Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:16, 17 March 2018

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

Shortcuts:
WT:RFDE
WT:RFD:en

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

Scope of this request page:

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

Templates:

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

April 2017

cost a pretty penny

SoP, pretty penny, can also "make", "earn", etc. Equinox ◑ 20:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that would include the translations, ones that don't appear at pretty penny. I like the Spanish one, cost a testicle and a half. DonnanZ (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Those aren't direct translations for "cost a pretty penny" but general idiomatic equivalents of "cost a large amount". bd2412 T 22:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not that I disagree with your basic point, but translations are "general idiomatic equivalents". Ƿidsiþ 06:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - A synonym is cost an arm and a leg, which went through the indignity of an RFD in 2009, and got redirected to arm and a leg. An arm and a leg are two different things, and the idiom only makes sense in full. We don't need a repeat of that disaster. DonnanZ (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, keep this entry in its present form. DonnanZ (talk) 08:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to pretty penny. DCDuring (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- See diff DonnanZ (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  @Donnanz: So? DCDuring (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ or keep. The definition line could be changed to "To be [[expensive]]; to cost a [[pretty penny]]". The entry is in http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/cost+a+pretty+penny, where it seems to have two entries, one marked as "Farlex Dictionary of Idioms. © 2015 Farlex, Inc, all rights reserved", another one marked as "McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs. © 2002 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc." The full phrase is in Macmillan[1], but most OneLook dictionaries only seem to have "pretty penny": “a pretty penny”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. (Merriam-Webster, Oxford Dictionaries, Collins, Dictionary.com), “cost a pretty penny”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. I seem to like these longer phrase entries with a verb; they seem more natural to me (like cost an arm and a leg). However, I'll grant there is some force in the argument for deletion, including there being other verbs used: cost a pretty penny, pay a pretty penny, make a pretty penny, earn a pretty penny at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to "keep" per DonnanZ: The entry makes a better translation hub "as is", e.g. for Spanish: costar un ojo de la cara (cost an eye of the face) and Russian: влететь в копеечку (fly into a copeck), ударить по карману (strike the pocket). Once you reduce the entry to "pretty penny", you lose the ability to map the associated verbs as well, which, for Russian, are "fly" and "strike"; in fact, you cannot map "pretty penny" to "pocket" at all. Redirection is still better than deletion, but I want the entry to be kept. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to pretty penny. The reader won't be shocked to land there, and will immediately figure out what the entire idiom means. Might as well do the same with make a pretty penny and earn a pretty penny. bd2412 T 02:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected and put quotes there too --Otra cuenta105 (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unstriken: let this be closed by someone who is not Wonderfool. Furthermore, it is not clear that "redirect" is the winning option. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our general practice, where the idiomatic part is "pretty penny" and several verbs can be used with it, would see us redirect this. I'm sympathetic to the argument that many translations include verbs ... but they seem to be verbs meaning "cost" and the nouns seem to be used with other verbs in those languages, too; for example, "ein hübsches Sümmchen verdienen" (make a pretty penny) exists in German, not just "ein hübsches Sümmchen kosten". If we redirect this and there are languages that only have idiomatic constructions for some of the collocations, like if something could only coûter bonbon and you couldn't also gagner bonbon (which, however, it seems you can?), then we should give those translations (e.g. coûter bonbon, with the verb) in the translations table at [[pretty penny]] with a {{q|"cost a..."}} translating the verb.
I say redirect, for consistency, as long as we're just talking about this entry. But we should probably rethink our overall approach to idioms, because we also have issues with idioms that are mostly negative but sometimes positive and therefore lemmatized under the positive form, but not necessarily any more guaraneteed than this entry is to be translatable into other languages in that form. We should perhaps begin to allow more forms of idioms (e.g. noun-only like pretty penny and verb-including like cost a pretty penny, positive like say boo to a goose and negative like wouldn't say boo to a goose) to have prominently cross-linked entries and translations tables... - -sche (discuss) 22:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

be in on

SoP, be + in on. It's hard to find it without be, but it seems perfectly possible that it could be used with e.g. wish or announce. Just found this: "Although more entrepreneurs wanted in on their success, only four Top Hats were ever opened." Equinox ◑ 02:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think also get in on, bring in on, let in on, and probably slangy synonyms for most of the above. DCDuring (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as SOP to in on. bd2412 T 19:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about a redirect to in on? Admission: OneLook dicts have "in on" but not "be in on". --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to in on would be fine with me. bd2412 T 18:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or, if that fails, redirect to in on. "be in on something" is in Macmillan[2] and idioms.thefreedictionary.com[3]. dictionary.com[4] redirects be in on to in on; Longman[5] has "be/get in on something"; Collins English to French Dictionary[6] has "to be in on sth". If we try to reduce it even further, we may go to in since on is just a preposition, like "of" in "knowledgable of". We have let in on and get in on. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Be in on", "get in on", "let in on" and "want in on" are all very common. Theoretically we could handle them all with our existing entry "in on". But the phrases do seem idiomatic. Eh, redirect, I guess. - -sche (discuss) 22:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Alley Oop

Comic strip and its protagonist. Equinox ◑ 15:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The comic strip is certainly notable, but we don't have entries for most other notable comics or their characters, unless they're used to refer to other things. For instance, Prince Valiant refers to a haircut; we have Popeye (although the definition could stand improvement), but not Dick Tracy or Li'l Abner (although there are several entries derived from the strip); the only examples from Peanuts might be Snoopy and Linus blanket, but there aren't entries for the strip or for Charlie Brown. Now, I think that Alley Oop might have been used at one point as a synonym for "caveman" (i.e. someone who looks or behaves like a primitive), in which case it might be worth keeping, but I don't have time to look for examples right now. P Aculeius (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - -sche (discuss) 22:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFD failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protestant Movement

Protestantism. Seems SoP. Equinox ◑ 16:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The capitalisation is also weird. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - -sche (discuss) 22:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFD failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RPattz

Let us consider undeletion of this, originally entered as "Robert Pattinson". This was failed in 2011 per Talk:RPattz, and the rationales provided there seem weak: "If we don't include Robert Pattinson, why include this? Also it's a proper noun." and "Cannot find any clause or section of CFI which might justify this entry." We have recently kept some space-free nicknames per Talk:J-Lo. As for policy, WT:NSE leaves editor discretion in keeping or deleting RPattz; the term does not come under "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic." --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted and delete J-Lo too. Cruft barren of etymological value. bd2412 T 21:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does Pattz generally refer to someone named Pattinson? By the way, I now noticed we have R-Pattz, which survived RFD as part of Talk:J-Lo nomination. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete