike went to the store, and Teddy bought some vegetables” vs. “John and ‘the Body’ went to the store, and ‘the Body’ bought some vegetables”.) I guess there are two differences, really: one kind of nickname is fairly unmarked and usually used, while the other one is strongly marked and usually mentioned. Is this worth a separate sense line? I think so, but am not completely sure, since when we use the word (deprecated template usage) nickname, I think we're usually pretending that we're using sense #1, whether or not sense #1 would really be accurate. —Ruakh_TALK 12:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, in formal contexts some may be more often mentioned, but not always just mentioned:

• 2006, Brian Shields, Main Event, WWE in the Raging 80s, Simon and Schuster, ISBN 1416532579, page 98

  Jessie Ventura had dreams of ruling the world of professional wrestling. After he fought one of the most violent feuds the Pacific Northwest territory ever saw with Jimmy Snuka, “The Body” returned home to Minnestota

Anyways, that's not really the distinction the definition makes. Not all such bynames describe a person by one of their characteristics. (Mankind?) DAVilla 18:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

O.K., but I'd like to see you find an example where the nickname is used repeatedly, as though it were the real name, without the real name appearing as well. You can't, firstly because it doesn't happen, and secondly because Google won't let you search for uses of “the Body” that are talking about Jesse Ventura but don't mention his name. :-P   For an easier-to-test example, consider “Show Me State”, where "show me state" missouri gets 234,000 hits, while "show me state" -missouri gets only 145,000 — of which fairly few are actually referring to Missouri — next to none if you ignore businesses named "Show Me State ____" and so on.

(I do agree about fixing the def, though.)

—Ruakh_TALK 00:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep separate (with rewrite) per Ruakh and the lemming test; I'm inclined to give a slight benefit of the doubt to sense distinctions which have been approved by professional lexicographers. -- Visviva 13:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep. In onomastics there is a huge difference between a nickname used as a given name and a nickname used as a byname. The latter occasionally given rise to surnames, but the former do not. That is, there is a difference between "Shorty" and "Sparky" on the one hand and "Little John" and "Richard Lionheart" on the other. And you can see the difference in grammar as well: A nickname functioning as a given name will usually appear in isolation, whereas a nickname functioning as a byname will only appear along with a given name. --EncycloPetey 03:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

everybody's

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

I want to actively delete them. (I might be more O.K. with them if they were more accurate, though. "Genitive singular form" is misleading on three counts: this isn't really a "genitive"; it's a "singular" only in that (deprecated template usage) everybody is a syntactically singular pronoun, which hardly seems relevant to (deprecated template usage) everybody's, since syntactically it doesn't have a number, and it's not like there's a genitive plural it needs to be distinguished from; and it's not really a "form". And our POS header, "noun", is flat-out wrong: (deprecated template usage) everybody is a pronoun, so there's no way (deprecated template usage) everybody's is a noun.) —Ruakh_TALK 02:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a reason the vote was for noun plurals only - to keep entries like this. Move to RFC. Keep. --Connel MacKenzie 04:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what vote you're referring to, but the vote I remember did forbid entries like this. It explicitly made exception for "the irregularly-formed possessive forms of pronouns", and there seems to have been general agreement that the personal pronoun (deprecated template usage) one's would probably be O.K., or at least was a special case to be considered independently; but I see no suggestion that the vote only cover nouns. —Ruakh_TALK 03:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Ruakh. The vote clearly only allows for irregular pronominal possessive forms, such as whose and its. While I don't know how I would have voted, had I been around for this vote, its mandate is fairly clear. Delete -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

To quote Ruakh: "(I'd actually prefer that there also be an exception for one's, which is the only personal pronoun that we use the apostrophe in, but whatever. This way is quite fine.)". The only one, eh? Really? Not that it is my place to protest deletion: this is not my mother tongue. However, Dutch does have: ieder - ieders (everybody - everybody's) and imho ieders deserves a lemma. What translation should I give [[everybody|everybody's]]?

Jcwf 04:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

We do not create English entries simply to provide a translation substrate. I would probably do everybody's. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that when there is enough reason to we should, even for entries like father/mother's brother which could be linked in place of a translation of uncle in certain languages. It would not surprise me if several languages necessitated this for all possessives of pronouns. Therefore weak keep as a phrasebook entry. DAVilla 10:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The only one, yes. (In Standard English, at least. Certainly "it's" is a very common misspelling of "its".) I don't speak Dutch, but on the face of it, yes, [[everybody|everybody's]] looks like quite a reasonable translation, as does [[everybody]][['s]] [edit:] or, as Atelaes suggests, [[everybody]]'s. (From what I gather, the genitive in Dutch is mostly archaic except with pronouns like (deprecated template usage) ieder. If this is correct, then I agree with your opinion that (deprecated template usage) ieders deserves a full entry.) —Ruakh_TALK 04:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, genitives are mostly archaic and in fact less common than the English possessive. They are mostly limited to persons: Jan->Jans etc. Pronouns are a bit of an exception like wiens, wier, ieders, niemands, but then there is a whole bunch of adverbs that derive from genitives. I still don't understand your 'the only one' argument: i.e. I fail to see the difference between everybody's, one's, somebody's and anybody's.

Jcwf 04:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

dog shit

I know someone is going to say how this means something other than dog + shit, or other languages translate this special or some other nonsense, but I couldn't live with myself if I didn't try and get this nonsense deleted. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirect. This is a bit of a toughie, because we have to include (deprecated template usage) dogshit, and since (deprecated template usage) dog shit is a bit more common, it seems odd to redirect from dog shit to dogshit. But, I don't see a better way. *shrug* —Ruakh_TALK 02:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we really? And equally the s*** of every imaginable animal? Why not mention under the entry "shit" that it can be combined with names of animals to produce a term meaning their particular produce? I have used this approach with some Finnish nouns. Hekaheka 11:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

We need entries for horseshit and bullshit anyway. There really aren't that many that form a single word (rat, worm, whale, bird come to mind). They are used in different contexts and sometimes have special nuances or usage. Otherwise we are just talking about the usual attirbutive use of the animal name with "shit". Many have special non-vulgar names like "pellets", etc. It would be amusing to get those in one list some day. DCDuring TALK 15:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirect per above. Seems like an excellent solution to the whole set of these. DCDuring TALK 15:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure, but what about doggy doo/doggie do/doggy do/doggie doo? AFAIK, the dog is the only animals whose faeces is referred to as "doo". Or does do/doo cover it?--Keene 15:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think a redirect here would be harmful and misleading. While "dogshit" is almost always an adjective, "dog shit" is usually a noun. A the very worst, it could be reduced to a soft redirect, but that would just be forcing readers to to click-through (which usually results in people leaving, to try a different reference instead...i.e. not helpful.) --Connel MacKenzie 19:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Keep as it is an idiomatic set phrase. --Connel MacKenzie 19:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There are about 9 of these in English that I've identified: bat, bird, bull, chicken, dog, horse, rat, whale, worm. Not all form a single word with shit. Most can be found with and without hyphens, the usually but not always for some kind of adjectival use. We will not be buried in the subject matter. DCDuring TALK 21:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You forgot apeshit. ;-) Dmcdevit·t 00:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep, I pronounce this as one entity, with stress on "dog" and none on "shit", whereas if I said "cat shit" I would stress both words. Kappa 00:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone at least tell me what it means, idiomatically? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I would guess it's similar to bullshit or horseshit, but the problem is that there is no idiomatic sense defined at the actual article yet, despite the arguments here that one exists. I don't think people should say to keep something because a more valid meaning exists without even adding that meaning; then we end up with the less valid article kept in the end, and the problem isn't fixed. Dmcdevit·t 00:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I took a crack at an entry for dogshit. We could probably keep attesting entries (which are readily available, of course) off the page. I don't think we need too many usage examples, either. If we just get serious about this group of words for a bit, we can probably handle it once and for all. Compared to the others dogshit seems to be just "common", but "worse" than human. rat-; horse-, bull-; whale-, worm-; chicken-; and bat- and, yes, ape- all have different meanings, divided into groups of related meanings by semi-colons on the list. I'm not sure about bird and snake, though snake might be like worm and whale. DCDuring TALK 02:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep as an alternative spelling of dogshit. Both may be idiomatic under the "in between" test and the latter per community support of (deprecated template usage) Dutchman. DAVilla 10:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Jovian moons

Tagged RFD last year. Sum of parts. --Keene 15:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No need to delete as they look fine, though I wouldn't ask people to create them. Conrad.Irwin 16:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The moons themselves I'm happy with. But the article Jovian moons is what we are RFDing!--Keene 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Conrad’s rationale. Keep Jovian moons. —Stephen 03:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The 'them' was to this and the next nom. too. Conrad.Irwin 10:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately this should be deleted per oblique leaf, which I didn't really agree with removing. But being consistent is more important in my opinion. DAVilla 11:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm really unhappy with that rationale. The community does occasionally make bad decisions which are not in the project's best interests to follow. The only way to keep ourselves from leading ourselves down the garden path is to ground every judgment we make on first principles, such as they are perceived by each editor. If having entries like this is beneficial, or if deleting them is harmful (not necessarily the same thing), then they should be kept, no matter what we have decided in the past. -- Visviva 14:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete in the absence of any plausible argument for idiomaticity. But perhaps I'm missing something -- is this anything but the plural of Jovian moon? -- Visviva 14:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete this and next, per nom and per Visviva. —Ruakh_TALK 01:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards keep. I hear "Jovian moons" in astronomy, but "moons of Saturn", "moons of Neptune". I can't recall ever hearing "Neptunian moons" or the like, whereas "Jovian moons/satellites" is common. Jovian is not the expected adjective. This might be unusual enough to be worth keeping in some fashion. --EncycloPetey 02:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That seemed right to me also, but Google Scholar seems to disagree; I got 560 for "Jovian moons" vs. 2,440 for "moons of Jupiter," and 184 for "Saturnian moons" vs. 468 for "mooons of Saturn." "Moons of Neptune" and "Neptunian moons," which of course are a less common topic, scored 62 and 17 respectively. So unless something is fudging the data, it seems like these are pretty similar in their relative frequency of use. -- Visviva 05:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. --EncycloPetey 01:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Jovian satellites

As Jovian moons, tagged RFD last year, sum of Parts--Keene 15:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

fable

One sense (in English) has been split incorrectly into four separate senses. --Connel MacKenzie 19:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I know; the editors of Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) really went too far with the whole "Webster's 1913 is not paper" thing. In their defense, though, they were probably prodded in part by their desire to desire to translate words helpfully into every language. Seriously, though, keep; it's probably worthwhile to distinguish between a literal fable, and three extended senses, especially since they give such different connotations. —Ruakh_TALK 01:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep MW3 retains 7 distinct senses in three groups. One of the things WT should NOT be is WTSimple. Grouping similar senses; displaying simply worded sense or glosses first; and hiding subsenses and subtleties all seem worthy of consideration, but deletion pushes us to be a very specific kind of dictionary, rather than a universal one. DCDuring TALK 02:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The OED distinguishes 5 separate senses and a total of 10 sub-senses! Widsith 08:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As written, senses 1 and 3 do seem redundant; isn't sense 3 precisely describing a made-up story told for amusement? Maybe the distinction made more sense 95 years ago, or maybe the inclusion of "amuse" in sense 1 was simply an error, or maybe there is some still-obvious distinction I am simply missing. Clue, please. Sense 2 does seem distinct, but I have to wonder whether this sense has ever actually been used by anyone besides Dryden. -- Visviva 05:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The 4 meanings are quite clear to me.--Richardb 01:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of WikiLove, parts of the preceding comment have been redacted. —Ruakh_TALK 02:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Not until we ban personal attacks from them. Let's discuss pages not people here, meta discussion and personal grievances to talk page please. - [The]DaveRoss 01:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, last time you were here you were blocked for a single-minded campaign of attacks. If you're here just to do that again, I'd rather you just leave again. I think we as a community are probably quite impatient with it by now; I know I am. Dmcdevit·t

citizen of a state

Obviously not a set phrase, but arguably a jargon term within government/legal documents. (All of which currently seem to be included in the entry!) Such entry titles are not accepted still, right? Or has there been a vote on these that I've missed? --Connel MacKenzie 07:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My entry, "citizen of a state" has a reference to a case from the Supreme Court of the United States at 2. which reads:

“. . . The act was considered in Johnson v. United States, 160 U.S. 546, 16 Sup. Ct. 377, and we there held that a person who was not a citizen of the United States at the time of an alleged appropriation of his property by a tribe of Indians was not entitled to maintain an action in the court of claims under the act in question. There was not in that case, however, any assertion that the claimant was a citizen of a state, as distinguished from a citizen of the United States.” United States v. Northwestern Express, Stage & Transportation Company: 164 U.S. 686, 688 (1897).

The Supreme Court makes a distinction between a citizen of a state and a citizen of the United States.

In addition, there is the following:

“. . . In the Constitution and laws of the United States the word 'citizen' is generally, if not always, used in a political sense, to designate one who has the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State or of the United States.” Baldwin v. Franks: 120 U.S. 678, 690 (1887); reaffirmed, Collins v. Hardyman: 341 U.S. 651, 658-659 (1950); Griffen v. Breckenridge: 403 U.S. 88, 93-95 (1971).

Also:

“. . . There is no inherent right in a citizen to thus sell intoxicating liquors by retail; it is not a privilege of a citizen of a State or of a citizen of the United States.” Crowley v. Christensen: 137 U.S. 86, 91 (1890).

And:

". . . Unquestionably, in the general and common acceptation, a citizen of the state is considered as synonymous with citizen of the United States, and the one is therefore treated as expressive of the other. This flows from the fact that the one is normally and usually the other, and where such is not the case it is purely exceptional and uncommon." United States v. Northwestern Express, Stage & Transportation Company: 164 U.S. 686, 688 (1877).

From the Slaughterhouse Cases there is the following:

“The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is, that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state is clearly recognized and established. . . .

It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual." Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873).

Therefore, citizen of a state is a legal term and not a jargon term. --Gettingitdone 09:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep I have had a go at formatting it according to Entry layout explained and it does appear to imply more that "a citizen of one state". Conrad.Irwin 11:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep as formatted and cited by Conrad.Irwin. A good model for the other "citizen" entry. We may need to add to WT:NOT that Wiktionary is not a depository of material from or for legal briefs. DCDuring TALK 15:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Inasmuch as I was just waiting to see this canned, Conrad.Irwin's reformat does look pretty nice. Weak keep -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 16:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If bd2412 says it is not a legal term, I believe it is not a legal term. Delete. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete, entirely sum-of-parts. "Citizen" may properly be said to be a legal term, but "of a state" is merely a description of a kind of citizen, no more deserving of an entry than "citizen of a country". Granted, in the U.S. there may be resident aliens who are considered citizens of a state for certain local voting purposes but are not citizens of the U.S. (even they must still pay federal income tax, if they are earning income in the U.S.). But there is no special legal term to capture them. bd2412 T 05:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

To all,

I have made some changes to this entry. Also, there were some changes made by others which I really like. My belief is that these changes will be satisfactory

Regarding "the several states" or "several states" and "the United States" or "United States in the Constitution of the United States there is the following:

"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states." Article II, Section 2, Clause 1. and

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, . . . but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United State; . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states." Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 & 3.

In the Constitution of the United States, therefore, the terms "several states" and "United States" are used in a distinct sense. The term "United States" does not necessarily means the same as "several states." --Gettingitdone 09:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete. It's surprising, in a strictly encyclopedic way, that courts have sometimes distinguished between a citizen of an individual state and a citizen of the country, but a dictionary entry for (deprecated template usage) citizen of a state is not the way to cover that: if you know that the concept exists, then you'll easily understand this and any other way of phrasing it. I see no evidence that this is a fixed expression warranting inclusion on this basis. —Ruakh_TALK 11:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The "distinction" is semantic. Up until late last year, I lived in Coral Gables, Florida, and was therefore eligible to vote for the mayor of that city; therefore, I was a "citizen of a city", specifically a "citizen of Coral Gables". I was, simultaneously, a "citizen of a county" and a "citizen of a state". None of these detracted from my status as a "citizen of the United States". The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution prohibits one state from discriminating against citizens of another state (i.e., Georgia can not charge a higher sales tax to a Florida citizen passing through than it does to a Georgia citizen). Some wacko's have misread certain Supreme Court cases to mean that someone born in a U.S. state is a citizen of that state, and not a citizen of the United States. That is what the contributor of this entry is trying to push (he wrote an entire article on Wikipedia explicitly making this absurd claim). bd2412 T 21:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that the fact that it has non-SoP meaning for some meaningful group (however small, misguided, and distasteful in our joint or several opinions) that we are obligated to include it. We could get into similar controversy over such questions as whether the "United States" is singular or plural (a point worth a usage note, BTW). If we are going to exclude such entries because the group that constitutes the context in which this is not SoP is not "meaningful", we can do so, but we may find it difficult to maintain objectivity. DCDuring TALK 19:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

To all,

The following is a provision of law from the State of California.

California Government Code §241 provides that “[t]he citizens of the State are:

a) All persons born in the State and residing within it, except the children of transient aliens and of alien public ministers and consuls.

b) All persons born out of the State who are citizens of the United States and residing within the State.”

--Gettingitdone 07:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

To all,

The following is a court case:

“A person who is a citizen of the United State is necessarily a citizen of the particular state in which he resides. But a person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen of the United States. To hold otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest exercise of its sovereignty – the right to declare who are its citizens.” State of Louisiana v. Fowler: 6 S. 602; 41 La.Ann. 380 (1889)

--Gettingitdone 08:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

How is that different from being a "citizen of a county", or a "citizen of a municipality", or a "citizen of a school district"? bd2412 T 08:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

See, e.g. U.S. v. City of Yonkers, 880 F.Supp. 212, (SDNY 1995): "Formal Department action of the kind that results in a Commissioner's order to a district to develop a plan for correcting racial imbalance has always come as a result of an appeal to the Commissioner by citizens of a school district". Should we add that entry now? bd2412 T 08:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

bd2412 T 08:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to that term being added (that is citizens of a school district).

With reference to your question, citizenship of a state and citizenship of the United States have been determined to be seperate and distinct by the Supreme Court in the Slaughterhouse Cases:

“. . . It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States, except as he was a citizen of one of the States composing the Union. Those, therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District of Columbia or in the Territories, though within the United States, were not citizens. Whether this proposition was sound or not had never been judicially decided. . . .

. . . [T]o establish a clear and comprehensive definition of citizenship which should declare what should constitute citizenship of the United States, and also citizenship of a State, the first clause of the first section was framed.

'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.'

The first observation we have to make on this clause is, that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is, that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State is clearly recognized and established. Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a State, but an important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter. He must reside within the State to make him a citizen of it . . .

It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.” Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, 72- 74 (1873).

In addition, the Slaughterhouse court states:

“Of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the United States, and of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the State, and what they respectively are, we will presently consider; but we wish to state here that it is only the former which are placed by this clause (second clause of the first section) under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the latter, whatever they may be, are not intended to have any additional protection by this paragraph of the amendment.” Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, 74 (1873).

Therefore, privileges and immunities of a citizen of the United States are in the Fourteenth Amendment. Privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state are not.

Privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state are recognized in Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States:

“The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”

However, they are not located there. Instead they are to be found in the constitution (for example, “Declaration of Rights”) and laws of the individual State.

Therefore, if one is born within the United States, he or she is by the Fourteenth Amendment, a citizen of the United States. He or she can then become a citizen of a state, by force of the Fourteenth Amendment, by residing in a State. He or she will then be a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State (as stated ub the first clause of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment).

Before the Fourteenth Amendment and the Slaughterhouse Cases citizenship of a state and citizenship of the United States were considered to be one in the same. However, after the Slaughterhouse Cases, they were held to be separate and distinct. Therefore, one now can be a citizen of the United States and not a citizen of a state, a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, or a citizen of State and not a citizen of the United States. Regarding the latter two there is the following:

“. . . Unquestionably, in the general and common acceptation, a citizen of the state is considered as synonymous with citizen of the United States, and the one is therefore treated as expressive of the other. This flows from the fact that the one is normally and usually the other, and where such is not the case it is purely exceptional and uncommon.” United States v. Northwestern Express, Stage & Transportation Company: 164 U.S. 686, 688 (1877), and

“A person who is a citizen of the United State is necessarily a citizen of the particular state in which he resides. But a person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen of the United States. To hold otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest exercise of its sovereignty – the right to declare who are its citizens.” State of Louisiana v. Fowler: 6 S. 602; 41 La.Ann. 380 (1889).

The answer to your question is that under law a citizen of a state and a citizen of the United States are considered to be seperate and distinct:

“. . . The act was considered in Johnson v. United States, 160 U.S. 546, 16 Sup. Ct. 377, and we there held that a person who was not a citizen of the United States at the time of an alleged appropriation of his property by a tribe of Indians was not entitled to maintain an action in the court of claims under the act in question. There was not in that case, however, any assertion that the claimant was a citizen of a state, as distinguished from a citizen of the United States.” United States v. Northwestern Express, Stage & Transportation Company: 164 U.S. 686, 688 (1897).

With that question answered I will answer another question of yours:

The following case is a Supreme court case. The appellant is a corporation.

“Appellant does not invoke the commerce clause, and is neither a citizen of a state nor of the United States within the protection of the privileges and immunities clauses of Article IV, 2 of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment. Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, 177; Pembina Consol. Silver Mining & Milling Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U.S. 181, 187 , 8 S.Ct. 737, 740; Selover, B. & Co. v. Walsh, 226 U.S. 112, 126 , 33 S.Ct. 69, 72..” Asbury Hospital v. Cass County, N.D.: 326 U.S. 207, 210-211 (1945).

This case is a state supreme court case (Supreme Court of California). The petitioners are aliens, in particular subjects of the country of Japan:

“It appears from said application that petitioners are residents of the state of California and county of Los Angeles, and are all Japanese subjects ineligible to become citizens of the United States or state of California.” K. Tashiro v. Jordan: 201 Cal. 236 (1927 ): 256 P. 545; 53 A.L.R. 1279.

--Gettingitdone 05:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This was addressed in the deletion debate on Wikipedia. Yes, it is possible for a resident alien to be born in another country (say, Japan), and to come to the United States and become a "citizen of California" for California's purposes without becoming a "citizen of the United States". That person would not have the right to vote in a federal election, or to serve on a jury, or to be considered a "citizen" under any federal statute that conferred a benefit on U.S. citizens. But if that person became a citizen of the U.S., they would then automatically also be a "citizen of California" so long as California was their domicile (and California can do nothing to prevent it).

Similarly, someone can be a citizen of the U.S. permanently living in a U.S. territory, or in another country, and thus not be a citizen of any state in the U.S. But it is legally impossible to be born in the United States and domiciled in California (or Texas, or Iowa) without being a citizen of the United States and simultaneously a citizen of California (or Texas, or Iowa).

I you are born in the U.S., you are a citizen of the U.S. and of the state you are born in until you move to establish a domicile in a different state (at which point you are a citizen the U.S. and your new state of domicile). bd2412 T 06:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

bd2412 T 06:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC) and all

In an earlier post --Gettingitdone 05:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC) I wrote:

In addition, the Slaughterhouse court states:

“Of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the United States, and of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the State, and what they respectively are, we will presently consider; but we wish to state here that it is only the former which are placed by this clause (second clause of the first section) under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the latter, whatever they may be, are not intended to have any additional protection by this paragraph of the amendment.” Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, 74 (1873).

Therefore, privileges and immunities of a citizen of the United States are in the Fourteenth Amendment. Privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state are not.

Privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state are recognized in Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States.

I include the following:

"The court below proceeded upon the assumption that petitioner was a citizen of the United States; and his status in that regard is not questioned. The effect of the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as applied to the facts of the present case, is to deny the power of Ohio to impose restraints upon citizens of the United States resident in Alabama in respect of the disposition of goods within Ohio, if like restraints are not imposed upon citizens resident in Ohio.

The effect of the similar clause found in the Fourth Article of the Constitution (section 2), as applied to these facts, would be the same, since that clause is directed against discrimination by a state in favor of its own citizens and against the citizens of other states. Slaughterhouse Cases (Live-Stock Dealers' & Butchers' Ass'n v. Crescent City Live-Stock Landing & Slaughter-House Co.), Fed.Cas. No. 8,408, 1 Woods 21, 28; Bradwell v. State of Illinois, 16 Wall. 130, 138." Whitfield v. State of Ohio: 297 U.S. 431, 437 (1936).

--Gettingitdone 01:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

To all,

I changed in the first sentence, the term "United States" to "the Union". My basis for this is Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constituton of the United States which states:

"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union."

I also added the rest of the quotation in United States v. Northwestern Express, Stage & Transportation Company: 164 U.S. 686, 688; that is; "This flows from the fact that the one is normally and usually the other, and where such is not the case it is purely exceptional and uncommon."

Let me know what you think. --Gettingitdone 01:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

citizen of the several states

--Connel MacKenzie 07:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Connel

I am assuming your read the whole entry to the term "citizen of the several States."

For at 3. there is the following from the Supreme Court of the United States:

“The intention of section 2, Article IV (of the Constitution), was to confer on the citizens of the several States a general citizenship.” Cole v. Cunningham: 133 U.S. 107, 113-114 (1890).

This case was decided after the Slaughterhouse Cases (1890) to (1873).

In addition, the following was quoted and cited in my entry for the term "citizen of a state":

“Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision.” Minor v. Happersett: 88 U.S. 162, 165 (1874).

This is another Supreme Court case decided after the Slaughterhouse Cases."

There is also the following from the Slaughterhouse Cases:

"The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is, that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state is clearly recognized and established...

It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.

We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this Amendment of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section, which is the one mainly relied on by the plaintiffs in error, speaks only of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not speak of those of citizens of the several states. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs, rests wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause (that is Section 2, Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment) are the same.” Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, 73-74.

And, from another Supreme Court case decided after the Slaughterhouse Cases. there is:

“In the Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 21 L. ed. 394, the subject of the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, as distinguished from those of a particular state, was treated by Mr. Justice Miller in delivering the opinion of the court. He stated that the argument in favor of the plaintiffs, claiming that the ordinance of the city of New Orleans was invalid, rested wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment are the same as to citizens of the United States and citizens of the several states. This he showed to be not well founded; that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states, which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual." Maxwell v. Dow: 176 U.S. 581, 587-588 (1900).

Citizen of the several States is therefore a legal term and not a jargon term. --Gettingitdone 08:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the term "the several States" should be defined, if it fulfils CFI. If that can be done in a meaningful way, this entry becomes a SoP, which means that it should be deleted anyway. Hekaheka 14:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete I could see a single genuine one- or two-line definition with appropriate US, Law context tags. The term is a formula apparently in common use in US constitutional law. As it is the entry is simply encyclopedic. If someone (e.g., the contributor) would do the work of revising the entry into a true dictionary entry, I would change my opinion. DCDuring TALK 15:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep the current appropriately brief entry. Needs usage notes and, perhaps, additional context tags. DCDuring TALK 13:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

To all,

I have made some changes to this entry. Also, there were some changes made by others which I like. However, I thought the references I had orginally would have been useful. I am satisfied with how it is now.

(Note: I want to say that I posted this entry earlier but it was not to be found. I do not know why it is not there. I am not making any accusations, just that I am very certain that I posted this entry earlier.) --Gettingitdone 00:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete per Hekaheka. The operative term here is "the several States", used in some archaic documents to mean "the United States". bd2412 T 05:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Gettingitdone, I notice that you have poured a substantial amount of false tax protester nonsense into Wikipedia, and have now warned you there, and nominated your garbage article on this topic for deletion. Furthermore, I have deleted your legally incorrect definitions here, since they imply the same tax protester crap. You are intentionally inserting false information into Wikipedia and Wiktionary. If you continue, you will be blocked. In any event, your contentions are wrong. The above references to "the several states" in the Constitution do refer to all the states of the United States. Sorry, but if you are a citizen of a state, you have to pay federal income tax on your wages. bd2412 T 08:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Bd2412,

I will not answer any references to taxes since as the terms here relate to citizenship. What has citizenship to do with taxes. You have made some unfounded connection where none exists in the terms or my artice.

And yet you remove material which relates to citizenship and put your unrelated tax materials in instead, to make it "fit" your unfounded connection? --Gettingitdone 09:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have not put any tax materials in any of your definitions. However, the false definitions which you included (and I removed) are only used by tax loonies trying to argue that despite being, e.g., natural-born citizens of Nebraska or Kentucky or the like, they nonetheless are not citizens of "the United States". Since this is false (and absurd), it does not belong in any encyclopedia or dictionary. Cheers! bd2412 T 10:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Even "tax loonies" can make contributions. The use of the word in a controversy is not our concern. It arguably means that we "should" have the entry and argues for its being a set phrase. This and its partner, citizen of the several states, seem to be "set phrases" with a great deal of specific meaning within a specific community of states' rights and tax protesters (aka "tax loonies") in the US, their attorneys, and propagandists, and constitutional lawyers. Shouldn't we define them appropriately, put in usage notes and/or even more specific context tags, and be done with it? If there are subsequent attempts to vandalize, we have protection options. I don't think we do any service by taking the PoV of the US IRS even if it is completely sound and true. This is just a phrase - and it does seem to have specific meaning in its realm of controversy. DCDuring TALK 18:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A usage note might help, but the definition is still false. Suppose, for example, that I decide that I wish to copy Joe Smith's copyrighted work, and I therefore go to Wiktionary and add a definition for "copyright" which adds the caveat, "excluding the works of Joe Smith". This would be an incorrect definition, and should be removed. Same goes for the definition that certain tax protesters push for "citizen of a state"; they try to create the impression (based on misrepresentation of case law) that the term carries not only the sum-of-parts meaning, but also means something more, that being "exclusive of citizenship in the United States" (or in "the several states"). This is a hoax, rather than a definition. bd2412 T 18:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with DCDuring - that is, the entry itself should be kept. As bd2412 indicates, it should clearly convey that it is used only in the contexts of hoaxes; only a valid definition (if one can be ascribed) should be kept for it. --Connel MacKenzie 07:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

To Hekaheka 14:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the term the several states and the term the United States there is in the Constitution of the United States the following:

"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states." Article II, Section 2, Clause 1. and

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, . . . but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United State; . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states." Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 & 3.

In the Constitution of the United States, therefore, the terms "several states" and "United States" are used in a distinct sense. The term "United States" does not necessarily means the same as "several states." --Gettingitdone 08:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That is an argument for having an entry on "the several states", not on "citizen of..." which is still sum of parts. The phrase is merely a short way of saying "the states of the United States" - which does merit an entry, but not under the premise that a citizen of one of the several states is anything but a citizen of the United States. bd2412 T 08:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, here's a better argument. Your phrase is unverifiable. Please show me three sources meeting the CFI which refer to "a citizen of the several states". Not "citizens of the several states", but a usage (by a court, in a peer-reviewed journal, in a textbook) of the singular "a citizen of the several states". bd2412 T 08:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made an entry for several states without the definite article because that's the way one would probably look for it in a dictionary. Hekaheka 22:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

To Hekaheka 14:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The following is related to my last response to you.

In addition, there is the following from Black’s Law Dictionary, 5 edition, at page 1375:

“United States: The term has several meanings. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations, it may designate territory over which sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the collective name of the states* which are united by and under** the Constitution. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt: 324 U.S. 652; 65 S.Ct. 870, 880; 65 L.Ed. 1252.”

* should be “several states”

**should be “united under and by”

“. . . It is petitioner's argument that merchandise brought from the Philippines to the United States is an import because it is brought into the United States from a place without, even though not from a foreign country. Implicit in this argument is the contention that the Philippines, while belonging to the United States as a sovereign, are not part of it; and that merchandise brought from the Philippines is an import because it originates outside of and is brought into the territory comprising the several states which are united under and by the Constitution, territory in which the constitutional prohibition against the state taxation of imports, is alone applicable.” Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt: 324 U.S. 652, 669 (1945).

So, the Hooven court gives three possible meanings of the term "United States": (a) the government of the United States, (b) the several states, federal enclaves within the several states, and territories & possessions of the United States, and (c) the several states.

And, there is a provision of law of the United States which has the term “several states” in it. It is at 4 USC 112:

4 USC 112 Compacts Between States For Cooperation In Prevention of Crime; Consent of Congress

(a) The consent of Congress is hereby given to any two or more States to enter into agreements or compacts for cooperative effort and mutual assistance in the prevention of crime and in the enforcement of their respective criminal laws and policies, and to establish such agencies, joint or otherwise, as they may deem desirable for making effective such agreements and compacts.

(b) For the purpose of this section, the term "States" means the several States and Alaska, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the District of Columbia.”

(Note: Alaska and Hawaii were territories when this statute was enacted)

And from the Constitution of the United States there is the following:

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.” Article V, Constitution of the United States.

See also Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States. --Gettingitdone 02:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Gettingitdone, you say "the Hooven court gives three possible meanings of the term "United States": (a) the government of the United States, (b) the several states, federal enclaves within the several states, and territories & possessions of the United States, and (c) the several states". The Hooven decision was not making an attempt to define the phrase "the several states", but was attempting to define "the United States", which (as you have pointed out) can refer to the government as a whole, to the entire territory (including non-state possessions, as the Philippines were at the time Hooven was decided), or the states of the U.S. The fact that Black's Law Dictionary omits the word "several" should be quite a strong clue that "the several states" means nothing more and nothing less than "the states of the United States". If we were discussing whether we should have an entry on "the several states" this would be a useful point. But since we are discussing, "citizen of the several states", this merely underscores the fact that this phrase is sum-of-parts: citizen of the several states. bd2412 T 04:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

bd2412 T 04:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States provides:

"The senators and representatives before-mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

In addition, at Article II, Section 2. Clause 1 it reads:

"The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States."

The Constitution of the United States uses the term "several States", and then Hooven court used the term "several States". Therefore, this entry in Black's Law Dictionary is wrong ON TWO COUNTS. I am sure you are aware that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. --Gettingitdone 05:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Except of course that Black's Law Dictionary (which you yourself cited earlier) is correct if "the several states" means "the states" which make up the United States. It is far more likely that the correct interpretation is the one being put forth by Black's Law Dictionary. bd2412 T 06:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

To Hekaheka 22:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC) and bd2412 T 04:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have read your definition for the term several states and would like to suggest the following be considered:

English

(noun) several states

Template:US Term is generally used in contradistinction to the term United States. Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States is an example:

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States.” [1]

Template:US Currently the 50 states of the Union “united under and by the Constitution” [2] Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States is an illustration:

“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union.”

References

[1] Another example is Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

[2] Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt: 324 U.S. 652, 669 (1945). --Gettingitdone 01:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Bank of England

A proper noun encyclopedic concept with no attributive meanings (I believe). Dmcdevit·t 06:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep, to differentiate that is it the official government central bank, as opposed to Bank of Scotland or Bank of Ireland which are commercial entities. (I'm not too concerned about the building definition).--Dmol 09:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What does that reason have to do with a dictionary? Explaining that it is an official government bank sounds like an encyclopedia's job. This nomination is identical to Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#Armed_Forces_of_the_United_States (the official central government's armed forces). Dmcdevit·t 09:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That is the very reason it should be there, to indicate that it is the government bank, and not just a SoP bank that happens to be in England which would be the most obvious (but incorrect) meaning.--Dmol 21:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep. I've added a citation. Have we got nothing better to do that try to remove perfectly good content? SemperBlotto 10:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. This has no place here. -- Visviva 10:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• This is not supposed to be a democracy. Don't we need reasons? There are numerous dictionaries that have numerous entries for proper nouns (e.g., MIT Dictionary of Modern Economics). If the nom is not certain that the headword does not have attributive meanings ("I believe"), then why isn't this at RfV? Do we apply different standards to economic and military institutions than we apply to other governmental bodies? (Aside: Do we also apply different standards for NGOs than we apply to commercial entities?) move to RfV per nom's expressed uncertainty as to attributive use. DCDuring TALK 11:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't matter whether I believe that it has an attributive sense or not. RfV is for verifying questionable senses. None of the given senses here are attributive or worthy of verification; they should be deleted regardless. I don't understand why you say "Don't we need reasons?" when I clearly have given one (and it's not just against proper nouns, by the way; one of the dictionaries I happen to like includes lots of valid proper nouns: this one). If there is an attributive sense add it, but you don't need RfV for that. Dmcdevit·t 11:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought the reason we have two processes (RfD and RfV) is that different criteria are in question. RfV is for attestation. RfD is for other. If an entry is going to be deleted on grounds other than attestation, then I will not waste an hour attesting it. The nom has stated that he is not sure that it is used attributively. I am sure that it is. I have not seen any argument (as opposed to assertion) as to why this entry does not meet CFI. The difference between this and the "Armed Forces of the United States" entry is that that phrase is not actually used except in the most formal of contexts (also like "Constitution of the United States"). "Bank of England" even has a nickname. Is the problem that the senses don't make it obvious that "Bank of England note" is an attributive use of "Bank of England"? If the attributive use of this can be attested, would the definition have to be rewriten or supplemented to meet CFI? DCDuring TALK 15:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what is unclear. There are no attributive senses currently given on the page to attest, even if they do exist. All the current senses should be deleted. The RfD is not proposing deletion for some potential senses that no one has added yet. As such, this entry (rather than the one you are imagining could exist) fails CFI. You'll note that this nomination is nothing out of the ordinary, though you seem to be surprised by it. (Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#Microsoft) Dmcdevit·t 21:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with your reading of the CFI. Like you, I've always understood the CFI to say that we only include names that are used attributively; unlike you, I've never concluded that we only cover the attributive uses of such names. DCDuring is saying that the senses we already have can be found in attributive use. (Of course, the whole issue is complicated by the fact that "attributive" has two completely different senses, and the CFI happen to choose an example that overlaps so we can't tell what was meant.) —Ruakh_TALK 23:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As usual, Ruakh has made a clearer statement than I seem to be capable of, but with which I am in total agreement. Please take a look at the citations which make clear that "Bank of England" is used by many distinguished authors to evoke (not denote) a great deal about England, "safety" (see below.) and permanence being among the attributes. Even the building is evocative for some. DCDuring TALK 01:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Another attributive use is "as safe as the Bank of England" which has book use that goes back 200 years.--Dmol 17:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that is a sensible argument for keeping. Keep, since we can say something useful about it, merge senses since the distinctions are dubious at best, and include specific reference to attributive/symbolic use. In general we need to have a more systematic approach to handling proper-nouns-used-in-symbolic-or-attributive-ways-which-nonetheless-have-only-an-encyclopedic-referent (or PNUISOAWWNHOAERs, as I like to call them). Personally I favor a single two-stroke definition, something like "The central bank of the United Kingdom, or the building housing its headquarters. Used in British English to symbolize security and stability," or words to that effect. -- Visviva 04:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Your so-called "PNUISOAWWNHOAER"s might inded merit some special acknowledgement in our documentation of how we treat proper nouns, including trademarks used similarly. If this is too hard for us, then we should probably leave such matters for some future Wiktionary projects that will focus on the areas in which WT is picky: proper names, trademarks, corporate entities, product names, fictional characters (Fiktionary?), military terms. — This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talk • contribs) at 14:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC).

Al Jazeera

A proper noun encyclopedic concept with no attributive meanings (I believe). Dmcdevit·t 06:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Hundreds of book usages, and more than just another TV station. Frequently used to cite mid-East public opinion without US perspective. BTW, isn't it Al-Jazeera with a hyphen--Dmol 09:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep. In Arabic, it’s all one solid word. In the English transliteration, the official spelling is without a hyphen. —Stephen 23:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine, then it probably deserves an entry in Arabic, but no English, unless some attributive sense can be elucidated. We don't make entries simply as translation substrate. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following this. Just because it's written as a single word doesn't make it any more worthy of inclusion than any other company name. -- Visviva 16:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If SGB is to be believed, then keep for the special spelling compared to the English speling. If not, then abstain — This unsigned comment was added by Keene (talk • contribs) at 01:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC).

I totally assumed that was a bleached conditional until I got to the second sentence. Is there a reason to think maybe Stephen isn't to be believed? —Ruakh_TALK 01:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What is a "bleached conditional"? --Connel MacKenzie 16:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A bleached conditional is a construction that's structured as a conditional, but doesn't really have conditional force. (As in the "conditional" has been semantically bleached right out of it.) Usually this happens when the antecedent is presumed to be true, so it can't be "condition" in any real sense. One common use of bleached conditionals is in transition sentences; after a paragraph about how hard middle-school math was, for example, one might introduce a paragraph about high-school math with "If middle-school math was hard, high-school math was flat-out impossible." —Ruakh_TALK 01:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The term doesn't appear in Google's Book or Scholar search.—msh210℠ 17:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for pointing that out. I presumably got it from this, but it is apparently not a widespread expression. google books:"semantic bleaching", however, is; so if I stick to "semantically bleached conditional constructions", I should be fine, even if that exact phrase currently gets no hits anywhere. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 22:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep as the very-most common spelling used in English, currently. [5]. --Connel MacKenzie 16:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Why does that matter? Most company names are the most common spellings of the name of the company, almost by definition ... but that doesn't mean they should have entries here. -- Visviva 16:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, Delete - I wasn't clear on it actually being a company name...I thought it primarily was used figuratively to refer to all Middle Eastern TV (e.g. comedy skits and such.) --Connel MacKenzie 04:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Abstain. --Connel MacKenzie 08:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete as the name of a company without any idiomatic, symbolic, attributive or otherwise lexicographically-interesting use shown. (I wouldn't be surprised if such use could be shown, given this network's increasingly iconic status worldwide; I have come to rely on AJ almost exclusively for nuanced international news coverage. However, my initial search of usage was not promising.) As noted by WT:CFI#Company names, being the name of a notable company does not itself guarantee inclusion. I am rather mystified by the "keep" votes above. -- Visviva 16:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete per Visviva. Please, can we have return to the wonderful days when people used to twist and reinterpret the CFI beyond all recognition, rather than simply ignoring them and making arguments that aren't based in any of our policies? —Ruakh_TALK 01:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's not such a bad idea. CFI was meant to reflect what the general consensus of (what was at that time called RFD, now is) RFV !votes. But it never did, not even for a majority of the contributor's concerns. In many ways, we were better off without having any codified restrictions at all. Ironically, the codifying of the rules was meant to reduce objections to speedy deletes (by pinpointing specific rules,) reduce repetitive nominations and reduce bickering. Oddball cases like this term highlight the fact that perfectly codifying Wiktionary is a silly goal. If we've lost the ability to make exceptions when needed, then it is indeed a very sad day. --Connel MacKenzie 08:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't an oddball case; no arguments are being made here that wouldn't apply to the name of every moderately prominent world company. Deletion follows not only from the CFI but from simple common sense; I might as well have phrased my vote "'''Delete'''; encyclopedic." -- Visviva 09:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Al Jazeera gets almost 5,000,000 Google hits and is an extremely important name in international politics and news. It has specific translations into other languages, which includes its particular grammar in most of those languages. Besides being interested in how to write it in another language, people may also wish to know what it means and so on. Seems a little silly to delete such an important word in a well-written article. —Stephen 17:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think it would be great if one of the Wikimedia projects gave the sort of information you describe. But as of right now, according to the criteria for inclusion that define the English Wiktionary, that project isn't us. —Ruakh_TALK 20:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Currently w:Al Jazeera is doing a roughly 6.5-times better job of providing translations than we are, as well as providing far more satisfactory in-depth information (in 34 languages!) than we ever will. Now, we could easily copy the interwikis and bring ourselves back to par translation-wise, but it wouldn't be long before Wikipedia was out in front again; it is highly unlikely that we will ever match the manpower of the several Wikipedias. I don't understand why we would want to invest effort in duplicating work that is already being done so well elsewhere. -- Visviva 09:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete and replace with {{only wikipedia}}. This is not dictionary material, however it may well be looked up by someone. Conrad.Irwin 12:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, w:Al Jazeera and the interwikis don’t provide the same information that we do. For instance, they don’t give transliterations in non-Roman languages such as Chinese, or grammatical info such as gender and declension. The Wiktionary article isn’t simply a poor shadow of the Wikipedia article, it includes different information that is hard to obtain elsewhere. —Stephen 14:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

But those transliterations are just transliterations of transliterations (with the arguable exception of Chinese); it's difficult to see how that amounts to anything but noise. And frankly, someone who can't extract gender information from a quick Google search probably doesn't speak the target language well enough for our translations to be of much benefit. If there is some plausible criterion which Al Jazeera meets that millions of other corporate and brand names do not, then fine. But allowing an infinite number of proper noun entries scotches what is to me one of the most important attributes of Wiktionary -- our mandate is enormous, but fundamentally finite and achievable. -- Visviva 02:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't list George W. Bush just because it gets numerous Google hits and requires translation into Chinese. And for good reason. Delete this (unless it's found to meet the CFI).—msh210℠ 17:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And what good reason would that be? —Stephen 19:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

To quote WT:WIN: "Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia, a genealogy database, or an atlas; that is, it is not an in-depth collection of factual information, or of data about places and people" (emphasis removed). To put it another way, quoting the CFI, "Wiktionary articles are about words, not about people or places. Many places, and some people, are known by single word names that qualify for inclusion as given names or family names. The Wiktionary articles are about the words." And, futher along in the CFI, "A person or place name that is not used attributively (and that is not a word that otherwise should be included) should not be included" (emphasis removed). That's why we don't include George W. Bush. But you know all this already, Stephen; why are you asking?—msh210℠ 22:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I should note that my Bush argument was not meant to compare Bush to Al Jazeera as far as the CFI are concerned. It was meant merely to counter to argument "it's got lots of hits and needs translation and that's sufficient". Al Jazeera fails the CFI, but not for precisely the same reason as George W. Bush.—msh210℠ 22:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, good American English dictionaries such as the Random House do have many such names. For instance, under Washington, both George and Martha are mentioned. Also, the various kings of England named George (I, II, III, etc.). An encyclopedia article is fundamentally different from a dictionary article, and many terms may be found in both. An encyclopedia article gives statistical and factual information such as populations, histories, politics, belief systems, dates, and so on. A dictionary article is about pronunciation, spelling, capitalization, hyphenation, translations, transliterations, gender, plural forms and other grammatical forms, and so on. An encyclopedia will put George Washington spelt just like that, under G, whereas a dictionary will probably put him along with other notable Washingtons under Washington. In my profession (translation), we have to look up all sorts of words, not for encyclopedic information such as birthdates or populations, but to find out how a word or name is written in the target language, and often to find out the grammar and capitalization associated with the term in that language. The only time we should not have a term here in Wiktionary that has an article in Wikipedia is if there is nothing linguistic that we can add to the article. In the case of Al Jazeera, we have information that Wikipedia lacks, including links to the name in other languages where, if applicable, you can find out the gender and declension. —Stephen 15:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the main difference is that a paper dictionary is standalone, we have a very suitable companion which is a mere click away, and linked from the "missing" page. - [The]DaveRoss 00:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep for the translations, and anything else Wikipedia does not have. But reduce the definition part to a pointer to the Wikpedia entry.--Richardb 02:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Threadneedle Street

No non-SoP meaning. I can't find cites whic refer Threadneedle Street to the Bank of England.b.g.c's usually good with "no XYZ" quotes which elicit an idiomatic meaning, but not here--Keene 01:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"The Old Lady of Threadneedle Street" is the title of a book on the Bank of England, if memory serves me well. DCDuring TALK 01:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"(The) Old Lady of Threadneedle Street" may warrant an entry, but I don't think "Threadneedle Street" on its own does. Unless the financial press does it differently to the mainstream media, "Threadneedle Street" isn't used to mean the Bank of England in the way that "Downing Street" is used to refer to the British Government. Thryduulf 02:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Absent attributive use, delete per WT:CFI#Names of specific entities. -- Visviva 04:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep. Plenty of attributive use if you know where to look. ;-) -- Algrif 16:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Added sense in line with UK finance attributive use. Keep both senses. DCDuring TALK 16:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've put in three reasonable quotes. But if you find any better ones ..... -- Algrif 17:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree the first and third quotes do show attributive use for this meaning. I'm not certain that the second cite is using "Threadneedle Street" to mean specifically the Bank of England, rather I read it as meaning "a city banking firm". I've not looked for other cites, but it is possible this is a different CFI-meeting attributive use. Thryduulf 20:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it was just convenient for the pun. I'll change it. -- Algrif 13:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep now that attributive use has been shown. Thryduulf 16:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If there are no further objections, may I remove the rvd tag now? -- Algrif 12:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Birkenhead

--Connel MacKenzie 16:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Erm, why? The entry is 100% correct. Birkenhead is a proper noun that is the name of a town in Merseyside. Thryduulf 17:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Been there (on the Ferry Cross the Mersey) but Liverpool is better. Yes keep. SemperBlotto 17:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete per WT:CFI#Names of specific entities, lacking attributive use. -- Visviva 04:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Teepol

--Connel MacKenzie 04:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

:Delete per WT:CFI#Company names and abundant precedent including #Microsoft above. -- Visviva 04:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete as spam.--Dmol 12:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep - it is used generically in the UK by mechanics etc as any detergent to rub into your hands to get rid of grease etc. SemperBlotto 12:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Changed to strong keep - over 700 google book hits, many from scientific journals. SemperBlotto 12:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely remove company sense. Not being British I had never heard of this, but these and a smattering of Book/Scholar hits strongly indicate generic use to refer to certain detergent compounds. -- Visviva 12:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

After finally actually looking at the definition (!) I have rewritten it as a noun, and added a few citations. SemperBlotto 14:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The 1987 quotation is mention-only. You seem to be saying this is in widespread use in the U.K., but it would still be nice to have quotations that demonstrate the term meets CFI. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 15:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm that the term is (was?) used in the Netherlands. I know it from my undergraduate chemistry labs. Jcwf 16:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

frontin'

Aren't we getting rid of entries with in' at the end? --Keene 06:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ooh. That's a tough one. Inasmuch as I don't want to see our collection of words mirror UD's, I've only ever heard this word with silent g. It's tricky though, because certain dialects usually have silent g, but those are the only ones which are likely to use this word. At the same time, I don't want every infinitive to have a g-less alt spelling. Weak indecision -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think where there is indecision (weak or otherwise), we should go on the printed word only, rather than working off dialects. Personally I'd delete. We're a dictionary, we're supposed to spell right.--Dmol 12:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it certainly appears in print, as of course do many many other words of this sort. And it seems rather odd to call it a misspelling, although I suppose it arguably is. -- Visviva 12:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Are we? When was this decided? -- Visviva 12:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep this and any other attested forms in (deprecated template usage) -in'; I don't see how we can bill ourselves as "all words in all languages" if we don't include these. However, the entry needs to be fixed; the infinitive-style definition is not correct. —Ruakh_TALK 13:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

AbstainKeep. Though this seems like a BP issue or even a vote. DCDuring TALK 13:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Mark as "nonstandard" or "eye-dialect" perhaps. --Connel MacKenzie 23:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Move sense to fronting, since this sense is actually better-attested in print in that form than this one. Only in really extraordinary cases would it make sense to have different senses in what is basically just an alternative-spelling entry. But keep entry as some sort of soft redirect, at least for now. -- Visviva 05:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep! — if attested. Mark as {{eye dialect}}, I think, or perhaps with a new template per Ruakh's comments on bein', just below.—msh210℠ 16:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

'Keep per msh210 and Ruakh. Thryduulf 17:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

BP discussion: WT:BP#-in.27_forms DCDuring TALK 20:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Winchester rifle

Sum of parts, same definition is at Winchester entry.--Dmol 11:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I was going to say that you could only take it "from my cold, dead hands" - but that would have been a bit fatuous. Yes, delete. SemperBlotto 12:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• delete, unnecessary, SoP. DCDuring TALK 13:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• keep, the definition at Winchester is given as "shortening of Winchester rifle", so if that is true then this should have an entry. Conrad.Irwin 23:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that argument has force. We have abbreviations without dictionary entries. Though I can't think of an example at the moment, I'm sure that we have plenty of non-abbreviation entries where the definition is a something that we don't have because it is an encyclopedic term. DCDuring TALK 00:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with this argument. Almost all firearms are identified by their manufacturer or designer, with few military exceptions. So we would need to have Winchester rifle, Winchester shotgun, Winchester revolver. Then start the same for Glock, Barretta, Remington, Mauser, SW, ad nauseum. The short family name is the norm. I think the definition should be changed to something more in line with others, such as , A firearm manufactured by the Winchester company, notably lever-action rifles.--Dmol 12:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per DCDuring's second comment. (But not per his first: if (deprecated template usage) Winchester is a shortening of (deprecated template usage) Winchester rifle, then I don't think the latter is really sum-of-parts.) —Ruakh_TALK 00:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  My argument is based on polysemy. "Winchester rifle" = [brand sense) + "rifle" = {weapon sense). DCDuring TALK 13:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Kevin Rector 07:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• How does this relate to bowler hat?—msh210℠ 16:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  It doesn't, because that's now considered a generic term. This case is more like Ford truck, Hershey's chocolate, or Timex watch; it pairs a company name known primarily with a particular product with the name of that kind of product. 'Delete Winchester rifle, but keep Winchester. --EncycloPetey 15:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete per basic arguments above. We have, for example bic but not bic pen. And plenty more similar examples.

• Delete, pleonastic, nothing useful to be said about this that isn't better said about Winchester. -- Visviva 17:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

bein'

Tagged for speedy, but I'm not sure where Wiktionary is on these, now. --Connel MacKenzie 23:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Not even worthy of inclusion here. Are we going to add every single example of an 'ing' word being shortened. --Dmol 23:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep this and every other single example of an 'ing' word being shortened, if that's the right word. (It's the same number of characters and often the same number of sounds.) Seeing as we'll probably have thousands, we probably need some sort of template for this, like {{-in' of|be|being}} or something (but with the second parameter bein' optional if it's just the first parameter plus (deprecated template usage) -ing). An etymology template like {{-in' etym}} might be nice as well, producing something simple, like "See (deprecated template usage) -in'." —Ruakh_TALK 00:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep. This seems like a BP issue or even a vote. DCDuring TALK 00:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Kevin Rector 07:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep per Ruakh, or at the very least until there is policy consensus that these do not meet the CFI. Thryduulf 14:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep! Mark as {{eye dialect}}, I think, or perhaps with a new template per Ruakh.—msh210℠ 16:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this (as a general issue) should be put forward as a formal vote. --EncycloPetey 14:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I can think of six different up-or-down votes we could possibly take:

• Do the current CFI allow for -in' entries, when attested?
• Do the current CFI allow for such entries, even if not attested, as long as the -ing form is attested?
• Should the CFI be amended so that such entries are explicitly allowed, when attested?
• Should the CFI be amended so that such entries are explicitly allowed, when the -ing for is attested?
• Should the CFI be amended so that such entries are explicitly barred, even when attested?
• Should the CFI be amended so that such entries are explicitly barred, when not attested, even if the -ing form is attested?

Perhaps we should have a straw poll as to the first two before we do any formal vote on any of them, just so as to get a feeling of what people think the current CFI say. (My own feeling about the first two questions is "yes" and "no", respectively, for whatever that's worth.)—msh210℠ 17:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That straw poll sounds like a good idea - but for the beer parlour not here. Thryduulf 19:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

See BP discussion at WT:BP#-in.27_forms. DCDuring TALK 20:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

router

Ancient vandalism [6] that went undetected (original sense's example still with that incorrect, redundant sense.) While there may be a desire to list the literal back-formation definition, it should be listed after the real definition, perhaps as a sub-sense (the back-formation meaning "dispatcher", I'm not convinced even exists, but that would be a question for RFV.) But even if attested, it would still be redundant (or "by extension" or whatever.) --Connel MacKenzie 00:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. Firstly, the sense that you tagged (sense #1) was not the sense added in the diff you linked to (sense #4). Secondly, neither sense #1 nor sense #4 seems like it could plausibly be a backformation. Thirdly, sense #1 doesn't seem even remotely arguably redundant, while sense #4 is after whatever the "real" definition might be, in that it's the very last definition. All told, I'm really not sure what sense you're talking about and what you're trying to say about it. —Ruakh_TALK 00:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am also confused, but note that sense 1 is attested back at least to 1927 in the field of logistics. However, inasmuch as the uses I have found refer to a job title rather than a simple description, they might need a separate sense. Senses 3 and 4 do seem likely to be redundant (defining the same thing in different ways). -- Visviva 03:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would rather say that senses 2 and 3 describe the same thing... where as sense 4, maybe similar but could be distinctly different...--BigBadBen 20:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep now attested RfD'd sense. Agnostic on other improvement potential. Start over if more cleanup, verification, deletion required. DCDuring TALK 23:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

router as power tool

Made a new section to keep original discussion clear. -- Algrif 11:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

While we're about it...Isn't the power tool definition a different etymology and pronunciation? -- Algrif 16:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the etymology, but in UK the power tool is pronounced and the other uses . I believe in the US the pronunciation is used for all senses. Thryduulf 16:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Power tool router is from the verb to rout (which needs some work, btw), while the other senses are from the verb to route. -- Algrif 23:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• I hope you don't think I've jumped the gun, but I've separated the power tool out to a separate etymology. -- Algrif 13:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

basketball player

Sum of parts. Thryduulf 01:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. Some sports in English are played by persons ending in -er, such as a footballer. Others are compounds using (deprecated template usage) player. I think (IIRC) that (deprecated template usage) tennis player was used once as a test case for this and we voted to keep. The resoning was that (deprecated template usage) tennis player refers specifically to a person who plays the sport professionally, and not simply for recreation, so the word was not sum of parts. ---EncycloPetey 01:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's right; see Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Archives/2006/06#tennis_player. -- Visviva 08:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete A basketball player is a player of basketball. It is the sum of parts. Kevin Rector 06:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep - some people do say 'basketballer'. bd2412 T 06:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Then create an entry for basketballer. The fact that some people say basketballer has no bearing on the fact that "basketball player" is a SOP. Kevin Rector 07:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Created, but the point is that there are multiple terms which describe this one thing, so it may not be intuitive for some that this means the same as that (or that this is the more formal way of saying it, while the other is essentially colloquial). bd2412 T 17:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

True. In the UK, the term (deprecated template usage) footballer is common, but typically refers to someone who plays soccer/football. In the US, the term (deprecated template usage) football player is used almost exclusively, and refers to someone one plays American football. There are regional differences in how and where these diferent versions of terms are used. --EncycloPetey 19:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. WordNet defines it as "an athlete who plays basketball," i.e. not just anyone who plays basketball. And I think that's accurate; when someone asks "are you a basketball player?" they mean something different from "do you play basketball?" Google Books results for "a basketball player" also seem to lean very heavily toward the athlete/professional sense, for example:

• He thought, "I can't be sure, but I think there is a far greater chance this guy is a basketball player than a bank president." [7]

Now, I'm not entirely thrilled with this, since the same reasoning surely applies to every compound of [prominent sport] + "player". But nonetheless I think we should keep this and similar entries, since a plausible case for idiomaticity can be made. -- Visviva 08:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The argument Visviva cites applies also to toast eater. "Are you a toast eater?" is different from "Do you eat toast?" in precisely the same way "Are you a basketball player?" is different from "Do you play basketball?". Delete.—msh210℠ 16:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't because there is no such thing as a professional toast eater. The point is that "X player" where X is a sport implies a professional level. This is not true for "X eater". --EncycloPetey 16:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Being professional has nothing to do with it. A college basketball player would answer "yes" to "Are you a basketball player?" even though he's not professional. The difference between "Are you a basketball player?" and "Do you play basketball?" is one of frequency and devotion, which is also the difference between "Are you a toast eater?" and "Do you eat toast?".—msh210℠ 17:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I did see a number of b.g.c. hits for high school, college, etc. basketball players, but what was interestingly lacking were any cites that seemed to refer to people who just happened to be playing basketball as "basketball players." Of course, such cites can probably be found, but certainly the overwhelmingly common meaning is more specific. Being a basketball player seems to involve, at a minimum, some level of institutional recognition -- a formal team, a league. If we had organized toast-eating leagues, I think I would expect a similar shift in meaning to take place for "toast eater." -- Visviva 14:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So you're agreeing with me. (You didn't know that, did you?  :-) ) You're saying that, in an English-speaking land where there is such a thing as a toast eater, "Are you a toast eater" is to "Do you eat toast" as "Are you a basketball player" is to "Do you play basketball". (We just happen to have no toast eaters. But the concept exists: I could write a fictional work on toast eaters.) So "basketball player" and "toast eater" are equally idiomatic. (The only difference between them as far as Wiktionary inclusion goes is attestability.) Where we differ is in whether that degree of idiomaticity is sufficient for inclusion.—msh210℠ 19:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, not exactly. I'm saying that, in a country where toast-eating is an organized and sometimes-professional activity, "toast eater" might become idiomatic. But it wouldn't automatically be so, particularly if professional toast eaters were always referred to by some other term. IMO this is not simple encyclopedic entailment. That is, as I see it, in contemporary English "basketball player" actually means "an athlete who plays basketball as part of a recognized organization." This is not an inference made by the hearer, but is actually part of the meaning of the phrase. That is why it is very seldom used in the more obvious someone-playing-basketball sense, even when that sense would be clear in context. -- Visviva 01:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Certainly "basketball player" normally indicates someone who plays in some kind of organization, but I think that's true of nearly all terms that can designate professions; the word "programmer" normally designates someone who does it for a living, and the word "writer" normally designates someone whose writing actually gets published, and so on. But I don't think I'd miss a beat at hearing "weekend basketball player" or "casual basketball player" or "informal basketball player" or the like; if it's idiomatic, it's very weekly so. —Ruakh_TALK 03:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, sure, even the most idiomatic phrases will still coexist with their literal meanings. But I found it instructive to compare this with "chess player." There are professional chess players (though they don't get much press), and national chess leagues are at least as well-developed as those for most sports. Nonetheless, "chess player" in common usage just means someone who plays chess. "Basketball player" and "chess player" occur in roughly a 3:1 ratio on a Google web search, but hits for "becoming a basketball player" outnumber "becoming a chess player" by more than 2000:1. The voice of the web, IMO, is clear: a basketball player is something you can become, while a chess player is just something you are by virtue of playing chess. -- Visviva 09:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

O.K., I'm convinced. Keep. —Ruakh_TALK 12:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, me, too. Keep.—msh210℠ 16:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If someone is devoted to playing basketball after work every day and on weekends, that will not make him a basketball player. Frequency and devotion doesn't enter into it. The difference is being part of an established organization. --EncycloPetey 18:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I find it difficult to envision someone saying to him- or herself: "I can't be sure, but I think there is a far greater chance this guy is a toast eater than a bank president." I think athlete is a good choice of words to define what is distinct about this kind of "player." -- Visviva 14:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Putting aside that the person in question does not have to be a professional, I think that any entry that answers the question What do you do? is a valid entry, even though it might look like SoP. I'm a secret policeman is as valid as I'm a policeman. I'm a bank manager is as valid as I'm a manager. And so should all have entries. The fact that they define something in particular makes them fried eggs, or possibly Egyptian pyramids. IMHO. -- Algrif 16:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sold on this argument in general, but I would defend both of the examples you give -- a "secret policeman" is very different from a policeman who is secret (a plainclothes or undercover cop, for instance). Likewise, a bank branch may contain numerous people in managerial roles but only one would be considered the "bank manager." I agree that occupational titles tend to be idiomatic, but they aren't always automatically so. "Vice president for creative affairs" and "assistant supervisor," for example, would IMO not qualify for their own entries. -- Visviva 09:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like an okay argument to me, and explains why we kept tennis player a long while back. DAVilla 17:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

birthday party

Unlike birthday present (see WT:TR#birthday present), this seems to be SOP in both English and all the languages for which translations have been entered. If so then its value as a phrasebook entry would seem limited. Thryduulf 16:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, distinguishes from a political party? Keep. Harmless. bd2412 T 23:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete; just as "Halloween party", "Christmas party", "keg party", etc. The context of which definition of (deprecated template usage) party is intended is clear from the pairing with (deprecated template usage) birthday. --EncycloPetey 14:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete just have party

Do we have any statistics on passive pageviews by anons? There really ought to be some reflection of the interest of our users in an entry in the RfD process. There may be some common collocations (that also form phrases, probably noun phrases) that should be in here for users. Or is this only for smart, alert useers? I suspect that this would be oft-visited. Based on that suspicion, 1,390,000 raw web hits, 235,000 raw news hits, 1900 b.g.c. hits, and 353,000 groups hits: keep. DCDuring TALK 11:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

How many hits would you get for the Bible? Does that mean we should have an entry for the Bible? No. We don't use number of hits for a juxtaposition of words to justify it as an entry. Most such common juxtapositions are the result of regular English grammar. --EncycloPetey 18:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Keg party seems okay to me, also wedding party, but this one I have a hard time justifying. It's the principal meaning of party, and it's not really used figuratively, so rather than deconstructing a sum-of-parts collocation the only reason to keep it would be to discover it if construction were not straightforward. But as to that, it apparently makes a poor phrasebook entry as well. DAVilla 05:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

bought the farm

I don't see where this necessitates an entry defining it independently of buy the farm, and we don't usually put up separate inflections for idioms, AFAIK. Circeus 23:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I know this is primarily a US idiom, and I'm British, but the only form I've heard is "bought the farm" - even the example sentence at buy the farm uses it the form "bought the farm". So if any form is to go I don't think it should be this. Thryduulf 23:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I would normally prefer that we have an infinitive form be the lemma for an idiom, even if most usage is in non-lemma forms. However, I don't think that such a preference should override the facts. As far as I can see from inspecting all of the b.g.c. hits for "buy the farm" and "insurance" and a hundred of so of the several hundred hits for "buy the farm", the expression just doesn't seem to be used in the present or infinitive form. I'm going to put an RfV tag on the putative lemma buy the farm. I would hope that we would Keep this pending the outcome of that RfV. DCDuring TALK 04:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought the general way of recent decisions was to keep the lemma form (because that is how a dictionary functions), even though rare and difficult to cite, and to keep the most important inflection, because that is what most (but not all) people will actually enter when searching. -- Algrif 10:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Thryduulf above - I have only heard the term bought the farm used in the UK - keep. Thorskegga 14:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The lemma form, buy the farm, has been cited. Why don't we merge any good substance of this entry into that form and keep this with a gloss-type definition as {{past of}} and one or more citations or usage examples. I doubt that we need the other forms "buys ..." and "buying ...". That way only a user who wants, say, the etymology or translations would have to click twice. We actually don't have any rule against show inflected forms of phrasal verbs and idioms. It has just been a practice to avoid redlinks in the lemma entry and an excessive number of low-content inflected form entries. What Algrif recommends seems like our best practice for this kind of thing. It would be nice if the templates facilitated keeping only one or two of the inflected forms instead of all three. I would hate to have to type in the rare forms (excluding wikilink brackets) by hand and then type in "rare" and I would hate to mislead users into thinking that these forms shouldn't be used. DCDuring TALK 15:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Since bought the farm is idiomatically the most common, keep and define both. Thisis0 22:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Arian heresy

[ Arian Heresy ]

An encyclopedic concept; this is what Wikipedia is for. Dmcdevit·t 05:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Arian and heresy should certainly have words, but the combination is encyclopedic material. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

But wait! It's an Egyptian pyramid! Delete, even though it sort of is one: encyclopedic, compositional, and generally useless for dictionary purposes. -- Visviva 09:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

At least a search for "Arian Heresy" will find "Arian", "arian", "arianism", and "heresy". (Analog would be true for Egyptian pyramid.) DCDuring TALK 15:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep, on the basis of Egyptian pyramid. There is no way to know what this means from the simple assembly of parts. It is a particular ideology, and refers to a specific set of beliefs, like gnosticism or Zoroastrianism, albeit a bit more specific and esoteric. --EncycloPetey 14:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If you know that Arian is an adjective formed from w:Arius, then you know something about it. The details would be findable in an encyclopedia, most assuredly under Arianism. DCDuring TALK 15:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This term is a pejorative for Arianism, a neutral term. Are we, in some way, enshrining the POV of Catholicism? Should that, together with the ease of finding all the associated entries via search, influence our application of the rules? The pairing of evaluative words with the labels of beliefs seems to exemplify SoP. This is a good case for considering what I feel is an issue because the controversy is not heated in the eyes of very many observers (although on WP "Arian heresy" redirects to "Arian controversy"). It seems to me like "American Imperialism" or "Soviet Imperialism". DCDuring TALK 15:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Including the name, if it is otherwise worthy of inclusion, is not a breach of neutrality; it's what we're here for. But Category:Heresies should probably go. -- Visviva 15:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

How does this differ from "Soviet Imperialism" or Soviet imperialism? DCDuring TALK 15:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Primarily in that, as far as I can tell, "Soviet imperialism" really is just Soviet + imperialism. It doesn't mean Sovietism as such, but rather imperialism of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, "Arian heresy" or rather "the Arian heresy" seems to have the specific referents "Arianism" and "body of the church supporting Arianism." It does not automatically mean "a heresy which is Arian," as one might suppose; this is borne out by the overwhelming use of the definite article. -- Visviva 02:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This one has been bothering me. Put me down for a reluctant keep, inasmuch as the specific definition (Arianism) is not particularly clear from the sum of the parts (unless you already know what Arianism is, in which case you probably won't be looking it up). It definitely does need to be moved to Arian heresy; hardly anyone capitalizes the "H." There also seem to be two senses, the Arianism one and another which turns up in phrases like "bishop of the Arian heresy" ([8]), in which case I guess it refers specifically to the ecclesiastical faction supporting Arianism. Interestingly Arianism itself is never used in this way. -- Visviva 15:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I never expect a monolingual dictionary entry to enable me to understand something like Arianism. At most I expect it to confirm spelling, provide synonyms (if any), and provide some context (time period, geography, field of study or endeavor) for where I could find more. It is very hard to say what the substance (no pun intended) of the controversy was in a dictionary entry. DCDuring TALK 15:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, sure, but we're not trying to enable people to understand Arianism, just to enable them to understand that this is a non-obvious synonym for Arianism. -- Visviva 02:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Cf. Cartesian plane, abelian group.—msh210℠ 16:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep if it's a collocation. To sum from parts would require knowing more than the definitions of each word. DAVilla 07:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

accountable mail

Is this sum of parts? If it isn't, does it need a {{US}} context tag? Thryduulf 00:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's SoP. After all, it is not really the mail that is being held accountable and the precise nature of the accountability is not obvious from the words alone. I could find a few mentions of it for Pakistan (3), Iran (1), and Canada (1). I expect it is a term used by some but not all postal systems and their customers when they are speaking/writing English. The US tag wouldn't hurt. DCDuring TALK 01:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

account book

"account book" = "A book in which accounts are kept." is sum of parts in my book. Thryduulf 00:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There might be a lot to clean up of this type. "Phrase", "address", "telephone", "picture", "comic", "absey", "phone", "copy", "hymn", "prayer", "text", "school", and "blank" are examples of words that form phrases with "book", most or all of which are already entries. Is "account book" unique or should some or all of them go? DCDuring TALK 01:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

of the ones you list, I'd say address book, textbook/text book, and phone book deserve entries for idomaticy. "address book" can be a physical book of addresses, but it also used on mobile phones and email programs etc, where it is not a physical book. A textbook is more than a book of text, it has a specific meaning in terms of being a study guide/reference work/etc; similarly school book is not a book of schools or a book about schools. a phone book is not a book of phones, but a book of phone numbers; also on mobile phones it isn't actually a book. copy book I'm not certain about as it isn't necessarily a book of copies; also there is the idiom "blot one's copy book". If telephone book is or was actually used then it deserves an entry for the same reasons as phone book. Phrase book I could go either way on to be honest, as it is a book of phrases but it is usually a book of foreign phrases and their translations. None of picture book, comic book, hym book, prayer book, blank book should be here imho as they are books of or about pictures, comics, hymns, prayers and blank(s).

In other words, I think we need to discuss each one on its individual merits. Thryduulf 01:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Comic book should be (has been, I think) kept because the usage note about humor makes it more than a sum of parts. I've never heard of blank book, but because you mention it as a compound term I would imagine it has a different intonation pattern that would justify keeping it (whereas I would otherwise have just read it with stress on book). The others may have arguments of their own, so yeah, each on its merits. DAVilla 07:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is sum-of-parts. For one thing, in contemporary English this sense of account is quite rare. Someone not familiar with this term would, I think, expect it to refer to something more like a passbook (i.e. the record of a bank account or accounts). For another, unless I'm mistaken this doesn't refer to just any sort of accounting record, but specifically to a ledger. A narrative record of income and expenditure, however detailed and exact, would not qualify as an account book. -- Visviva 04:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at other dictionaries that have this entry, the general description seems to be more or less The book or books where the accounts of a company are kept. The interesting thing here is that it seems to identify 1) specifically to do with commercial activity, and 2) to deal with the accounts (note the "s") while the book or books (note the possible plural) is called an account (no "s") book. Hardly SoP under these conditions. -- Algrif 17:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a fairly general property of English nouns that in attributive use, they're not usually marked for number. (This is especially of true of regularly declining nouns.) However, this term might be a set phrase, in which case I think it might warrant inclusion even if it's fairly SOP. —Ruakh_TALK 19:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that (our actual entry apart. Work needing to be done.) the accounts is a plurale tantum. The company accounts is never singular....except, in this case of account book being a book, or books containing the accounts (plurale tantum). So if it were actual attributive use of the noun, it would be accounts book, just like sports shoes. -- Algrif 11:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No, even with pluralia tantum this happens: consider "sport shoe", "scissor kick", "pant leg", and so on. Granted, in each case the plural-marked form exists as well (perhaps a regional or dialectic difference?); but then, so does "accounts book". —Ruakh_TALK 21:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Tag with {{finance}} perhaps (but it seems much more general than that.) --Connel MacKenzie 23:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, still doesn't seem like sum of parts to me. -- Visviva 17:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, set phrase in small-business accounting context, pre-computer writings, and beyond. DCDuring TALK 18:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

ring

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

I'm presuming that you are wanting to merge the following noun senses:

• "A round piece of metal put around a bird's leg used for identification and studies of migration." (3) with "A circumscribing object (looking like an annual ring, earring, finger ring, etc.)" (1).
• "A circular arena where circus acts take place, a circus ring." (5) with "A place where some sports take place; as, a boxing ring." (4)

If so, I can see what you mean about 4 and 5, although the definition of 4 would need to be modified slightly to note that it isn't just sports that take place in that sort of ring.

I disagree that the specific bird ring sense is redundant to the general circumscribing object one though. A ring around a birds leg is used to uniquely identify that bird for various reasons, this is not true of any other sort of ring that I can think of.

Regarding the verb senses, I disagree that any of them can be merged. Thryduulf 23:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't see the verb senses being combined in any way. But both should be expanded a bit.--Dmol 23:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that deleting senses usually laughable for us in a common polysemic word like this. For ety 1, MW3 has 28 senses for the noun + 14 subsenses, 10 + 2 for the verb. For ety 2, noun 6 + 2, 14 + 4 for the verb; for a grand total of 80 senses. It seems as if we should figure out how to make sure we have all the main senses covered and context-labelled, and grouped and sequenced so they provide mutual support. DCDuring TALK 00:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

A boxing ring is not always circular; to quote w:Boxing ring, "A boxing ring is the space in which a boxing match occurs. A modern ring, which is set on a raised platform, is square with a post at each corner to which four parallel rows of ropes are attached with a turnbuckle." On the other hand I believe that circus rings are generally circular, or at least round, in shape. -- Visviva 06:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Bird rings are not always round pieces of metal. Their main purpose is to identify, not to be round. -- Algrif 16:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't they always sit around something, though?—msh210℠ 18:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

They usually do, but they can come off and are still rings. I presume (but don't know) that before they are applied to a bird they are neither ring-shaped nor enclosing anything. Although it is possible they have a different name before they're applied, my guess is that this is not the case. Thryduulf 19:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the bird sense is also specifically UK, as indicated by the Wikipedia article. At least, in the US I have always heard these referred to as "bands." -- Visviva 04:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That's evidence enough for me for a UK tag. Thryduulf 13:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

soviet

Adjective sense: "pertaining to a soviet." Seems like just attributive use of the noun? -- Visviva 01:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have provided 3 citations of the comparative use of soviet, some capitalized. They support a different sense. If there is enough evidence for a different sense of the uncapitalized form that truly forms a comparative, then it might be kind to users to keep the attributive sense, both for the distinction and for a kind of etymology. DCDuring TALK 14:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have provided 4 quotations with adjectival use that does not seen like attributive use of the uncapitalized form and moved the cites of the capitalized form to Soviet. I think they make a case for keeping the RfD's sense and for some other sense(s). I have added one, but it doesn't reflect all usage. It is tedious to cite because Google's basic search doesn't separate cap from non-cap forms and there are vastly more uses of the capitalized form, used as a noun, used atributively in the same sense as the noun, and used in adjectival senses more distantly derived from the noun or from "Soviet-style". DCDuring TALK 14:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. To me, the citations you added seem like an alternative capitalization of Soviet (and as such worthy of retention). But I would still argue that the tagged sense be deleted, inasmuch as it is not an adjective. If this is noted, and it probably should be, it should be as a usage note under the noun. -- Visviva 00:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have very strong feelings on the point. My thinking is that, if we have one sense that merits entry (meets CFI), then we may serve our users best by including senses that would not otherwise meet CFI but might confuse the user. If the sense that meets CFI is only an alternative spelling, I don't know. But I have been thinking that we need to include gloss-like entries where possible for links that are targets of alt sp, past of, pre part, etc., unless doing so would be misleading or excessively lengthy. Save'em the clicks, I say. DCDuring TALK 01:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree in principle -- that information should be available on the page -- but think we need to be fairly strict about what actually qualifies as a distinct sense. -- Visviva 01:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't yet have enough citations, either. I'll have to try something besides b.g.c. It may just be an alternative spelling, I'm not really sure that it is all that common, although I limited my search to use in comparatives or adverbially modified without quotation marks. DCDuring TALK 03:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete rfd'd sense. No evidence of use except as attributive use of noun. DCDuring TALK 18:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

recognized components

This was added by a bot from an article somewhere (not Wikipedia). Is it any more than a sum of parts? Dbfirs

It was probably created from the singular. That singular was deleted by SB, leaving this orphan. Would you like to put the singular form through RfD on these grounds? It lookls like it is some vocabulary used in the UL process for electrical devices. DCDuring TALK 20:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Searching on '"recognized component" UL' gets 75 raw b.g.c. hits. It certainly isn't SoP because it relates to a specific important approval process which is probably essential to allowing goods to become salable in the US. I don't much care about the plural, but the singular should be a keep, or rather a restore and rfc. DCDuring TALK 20:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose the "recognized by the US Government" sense might be worth recording (just) - but isn't this officially Recognized Component Mark? Dbfirs 22:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

UL is a not-for-profit funded by the insurance industry. It seems to be used commonly more or less as entered. There mere fact that there is an official definition doesn't necessarily mean that much, unless actually usage "wants" to conform to that definition. People don't spend a lot of time making sure that trade-mark and service-mark appear every place the mark holder would like them to, nor are we obligated to uphold their trademark. In any event, I will restore the singular and edit it into shape for our consideration. DCDuring TALK 23:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

recognized component

I have restored this entry. Please take a look and make a decision about tagging it "RfD", "RfV" or whatnot. DCDuring TALK 00:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

get the gist

Seems like a sum of parts. The "understand" sense of get plus gist. Dmcdevit·t 05:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Delete. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Delete.—msh210℠ 17:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This reminds me of just ducky (closed without consensus). I'm inclined to keep, though only weakly, based on the following considerations: a. On a gut level, this just feels like a set phrase, and specifically like it would pass the "in-between test". b. This is sense #14 of get, and hardly the first that would come to a person's mind. c. This phrase accounts for something like half the uses of "the gist" in print. d. My Longman dictionary glosses this phrase separately (as "understand the main idea"), although it does not give it a separate entry. e. I would not expect even advanced learners of English to understand this phrase, even if they understood the parts (I'm aware that Wikt is not a learner's dictionary, but they are an important part of our constituency). -- Visviva 01:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Not keen on this entry. The L2 argument is weak as "reading for gist" is part of every L2's basic vocab. Get, while 14 in the list in Wikt, is 1st on most internal personal lists as meaning obtain. So, gist is well understood, get is well understood, and so get the gist falls into place as SoP needing no further clarification. Delete. -- Algrif 16:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it passes the in between test. You can modify it as "get the overall gist" etc. and it carries the same fluidity. Equivalent to "understand the gist" and "get the meaning", so delete. DAVilla 06:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

(this is a keep but that got buried) These types of phrases are borderline...yes they are in one sense a sum-of-parts phrase and yet I tend to think it does belong. catch one's drift or get one's drift likewise, even tho they are senses of catch and get (understand) + person + sense of drift (tenor/meaning) it still isn't either apparent or necessarily easy to parse, especially for someone who doesn't know the language idiomatically or who just doesn't read much. It seems like there are a few types of sum-of-parts, ones which are obvious due to the limited possibilities for meaning based on those parts, and others which are a bit nebulous due to parts which each have ~20 senses each. I am a keep vote on this one, but it is hard to codify the reasoning behind it into something which could be called a general rule, it is a keep due to the fact that it is an extremely common collocation with parts which, altho they have senses for which it is a sum-of-parts statement also have plenty of additional senses which could be valid but are not. If you get my gist :) - [The]DaveRoss 16:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose this could mean to obtain or receive or even hear the main idea, so change my vote to weak, but it still seems straightforward enough once you know what (deprecated template usage) gist means. Drift offers a bit more in the way of confusion, so I wouldn't go against either of those. DAVilla 01:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

frell

From Farscape.--Jyril 18:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm not seeing any independent use. Delete. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Move to Appendix:Farscape per WT:CFI#Fictional universes. This term has worked its way into a corpus of fan fiction. --EncycloPetey 14:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

bridal wear

bridal (sense 1 "of or pertaining to a bride") + wear (noun sense 1 "clothing") = bridal wear ("clothing worn by a bride") = sum of parts. Thryduulf 21:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep. Bridal wear can also mean lingerie but this is different from the intended meaning. Maybe needs another definition. Search google images for a few examples. (Purely for research purposes, of course).--Dmol 22:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

PS, There are also regional and cultural differences in what the term means, even within the same country. We might think of bridal wear as white flowing silk, but to someone else it is bright coloured saris or a kimino.--Dmol 09:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It could also be the erosion that happens as a result of wedding day stress ;) --EncycloPetey 14:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

But that definition of (deprecated template usage) wear says "in combination". Why isn't it bridalwear? DAVilla 05:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that most sum of parts combinations can be melded in a few ways: x y, x-y, xy. This does not overcome the SOP issue. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If this is to go, then wedding cake, wedding dress and wedding ring are also in danger zone? Hekaheka 09:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

bowdacious

This is hardly a common spelling of bodacious - almost all the first 2 pages of web hits are mentions (including Wikionary), of those that are uses only a fraction appear independent of the first one. 21 books hits, the ones I can see are roughly 50% mentions. A Google groups search returns a whopping 6 results, only 4 of which are independent and one of the others might be a use. Compare this to 230,000 groups results for "bodacious". Thryduulf 16:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you remind of the difference between an alternate form and a misspelling? Or eye dialect and misspelling? I thought I knew based on prior experience with other entries here, but I'm losing confidence. This isn't eye-dialect because eye dialect would be "phonetic" throughout ("bowdayshus")? It's not an alternate form because .... ? DCDuring TALK 15:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

King James Version

—Ruakh_TALK 19:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Of all the numerous versions, this is by far the most influential in the English language. The phrase is used to signal a specific "old-time religion", Protestant, English. I don't think that any of the other versions have much meaning beyond their direct referent outside of specialist theological realms and sectarian realms. DCDuring TALK 23:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be tagged as US? In the UK, we call it the Authorized Version. SemperBlotto 23:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we (Brits) do usually call it the AV, but we also call it the KJV (he was our king too!). In some areas of the UK it is common to use the old name, (i.e. KJV) so I vote not to delete or tag at all. Dbfirs 23:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Dbfirs. KJV is possibly more commonly used than Authorised Version. AV usually needs to needs to be qualified as to who's AV one is talking about, whereas KJV is clear from the start. -- Algrif 12:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Authorized Version gets about as many b.g.c. hits as King James Version when appropriately qualified to make sure that we are talking about Bibles. "Authorized Version" seems to me to used somewhat more often in discussions about the Bible editions in theological or religio-political contexts. "King James Version" seems to be the name somewhat favored in a literary context. That might account for the UK/US prevalence differences, which are hard to quantify. DCDuring TALK 14:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that England has/had it's own church the CoE. THE Bible authorized by the head of that church is thus the "Authorized Version." Since the CoE is not the only church in America (and is known under a pseudonym there), the bible can't simply be the "Authorized Version", and gets a more descriptive name. The same phenomenon happens in other situations, I have seen books with titles like "Our Native Birds" or "These Names of Ours" published in England. Locally, I hear people talk about going to "the mountains" (by which they mean the Sierra Nevada) or going into "the city" (by which they mean SanFrancisco). In some contextxs, a qualifier or descriptor is deemed unnecessary because (obviously) everyone around you will understand, won't they? --EncycloPetey 14:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to ask one of my friends on the board of a local "Episcopal" church here in US to find our what they call it. DCDuring TALK 01:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I can provide citations (from other Bibles) published in the US that call it the King James Version. That's the only name I knew it by until I was in college. In the US, we actually have several revised editions around, each of which has a similar (and therefore confusing) name. There's the (British) Revised Version, the Revised Standard Version, the American Standard Version, the New American Standard Version, and the New Revised Standard Version, at least. I do not know which (if any) has the current support of the Episcopal Church. --EncycloPetey 03:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Who cares what's more commonly used? When someone says "the King James Version" you know they're talking about the Bible, even if they never say "Bible" or any other Biblical or related word. If you think they should be calling it something else, take it up with them, not with Wiktionary. We only document the language people use, and this is something everybody is expected to know. DAVilla 05:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be pussyfooting around this RfD. This seems to be a clear keep because it is sometimes used in writing to communicate the meanings "Bible" and "Protestant religion of an older, more traditional sort". I am not sure that it has all this meaning identically among all English speakers (India?, non-Protestants?), so some kind of context tags might be appropriate. Perhaps Usage notes or more citations would be useful to convey the connotations. DCDuring TALK 11:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep Complete agreement. Attributive use which can be easily cited. -- Algrif 12:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Related question: Should we have an entry for King James, defined as the KJV Bible? I can't offhand find a cite (too muich noise), but I'm almost sure I've seen and heard this used. --EncycloPetey 16:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should, and one or two of these wouldn't be so bad to cite. The problem becomes one that Visviva pointed out with respect to proper names, that the out-of-context criterion would be extremely tedious to apply, as it has already proven for brand names. At least in the latter case, there is a supposed force pushing to have the names cited, but if there's someone standing up for Gloopy-Glup used in only one corner of the world, who's going to put in the time for Academically-Known if not as widely known as the King James? And as to that, who is standing up for the King himself?

I would want to have these, first of all, and if it works well then for place names too, but I would also like to see more lax criteria applied, allowing for instance the cites that have already been found in this case although they are not out of context. Unfortunately that would mean that we could end up with a lot more than would normally be considered, and that's not something that the majority of the community would support. Maybe there's another way to write the criteria, such as looking for certain patterns? I wouldn't want to rely on it exclusively, but I've found "the ____ of" to be highly indicative. (In your case it seems to carry another meaning, the version that would be of that era, not directly in reference to the Bible.) DAVilla 17:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep.—msh210℠ 21:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Rainbow Brite

It seems I RFD'd this in june last year. one of our fictional characters from the Care Bears. -Keene2 19:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete --EncycloPetey 14:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be citable, e.g. Chicken Soup for the Recovering Soul, Stephen King's The Tommyknockers, lots of books on young children and others. DAVilla 17:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

table

As pointed out on the entry's talk page by User:Dbfirs, verb senses 3 ("To delay, or permanently postpone a motion before a meeting.") and 4 ("To hold back to a later time; to postpone.") are duplicates with the exception of the region label. Sense 4 is worded more generally, and so I've marked sense 3 for deletion. Thryduulf 23:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Dbfirs 23:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete agreed. Verb sense 3 is redundant. DaGizza 14:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

hwyl

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

Don't you think they mean proselytizing or proselytising ? DCDuring TALK 23:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think they're distinct. I read sense 3 as being a character trait epitomised by non-conformist preachers, whereas sense 5 is the name of a method of prosthletising employed by preachers (who may or may not be non-conformist). Only senses 2 (fun) and 4 (sail) are listed in my (basic) English-Welsh dictionary so I am not sure. Thryduulf 23:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this will shed some light on it. I didn't realize that all five senses were in some way part of the same meaning. Another meaning seems to be personal "state", although that might be an abstraction of mood. GTTR. DCDuring TALK 01:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't see a preview of that book (it is not unknown for different regions to see or not see different works on bgc), so I can't say one way or another. Thryduulf 01:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't see the book either, but I accept the shade of meaning, so I've removed the rfd and corrected the spelling (which is what brought me to the entry in the first place). Thanks. Dbfirs 21:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I am distressed that the two of you can't use the link. Any thoughts on why? Browser related? Does this problem arise in entries? I thought that I could paste a link and thereby provide all the context anyone would need for our more stringent attestation test. If I can't, ..... DCDuring TALK 01:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

From past experience of this (sometime last year), it is almost certainly a region thing. Dbfirs and I are both in the UK, whereas I believe you are in the USA or Canada. The most likely explanation for the difference is Google being cautious over copyright issues. Thryduulf 01:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Chinese food

I believe X-food matter includes Chinese food. (see this rfd of Japanese food). if Japanese food doesn't survive, Chinese food doesn't. if Japanese food survive, Chinese food does. and this is the evidence to discuss this.

• Results 1 - 10 of about 2,330,000 for "Japanese food" -site:.jp -site:.cn. (0.19 seconds)
• Results 1 - 10 of about 755,000 for "Chinese food" -site:.cn -site:.jp. (0.18 seconds)

--Carl Daniels 05:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Delete both. Chinese and Japanese are the only "X foods" we have (so far). British food has recently been zapped. They are also the only "X cuisines". Let them go as well. Google hits do not necessarily mean a thing. Many other X foods and cuisines get millions of hits as does for example red car. Hekaheka 08:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete, but there is always scope for an Appendix:Menus/Chinese, which would definitely be beneficial. Keene2 13:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep I desired an active discussion about this "X-Food" matter. so I added this word to the rfd list. My position is... Wiktionary should collect any entries which are major terms in English, and need basic knowledge to share. Yes. we should collect Chinese food and Japanese food. When we hear those terms, it reminds us of 2 or 3 cuisines each at least. if wiktionary drops it, what should we collect? As of Chiense food, Chinese food is basically a general term of the 4 major cuisines of Sichuan, Cantonese, Shanghai, Beijing, and some. I think we should describe about this. Because we should share the basic knowledge of Chinese food in translation. and I think red car won't be the counterpart against this. because we don't need to share any basic knowledge, strongly bound to red car. yes. red car is a general term of red sedan, red coupe, red mini-van... . though it should be enough to write the categorization at the entry car. Chinese food, and Japanese food are different to it. Only when we meet the combination X+food, we can write its categorization at its section, related terms or See also. --Carl Daniels 02:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep both. The term "Chinese food" does not only mean the cuisine of China. In America, items like chop suey and fortune cookies commonly are included as "Chinese food", but neither is native to China. I've been to authentic Chinese restaurants where the customers became irate that there were no fortune cookies. The authentic restaurants don't serve them, because the cookies are not authentic. The meaning cannot be inferred from the components. --EncycloPetey 02:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep I'm not sure there's much difference between Japanese car and Japanese food except that if someone asks me "Do you like Japanese food?" I know what they mean and I have a preference I can express. The same goes for a lot of X foods. So perhaps it passes the Egyptian pyramid test. -- Algrif 11:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep If I open a Domino's Pizza in Beijing, that doesn't make it Chinese food. Language Lover 01:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

heavy roller

See #light roller

light roller

Both heavy roller and light roller are the sum of roller (sense 3, explicitly marked as "cricket") and the primary sense of both heavy and light. Thryduulf 16:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that a roller is "a heavy rolling device", would you suspect that (deprecated template usage) heavy roller isn't merely a redundant term, or for that matter that a light roller is "a heavy rolling device"? I'm okay with keeping these, but if not there would have to be a lot more explanation at (deprecated template usage) roller. DAVilla 17:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I would favor keeping both of these because they name specific physical items. At least that's how I understand it, since I've never heard of either of these items before (coming as I do from a land where (deprecated template usage) cricket principally refers to an insect). --EncycloPetey 21:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Indo-European

rfd-sense: 40-word sense beginning "a linguistic theory". Seems mighty encyclopedic to me. DCDuring TALK 19:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Added by Kassios, notorious for his intentionally wrong pan-Greek etymologies. Proto-language sense is already encompassed in the 2nd the 3rd definitions, which should be merged. "Indo-Germanic" term itself is anachronistic misnomer, which fell out of use a century ago (still used in modern German though, where they have "indogermanische Sprachen" ^_^)--Ivan Štambuk 20:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

en zo voorts

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

April 2008

new year

Suspected sum of parts --Ivan Štambuk 00:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly with just the current definition, but it is also used in phrases like "What are you doing at new year?" where it means the new year celebrations, or a period of time ranging from new year's eve to the period between about the 29th or 30th of December to about the 2nd or 3rd of January (or a smaller portion thereof). Also, "What are you doing for new year" means "how are you celebrating the new year" not "what are your plans for the following year?". Thryduulf 00:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that's a U.K. thing? Nearly all of your examples sound odd to me; I'd say "New Year's" instead. —Ruakh_TALK 01:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"New Year" and "New Year's" are used pretty much interchangeably in the UK for all the examples I gave. Thryduulf 01:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

But is it ever in lower case? That would seem to be the critical question here. -- Visviva 12:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like sum of parts to me (UK) SemperBlotto 07:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

A survey of Google web and books suggests that "new month," "new decade" etc. are also widely used. new day should have an entry, but unless non-compositional usage is shown, new year and any others of this type should be deleted (without prejudice to New Year). BTW, this means that we need to add a sense to new (or at least rewrite one of the existing ones); the "current/later" definition doesn't quite fit. -- Visviva 08:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep. Is solar system merely a sum of parts for Solar System? Are tropic and tropics the cloned entries of Tropic and Tropics respectively? These are just the tip of the iceberg from the many other pairs which I had found from this English Wiktionary that seems to deserve both uppercase and lowercase titles of the same word as legitimate word entries. Ironically and however, why not for this one? Vice versa, why not solar system, tropic, and tropics be gone deleted if they are as similar as or regarded as the sum of parts for Solar System, Tropic, and Tropics correspondingly? Secondly, below these are some of my research that apparently advocates the definition differences of the lowercase common noun new year and the uppercase proper noun New Year:

Results for "New Year": (noun)

1. the first day or days of the calendar year.
2. (initial capital letters) the first day or few days of a year in any of various calendars.
3. See New Year’s Day.
4. first few days of year: the first day or first few days of a calendar year.
5. the calendar year about to start or recently started.
6. usually New Year's: NEW YEAR'S DAY
7. the first days of a calendar year.
8. ROSH HASHANAH
9. (capital) the first day or several days of a year.
10. The first few days of a calendar year.
11. In particular, January 1 in the Julian calendar, Julian and Gregorian calendar, Gregorian calendars, calendar and the days following.
12. of or relating to New Year (rfv-sense, as adjective: is this valid or should it be considered a misspelling of New Year's?)

Results for "new year": (noun)

1. the year approaching or newly begun.

   Chiefly British, a handsel is a gift to express good wishes at the beginning of a new year or enterprise.

2. the calendar year just begun.
3. next year: the year following the current year, especially the early part of it.
4. the calendar year just begun or about to begin.
5. the period immediately before and after 31 December.
6. a year that has recently begun or will soon begin.
7. \new"-year`\ (adjective) Of or pertaining to, or suitable for, the commencement of the year; as, new-year gifts or odes.

60.50.9.94 09:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it does meet the lemming test, which is good enough for me, since I do not favor a high burden of proof for anything as vague as "idiomaticity." Weak keep. Note however that the Webster's 1913 cite would actually apply to new-year, a (potential) separate entry. Also, as I have understood it, the sum-of-parts argument is that the current definition is the sum of new and year. "New year" couldn't be sum-of-parts from New Year, because New Year is not a part of "new year," and different capitalizations almost always deserve separate entries. However, it has not been shown that "new year" is ever used to mean "New Year," except perhaps by e.e. cummings and his latter-day followers on Usenet. -- Visviva 12:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep. While new can theoretically appear before any of several time-unit words, its usage this way seems to be limited to new year and new day. Each of these caries connotation beyond the sum of the parts in a way that new month, new week, or new fortnight just don't do. --EncycloPetey 15:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I am not quite sure whether such entry should be measured or judged by the number of various dictionaries which they have it as criteria. But by the look of what links to that page seems to increase gradually (from five pages when it was first proposed for deletion until seven today apart from this page), such as the Finnish term uusi vuosi and it might be used for a little proof. Otherwise it would end up in Special:WantedPages as an unwanted page if deleted despite disabled. On the other hand, it is not surprising to note that this common noun was nominated into here on April the First since the "new year" is given credence to the most common explanation for the origin of April Fools' Day. ms:User:On Wheezier Plot 23:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

tram driver

SoP. Anyone who drives a tram — not merely someone who does so in a city, as claimed in the entry — is a tram driver.—msh210℠ 19:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Was probably created to provide a blue link for the gloss of Polish motorniczy, but that word can easily be glossed "tram driver" with two links. Angr 19:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC) - Done Hekaheka 15:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • delete per nom. Thryduulf 19:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

We have bus driver, taxi driver and possibly others. Additional cases for deletion, if this goes? Hekaheka 08:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The two you mention are. So are bus operator and train operator (which I haven't checked and hope are redlinked).—msh210℠ 02:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Undecided - does tram driver describe just anyone who happens to be driving a tram, or does it describe a paid profession? If the formar, then I agree it should be deleted. But if the latter, then it should be kept, just as we kept tennis player and basketball player. I know that in the US, bus driver and taxi driver are professions, and not simply the description of an action. This makes them idiomatic and not merely sum of parts. --EncycloPetey 17:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• The seemingly arbitrary world of SoP is a continuous mystery to me. Should we add chess player, ice hockey player, poker player and many others because they can be professions? Hekaheka 21:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. Saying "I play ice hockey," is not the same as saying "I am an ice hockey player." --EncycloPetey 22:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with EP's last point, but not necessarily with the "paid profession" criterion. A term like computer programmer is not limited to those who are in the paid profession. It includes hobbyists and those for whom it is incidental to their actual profession. Ordinary usage usually requires that we qualify an ambiguous occupation by saying something like "real" or "professional" or "full-time" or "paid".

As to "tram driver", it would seem that the institutional barriers (special license required, trams locked away at night, actual driver not authorized to let anyone else drive the vehicle, laws against larceny) make for a bright sharp line distinguishing a "tram driver" from someone driving a tram (usually labelled joy-rider, thief, robber, hero according to the circumstances). These barriers make for a sharp distinction that does not always exist. Contrast with "car driver", where the broad ownership and availability of the vehicles eliminates the sharp distinction.

Keep based on sharp distinction. DCDuring TALK 23:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

dryer vent

Sum of parts? Thryduulf 23:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Not as defined. But surely this can refer to the vent of any dryer? -- Visviva 01:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Definition irrelevantly includes the sometime ancillary function of filtering lint (to reduce risk of fire in the vent). It ought to be any vent for any dryer, including those not used for drying clothes.

Delete DCDuring TALK 22:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

delete --EncycloPetey 21:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete -- WikiPedant 22:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

internet block

Internet-block

SoP.—msh210℠ 18:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn’t the sum of the parts. The sum of the parts could means, for example a physical barrier which prevents a user plugging a computer into a modem. That could also prevent a user accessing the Internet.

An Internet block is a specific type of computer programme. Barbara Shack 19:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Note also that among the first 31 Google Books results for internet-block, just one (by Guthrie) seems to be with this meaning, and it has a capitalized initial I. The rest have commas between the words, or the like, or refer to a block of IP addresses. The remaining five Books results are invisible to me.—msh210℠ 19:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've capitalized it and added a hyphen. Is it OK now?Barbara Shack 19:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It still seems to me, at least, to be a SoP. Others will have their say on that issue, and, doubtless, some of the regulars here will disagree with me. As to whether it's attested (which is what the Google Books results are for), we still have only one result (and it has no hyphen, incidentally; I'm not sure why you added one); can you find more? But attestation is an issue for Requests for verification, not here; and if the consensus here is that this term is not a SoP, then I will recommend moving the discussion to that page for an attempt to find attestation.—msh210℠ 19:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This fails just like and for the same reason that virus checker, virus scanner, and spam blocker all fail, they are simply SoP names of types of programs. An internet-block is software which blocks the internet, a virus checker is software which checks for viruses. There is no information beyond what is contained in the name which requires definition. - [The]DaveRoss 20:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Move to RFV or delete. If I thought this phrase were real and always had this meaning, I wouldn't be ready to call it SOP, but I don't, so I am. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 22:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Move to RfV to see if some orthography for this has the meaning given: roughly, "selective user-computer internet-site blocker". This longer phrase would seem to be SoP. The phrase in question doesn't quite seem that way because it would seem to me to allow for governmental blocking software not installed on user machines, complete blocking of the open internet while allowing access to intranets, etc. Or am I missing something? DCDuring TALK 15:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The way I've used the term, an internet block is not a program, it is a sequential set or IP adresses (usually specified by a mask). RJFJR 19:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

beer tent

What else would it be? Equivalent to beer room/beer corner/wine tent/milk tent/muffin palace etc. Keene2 18:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

A tent for storing beer? A tent made of recycled beer cans? A tent with a picture of a beer on it? Re your examples, I've never heard of a beer room or a wine tent. I'm sure the terms are used, but they don't seem to be nearly as pervasive as this one. Inclined to weak keep as having a more specific (normal) referent than the sum of its parts. -- Visviva 02:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If there was a tent for storing beer, it would probably be called "beer tent" (add sense, if kept?!). A tent made of recycled beer can's would probably be called "beercan tent". To name a tent acc. to a picture hardly ever happens, and if it does, it would likely be a proper noun. There's a wine tent in the annual Oktoberfest beer festival (probably world's largest) In Munich. Delete as SoP. Hekaheka 06:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Although there is a wine tent at the Octoberfest, the name beer tent has a much more strongly defined meaning in Bavaria. At smaller festivals there is usually only one large tent, where people eat and drink and the traditional music plays, and it is called beer tent, sometimes even as a synonym for festival tent or a tent having this shape. It is the similar to beer garden, which is not just any garden in which people drink beer, or beer tables, which are not just any tables, but refer to a special type of picnic table. Keep --Zeitlupe 14:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep per Visviva's comments.--Dmol 07:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep. This is a specific colloquial description of a temporarily licenced premises under UK law. -- Algrif 12:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC) I've added a citation, too, to show that it is understood to mean one specific place. -- Algrif 13:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

palma de la mano

Sum of parts. Dmcdevit·t 08:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I lived two years in Spain (Barcelona), and I heard "palma de la mano" quite often, probably to make sure which of the several senses of the word "palma" the speaker meant. According to my experience, it might be regarded as a set phrase, which would merit inclusion. Palma de la mano (and definitely not palma alone), is used in some expressions such as "como por la palma de la mano" and "liso como la palma de la mano". It also gets 760,000 Google hits. On the other hand "palma de la mano" does not have its own entry in the Diccionario de la lengua Española of the Real Academia Española, at least not in the web version. Hekaheka 08:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep. It is needed to translate know like the back of one's hand. I agree with Hekaheka that the Spanish nearly always use the full expression, not only because they always have done, but also to make clear they are not talking about a tree. It is current usage and so has a place in Wikt. IMHO -- Algrif 13:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep. The Diccionario de la lengua española is written for native speakers of Spanish, who have different needs and requirements in regard to their own language than English-speakers have for Spanish. For Spaniards, it’s SoP, but for us it’s a term. —Stephen 15:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Family Feud

If the show meets CFI it needs to be split out, but I do not think it does. --Connel MacKenzie 07:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Even an inclusionist like me thinks it should be removed. SemperBlotto 07:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why these things, which regularly survive based on citations, are pushed into RfD instead of RfV. Is it because they can be deleted more quickly? The Proper Noun needs its own entry. The show is used allusively often and attributively on occasion. Why the bias against pop culture? DCDuring TALK 11:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of the bias against "pop culture" is due to incessant spam from the various media outlets - media outlets that in turn try to get a name out there any way they can - even if it mean crap loading here. (I'm not saying that is necessarily the case here; I'm answering your more general question.) All reasonable dictionaries prohibit product and company names, for many other reasons. But being on the internet, we are a finer target - reasonably, we absolutely should take a much harder line than major print dictionaries. Ans a much harder line than we currently do. --Connel MacKenzie 11:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've put the proper noun where it belongs. DCDuring TALK 12:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

head

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

"At the head of the queue" and "go to the head of the queue" are the most common formulations, "come to the head of the queue" is rarer. When the context is firmly established as being the position in a queue, you could say "You can go to the head" or "I'm at the head", but in both cases I would use either the word "front" instead of "head" or include the word "queue". In other words, delete sense. Thryduulf 11:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we look at some of the other senses, too, and the rfc, while we're at it? These multi-sense words are killers. Grouping can help a bit. Some of the entries with contexts are closely associated with a more generic sense, more figurative with more concrete (e.g. pus/crisis).

1. 2nd sense "any round object". A ball or sphere is not automatically a head.
2. The sense for hammer/axe head is worded to include striking tools so the business end of a lacrosse stick needs to mentioned separately and other non-striking tools and other implements that have parts called heads that are not included.
3. It doesn't seem to have a good sense for head of lettuce, cauliflower, etc.
4. The sense for nail doesn't seem to include screw.
5. Anyone who is willing to take this on should go to the head of the class. DCDuring TALK 01:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

1. No, but many round masses are called heads. I have replaced "any" with "a"; is that sufficient?

2. I'm not really familiar with lacrosse terminology, but my understanding is that the rationale for this is similar to the rationale for the guitar sense; it refers to not to the business/top/working end of the stick, but to a very specific part of the stick. As for other tools, I'm sure it's true, but examples would be helpful. Some, like "head of a rake," might be covered by the principal-operating-part sense; or the striking-tool sense might need to be reworded to encompass all hand tools.

3. I guess it depends on whether a seed/flower head and a lettuce head are basically the same thing. My first inclination when reorganizing the defs was actually to put the lettuce example under sense 2; i.e. a head-shaped lump of lettuce, not a capitulum of lettuce -- but other dictionaries seem to disagree.

4. Huh? Why not? The definition mentions screws, and people talk about the heads of screws all the time.

6. I'd be surprised if the pustulent-abscess and crisis senses have any connection; it seems more likely that it is derived from the tendency for the head of the abscess to become round and swollen with pus. -- Visviva 08:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm so sorry. I hadn't looked at the edit history. Wow! This is so much improved that I feel like I'm just quibbling, but quibble we must:

1. I'm not so sure that a round mass not connected to something to make a non-round whole would be said to have a head. The comet usage example is an illustration. Maybe it just has to say "part" in the def.
2. Too bad "business end" is too idiomatic for defining vocabulary. It seems almost a synonym for some of the senses of head.
   1. The ball-carrying part of a lacrosse stick is the business end. The stick is used (within the rules) for carrying the ball and for holding it while throwing it.
   2. Not just hand tools, but power tools, including industrial ones, also often have heads.
   3. MW3 has 11 subsenses for the sense closest to this (75+ subsenses for "head" as a whole).
3. I had never known the word capitulum; MW3 uses it as a subsense for an undefined sense, the other half of which is the head-of-lettuce sense.
4. I think I need another monitor so I can see what I'm writing about while I'm writing. I seem to misrember things. (ie, screw/nail). Huh, indeed.
5. You are the usage example for head of the class.
6. I recently got that crisis/abscess relationship from some non-authoritative, but credible source (Crystal or Pinker, I think). They didn't offer any support for the assertion. It seemed to give me a litte aha moment.
7. Is a well-head ever referred to as the head of a well?

Having a long, single-level list of senses made me use my printer to try to hand-make a hierarchy. A two-level (even three-level hierarchy, as in my MW3) is a little bit of a help in grouping somewhat related definitions. Why is that not done here? The use of "#" allows it technically. DCDuring TALK 11:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

7. Seems so. [9] But this is arguably covered by the "topmost part" sense. -- Visviva 12:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should move this discussion back to RfC. Regarding subsenses, I was thinking about the same thing and put together one possible mockup at User:Visviva/head. I agree that this leads to much improved readability, but a) MediaWiki's handling of ## seems less than ideal (it's confusing to have multiple "sense 2's"), and b) if this were going to be implemented on more than an experimental basis, it would require thorough community discussion and a revision of WT:ELE, particularly since some additional fiddling with indentation rules is required. -- Visviva 12:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC seems like the right forum. I'm going to collect prior discussions about subsenses and put the links on a user page somewhere. DCDuring TALK 13:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding MediaWiki's handling of ##, it would be ideal to have senses labelled as 6, 6.1, 6.2, 7, etc. I would assume that doing this will require a mod by a developer to allow this behaviour to be set on a per-project basis rather than being js or css hackable?

If it does require a developer mod, then we will need to show overwhelming support to have any hope of anything being done this side of 2012. Where do we have the discussion about this? Thryduulf 16:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is CSS-hackable; MediaWiki just generates <ol> and <li> tags for the list and leaves the rest to the browser. Not sure how feasible it is to have one level numeric and one level alphabetic (which IMO would be ideal), but there must be a way. -- Visviva 00:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The options described at http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/generate.html#propdef-list-style-type are supported by most halfway-modern browsers (though IIRC not IE 6); something like ol > li > ol { list-style-type: lower-alpha; } would do what you describe (as would just ol ol { list-style-type: lower-alpha; }; the former would only affect ordered-lists that are immediate children of ordered-list elements, while the latter would affect any ordered-list that's a descendant of another). I have no thoughts how to do what Thryduulf describes, barring JavaScript that finds them, sets their list-style-type to none, and inserts the right pattern at the beginning of their content — though that would have the down-side of moving the list markers inside the list. To keep the list markers outside the list and do this would be even more complicated. All told, a great thought, but probably not worth it. —Ruakh_TALK 00:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What I currently have here seems to implement Thryduulf's suggestion fairly well, at least on FF/Windows; however, it may cause undesirable effects with other types of lists. -- Visviva 04:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

—Ruakh_TALK 11:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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

air way bill

This is a valid spelling of air waybill, synoymous with airbill. It seems SoP. DCDuring TALK 11:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, SoP delete. - [The]DaveRoss 23:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

deleted --EncycloPetey 21:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

cattle

rfd-sense: collective noun. I thought that the collective noun was "herd". DCDuring TALK 03:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Whoever added that probably just didn't know what "collective noun" meant. —Ruakh_TALK 04:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have converted it into a proper definition. Now, how about the second definition - that does not seem correct, and is in no other dictionary that I have. SemperBlotto 07:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Turns up in the Canadian Criminal Code [10] . -- Visviva 10:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Revert; the noun is not uncountable. "Uncountable" means a noun cannot be used with numerals, and cattle can be (and is). See this quotation from the NY Times [11] "...bringing with them thirty-five cattle and two horses". The noun most certainly is countable. --EncycloPetey 15:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This rfd is not about the plural material on the inflection line or in the usage note, but about an already removed purported collective-noun sense (like "herd", eg, a "cattle" of Herefords) that some with more boldness than I would have deleted on sight. I thought maybe there was some other usage that I didn't know (and also wasn't in MW3).

While we're at it we might clean up the plural discussion, which could use some clarification. The {{rare}} "beef" (guffaw) sense is the only sense that seems to me to be uncountable. The "rare" tag, if not just there for the wordplay, might suggest that we should not give such prominence to uncountability on the inflection line. (I would argue for eliminating it from the inflection line in favor of the definition lines for all entries, not just ones like this.) Longman'd DCE just shows it as plural. MW3 shows it as "usually plural in construction". I have not yet searched for "cattle-is" on b.g.c. to see how justified MW3's "usually". The usage note is not as helpful as it might be because it mostly does not address the question of what number-inflection of verb cattle takes. DCDuring TALK 18:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, I think, that "cattle" is a kind of generic term. If you only have 1 cattle, you would normally define that one as what it actually is, e.g. a bull, or cow, or ox, or whatever member of the cattle genus (if you will allow me to use this term incorrectly here) that one animal happens to be. But most certainly it is NOT a collective noun, and neither is it uncountable. -- Algrif 16:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The singular use is much, much less common (but citable). The problem is with the term plurale tantum, literally meaning "plural only". Am I supposed to say "usually plurale tantum" or plurale fere or plurale plerumque? I don't know of any dictionaries that provide a good model of how to use plurale tantum in such a case, because I don't know of any dictionaries that use the term at all. I'm sure there must be some, because we wouldn't have wanted to be breaking new ground on something like this. DCDuring TALK 16:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What I did at pax, which similarly is used far more commonly as a plural, but does get used singularly, is a simple usage note saying "Usually plural". Thryduulf 19:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I like it. But I favor keeping "usually plural" within an inch of the inflection line no matter how long the list of definitions. DCDuring TALK 19:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In lake'ch

As far as I can determine, this is never used, but only mentioned, primarily by spiritualists who want to use the Mayans' ancientness to make what they're saying seem mystical. (Check Google Books if you don't believe me.) It's possible that the phrase has some legitimate existence buried beneath all this, but I think it's safe to delete it until evidence of such comes along. --Ptcamn 15:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. This reminds me of the New Agers who would have us believe that namaste means "I bow to the divine in you", even though at most all it means etymologically is "a bow to you", and in practice all it means to Hindi speakers is "hello". Angr 18:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• delete - Mayan does not seem to be distinct language anyway, which makes me inclined to think that this is bogus.--Williamsayers79 21:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

deleted --EncycloPetey 21:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

TMBG

Abbreviation of a band. Sure, its an acronym, which usually makes any entry passable, but I think we agreed against bans names (except for the Beatles and the Rolling Stones because they're, I guess, so huge). I doubt anyone can see TMBG in their league though. Keene 06:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Well, it links to a Wikipedia article, not to a definition here. If it stays, then I shall add to AWB. SemperBlotto 07:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that 'hugeness' was a metric we were concerned with, but I added this as a test case anyway. I provided usage cites on Citations:TMBG spanning 8 years, 4 books and a usenet. We don't add band names, but TMBG is not the name of the band, (deprecated template usage) They Might Be Giants is the name of the band. There are several acronyms of this type, (deprecated template usage) STP, (deprecated template usage) P!ATD, where the acronym is well known and widely used, but not the name of the band. (another citation, see: alt text). - [The]DaveRoss 15:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. From the above my understanding is that if TMBG were the official name of the band, we would not even consider including it (correct me if I'm wrong). I don't see why not being the official name should ever be an argument for inclusion. Of course if there is any reason to think that this might be used out of context (a la the brand names criterion), or to refer to anything other than the band itself, I'd be inclined to take a second look. -- Visviva 05:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• See the citations page linked above, the term is in use. It is an initialism which has meaning. Why wouldn't we keep it? (deprecated template usage) BMW, (deprecated template usage) AT&T, (deprecated template usage) LAX... we have a long history of keeping initialisms and acronyms even when the term it represents doesn't merit inclusion. - [The]DaveRoss 01:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as per argument of Visviva above. --Gauss 10:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as promotional. --Connel MacKenzie 10:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That is the most ridiculous argument I have heard...I added it, I didn't do so to promote the band, if this is promotional we need to re-nominate almost every brand name entry we have. What about the entry is in any way promotional, any moreso than any brand name or trademarked term which we already have? I am still waiting from some deletion reason based on either president or written policy. - [The]DaveRoss 20:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Replace with {{only in}} Wikipedia. As a band it is clearly not a dictionary term, however as something that people might look up, we should at least shunt them in the right direction. Incidentally waiting for everything to happen according to policy is a bad sign, nothing would ever get done sensibly that way. Conrad.Irwin 20:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

donna di picche

Batch-RFDing Italian cards. donna di picche, as well as due di cuori, cinque di quadri‎ , tre di fiori‎ and all the numbers/suits of cards. Never ever going to be more than some of parts, and I think the picche, cuori, quadri and fiori plus all the Italian numerals will be perfectly sufficient. --Keene 10:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, OK. You might like to ask Paul G - he added them, but doesn't always look in here. SemperBlotto 10:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Keep. Why don’t you say "regina di pale", which also means "queen of spades" (except that it’s nonsense)? I think we should have queen of spades in English, but we certainly should have donna di picche since "queen of spades" in foreign languages can be translated in many ways, and all but one way incorrect. —Stephen 21:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If I give you the Russian word for spade (in the card sense), and for queen (in the card sense), see if you can deduce the Russian for queen of spades: queen = дама, spade = пика. (You can’t do it unless you look up the term queen of spades somewhere that shows the Russian term). —Stephen 21:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, this seems like a challenge. Maybe if you give me the Russian for of it would be easier lol! How about дама пики? Is That close? If this does pass, perhaps we can expand Appendix:Playing Cards. Keene 22:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Russian does not say "queen of spades" as we do, it says "peaked lady": пиковая дама. Portuguese says "lady of swords". Terms such as queen of spades are idiomatic and have specific and usually unpredictable translations into other languages. —Stephen 22:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a strong argument for having of spades, di picche, пиковая, etc. —Ruakh_TALK 01:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep, add. I assume this applies to the three face cards plus the ace? Let's see - king, queen, jack, ace, times four suits would be sixteen entries. I think we can handle another sixteen entries and even a few dozen translations of them (remembering that not all languages have terms for card games). bd2412 T 04:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, we already have due di cuori and so on; so, it's actually 52 entries and their translations. (Not sure if that changes anything.) —Ruakh_TALK 23:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Aside: When I used to play spades all the time, the rule was that the lead for the opening trick was always the two of puppyfeet. Does that get an entry ;) --EncycloPetey 05:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep and Add. Although we have the playing card sense in king, queen, jack, and ace; and we have the card suits sense under spades, hearts, diamonds, and clubs; the fact that the item involves one specific sense from each entry leads us to the oft repeated argument that queen of spades, being 1 sense only of X plus one sense only of Y meaning one particular item which can only be referred to as X+Y, is not an SoP entry. Isn't this the Egyptian pyramid argument? Correct me if I'm wrong. And if I'm right, then of course, the translations would stand for the same reasons. -- Algrif 16:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, given the translation of queen of spades, one cannot asssume that the translation of two of spades will be of the same pattern. In Russian, queen of spades is пиковая дама and two is два...but two of spades is двойка пик (literally, deuce of pikes, since the cardinal numbers cannot be used that way in Russian). —Stephen 17:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Not entirely ridiculous, but keep and add nonetheless. Useful, does not pose a serious threat to the coherence of the project. -- Visviva 11:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on the discussion to date, I've been bold and added all the ace, king, queen, jack, knave of each suit. 20 entries, with translation tables waiting to be filled. I've not added the numbers as I think the SoP case would be a lot stronger for these. -- Algrif 10:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Jarzi

and the spelling variants Jarzee, Jarzey, Jarzie, Jarzy. Explained as a female given name meaning "one who betrays", but I cannot find any evidence to support this. The Urban dictionary defines jarzy as a word for "lies". Jerzy is Polish for George. Looking at the other contributions by this anonymous user, he/she has added rare names or name suggestions in alphabetical order, probably copied from some baby name book or website.--Makaokalani 14:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No comments? Shall I put these up for deletion? There are some b.g.c. hits for all forms, but mostly lower case, or fragments of words. Whatever they are, they are not female given names; it makes the Wiktionary look ridiculous.--Makaokalani 13:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Zalyka

From the same contributor as Jarzi,etc, with the same reasons for deletion. Zalika seems to have been used a little.--Makaokalani 14:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

22 b.g.c. hits, mostly lower case, 832 google. Delete?--Makaokalani 13:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

apple midge

This article is clearly out of date. According to ADW the scientific name listed "Sciara mali" is not in use, and Google hits are all from the last century. Unless someone who's better versed in science than I am can give this page a thorough edit, then I think it should go. GreetingsEarthling 14:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Mainly 19th century book hits, with some C20th. Also refered to as "Molobrus mali" (i have no idea if this is correct either) But, this makes it a case for clean-up, as you say. But not deletion, as the insect exists and has enough published cites to meet CFI. -- Algrif 15:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep This is exactly what we should keep in the area of biological and other scientific names. We can provide a bridge between vernacular names and more current and scientific ones. If we can get a user to Wikipedia or Wikispecies (which does not have entries for obsolete names, but may have the word if it is used in the title of an article they cite), we are doing them some good. DCDuring TALK 17:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

tincidunt

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

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

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

• Keep. to be nice to users who might not be familiar with lorem ipsum, as Ruakh suggested. DCDuring TALK 14:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  There is at least one other way of being nice, so I take back my keep vote until the finessing more-or-less within-the-rules approach suggested below is evaluated. DCDuring TALK 11:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

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

• Comments. (1) It's obviously meant to look like Latin (especially considering the text always found around it). But it's not Latin. If we keep this, what language header do we use? (2) and what part of speech? (3) I suspect that there are many other terms in tincidunt's class: non-words that are frequently found in lorem-ipsum text. If we keep this, presumably we'll keep all such.—msh210℠ 22:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  The lorem ipsum entry calls "lorem ipsum" an English noun. It does not have any attestation.

  Perhaps we could finesse the problem. Perhaps we could include "text" including "tincidunt" (not now present in the entry) in the "lorem ipsum" article. That way at least the search engine would lead a user to a place that gave an explanation. (BTW, it would be nice if we could also find at least one real usage example for "lorem ipsum" as a noun. It would also be nice if we had some discussion there about the term on its talk page.) DCDuring TALK 00:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  I have found a few cites of "lorem ipsum" being used as a noun for attestation. I have also found a short nonsense quote in which it is used with "tincidunt", which I have inserted in the lorem ipsum entry. Once the article gets re-indexed, it should direct search to that entry as well as "tincidunt". That would make our decisions about "tincidunt" and the precedent it might set a little easier. DCDuring TALK 01:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  A search for "tincidunt" would find the cited noun entry "lorem ipsum", which is used in English. DCDuring TALK 11:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  I would have thought one of the key points of lorem ipsum is that it is ==Translingual== . -- Visviva 15:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  I wouldn't object to such altering of lorem ipsum. I was just interested in whether we could stick to the form of our practice about PoS and citation, preferably both for lorem ipsum and tincidunt. We seem to be able to do it for lorem ipsum under one of English or Translingual header. I see how by finesse to include in search "tincidunt" and many other frequently occuring pseudo-words without having to have new entries for them, but I don't see how they can be entries under our existing rules. Nor do I particularly want to if search would take a user to an informative lrem ipsum entry. DCDuring TALK 15:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  Well, I think that "lorem ipsum" itself is probably a valid English term, but that the words (or word-like objects) which occur in lorem ipsum passages are best regarded as translingual. IMO the same arguments that apply to having entries for nonsense Hangul sylables that have never been used to convey meaning -- which the community recently decided was desirable -- would apply at least as strongly to lorem ipsum words, which at least are used for some purpose. Given the structure of Wiktionary, I would say that if we are going to cover such words in mainspace, they should each be given their own entry. If not, they could simply be listed in Appendix:Lorem ipsum. -- Visviva 09:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

  An appendix is only useful if you know what you are looking for or at least realize that are appendices to search. It's one drawback to citation space. There are many more users who don't know than who do. DCDuring TALK 11:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

  Fixed formatting slightly (my goof). Fair enough, but if these are worthy of mainspace inclusion -- and they certainly do provide some user value, if only to let the user know that this is not a real word -- I think they really do need their own individual entries. -- Visviva 14:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't, because they're never used as words. They're nonsense text that appear in a single, specific (albeit widely circulated) "text". The text is in pseudo-Latin, which is not a language and has no ISO code. The individual "words" are never used in Latin nor in any other language I know of. --EncycloPetey 15:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

  I don't see how that would make them any worse than random Hangul syllables which are never used to convey meaning, but which the community unanimously decided were desirable because someone might want to know that they are not words (or something like that). At least there is plausible reason to think that someone might actually imagine that tincidunt (et al.) are words, and need to be disabused of the notion. -- Visviva 10:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  The differences are: (1) Hangul syllables are used to assemble words. So, just as we have entries for the letters of the Roman alphabet, we have entries for Hangul syllables. (2) Hangul syllables have a language header; tincidunt does not because it is not used in any language. --EncycloPetey 18:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

car bomb

I'm sure the two senses,
An explosive attached to the fuel tank of an automobile, typically triggered by the ignition.
and
An explosive located in the area of an expected assassination target's seat in their automobile transport, used for assassination
should be merged. Perhaps even all three together.--Dmol 09:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge away. Location, detonation mechanism, purpose all seem incidental details. It's an explosive device (not exactly a bomb?) hidden (?) in a an automotive vehicle (or just a car?). It's not quite SoP, I don't think, but it seems straight-forward. DCDuring TALK 11:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Also the amount of explosives is incidental. Small amount under seat means assassination, but def. 3 would still say it would be a car bomb. I hope that a WP article covers the range of possibilities. Perhaps Wikihowto has further material. DCDuring TALK 12:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

2 and 3 should definitely be merged, but I think #1 is distinct. 2 and 3 involve a bomb (planted) in or on a car in order to destroy it, whereas 1 involves a car used as a bomb (or bomb delivery mechanism) in order to destroy something else. - Visviva 04:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Does the difference in purpose require a different sense? For an encyclopedia article and real life I see the importance of such distinctions, but we are just a simple dictionary. The bare elements seem to be: car, explosive, intentional detonation, destructive intent.

"Planted" would seem to imply without the awareness of occupants, but suicide bombers are aware and some car bombs have no passengers when detonated. The all-encompassing definition with the four bare elements would seem to encompass planted/non-planted, hidden/not hidden, assassination/terror/military purposes. DCDuring TALK 20:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, without the awareness of occupants, which is what is normally associated with the term, which is why we need #1 to refer specifically to the cases of a suicide bomber using the car as a bomb, and an empty vehicle used as a bomb. It's difficult for me to see how this sense could not be distinct from the more familiar one in which the bomb is used (primarily) to destroy the car and its occupants. -- Visviva 01:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My friend Bill the barber, from Ockham, prefers fewer senses if possible. I sometimes try to speak for him in these discussions. It's not that non-redundant definitions couldn't be writen, it's that one could also have a single sense that included both cases by excluding what distinguishes them from mention. DCDuring TALK 02:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What? -- Thisis0 03:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that we are multiplying entities beyond necessity here; these really are two completely different things. In sense 1, as I understand it, the referent of "car bomb" is the explosive-laden car itself; the bomb is the car. Cf. human bomb. In sense 2/3, the referent of "car bomb" is the explosive; the bomb is in (or on, or under) the car. Note that this second usage is rather unusual; a human bomb (as such) is not a bomb used to destroy a human; a pipe bomb is not a bomb used to destroy a pipe. -- Visviva 04:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep defn 1 and merge 2 and 3. I agree with Visviva. The terms are distinguished by their denotations. In sense 1, the term denotes the entire car. In senses 2 and 3, the term denotes a separate object hidden within the car. These are distinctly different usages/meanings of the term "car bomb". -- WikiPedant 05:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrote new definitions according to the lines of WikiPedant. Senses 3 and 4 should now be deleted, as the new sense 2 is intended to cover them. It would be possible to combine 1 to 4 simply by: "An explosive device installed in an automobile", but then the whole approaches a SoP, and should possibly be deleted alltogether. Hekaheka 08:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

ubiquitous network society

This seems wrong. I'm not sure why: SoP; no consistent meaning; nonsense. DCDuring TALK 10:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It may be nonsense to some, but it is a topic widely discussed in the telecom community around the world. It was one of the main themes of the ITU (International Telecom Union) conference in 2006: [12]. A simple Google search will give more than 10,000 hits. Hekaheka 18:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I had thought it was suspect, but was surprised to find that it is rather widespread. Keep as a set phrase.--Dmol 19:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I should have just RfV'd this I suppose. Does anyone have sensible usage of this? Does it have a single somewhat vague meaning? Does it have multiple meanings more sharply defined, but more broadly used than in one author's works? Does it have a specific context where people would know what was meant? DCDuring TALK 20:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, the term is mostly used by telecom speacialists, certainly by a number of authors, and it has been in existence for more than three years now. It has a clearly defined meaning. I agree with Dmol, it looks set phrase to me. I have not seen e.g. "omnipresent web society" used as an alternative term, although the words could mean the same. Added one quote. Hekaheka 20:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Move to RFV. I don't think this passes the test; its use is too narrow, apparently limited to those within the conference-attending segment of the telecom industry, only. --Connel MacKenzie 10:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

tío materno

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

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

tío paterno

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

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

abuelo paterno

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

R.E.M.

American-rock-band sense. —Ruakh_TALK 11:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

From a help-the-normal-user perspective, I've never understood why such a sense is a bad thing. Maybe we could make the sense line slightly more informative and include a link to the WP article. DCDuring TALK 11:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete sense - it's purely encyclopedic. bd2412 T 02:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

FOLDOC

Spam. The last edit was by the site's author. Dmcdevit·t 12:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Not spam, but not obviously CFI-meeting either; has no obvious lexicographical interest apart from being a famous acronym. Should probably go the same way as #TMBG above, so I will vote as I did there to delete. -- Visviva 12:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: if deleted, we should have a line in Wiktionary:Glossary for entries like molly-guard to link to. -- Visviva 12:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

delete we are not here to provide endless links to other "Free" dictionaries. --Williamsayers79 21:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep in the current soft-link form. --Connel MacKenzie 10:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC) Also: see other discussions on other dictionaries; inherently of lexical value. --Connel MacKenzie 10:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I think we should keep it, but I don't have a good reason why. :-P   —Ruakh_TALK 14:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

maternal uncle

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

Is it really sum of parts? A genealogically naive user might assume it means "mother's uncle." -- Visviva 13:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Or a matronly uncle. —Stephen 13:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Not sum of parts. No combination of maternal or uncle will define the term without ambiguity.--Dmol 14:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Necessary, and desirable, in English. Translations which are SOP should have their component words wikilinked separately. Widsith 20:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

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

No, I would say that "maternal brother" can only mean a brother who is quite motherly. At any rate, it is pretty confusing to interpret it any other way. More to the point, it is an almost non-existant phrase, whereas maternal uncle is a very common collocation, and furthermore is idiomatic in the sense that this is the most natural way to express the concept in English. Widsith 05:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, all the b.g.c. hits I can find for "maternal brother" use it to mean "brother with whom ego shares a mother" only... however, a web search for "maternal brother"+"mother's brother" turns up a number of sites which appear to treat these phrases as synonymous. (For example, on a professor's course-notes website, "He notes in European stories the maternal brother is good and the father's brother is evil." [13]) This does seem to indicate that "maternal" can be polysemous even when applied to relatives, at least when the author is not paying strict attention. Personally, if I encountered "maternal brother" out of context, I wouldn't be sure which way to interpret it, if only because the notion of distinguishing siblings by shared parent is rather foreign to me. -- Visviva 06:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, good point. You could obviously have a maternal brother and a step-brother. Widsith 06:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So if I may paraphrase: there's a strong tendency to interpret (deprecated template usage) maternal uncle as "uncle on one's mother's side", just as there's a strong tendency toward that interpretation of (deprecated template usage) maternal <relative> in all other cases. (Is that fair to say?) That doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement of the term's non-SOP-ness. —Ruakh_TALK 21:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Weak delete. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 23:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep. IMO reasonable doubt exists as to compositionality, and the value of this and related terms as translation-hangers adds some weight in favor of keeping. -- Visviva 14:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Harry Potter terms

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

• sieppi, seeker, quidditch, kvicken, dunkare, Voldemort, metloboj, tragač, אתה־יודע־מי ,הוגוורטס, Hogwarts, מוגל, Muggle, mugglare, Mudla, מחפש ,קווידיץ׳, metlobal

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

From an above discussion, these should all be looked into and decided upon individually, most can be deleted without prejudice. - [The]DaveRoss 23:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but save sieppi. I have already deleted Harry Potter -sense, but the word has other meanings in Finnish. Hekaheka 20:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(deprecated template usage) מחפש (m'khapés) is not just a Harry Potter term; it should be fixed rather than deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 03:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

quidditch is now a real sport. That will pass RFV or RFD. I imagine Muggle would pass, as well. sewnmouthsecret 20:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course these terms shouldn't be deleted outright if they aren't just HP terms. - [The]DaveRoss 21:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Native Californian

Seems strictly SoP. DCDuring TALK 11:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep. This isn't SoP, it's just incorrectly defined. It's a state-level equivalent of Native American. It refers not to those born in California, but to the indigenous people present in the region of the state before the arrival of Europeans, and to the descendants of those people. --EncycloPetey 13:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You want to keep an incorrect sense on the grounds that there might be a real sense? I challenge the entry as it is. I've never heard of the usage you suggest. It is certainly plausible, but needs to be cited. If it is actually used as you say, we will have to keep the SoP meaning to clarify the distinction in use. I'd like see in what context it is used. DCDuring TALK 14:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I agree (or disagree, depending on how you look at it) with both of you. I would say that anyone trying to use the term "Native Californian" in the why it's defined would probably be considered wrong, so SoP isn't the issue ("native Californian" seems better), and the term is commonly used to refer to indigenous Californians. At the same time, I find it confusing, or even annoying, when people say "keep" for a bad sense, just because another attestable sense for that word exists. You don't really mean that you want to keep it, you mean "delete-it-but-oh-by-the-way-it-should-be-replace-by-this-meaning." In any case, I have deleted that sense, but oh by the way, I replaced it with EP's, and cites for it. :-) Dmcdevit·t 20:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, a lot of admins don't give helpful deletion summaries, so a later reader (potential contributor) coming across a deleted entry is likely to think that we've rejected the sense they're thinking of. If there's not consensus to keep any of the currently defined sense, but there is consensus that the term has a real sense that warrants inclusion but that no one has added (for whatever reason), then I'd either (1) change the def to a {{substub}} or (2) delete the entry with a deletion summary that makes clear the need for a better entry. But either way, thanks for side-stepping that by adding the right sense. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 00:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe not. Someone born in California is a native Californian, but not Native Californian, I suppose. Edited the article using entry on "Native American" as a model. Hekaheka 20:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Grr, I just edit-conflicted you on the article, and the again here. I just put my version of the article in instead of yours; no hard feelings I hope. ;-) Our definitions were essentially the same, I just added citations for the senses. Dmcdevit·t 20:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

SoP sense has been deleted. Entry is now beautiful. It never occurred to me that this is what the phrase meant. In the northeastern US the state names aren't used that way. "Native New Yorker" just doesn't seem likely to be what a Native American from the Six Nations (Iroquois) would call themselves.

Does "Native Californian" merit a usage note or something to distinguish it from "native Californian"? DCDuring TALK 01:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A usage note does seem in order for this entry. I expect that one reason that Native Californian is used, but that the construction is not used for other US states, is that (1) California is highly isolated geographically from surrounding, so indigenous peoples seldom migrated across what later became state borders, (2) there is a highly charged political issue concerning recognition of tribes and their lands in this state, (3) Native Arizonan, Native Oreganian, et.c just aren't as euphonious. --EncycloPetey 21:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

extranet

I'm not terribly hip to this sort of thing, but the second sense ("network of two or more intranets linked via the Internet") seems redundant with the first. -- Visviva 13:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete. It does seem redundant. I'm no expert either, but that sounds like a VPN.--Dmol 20:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Hekaheka 20:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete; not redundant, just incorrect. --Connel MacKenzie 13:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

Transwiki:Wtci

Proposed abbreviation for "Whatever the case is": Not in online dictionary or Google books... Goldenrowley 03:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

-scribe

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

Delete Actually, this is not a combining form nor a suffix (at least in the examples cited). This is simply a Latin verb (scrībō) which is the etymon of a number of English words. Unless someone can find some words which are the result of an English suffix "-scribe" this really needs to go. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If it were a combining form, would we keep it? Are you suggesting that this should be an RfV? DCDuring TALK 21:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep. This combining form has meaning to English speakers; just about every combination-word that I thought to Google, including (deprecated template usage) [http:／www.google.com/search?q=omniscribe omniscribe] and (deprecated template usage) [http:／www.google.com/search?q=retroscribe retroscribe] and (deprecated template usage) [http:／www.google.com/search?q=angloscribe angloscribe], had hits. I couldn't find any that seem to meet CFI; but they suggest to me that (deprecated template usage) -scribe itself might be worth including. (Of course, it would need to be fixed — firstly, to change "suffix" to "combining form", per DCDuring, and secondly, to make clear that the terms in the "Related terms" are just that, and not derived terms, per Atelaes, lest we give readers the wrong idea.) —Ruakh_TALK 23:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete. First;y, this isn't a suffix; it's a Latin root word. A suffix is an ending tacked onto a root, not a root itself. Nor is this an English combining root, well, at least not in the examples given. Each of those comes from a Latin source word formed from a preposition + (deprecated template usage) scrībō. That is, the combination was made in Latin, and the resulting combination was then transmitted into English. --EncycloPetey 00:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki:ICOE

"In case of emergency" is abbreviated as ICE, not ICOE. Goldenrowley 06:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

In the UK, the government has been pushing for people to put ICE with an emergency contact number in their mobile phones. I've never seen it as ICOE, so unless there is a regional difference delete.--Dmol 12:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

hot dog bun

SOP. User talk:Jesdisciple might also be relevant to this. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I hate to keep saying this but ... I'm not sure this is the sum of its parts. If I eat hot dogs wrapped in bread or hamburger buns, they do not become hot dog buns. Further, if I use a hot dog bun to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, it is still a hot dog bun. -- Visviva 12:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep, still not convinced. (I used to make sandwiches with hot dog buns all the time when I was kid.) -- Visviva 07:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment. If I came across the term not knowing what it was, I don't know if I'd recognize that it was a specific, well-defined item whose identity is independent of any specific use. On the other hand, if I didn't recognize that, then there's no way I'd ever think to look it up. —Ruakh_TALK 12:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete I think it is the sum of its parts. It is a bun for a hot dog, in the same way that a hamburger bun is. — Paul G 10:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Sum of parts, even if there might be some distinctive styles available. But even if it passes, it should not form part of the definition of hot dog, which is why I removed it from there in the first place.--Dmol 12:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot like lunch meat, breakfast cereal, baby food, dog bone, dog food, cat food, crosscut saw, computer program. In each "N1 N2" phrase, N1 is the special purpose or version of N2, I think. DCDuring TALK 17:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I've been wavering on this for a while, but think we ought to keep it because it's an odd three-word collocation describing a specific kind of physical object with properties not predictable from the words "hot", "dog", and "bun". I agree with Visviva that it is a very particular kind of bread, and not simply any sort of bun wrapped around a hot dog. --EncycloPetey 16:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't grasp the principle of three-ness and why the physicality matters.

Why not four or more? Why not two? It seems to me that "hot dog" preforms the same function relative to "bun" as "hamburger" does in "hamburger bun". Do "hot dog vendor", "hot dog cart", "hot dog relish", and "hot dog stand" merit entries? If there is a principle of threeness, shouldn't it be part of WT:CFI?

Do words referring to physical objects have different standards under CFI? Should they?

Why can we not argue from CFI principles more directly? Does it not provide sufficiently specific guidance?

It happens for the same reason that legal codes generally do not argue on the basis of a nation's constitution. WT:CFI lays out the general principles, and not the specifics that would apply to each and every case we might consider. We have an additional body of previous discussions from which we draw when new situations arise, trying to compare by analogy whenever possible. I have raised some issues (3 components) which are new, so that this may be considered (as you have done above), as well as raised an issue I have raised before (referring to a set physical object with specific properties).

Procedurally, not codifying the principles makes Wiktionary an insiders-only game. We could conceivably make do with precedent alone if there were some kind of coding, but I believe that too would make for an insiders-mostly game. We are forced to make out arguments very explicit if they are to be useful sources of precedent. I would argue that if they are not explicit enough to be precedent, then they are not very good at all. DCDuring TALK 17:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

We do have WT:SURVIVOR. In that frame of reference, I would say that this passes the fried egg test, inasmuch as "hot dog bun" has entailments which cannot be derived from hot dog + bun. At the very least, there is reasonable doubt that it fails the fried egg test, which should be good enough. -- Visviva 11:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In the matter of the physical object as referent, my point is shorthand for saying that taking the word (deprecated template usage) bun and adding (deprecated template usage) hot dog to it does more than simply describe use; it implies a particular shape and manufacture, which is a new property. This does more than in big yellow schoolbus, where adding big describes the size (which is the definition of (deprecated template usage) big); yellow describes the color (which is the definition of (deprecated template usage) yellow). Now, for (deprecated template usage) hot dog bun we have an attributive noun, but in this case adds something more than use. Not every bun used to wrap a hot dog is a hot dog bun. As Visviva has already pointed out, if I were to wrap a hamburger bun around a hot dog, it would not become a hot dog bun. Likewise, wrapping a slice of bread, croissant, or tortilla around a hot dog would not make a hot dog bun. A hot dog bun is a specific kind of bun manufactured with certain properties. Further, if I fill a hot dog bun with sandwich meat, it does not cease to be a hot dog bun. Now, hot dog relish does not meet this criterion because it would still be the same relish if added to a hamburger. The "hot dog" portion of this term merely describes its intended use or current location, not a particular kind of relish. The same is true of hot dog cart. If I remove the dogs, buns, and condiments from a hot dog cart and replace them with ice cream, then it is no longer a hot dog cart. Its identity is changed through a change of its function, so there is no inherent identity as a particular sort of cart. Now, hot dog vendor might merit an entry because it is an occupation and implies certain properties, but I'm not going argue that point, since I'm not convinced myself that it would be worth including in Wiktionary. However, hot dog bun does merit a Wiktionary entry for the reasons I have outlined. --EncycloPetey 13:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the complete explanation. I take it that the principle of three is not part of the argument. Consequently, this would be a precedent for hamburger bun.

A hot dog bun remains the same when used for, say, sausages. Because "hot-dog carts", "hot-dog cookers", and "hot dog relish" of special design exist, then, in principle, they would merit inclusion, subject to the usual verification. As would "automatic transmission fluid". DCDuring TALK 17:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree; hamburger buns are equally distinct, as for that matter is sandwich bread. (I'm not sure about the cookers and carts and relish, but if they do exist and are referred to as such, they would merit entries.) Likewise, as w:Automatic transmission fluid reminds us, that substance is sometimes used as a diesel additive, but remains ATF. -- Visviva 11:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep because I can grasp the explicit argument and how it might apply to other cases. Thanks for the reminder about WT:SURVIVOR. It is a valuable resource for precedents. What is the date coverage of WT:SURVIVORS? Is it complete? DCDuring TALK 12:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not out of date AFAIK -- in the sense that the tests that have been accepted are still accepted, and the ones marked as "no terms have passed under this test" still haven't had any terms pass. But it only gets updated with fresh links when somebody remembers to do so. (Then there's the small matter of deciding what terms really belong under a specific test -- the RfD debate is seldom transparent in this regard.) -- Visviva 14:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I meant up to date in the sense of complete. The association of cases with tests might be debatable. A simple list of multi-word entries that have survived RfD would be useful. A table assigning one or more tests to the entry would also be nice. If others agree as to utility, I would be willing to take a crack at both. DCDuring TALK 15:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

driving rain, driving wind

Unidiomatic; these sense are derivable from those given for the component words. — Paul G 10:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Uncommon meaning of driving...driving only says that it means "that drives". If you don’t already know what driving rain means, the definition might lead you to guess it means a rain that forcefully herds. Keep. —Stephen 16:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Good reason to improve driving, possibly including usage examples or citations with RfD'd phrases. Do we need entries for snow, sleet, hail, sand, grit? Also for driven. All phrase entries bring us to question of combinatorial explosion of potential entries. If we had some reason to believe that these phrasal entries were actually useful to ordinary users, it would be easier to accept them. DCDuring TALK 16:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You’ll need to improve driving to the point of defining driving rain explicitly. If you’re going to put the definition of driving rain on driving, why not go ahead and have the entry driving rain. Then driving rain could be moved from wherever it might be defined on driving to Derived terms. Some expressions are so common that they should have entries, including driving rain and driven snow (pure as the driven snow). But not "driving grit" or "driving sleet", etc., which are very rare (I’ve never heard them). —Stephen 17:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

None of the other collocations are exactly rare (most having hundreds of raw b.g.c cites), though certainly not as common as drving wind and driving rain: driving snow, driving sleet (729), driving hail, driving sand, driving grit (only 37!!!). Do we have any reason to believe that users need the phrase as opposed to the word "driving"? I certainly expect them to know "rain" and "wind". DCDuring TALK 17:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I count an English phrase rare if I have never heard it. You may know the meaning of rain, but unless you also know the meaning of driving rain, you probably won’t be able to put the correct sense of drive with the correct sense of rain. If you don’t know what driving rain means, what would make you choose any other than the first sense of drive (or whichever sense first catches your eye)? —Stephen 17:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

We need a little objectivity about something like "rare". I count it as rare if Wiktionary would be likely to assign it a rare tag. That would seem to mean fewer than 10 citations and probably fewer yet. You might be right about the value of having "driving rain" in the search box lead to an entry. I would be happy if usage examples led to the entry for "driving", which does not have very many senses and would have one or more usage examples to direct the user to the appropriate sense. DCDuring TALK 19:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Comparative search results for the common idiom vs. the rare idioms gave more consistent determination for the "rare" tag in the past. While not perfect, comparative measurements are far superior to anything else proposed. --Connel MacKenzie 10:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep. --Connel MacKenzie 10:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

keep I'm a former weather forecaster and can say from experience these are set phrases. Seeming synonyms like "rain which is driving" are not used. Language Lover 01:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

have a period

Sum of parts. Thryduulf 18:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete DCDuring TALK 19:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete.—msh210℠ 17:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. But it seems this was created to translate a French idiom. Any currency to this? (ya, I know it was Wonderfool, but still, is it usable content?) -- Thisis0 15:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete. (BTW, I'd say (deprecated template usage) have one's period. Is this a regional/dialectic difference?) —Ruakh_TALK 16:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say as you would, Ruakh, FWIW. (For an explanation of my dialect see my user page.)—msh210℠ 17:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

have a bathe

Sum of parts. Thryduulf 18:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete DCDuring TALK 19:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Semper added have a bathe and have a bath. He wrote that the former means to "immerse oneself in the sea" and the latter "to wash oneself in a bath". If this is correct in whatever dialect, then I'd keep both to illustrate the difference, and use {{see}}. Can someone confirm this distinction?—msh210℠ 17:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I would never use "have a bath" to mean "immerse oneself in the sea", and using "have a bathe" to mean "wash ones self in the bath" rather than "have a relaxing soak in a bath" would be unusual ("have a bath" can mean the primary intention is either to get clean or to relax, and neither precludes the other as a side effect) - i.e. one can "bath" only in a bath, but one can "bathe" in either a bath or in the sea (or in any other body of liquid). So, yes there is a distinction, but to me though it is entirely that between the verb "bath" and the verb "bathe". Thryduulf 18:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Added content at bathe, including UK noun sense. -- Thisis0 21:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

have a bath

Sum of parts. Thryduulf 18:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete DCDuring TALK 19:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

See my comment above s.v. #have a bathe.—msh210℠ 17:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep, this doesn't mean "own a bath". "bath" doesn't even have a verb entry at this time, quite rightly IMO. Kappa 08:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

?? If you'll take a quick look at google books:have, you'll notice that (deprecated template usage) have usually doesn't mean "own". Even if you restrict it to google books:"have a", not one of the top ten hits means "own". Also, you seem to believe that in the phrase "have a bath", (deprecated template usage) bath is a verb? If so, then that belief is mistaken; if not, then sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say. —Ruakh_TALK 14:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just added the verb sense to (deprecated template usage) bath, supported by three citations spanning 17 years. Thryduulf 10:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

must have killed a Chinaman

Sum of its parts. This not a metaphor or an idiom; it's used literally, if facetiously. --Ptcamn 08:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Facetious expression of Karma-esque thinking. DCDuring TALK 09:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Now has three cites spanning many years. Idiomatic, not SoP.--Dmol 12:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that the first cite is a mention.—msh210℠ 17:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I had never doubted that it could be cited. I think it is SoP. One could substitute any bad deed for "killed a Chinaman". The construction "must have (done a bad deed) in (one's) past life" might be an idiom. Is "kill a Chinaman" a synonym for "bad deed"? DCDuring TALK 17:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

see this -- Thisis0 18:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just looking at it. Sigh. It might also be that "kill a Chinaman" meant to "do an inconsequential bad deed". There are plenty of other forms of the Karmic construction, but none seem to have the authority of Macquarie's and Partridge's behind them. Add offensive tag and Keep. DCDuring TALK 18:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that in this saying it refers to an "inconsequential bad deed" (as in the unrelated American folktale of Roy Bean [14][15][16]), but rather the opposite. It seems in Australia that "Chinamen" have long had an aura of superstition surrounding them (at least historically), and in this saying, the weight and curse of "killing a Chinaman" is great or enormous like killing a wizard, sage, or fairy. -- Thisis0 22:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I added a few cites to the citations page, good usage ones spanning a while. I read a bunch of (deprecated template usage) kill a Chinaman snippets and only this particular version seemed idiomatic. - [The]DaveRoss 20:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

meeting room

Meaning unexceptionable, that is, SoP. Do we keep it anyway? What is the rationale? Is that really clear in WT:CFI? DCDuring TALK 12:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, if only for the translations section which needs to be written. To my knowledge there is often a more or less fancy compound used to refer to such rooms. -- Gauss 10:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

B. splendens

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

• Weak don't know. E. coli should be acceptable though, and several more widely used ones. SemperBlotto 16:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks for reminding me. I wouldn't have deleted that one - almost no matter what was said here. DCDuring TALK 18:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with SB. There are a few which we should keep. E. coli is one and C. elegans is another, but that's all I can think of. No one says (nor writes) H. sapiens or M. musculus, and Drosophila always just goes by its genus for some reason. I think anything besides the above two should be shot on sight. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 17:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. If I come across any marginal cases, I'll check b.g.c. for use outside of technical literature or bring them here. DCDuring TALK 18:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

My experience is that the abbreviations are only used routinely for model organisms whose genus name is long and hard to spell. So, you'll see E. coli and C. elegans instead of Escherichia coli and Caenorhabditis elegans. But each of these is ambiguous, since there is an Entamoeba coli (gut parasite of some note) and Calochortus elegans (a flower). For Drosophila and Arabidopsis, the genus name is used instead. And, as Atelaes has noted, no one bothers to abbreviate Homo or Mus, perhaps because the names are so short anyway. Likewise Zea mays isn't abbreviated.

There is at least one other model organism whose name is regularly abbreviated, and that is S. cereviciae (Saccharomyces cereviciae), or "brewer's yeast". It's abbreviated name deserves an entry as well. --EncycloPetey 19:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with Atelaes. Check each for cites without context and keep. (A valid cite, imo, would be, e.g., a journal article entitled "Bright red B. splendens", even if its text/abstract starts "Betta splendens...".)—msh210℠ 19:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's the trick. Quite frankly, you could probably cite just about any such abbreviation. That does not mean that anyone except for the twenty or so people working on the species actually understand it. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope I don't correctly understand what you are saying. As I understand it, an implication would be that we should have a sense of "fish" that corresponds to each genus, species, and subspecies of fish for which we could find a use of the word fish that was referring to that type of fish.

This is not idle or facetious. I would expect that I could find a few senses each for "A. palmata", "A. palmatus", "A. palmatum", "B. palmata", etc. I'm certainly not going to cite them myself and would be inclined to RfV each instance. I was trying to make our lives easier, not harder. DCDuring TALK 20:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the test should be if the abbreviation is used in non-technical publications without expansion on several occasions spanning at least a year; news articles would be good sources of these I suspect. Off the top of my head I'd say that E. coli and C. difficile should have entries, as should the latter's even more abbreviated form C. diff. Thryduulf 20:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Semi-relevant newbie question, are the things findable through http://scholar.google.com "durably archived"? Conrad.Irwin 19:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

As durably archived as it gets. Now, that's not to say that they necessarily meet CFI; that's a whole nother conversation. But, yes, very durably archived. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

We seem to deem them to be. IMHO, the hard part is getting access if not affiliated with a subscribing institution. In practice, I rarely find useful material-in-context from Scholar, much more from b.g.c. DCDuring TALK 20:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that, in order to avoid misleading the user, we should include all the possible senses of each abbreviation. Thus, based solely on the woefully incomplete coverage of Wikispecies, we should have at least one sense each for Buchnera, Buchanania, and Beaufortia, as well as for Betta. DCDuring TALK 20:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

We run into the problem then of all the taxonomic synonyms, obsolete combinations, and nomina nuda that have ever appeared in publications. This is a door best left closed. Having the entry on Wiktionary would add nothing that couldn't be better handled by a good search on Wikispecies. --EncycloPetey 21:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Or even a search for splendens on Wiktionary. DCDuring TALK 21:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Turkish loanwords from Serbian

jelek; Turkish yelek (vest, waist, waistcoat); originally that word came from Serbo-Slavic obleka (cloth; Gon-bel-Gon basis; i.e. heblek => jeblek = jelek); cf. jagluk from (h)oglavak, a maiden scarf.

kavez; Kavez (Tur. kafese) comes from the Gon-Bel basis; Serbo-Slavic okov (fetter), hvatanje (catch), gvožđe/gvozd (iron), uvezati (fasten); Serbian syntagma "baciti u gvožđa" (to shackle); cf. Serbian gvozd and Hephaistos Ἡφαιστος; Serb. gvožđe (iron) => zvezda (star), gvožđara (iron shop) => zvezdara (the place full of stars) and Gr. εσεσιδηρωτο (overlaid with iron), also Gr. σεσιδηρω-μενοι; Lat. sidereus starry).

kašika; Turkish kaşık (spoon) is not Turkish inherited word. Serbo-Slavic kašika (spoon) is clearly related to the verb 'kvašenje' (wetting, soaking) and to the Serbo-Slavic word 'kaša' (soup; from kvašenica). It is the reason why we have the forms kašika and kovšika (Russ. ковшик) as Slavic spoon).

jastuk; Turkish yastık (Turkmen ÿassyk) could be compared to OE hassuc (coarse grass); maybe it is related to English husk (Serb. ljuska). Nevertheless, there is a more reliable possibility that Serbian jastuk (pillow) is derived from the verb uzdignuti (lift up) or 'istaknuti' (jut, prominent, protrude) and we all know that jastuk (pillow) is a part of bed that is bulged out from the bed surface.

dusek; The Russian word подушка/poduška (pillow) explains the Serbo-Slavic word dušek (mattress), because poduška is derived from Serbo-Salvic podloga (substratum, pillow, background, backing, bedding, basis, floor, bottom), Serb. podloška (pillow, groundwork, pad, bed); it means that 'dušek' (mattress) is an apheresis of the Serb-Slavic word 'po-dloška' (bed). Turkish döşek (bed, mattress) is a clear-cut borrowing from Serbo-Slavic.

butina; Butina (thigh) is also related to above-mentioned Serbo-Salvic podloga (base); the same compund word from which English foot and leg were derived; cf. Ice. fótleggur.

kobasica; Kobasica appeared be related to Sanskrit gopas (shepherd), but it came from the above-mentioned Serbian okov (fetter) and verbs okivati (shackle, band) and očuvati (keep, preserve, beware). Logically, nothing can be preserved if it is not "fettered" or "fastned" or put into a shackles (cage); therefrom, kobasica is a food that can be preserved from decaying for a long period (shepherd's food); cf. Serbian čoban (shepherd), čuvanje (keeping), okivanje (shackling).

odaja; Turkish oda (room; Turkmen otag) is probably related to Serbian odaja (room); but Serbian odaja is just one of the forms of the words as odeljenje (section, department; cf. Ger. Teil, Eng. deal) or odeljak (Ger. Abteil); from the Serbo-Slavic deliti (devide, separate).

vampir; Vampir (vampire) is the only word that allegedly was borrowed from Serbian although that word seems to be more related to Latin vapor (steam); yes, it could also come from Serbo-Slavic upariti (to steam; para steam); cf. Old Russian упирь (vampire); here it would be interesting to mention that English spirit (from Lat. spiritus soul) sounds almost the same as Serbian ispariti (steam out) and ispiriti (to exhale, expire!!).

kutija; Serbian kutija (box) is related to Serbian words kut (ugao), ćošak (ugao), kocka (cube; cf. Serb. ćoškast = kockast /cubelike/), kuća (house).

leš; Leš (corpse) is probably related to Serbian verb 'ležati' (lie down); cf. Serb. syntagma "leži mrtav" (he lies dead)

kovrdžav; Kovrdža (curl) comes from kvrga (bump, nub), kvržica (a small nub), kurgan; cf. Serb. kvrgast knotty (from krug /circle/); opposite to kvrga is jaruga/jarak (ditch, furrow, harrow, Lat. corrugo -are).

čelik; Čelik (steel; kako se kalio čelik; Ostrovsky's novel "How the Steel Was Tempered"); from Serbo-Slavic kaliti (to steel; Russ. за-каляю); Czech ocel (steel); Serb. očeličiti (to steel, harden); okaliti/ prekaliti (harden, steel).

budala; Budala (fool); metathesis from Serbian poludeti (mad, madden, craze), bludeti (wanton); bludeo - poludeo - budala; hence the Serbian adverb podlo (meanly); podlost (baseness).

kapija; Kapija (gate) is from Serbian poklopac (cover, lid), oklapati, za- klapati (to cover, close); Serb. "za-klopi kapiju" (close the gate!; oklop /shell/ => klapija => kapija).

sapun; Sapun (soap); related to Serbian 'sipanje' (pour) and za-peniti (to foam); cf. Serb. sapunati (to soap).

barut; Barut (gunpowder); from Serbo-Slavic prah/porah (dust; Russ. порох); from Serb. prsnuti (burst, break, explode, spray; Lat. aspergo spray); cf. Serb. brašno (flour; Ukr. борошно), Russ. порошок; Arabic barud; Greek πυρίτιδα, μπαρούτι; Aramaic b@rwt, ˁaprā dust; Akkadian eperu (dust; cf. Serbian pra' dust, gunpowder). According to Xurbelanum HSF formula the basis of all the above words is Bel-Hor-Gon (Latin pulvereus!)

džep; Džep (pocket; Arabic jaib); also gajba (cage); cf. Serb. kavez; Ita. gabbia (cage); from the Gon-Bel basis, kibla, kabal, kabao, kofa; from Serbian kupilo (bucket, cupel), okupljati (to gather together); English gap

sat; Sat (Turkish saat; Turkmen sagat; Hebrew sha`ah /hour/)... Aramaic šāˁtā (moment of time) could be compared to the Serbian adverb 'sada' (now); Serb. vreme sadašnje (present tense); Russ. сегодня/ sevodnya (today); South-Serbian секогаш/sekogaš (ever, forever); svaki all, ever; zauvek forever; Latin secunda... I hope, now you are able to understand that the word sat (hour) is a clear cut IE word that cannot be explained neither in Turkish nor Semitic languages.

dželat; Dželat (executioner; Turkish cellat); cf. gallows; OE galga is related to Serbian kolac (pole; cf. Turkish golcü executioner); In this case, dželat (executioner) is the Turkish loanword in Serbian but this word originally started from Serbian 'kolac' (pole, pale). We all know that impaling was the most favorite punishment in Dark Ages. Serb. kolac (pole) => Tur. golcü (executioner) => cellat/dželat (executioner).

tavan; Turkish tavan (ceiling) and Serbian tavan (attic, loft) are very imteresting words because they seem to be related to Serbian adjective 'tavno/tavan' (dark); Aramaic ṭellālā (shade, ceiling; Arabic zallal dark) might be in connection with Serbian/Turkish/Arabic tavan. Serbo- Slavic tamno (Russ. темный/temniy; Czech temný, tma, tajemný, tmavý, temno; Serb. tmina darkness, po-tamnilo darkened) is derived from Gon- Bel-Gon basis similar to the other Serbian words as dubina (deepness), tamnica/tavnica (prison, jail). In case of the Serbian words tavan/ taman (dark) the b=>m sound change is clearly visible. Serbian tavan (loft) and tavanica (ceiling) are clearly related to Serbian tavnica/ tamnica (prison, jail). In reality, ancient man realized that as you go deeper (Serbian dubina) under the ground the environment is getting more and more dark (Serb. tavno/tamno); it means that prison is a dark space as well as it is the space above the ceiling - Serb. tavan (loft, attic).

Finally, if we compare English ceiling and cellar/cell (German Keller basement; from Latin celare con-cealing covering, hiding) we will be able to understand the logic of the development of Serbo-Slavic words tavan (loft), tavanica, tavnica (ceiling), tavnica/tamnica (prison) and tavan/taman (dark; tmina darkness).

All of these words have been wrongly placed as having a Turkish origin. Could you please provide the correct etymology for a change for both the Slavic and the Turkish words - which is unmistakably Slavic.

Thank you.

I reverted your edits- I don't know anything about Slavic languages, but I figured that it should be discussed before deleting it. Nadando 03:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You have shown some word similarities, but that does not demonstrate the direction of the borrowing. If there are similar words in two languages, that does not tell us which was the originating language. Appealing to German, Arabic, and Latin does not demonstrate a Slavic origin either. --EncycloPetey 03:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

These are not similarities but rather explanations of the origin of the words in question and to other words they are related. By giving you German and Latin cognates I am providing you with further proof that they are part of the Indo-European language family which proves that they aren't derived from a Turkish word as Turkish isn't an IE language. Also all of these words cannot be explained using any of the words in the Turkish vocabulary.

But Arabic and Aramaic are not Indo-European; they are Semitic languages. I repeat: you have listed some words you think are similar; other people may disagree that they are similar, especially since in several cases the meaning is quite different between the supposedly related words. Etymology is not based on similarity. It is based on change through time. You must demonstrate that each word existed in Serbian before it existed in Turkish. At the least you must cite a reliable source. --EncycloPetey 04:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you familiar with any of the Slavic languages? If you are you would clearly see the relation of the words. They are related and thus of the same origin; leš comes from lež[ati]. It's absurd to even question the relation of these words. I don't think that whoever has placed these words as Turkish ('kašika' for example) has provided any proof of any kind as to how it is a Turkish word. All of the examples are clearly cognates to words I have provided. I don't have the time nor the patience to give you a linguistics lecture here. If this site is supposed to help people and provide them with factual information than its clearly far from it. Max Vasmer provides proof on this.

You asked if I was familiar with them, then seem to assume I am not. I have studied some Croatian, Polish, and Czech. I have regularly used medieval Polish records in doing research. I have also done the same for Hungarian, so I am well-aware of the interchange of words between languages in the Balkans. You need not give a linguistics lecture, since your knowledge of comparative linguistics seems dated. It is clear you are only interested in pushing your point of view through handwaving arguments. --EncycloPetey 05:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Gon-bel-Gon :))) ? Oh dear, it's Dušan Vukotić with his brain-damaged "human speech formula" theories. Here is his blog which illuminates some of his naive semantic correspondence theories, and also you might wanna look him up on sci.lang where he's been getting on people's nerves for months (usually he's being ignored/mocked). Just block him the next time he comes reversing widely accepted etymologies and starts to provide his "theories"; discussing with him is pointless waste of time.

(_{PS, for those interested, his "Gon-Bel-Gon" theory is that all of IE is somehow derivable from about four syllables, two of which are BEL and GON. It's a bizarre mixture of mysticism, unsystematic and very vague sound similarities, and free association of ideas. You can get an idea from these posts: [17] (yes, that's cybalist!) [18]}) --Ivan Štambuk 06:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. To the ip user, please do not remove etymologies already in place as you clearly do not know what youre doing. Thanks for the info Ivan. --Dijan 10:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

꿈을

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

We keep declined forms in other languages. I say keep. —Stephen 14:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

But as I'm sure you know, nouns don't technically decline in Korean, any more than they do in Japanese; they simply take a range of particles. Just as English has no possessive case, Korean has no accusative case. -- Visviva 15:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete if I understand correctly that the particle attaches to a noun phrase or other nominal, and not necessarily to an individual noun. (Otherwise no vote: I see no obvious benefit to such entries, but no obvious harm in them, either, and am happy to let y'all sort it out at Wiktionary:About Korean.) —Ruakh_TALK 00:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Japanese, like Chinese, Thai, and Khmer, does not use word spaces, so it is debatable whether the postpositions and particles are suffixes or separate words. Most authorities treat them as separate words. In Korean, they are suffixes, exactly like the case endings in Turkish, Mongolian, and Finnish. If it were not for the traditional parsing of Japanese as noun+postposition, these Korean words would probably be considered noun cases. And while having terms such as 꿈을 does no harm, on the other hand they are useful because they yield a useful result when you search for them. If you don’t know Korean and search for 꿈을, and if the only entries are for 꿈 and 을, you would not know what the word meant. —Stephen 15:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This last is a valid point; I've been vaguely thinking that we should have a standard usage note (or sidebar, or something) that notes the more frequent (and semi-irregular) particles, so that the 꿈 entry would also appear prominently in searches for 꿈이, 꿈을, 꿈과, etc. On the one hand, AFAIK Korean grammarians are unanimous in regarding particles (조사) as separate words. The standard South Korean orthography (한글맞춤법) specifically notes particles as an exception to the principle of words being separated by spaces. Samuel Elmo Martin and others even write them as separate words; thus in Yale, this would be transliterated as kkwum ul. So for us to treat something like 꿈을 as a word would be a serious exercise in OR. On the other hand, our target audience cannot be assumed to be familiar with the finer points of Korean grammar, so a templated usage note seems to me like the best approach. -- Visviva 09:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete. We treat Korean particles as separate words, consistent with standard Korean grammar, so this is just a multiple word phrase with no linguistic value beyond the sum of its parts. Rod (A. Smith) 20:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I hate you people. If it looks like a word it should be treated like a word. It's just mean to say "Oh sorry, technically it's not one word according to standard Korean grammar, come back to wiktionary after you've learned it". It's even worse than screwing people on English possessives, at least the 's gives a visual clue. Kappa 10:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's bad to be mean, but it's also bad to be wrong. Ideally we can find a way to be neither. To this end, I've created {{ko-usage-particles}} and added it to 꿈. Does this address your concerns?

FWIW, I was once of the same opinion regarding the major Korean particles (see the early revisions of Template:ko-noun), but was eventually persuaded of the error of my ways. -- Visviva 10:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

workaround

The second computing sense could be merged into the first sense with the simple addition of the words "or procedure". To me this suggests the second one is redundant. Thryduulf 16:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Sense 4 needs rewrite, too. It is not any more a response to a situation than any action or plan of action. It is a particular type of solution to a problem. It is perhaps one step above a "duct-tape" and "chewing-gum", improvisational, expedient solution. I don't trust myself to correct it now though. DCDuring TALK 17:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. —Ruakh_TALK 00:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on merging two computing senses. Shall I do this? I don't know enough about sense 4 to correct this. Dbfirs 09:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

(later) I've merged senses 2 and 3, so the one that needs a rewrite is now 3 (project management). All the senses are related, and

I'm not sure that we need a separate definition from every sphere of work - how many more could there be? Dbfirs 09:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! —Ruakh_TALK 14:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

lurv

This is a prime Urban Dictionaryism. If this is indeed acceptable as an entry, it needs far more explanation, such as an Etymology and Usage notes to put it into context. This is an entirely new word to me. --EncycloPetey 00:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep, move to RFV, cite, and mark RFV passed. —Ruakh_TALK 00:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 10:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Move to RFV. And, yes, it needs a usage note.—msh210℠ 17:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

May need tidy up, but should not be deleted. Nwspel 22:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Jesuses

OK User:EncycloPetey is pulling all kinds of bullshit excuses to try to keep this deleted without discussion. If the community intends to screw over its readership let's have some real debate to show them. Kappa 23:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If you look at my talk page, you'll see there was discussion. It is you who insisted on overturning a deletion without discussion or indeed even looking at the discussion that had happened. Your attitude and language are very unbecoming. Please play nice. I have started a formal discussion below. --EncycloPetey 23:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

OK I'm sorry I didn't realize you were having a secret discussion, perhaps because it wasn't advertised. Kappa 23:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a WIKI. Discussions posted on pages are not secret. The problem is that you didn't look, jumped to conclusions, and proceded to make accusations and use profanity. At what point in this process did I cause you to go astray? --EncycloPetey 23:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

... where was I supposed to look? Kappa 23:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If you knew I deleted it, then why not see my talk page? --EncycloPetey 23:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have waited on this to let my anger subside. Why was it OK to delete this outside of RfD/RfV? I do not believe that a discussion which someone is supposed to find if they happen to notice the deletion is in any way a substitute for the public one. DCDuring TALK 19:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrators have to do this all the time. Not everything which is deleted is brought to rfv/d, nor could it be. If it were, the pages would cease to function, being overwhelmed with junk. People who make a habit of patrolling (as EP does), have to rely on their own judgment to decide what is obvious crap and what is more controversial. There are many difficult decisions, but a good general rule is that if a word is in someway contrary to general convention (as Jesuses is), then it can be deleted on sight. Inclusion of this entry requires a large-scale change to how we do proper nouns on Wiktionary. I'm fairly ambivalent as to what happens, but it's certainly a change. EP was completely in the right on this one. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I know. I delete items that fall within the various categories that we have for expeditious deletion. Anything that I think might be controversial I put on RfV/RfD. I try to not substitute my own prejudices and preferences no matter how superior they may be by dint of my credentials, training, experience, and expertise. I strongly disagree that "someway contrary to general convention" is adequate if it leads to this result. Obviously we have numerous problems with conflict among rules. Our "unwritten rules" ought to have little force. If we cannot write a specific rule that gains community acceptance, then there is no community acceptance and more general rules, principles and process apply. An entry such as this that can be readily cited and is a word but conflicts with some "unwritten rule" which contradicts the capabilities of the applicable template (pl parameter) and WT:CFI. It is precisely because the judgment of even our most veteran contributors is not to be trusted that we need to respect the process. The substitution of insider judgment for a more transparent process is what puts Wiktionary in a questionable position in its handling of newbie contributions. DCDuring TALK 20:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If we do not allow our veteran contributors to use their judgment, then patrolling becomes an impossible task. It is not perfect, as we often like to overturn previous conventions, but it is the best method we've got so far. For every deleted entry that perhaps should have been left, a hundred that should not waste the community's time get deleted (without wasting the community's time). Without the judgment of veteran contributors, we become Urban Dictionary. I think it a bad idea to criticize an admin for engaging in the difficult and arduous task of patrolling, and failing to conceive of every possible consideration for an entry. If we want to keep edits patrolled, we need to be a bit more forgiving of those rare individuals who actually do so (like EP and SB). Because I'll be honest, I hate patrolling, and while I force myself to do it on occasion, I certainly don't do enough of it to keep our incoming edits under control. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Indulging one's prejudices should not be a reward for patrolling. Frankly, I believe that letting a few arguable cases through is not a waste of time for those who do not patrol. I believe that I have detected a greater tendency to submit some such cases to RfD/RfV and I appreciate that. DCDuring TALK 22:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, there are no rewards for patrolling, only aches and pains. --EncycloPetey 23:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Like this, I assume. Patrolling is just supposed to keep the vandals under control, not necessarily enforce unenforceably complex rules. DCDuring TALK 23:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Patrolling is supposed to make Wiktionary better. Mostly it does consist of deleting ten "Haha, lolzzZZZ" pages in a row, sometimes in consist of purging protologisms, blatant or otherwise, other times it is just a case of keeping things neat and tidy. Anyone has the right to act to improve Wiktionary. If there is no community decision on an issue, then anyone can make up the rules as they go along (otherwise we'd be overwhelmed with borderline cases). If people disagree with your decisions then the rules come under discussion and get changed, otherwise the made up rules get adopted by others and a consensus is formed. You may disagree with people's decision (that's fine, if everyone agrees then boredom ensues) but you have to give everyone the chance to decide for themselves. Conrad.Irwin 00:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

OK there seems to be support for the idea that borderline, controversial cases should be deleted without public discussion instead of brought to a forum such as this one. I would like it explained to me (1) why someone on the receiving end of this kind of behavior would not simply leave the project or become a vandal. Why would this not be an entirely appropriate response? and (2) why should the rest of the community not get a chance to voice their opinion? Kappa 18:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, borderline cases should be brought for discussion. The problem lies in distinguishing borderline from not-borderline. i.e. the borderline borderline cases. (1) If they disagree they can (and, from experience, do) ask about it. (2) The rest of the community does get the chance to voice their opinion, hence this extensive discussion. As our patrollers in general do a very good job, for no reward except being moaned at by disgruntled spammers, or picked on by outraged Wiktionarians, I don't think there is any problem in the way things are done. Yes, people have different opinions; No, that isn't a problem. Conrad.Irwin 18:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

AEL Jesuses

---

You can say "There were two Julius Caesars, a public Julius Caesar and a private Julius Caesar." When you do this, you "split" the proper noun into two common noun aspects. This means that you are no longer using a proper noun, so the grammar of a proper noun is gone. Normally, a proper noun like Julius Caesar cannot take an article like (deprecated template usage) a, but you can see in the hypothetical situation above, the indefinite article is used. This phenomenon applies to all proper nouns (except those that have an inherently plural form like Alps). The examples I listed above all return citations from Google Books: "A student of Ireland can find three different Irelands..."[19]; "The Three Romes"[20]; etc.

I propose we forbid all "plurals" of proper nouns. This includes "plurals" of countries like Englands, Irelands, Chinas; of cities like Romes, Berlins, Londons; of personal names like Jorges, Anitas, Pauls; and all other such "plurals". I feel the arguments run along the same lines as those we used to forbid the inclusion of all the possessives. Including these should not be allowed any more than the possessive forms, which we specifically voted to exclude.

The alternative is madness. For every Proper noun, we would have a new common Noun section with a definition like this: Rome - Any hypothetical aspect of the city of Rome, whether regional, historical, or cultural. Does the commmunity would want to add a whole section under a Noun header to each and every English Proper noun in the language? --EncycloPetey 23:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

We do it for all plural forms of all other nouns, why make an exception for proper nouns? Conrad.Irwin 23:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Re-read the discussion above. (1) Proper nouns don't have plurals. (2) Every singular of these "plurals" will have identical definitions. (3) See the discussion on excluding possessives. For (3), note especially the comments about how the -'s attaches to a phrase, which is true of the "plurals" of proper nouns as well. (e.g. Trinidad and Tobagos) --EncycloPetey 23:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You might as well say it's madness to include plurals of common nouns! Personally it's never been my understanding of proper nouns that they cannot have plural forms. But even if that is the case, that is a problem with our classification system rather than with the words themselves. Manifestly, Jesuses and other similar plurals are in use, and therefore clearly we should have entries for them if they are attested. Why on earth not? All the entries need is a simple {{plural of}}. Widsith 23:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Proper nouns don't have plurals; only the common noun aspect of a proper noun has a plural. The plural is never a proper noun because it is not a name but a class. Further, all the possessives would need is a "possessive of", right? Yet, we voted to eclude those; we should do the same here. --EncycloPetey 23:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The word exists. Whether you call it proper or common is neither here nor there. Widsith 23:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it is both here and there. If we have entries all over Wiktionary identifying words as "plural of" something else, and the something else is marked as a different part of speech, the general internet community will think we're nuts (OK, they probably think that already, but why add fuel to the fire). If we add these "plurals", then logically we also need to go through and add all the common Noun snese of these words. Consider: "There's not a London like that anymore." We don't have an entry with a definition that will fit this sentence, because we don't deal in the common noun aspect of Proper nouns. All proper nouns have such an aspect, and it's part of standard English grammar that they can be used hypothetically like this. Any entry and definition would have to have extensive Usage notes and examples to keep people from becoming hopelessly confused.

Further, lots of words exist that we exclude. Existence of a word does not mean we will include it. We exclude protologisms, possessives, many brand names, names of specific individuals, and many more besides. --EncycloPetey 23:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Prolotogisms aren't words. The justification for deleting English possessives is that they are not actually words, but words plus a clitic. We have a test for whether or not a brand name can be considered part of the language. Kappa 23:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The thread of this particular line is that we do exclude some words. Can you agree that existence of a word is not automatic cause for inclusion? That is the point I was making just above.

If you note in the other thread above, the "plurals" of proper nouns are formed exactly as the possessives. A suffix is added to a complete phrase functioning as a proper noun. --EncycloPetey 23:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

suffix != clitic. Thryduulf 00:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary aims to be descriptive not prescriptive, so why not just say that proper nouns can be used uncountably to describe a specific person, place or thing, or countably in the singular or plural to describe aspects of a specific person, place or thing or multiple specific people, places or things with the same name? Why must we be hidebound by traditional grammars if they do not describe what we observe? Thryduulf 00:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Because that would be misleading rather than descriptive. "Proper noun" implies a number of grammatical properties of a word. The "plural" of a proper noun never exhibits those properties; it exibits the properties of a common noun. More importantly, the singular of that plural is also a common noun. If I say "The apostles of Christ included two Jameses, I do not mean that there were two "male given names". I mean there were two "people bearing the name James". This is akin to the use-mention distinction. When James is used to refer to a specific individual, it is a proper noun. However, when it refers not to a specific individual, but to one of a class of such items, then it is a common noun, as in: "Is there a James here?" Notice that in this example, we have an indefinite article preceding the word James, which is contrary to use as a proper noun. It also does not refer to a specific individual, but one of a class, much as: "Is there a doctor here?" If we include the "plurals" of proper nouns, then we have to include, for every given name, the common noun sense of "an individual bearing this name". --EncycloPetey 00:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Are we really sure that we want an across-the-board prohibition? Also, would we not want to provide some indication of how a plural might be formed for an entry we call a "Proper noun", especially if it is not by mere addition of "s". For surnames, for example, the plural is very natural and common: "Let's invite the Smiths over for dinner." How would you say that for the "Jones" or "Johns" family? Because we do not have a very effective and accessible presentation of the grammatical "rules" of English, I don't really see how we can rely on those "rules" to make up for entries that are not present or information not present in the entries. It is not as if all grammar texts have identical definitions of "proper nouns". It is even less likely that the senses in the entries we have characterized as "Proper noun" would really meet many of the definitions of "Proper noun". DCDuring TALK 00:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

We went through this same discussion for the possessives and decided not to include them. I have begun an appendix explaining grammar of English proper nouns, but it will need much more work before it is complete. I have not had a suitably long block of time to focus on writing it, since, as you have noted, it is a difficult topic and most grammars I've examined casually skim over the subject without addressing it. --EncycloPetey 00:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I gotta say EP, that's pretty phat. I look forward to seeing it in the appendix namespace. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think something which should be borne in mind here is the frequency. Common nouns are commonly used in the plural, while proper nouns are only rarely used in plural, and in an obscure function. I see zero difference between this and the possessive forms. It is still a bound morpheme attached by normal rules. You can argue 'til you're blue in the face that this is a clitic or whatever, but it's still a suffix of some type which attaches to nouns (and phrases) in a determined fashion. Now, I don't have much of a problem with including possessive forms, nor do I have a problem with including these common plural forms of proper nouns. However, as EP duly notes, this is a lot of work for little gain. Also, I think that each such form should be subject to rfv, as it is an odd form. Additionally, DCDuring makes an excellent point that we lack good grammar appendices, certainly a current shortcoming of our project. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment. EP raises good points, but I'm not convinced. Since indeed every proper noun can be used as a common noun, I don't think it's necessary to include a separate "Noun" section at every proper-noun entry, because an English-speaking reader will see the "Proper noun" section and know what do make of it; however, plurals are different, since you can't visit [[Chinas]] and see a "Proper noun" section. However, I'm not going to vote "keep", because I think that neither (deprecated template usage) Jesus nor (deprecated template usage) Jesuses meets WT:CFI#Names, and while I don't really mind making a few exceptions, I certainly won't vote to. —Ruakh_TALK 02:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The word obviously exists. We aim to include ALL words. Therefore we should keep it. I notice the in Mary, for example, it is defined as a Proper noun, then {{en-noun}} is used to generate the headword. That seems a reasonable compromise to me. SemperBlotto 06:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

So, you want to label it on the entry as a "Poper noun", but categorize it as a common noun? Or are you proposing dual categorization for every proper noun? --EncycloPetey 13:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The last time I looked {{en-proper noun}} allowed a pl= parameter. DCDuring TALK 18:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It also allows uncountable, but I cannot think of a single Proper noun that is uncountable. For the typical proper noun, the count is "one". --EncycloPetey 21:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

delete - and writing a grammar appendix is a very good idea. Hekaheka 17:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

keep as it is commonly used in such usages as "The square in front of the shrine had many vendors selling plastic Jesuses." not so rare, as can be seen from this b.g.c. search. I also agree with Ruakh's point about the need to maintain access via entry of the plural.

Also:

The plural needs to be indicated in the lemma entry.

Further, I would suggest that the RfV process is the means for removing spurious plurals, when as and if they occur.

Most of the "rare" plural forms of proper nouns are much less rare than many of our other entries, including many not marked with rare tags.

The existence of rules that we can effectively render comprehensible and accessible for our normal users, which would truly substitute for the plural entries, has not been established. DCDuring TALK 18:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Simplest would be to apply the normal CFI, three independent durably archived citations spanning three years. Jesuses meets this trivially, as do many people's names. Some town and city names do not meet this, and it seems dependent on the size of such places - seems to me to be a reasonable metric. Conrad.Irwin 18:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If we apply "the normal CFI", as you call them, to (deprecated template usage) Jesuses, but the actual CFI to (deprecated template usage) Jesus, then we'd keep only the former. Are you sure that's a good idea? —Ruakh_TALK 19:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As I haven't read through the CFI in a long time, I just remember the "three independent durably archived three year-spanning cites", If we are looking for that then there is no question that Jesuses would be includable (see google books). But, if there's something else that I've forgotten please correct me. Conrad.Irwin 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should also be considering uncountable nouns like alfalfa. These follow a similar pattern, whereby they normally do not take a plural, but can in certain contexts. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

One of my personal hobby horses is uncountability. "alfalfas" would be readily attestable in agricultural literature. DCDuring TALK 22:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, definitely. I wasn't saying anything to the contrary. However, we really ought to come up with a nice way of noting such things. Because nearly every common noun could have a sense of "a type of xxxx", and yet it seems a bit redundant to note that in every single definition, just as it seems kind of dumb to include an abstract common noun sense for each and every single proper noun. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder whether the default views of Wiktionary for non-registered users shouldn't have with all kinds of grammar lessons and extensive display of the obvious through templated text and links. Registered users should get a choice of views that reflect what they think they know. Adepts could get a more fine-grained choice like WT:PREFS. Getting rid of the obvious would be a reward for registering and signing in. I don't know what the software prospects are for that degree of control, but a good number of our presentation concerns derive from the broad range of capabilities of our users. I don't entirely believe that Simple is going to fully address the needs of a very broad range of users, as useful as their efforts seem to be. If we had some sense for the realistic time-frame for that degree of customization, we could resolve many of these disputes much more easily. If there is no time-frame, then the disputes are essentially about who the target user is and what capabilities we can assume, all in the absence of any real facts. The current situation gives personal tastes of contributors excessive weight relative to the needs of users. I don't know to what extent this leads us to have something like 1/60th the visits that WP has, but I'd be surprised if it didn't make a contribution. DCDuring TALK 00:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Just a couple of extra comments for this already huge debate. 1 – Users shouldn't be expected to know that "proper nouns can't have plurals" – they see a word like this, they're entitled to look it up. How we classify it is our own, secondary, problem. 2 – I totally understand EP's position and I take the point about similarity with possessives. For me the simple difference is that the apostrophe in possessives makes it more obvious that we are dealing with two distinct lexemes, whereas with plurals there's no obvious clue. However, if it came to it I'd rather keep both than exclude this. 3 – Even if in general such plurals are discouraged, arguably Jesuses (and some others) is a special case, because "Jesus" = "artistic representation of Jesus" is so incredibly common in art contexts. Widsith 09:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

AEL Jesuses again

• Keep with full support for each comment of Widsith right above. --Gauss 10:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Admirably said Widsith, but the question remains: How do we format it? Do we make {{en-proper noun}} identical to {{en-noun}}, so that all proper nouns have plurals? Cuz that seems at least a little silly (but perhaps necessary). Do proper nouns only get plurals on a case by case basis? The burden is really on those in support to figure out how this will work, because hasn't anyone thought that it might be just a bit misleading to our readers if our proper nouns have plurals? Cuz proper nouns don't have plurals......largely. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 14:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems clear that these should not be linked from the PN inflection line (though I expect that at some point we will need to hash out more thoroughly whether names are always PNs or not). If they exist, they should either be one-way links (Jesuses -> Jesus but not vice versa), or linked only from a usage note in the lemma entry. -- Visviva 14:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Visviva on this. There are cases where knowing how to form the plural of an item we present as a proper noun is useful. The cases include all of those that form the plural other than by adding "-s" or "-es" or where it is not 100% obvious whether -s or -es is correct and taxons and other words (where Latin or non-English rules apply). It might also be useful to indicate whether (or when) a proper noun takes a plural verb (eg, mountain ranges). To me it seems that how to form a plural is a dictionary question and whether one should use a plural is a question of grammar. Grammar has not been our strong suit and, evidently, does not fit very well into our entry structure. Perhaps we ought to use our entry structure to do well what it can do and not try to make it do what it is not especially well suited to do.

As to Atelaes' question, frankly, the print-dictionary approach (inserting a "-s" or "-es" after nouns that form plurals simply and only spelling out plurals that are "irregular" or where there are alternative forms) devotes about the right amount of space to the task. I also see no reason to show red-links for missing plurals, though blue links for plurals that are entries can show that there might be more to be learned from the plural entry. DCDuring TALK 17:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, this section is getting too long. I have to scroll up for a half hour just to find an edit button. Anyway, I absolutely agree with Visviva. While some of these plurals might not be a bad idea to have, if we have them, they should be linked to from the lemma in a usage note, or not at all. Anything else would be, in my opinion, misleading to our readers. As to the regularity of pluralization......I don't know if that is really relevant. We certainly don't make a distinction between regular and irregular plurals in our common nouns. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 17:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess if our users don't know how to form a plural of a proper noun, we shouldn't tell them because they might use plurals more often than we think they should.

We certainly waste our users' attention with red-linked, spelled-out regular plurals for our ordinary nouns. DCDuring TALK 17:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to assume from the apparent tone of the above response that it was intended to be facetious. So, the reason we're saying that the "plural" of the Proper noun should not be linked from the Proper noun inflection line, is that it's not actually a plural of the Proper noun. Rather, Jesuses is a plural of a common noun definition of Jesus. If we link the "plural" from the inflection line, it will positively mislead our readers. Think of it this way: we don't list adverb "forms" of verbs on the Verb inflection line; we don't like hyphenated adjective forms of compound nouns on the Noun inflection line; and so on. When the part of speech is different, because of different grammar, we create a new section or even a new entry (in cases where the spelling is different). Logically then, we shouldn't like to a plural common noun from a proper noun section's inflection line. --EncycloPetey 17:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The first comment was facetious, but it reflected my reading of the direction of the discussion. The second comment on redlinked plurals was not facetious at all.

I had not appreciated until this extended discussion why it is that most dictionaries don't have proper nouns as entries (excepting taxonomic names and abbreviations of proper nouns). Their presentation is almost inconsistent with the manner of presentation of other kinds of words. Part of the problem I have been having is with denigrating the common-noun use of the entries we label as proper nouns. Then, by assumption, we don't need to bother with plurals. I think even the most obtuse of our users would not mistakenly pluralize a word we present as a proper noun, used as such. But a user might want to know how to refer to the Joneses (or is that Jones or Jones's) in writing or whether (or when) it should be "the Andes is" or "the Andes are". If calling something a proper noun leads to us being unable to present useful information, then we should not call it a proper noun. Perhaps it would be better to call them nouns and limit the label proper noun to the senses that are the true proper noun senses (or, less plausibly, show the plural only at the common-noun senses). If I thought that users would find such information in usage notes when our entry layout has trained them to look a the inflection line for a plural, then I could simply have accepted that suggestion without further discussion. I would be disappointed if we could not address this kind of usage question consistent with our overall manner of presentation. DCDuring TALK 18:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

As I read this discussion, there seems to be - at least partly - an issue on how to format the Proper Nouns such that the reader gets the information that *plural can exist, but *only exist in very few cases. The template {{en-proper noun}} has already been mentioned: thus I wonder why it doesn't include a "plural" point with the explicit remark "for use as common noun only" (or better formulated)? The plural entries could have a "Noun" header, and the inflection template explains to the user why the PoS's (PoS'es?) seem to differ. I have, however, no comment on whether they *should* be given or not... Just that the issue IMHO *could* be solved. \Mike 18:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable enough. Perhaps we could work a link in there to an explanation of what's happening, when and why proper nouns have plurals, etc. I could live with that, as long as there's a note of caution screaming at the user, I have no qualms about putting it into the inflection line. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Pending the arrival of the Perfect Solution, that seems like a good approach. Something brief like (rarely plural), with "rarely" a bluelink to a appropriate section in the Proper Nouns appendix, one of the much-anticipated magnum opi from EP. If that is too terse, the (plural for common noun only), with "common noun" bluelinked to the same (not to common noun) would be OK. Perhaps a "plc=" parameter to optionally generate the text on provision of the plural form. DCDuring TALK 19:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Something like this sounds great imo.—msh210℠ 17:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 10:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep Obviously, this is a no-brainer. It's the plural of a non-proper noun word "Jesus" which can be seen for example in the lyrics of Depeche Mode's "Personal Jesus", or in numerous examples listed above. I've gone ahead and added this to the Jesus entry. I got too restless to cite the artistic representation sense, someone else cite that. Language Lover 21:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Упячка

slogans

vox stellarum

The definition given is "music of the spheres", but I've always known that concept as musica universalis. The only use of "vox stellarum" I can find is the name of a particular Almanack of the 17th-19th centuries. --EncycloPetey 02:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[21] "A “toy” stop consisting of a metal or wooden star or wheel on which several small bells are mounted. When the stop is engaged, the star rotates, producing a continuous tinkling sound. " "Variations on the German name Zymbelstern are very common; Osiris contains over 200 examples, and the oldest known example is given below. No examples are known of the names Étoile Sonore and Vox Stellarum, which are mentioned only by Wedgwood..". [22], [23], [24], Mutante 08:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so it's only reputed in an English context, with no Latin uses except as sum of parts or within an otherwise English document. Deleted. --EncycloPetey 20:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

tener apetito

To have hunger, to be hungry. Is this a set phrase in Spanish? Couldn't it equally be tener hambre? Nadando 05:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

+1 for deletion. It could also be "tener hambre" or "estar de hambre;" but even if not this is basically self-explanatory: "Tener" means "to have," and "apetito" is a cognate to the English "apetite" or "hunger"...so it literally means "to have hunger" (similar to "tener hambre"). 68.125.31.165 05:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete or, failing that, fix. google:"tengo apetito" suggests that this word-pair has several uses:

1. (most commonly) As part of (deprecated template usage) tengo apetito sexual, in which "tengo apetito" is not a constituent AFAICT.
2. (usually in negative) To mean roughly "I'm hungry" — like "I have an appetite at the moment."
3. (usually in negative — used by people with medical conditions, or taking medications, that can affect the appetite) To mean roughly "I eat normally" — like "I have an appetite nowadays."
4. As part of another expression relating to sex, e.g. (deprecated template usage) tengo apetito carnal.
5. By itself relating to sex, e.g. (deprecated template usage) tengo apetito de vos.

—Ruakh_TALK 12:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

When I updated (deprecated template usage) tener we pretty much decided not to include any of these expressions, as they were all sum of parts in Spanish. --EncycloPetey 13:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

deleted --EncycloPetey 17:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

buried treasure

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

By my lights, a figuratively buried figurative treasure wouldn't warrant an entry, but perhaps someone thinks so. DCDuring TALK 03:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I added the term. It has both a literal set phrase sense and a figurative sense. The literal concept of buried treasure evokes images of pirates and piracy, and of treasure chests. This connotation is not inherent in the sum of "buried" + "treasure". The figurative sense shows up in sources like these: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. --EncycloPetey 04:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Buried treasure has at least two idiomatic meanings. 1) A reference specifically to pirate treasure, even out of context—as in, treasure specifically buried by a stereotypical (mythical) pirate, and found with a treasure map (!), as popularized by Treasure Island and probably all pirate fiction since. 2) Like treasure trove, "buried treasure" is also used to refer to any valuable find, uncoviering something that was hidden, buried or not, as in "The best place to look for buried treasure is the library." [32] Dmcdevit·t 04:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, buried#Adjective can also have the meaning "hidden, concealed." So the figurative sense doesn't seem obviously non-compositional to me. And I have to dispute the association with pirates; a cursory check of b.g.c. shows all sorts of references to buried treasure in pirate-free locations like New Mexico, Oklahoma, and the Sri Lankan interior. (I was rather surprised to find that w:Buried treasure focuses on pirates, as I would have expected more general coverage of the topic.) Seems like this can be (and is) used pretty freely in any relevant sense of "buried" or "treasure."

IMO those who write of "the buried treasure of Jean Lafitte" and "the buried treasure of the Kandyan kings" are using this collocation in exactly the same way. But I could be persuaded otherwise -- is this ever used out of context to refer to specifically to pirates -- that is, where it is not obvious in context that the treasure would have been buried by pirates? -- Visviva 05:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if you delete the article. However, "treasure" has so many different connotations (treasure can mean something different to each person - i.e. gold/goal/knowledge/etc.) Yet, with this definition, I used the common type relating to pirate, and have included a reference to Wikipedia since I retrieved the idea for the definition from there. miranda 05:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your work. I don't mean to disparage this contribution in any way (although I realize it probably seems that way). The entry was quite well-composed, and you are to be commended for filling an open request.

To respond to your point, I guess it's the very fact that "buried" and "treasure" can have so many meanings that bothers me -- as far as I can tell, looking at the various uses on Google Books, "buried treasure" can have any of those meanings. That would seem to make it non-idiomatic. -- Visviva 12:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I realize that there is a connection between pirates and buried treasure. But is there a connection between the word "buried treasure" and pirates? I wouldn't normally make the connection myself, unless I happened to be on a seacoast somewhere. For example, if my cousin were searching for buried treasure in Indiana, I would assume that an outlaw or a miser was involved, not a pirate. -- Visviva 12:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

But in that case, you've added context information by specifying geography. In the absence of other context, I think first of the stereotypical image of a pirate's chest. --EncycloPetey 13:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

heckuva job

SoP. What's next? heckuva good time? heckuva guy? heckuva building? heckuva computer?—msh210℠ 19:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

delete. But glad we have helluva and heckuva. DCDuring TALK 19:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom.--Dmol 19:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the article? This is a jocular idiomatic phrase that means the opposite of its literal words. How could it be a sum of parts? Dmcdevit·t 22:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The cites in the article don't quite support its claim. In nos. 2 and 5 it simply can't mean "bad job"; rather, it must mean "good job", and be meant ironically. This is because you simply can't say "President Bush continues to do a bad job installing unqualified cronies in key government posts", or "So let me say: Bad job, Paulie! Mission accomplished!" Further, in #3 it actually means "good job" without irony. In #4 it could potentially mean "bad job", but I really just don't buy it. From context, I think it's pretty clear that here, too, the writer means "good job" ironically. That leaves #1. I could really go either way on #1, but at this point Occam's Razor suggests that it's also an ironic "good job". A more accurate definition would therefore be "{{US|_|politics|usually|_|ironic}} A good job." Now, do we really want to include this just because it tends to be used ironically? If so, we're missing a sense at bully. —Ruakh_TALK 23:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

My reason for being interested in this phrase is not just because it is used ironically, but because it has a specific ironic usage in US politics and a different history from other possible ironic uses. It is a common set phrase, and wouldn't mean the same thing if it were replaced by synonymous words, since it alludes to Bush's quote. I am sure the definition can use refining, but it's not at all like "heckuva building." Dmcdevit·t 23:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep per Dmcdevit. We have useful things to say about it, so we might as well keep it and say them. —Ruakh_TALK 12:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

A plausible argument has been made that this passes the fried egg test as written (implying "certain social knowledge"). So weak keep, I guess. But it's annoying to have an entry that is entirely compositional except for the usage note. -- Visviva 03:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning, but it seems to me that the "certain social knowledge" is carried by heckuva alone, and is not limited to use in the collocation. --EncycloPetey 17:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely keep. I read lots of politics and this comes up all the time. Language Lover 20:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep It's also been used here in Britain, although to a lesser extent. I'm not sure if I can vote or not being an IP address, but I'd give you my 0.02 cents. --82.42.237.84 18:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

he is n

Not a set phrase; arguably a way of saying something. Was this type of entry discussed here? --Connel MacKenzie 18:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, at Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Gaps in entry titles.. With no resolution, but some forward motion. We don't have anyway of presenting constructions that seems likely to work for non-expert users. Even "one's", "something", "somebody" don't work very well for search though they seem to be deemed adequate as far as they go. DCDuring TALK 19:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The is merely a use of (deprecated template usage) be, just as (deprecated template usage) tener is used for this in Spanish. The only part of this construction that is constant is the presence of some form of the verb (deprecated template usage) be. The pronoun "he" may be replaced by any other pronoun, a proper noun, or a noun phrase. The "n" can be replaced by any reasonable integer value or by and integral number of years plus subdivision of a year. The entry as it is currently structured is practically useless, and the content should be moved to (deprecated template usage) be. --EncycloPetey 00:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, even (deprecated template usage) be isn't a constant part of it: google books:"looked twelve". (By the way, the number of years doesn't have to be integral: google books:"she's two and a half".) I think this falls into the category of things that would be great to have, but that just don't fit into our framework of word-indexed entries. Perhaps an appendix of some sort? I don't have a good name to suggest, though. :-/   —Ruakh_TALK 00:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

But "looked" twelve doesn't mean the parson "is" twelve! Gary Coleman "looked" twelve long after he was much older, so changing the verb does change the meaning. And yes, I know about the "and a half", which is why I said "plus subdivision of a year" (which was intentionally vague to cover a variety of things). We keep proposing appendices, but the name is less important than the writing. Once it's written, we'll have a clearer idea of what's included and can pick a suitable name. Right now it's entirely hypothetical. --EncycloPetey 01:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: "changing the verb does change the meaning": Seeing as changing the subject also changes the meaning, as does changing the number, can you offer a less arbitrary explanation of why (deprecated template usage) be, specifically, is the essential part of this construction? —Ruakh_TALK 01:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't be deliberately dense. "X is Y", where X is a specific person or object, and where Y is a numerical value, indicates the measured age of X. That isn't true when you use "looks". When you say "X looks Y" under the previous definition of X & Y, you are indicating an apparent age, not an actual or measured age. --EncycloPetey 02:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'm being dense, and if I am, it's certainly not deliberate. I maintain that (deprecated template usage) be is not an essential part of this construction; there's a general pattern that ages can be given simply as a number that indicates a certain number of years — for example, (deprecated template usage) [http:／www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22by+sixteen+he%22 by sixteen he] means “by sixteen years old, he” — and (deprecated template usage) be is relevant only insofar as we tend to indicate ages using (deprecated template usage) be in English. If you think be should have a sense line pertaining to ages, I might agree; but I think you're being dense if you think that "be twelve" represents a completely separate use of be from "be twelve years old". —Ruakh_TALK 02:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I make no such distinction. Phrases like "years old", "days old", "months old", et.c may be added to the expression, but "years old" is frequently omitted in casual speech. --EncycloPetey 02:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

delete. Everyone seems to agree that the entry is pretty useless, and this entry will be deleted per process. He is twelve always means He is twelve [years old], so a main namespace sense of (deprecated template usage) be seems in order, perhaps something like this:

1. (deprecated template usage) to be [some number] of years old

   He is twelve. (meaning, “He is twelve [years old].”)

Coolio? Rod (A. Smith) 02:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. Similarly at the other English copula verbs ((deprecated template usage) look, (deprecated template usage) seem, (deprecated template usage) appear, (deprecated template usage) act, etc.):

1. (deprecated template usage) to look [some number] of years old

   He looks twelve. (meaning, “He looks twelve [years old].”)

2. (deprecated template usage) to seem [some number] of years old

   He seems twelve. (meaning, “He seems twelve [years old].”)

3. (deprecated template usage) to act [some number] of years old

   He acts twelve. (meaning, “He acts twelve [years old].”)

Hmm, maybe an appendix is in order, after all. Rod (A. Smith) 02:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As a definition under the entry (deprecated template usage) be, that looks good. --EncycloPetey 02:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Most children over the age of 5 manage this construction without the use of a dictionary. The appendix might be instructive for us - no small consideration - but probably not so much for our users. DCDuring TALK 02:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What about adults who have not learned English as their primary language? Many languages do not use the equivalent of the verb (deprecated template usage) be to indicate age. Spanish uses (deprecated template usage) tener, which primarily means "to have, hold". --EncycloPetey 02:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

They could ask a child. It would be much easier than finding it here. We can't necessarily address every usage question from a dictionary format. DCDuring TALK 02:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the entry at (deprecated template usage) be, should we make something like Appendix:English copula to detail the interesting senses, collocations, and grammar of the various English copula? Rod (A. Smith) 02:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

For consistency, that probably ought to be Appendix:English copulas, since there is more than one such word in English. --EncycloPetey 02:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Per others, I think that this should be deleted, and there should eb no sense for thsi s.v. be (or n or numbers). An appendix on copulas sounds nice, but we can delete this meanwhile imo.—msh210℠ 21:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Dynamite Saturday

New article which was defined as "January 24^th": unclear if it is about one specific day or the date in general. Is this ever used as an idiom or only to refer to one specific event (which is not mentioned in Wikipedia)? 86.152.210.92 23:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I found the article name in Robert's list over oldest redlinks. I used this reference to define it. --81.166.255.118 23:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The Google book hits refer to a specific date - Jan 24 1885. But they are all just mentions in dictionaries and the like. I can find no actual use. Delete SemperBlotto 07:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

booyaka

Meaning is unclear and possibly incorrect. Also a neologism. 86.152.210.92 00:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

deleted --EncycloPetey 01:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Vinay singh s/o santu singh babhandih aurangabad bihar

personal advertisement

Jcwf 02:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Freeciv

A specific computer game; does not meet CFI. --EncycloPetey 16:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete. —Ruakh_TALK 21:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

yadda

Entry only says "See yada yada yada". There is no definition and no support as an independent word in the entry. It is not even splled the same as the target entry. --EncycloPetey 15:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's clear from b.g.c that both "yadda yadda yadda" and "yada yada yada" are amply attested. It doesn't need support as an independent word, if it did then all our "alternative spellings" entries would be bad. It's common sense, that if someone is wondering what "yadda yadda yadda" means, there's a good chance they'll look up just "yadda". As for whether yadda redirects to "yada yada yada" or "yadda yadda yadda", that's academic. Probably the only reason the entry wasn't just an auto-redirect, is the good possibility "yadda" could mean something in another language. Language Lover 18:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

But the entry for yadda is labelled "Interjection". It is not an interjection, and it is not a word. --EncycloPetey 21:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok I went and rewrote it to be self-contained. If it's not an interjection, is it a particle? In any event, it's most definitely a word. Language Lover 05:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Which definition of (deprecated template usage) word applies here then? None of our current definitions apply to this item. It doesn't work as a particle, either, because particles are typically appended to an existing word, phrase, or clause, rather than strung together to assemble a "word". And let me make it clear that I am not being facetious in pursuing this case, but am taking it quite seriously. I believe that it will make a nice reference point for other such situations, so good discussion is to be valued. I know where I stood at the beginning of this discussion, but do not know yet where I will stand at its conclusion. --EncycloPetey 17:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, the one labelled 'linguistics' applies perfectly well. Maybe it's a US thing and you're UK or Australia or something? Language Lover 18:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I'm US. (see blow) --EncycloPetey 17:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't quite fit that sense, because it doesn't "have a particular meaning"; it's part of a larger phrase that has meaning, but on its own it seems that it doesn't. (That's kind of an iffy criterion; does (deprecated template usage) a have a particular meaning in “Veo a ella”? Words don't always have meanings, per se, and sometimes just have grammatical roles. But either way, (deprecated template usage) yadda doesn't seem to have either one.) —Ruakh_TALK 21:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As Ruakh has pointed out, either we have a problem calling this a word, or our current definition of (deprecated template usage) word is inadequate. --EncycloPetey 17:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

When we first wrote this back in early 2006, there was a question about punctuation as well as about how many yadas. It was decided then to put the main entry at yada yada yada and to add redirects from some of the common permutations such as yada yada. —Stephen 06:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep somehow. I agree that this needs to be done better, but it looks like a word, and even a native English speaker would assume it was a word if (s)he didn't know better. Incidentally, however we decide to format this non-word-that-warrants-inclusion-anyway, we might want to use the same approach for misspellings. —Ruakh_TALK 21:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to spoil this as a test case, but yaddas are not always found in sequence. I've added some cites illustrating this, based on which I believe we should keep the entry. Also added another POS, but that might be dispensed with; it seems that, much like certain expletives, this can fill pretty much any grammatical role. Maybe we need a ===Placeholder=== POS. -- Visviva 17:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

کله کیر

It has been at requests for verification before but does not appear to be verified. The English definition has been removed by 64.62.138.100 (talk) but I reverted and decided to nominate it for deletion, unless it can be verified it should be deleted. 86.152.210.92 01:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

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

tubgirl

If goatse was deleted why was this not? Many more Google news results for goatse than for this. 86.152.210.92 02:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

trundle along

From WT:RFC:

Is this a sum of parts, as in the example sentence given? Or is the example sentence wrong?—msh210℠ 20:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Both. A proper example would omit "the path" from the sentence, but then it's still just use of along as an adverb. You can "travel along (singing a song)", and do many other actions along. The only one of these that I can think of to call idiomatic is run along, which is often used as a mild command to "go away". --EncycloPetey 14:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay; thanks. Moving to RFD.—msh210℠ 15:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please continue discussion here.—msh210℠ 15:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

delete - mere sum of parts. --EncycloPetey 17:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep. b.g.c. is crazy bad at counting, but trying a few searches, it seems like (deprecated template usage) trundle tends to be used with (deprecated template usage) along, making this a fixed expression. —Ruakh_TALK 23:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I get the same number of returns on b.g.c. whether I search for "trundle along", "trundle out" or "trundle in". --EncycloPetey 01:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• delete Widsith 14:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep It is a phrasal verb. Try using trundle without along and see what you get. -- Algrif 18:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Googled "trundle along to the" and just to give the first of hundreds:- I worked in Northampton in the mid 1980's and so I used quite regularly trundle along to the County Ground. -- Algrif 18:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, EP has already said above that "trundle in" and "trundle out" are equally valid. Widsith 21:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Big Delete. "Trundle", as a verb, is mainly transitive. But even when intransitive, most historical usages (in OED and in literary searches) come up without an "along". Consider the following:

The Wheels of Chance by H.G. Wells, Chapter 27,

...Might trundle back there in an hour

May-Day and Other Pieces by Ralph Waldo Emerson, Una,

But if upon the seas I sail,

Or trundle on the glowing rail...

The Weavers by Gilbert Parker, Chapter 23,

She watched the grotesque thing trundle away

-- WikiPedant 06:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree in a big way. But I don't think they used to wheel themselves to the County Ground. Remove or change the adverb, and you change the meaning. This is the whole point about phrasal verbs. This quote (and it is easy to find thousands more) shows trundle along to mean to go somewhere at a leisurely pace which is a far cry from the meaning of trundle, which has to do with wheels, BTW. -- Algrif 10:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

While I think there is some validity to this point, I note that the OED has "trundle" meaning go/walk with cites back to 1680, including for example Congreve's The Way of the World ("They are gone, Sir, in great anger." "Enough, let 'em trundle.") Methinks we should have a comparable sense at trundle, and that it should have a usage note indicating that this usually collocates with "along" in contemporary English. -- Visviva 16:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Still a delete. The intransitive "trundle" can mean to move by rolling (on wheels or otherwise) or to walk in a halting, rolling, or leisurely way and both of these senses can be accompanied by a range of modifiers, such as "in," "out," "up," "down," "over," "under," "away," or "toward." In each case, the resulting expression is just SOP. "Along" is not a special case, and I seriously doubt that it is even correct to concede that the intransitive verb "trundle" usually collocates with "along". -- WikiPedant 17:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

shoah

Wrong script. Should be at שואה.—msh210℠ 17:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep. 1,930 hits in this script at b.g.c. I don't know how to link Hebrew script with these entries, but this is en.wiktionary.org and Latin/Roman script is what our users understand. DCDuring TALK 17:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Shoah, referring to the Holocaust, has lots of b.g.c hits; shoah, the current word, does not. I highly doubt that that sense is attested. [The first 100 results for "shoah", weeding out where it appears in the title (because that's not a good test of capitalization)], shows one lowercase result. And I think all 100 refer to the Holocaust, though I didn't read each carefully; certainly most do. I do think this should be deleted, and Shoah kept. This will redirect to Shoah anyway for most users; the rest will get "Did you mean?".—msh210℠ 17:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Your just-stated rationale make this seem more like an RfV. Are there enough references to shoah (not Shoah)? I would say that there will be more than three in b.g.c. that are not "mentions" and more that are mentions, discussions of the word. DCDuring TALK 18:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Move to RfV. DCDuring TALK 22:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete or move to RFV, I don't care which. (google books:"a shoah" does pull up some lowercase uses, but none really in this sense so far as I can tell.) —Ruakh_TALK 21:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to make the point moot by moving the entry to its proper spelling and formatting it (if the Hebrew folks feel like looking it over, that'd be appreciated, as my Hebrew skills are not top-notch). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

scene kid

Is this SoP? Basically a "kid" participating in a popular cultural "scene". DCDuring TALK 22:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't feel sum of parts to me, though I'm not sure why. In any case, this would be sense 10 out of 9 for scene; no definition specific to music is present in that entry currently. -- Visviva 17:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

-ostomy

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

Oh no, not this again. I get a headache just looking at that discussion. Agree that this should be a soft redirect to -stomy; -ostomy may (or may) not be a "real" suffix, but we cannot assume that either users or contributors will be aware of this. -- Visviva 16:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

-o- is incidental. The real problem to me was that the more correct suffix -stomy wasn't an entry. I don't want to waste folks' time on this. I suppose having an extra "erroneous" suffix really doesn't matter much since suffix entries are rarely used to support or validate usage (which would be new word coinage). The words will be coined by influence of past practice and, now, the emergence of the word ostomy.

MW online has -stomy, not -ostomy. I'd expect the same from most dictionaries that have suffixes. DCDuring TALK 17:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)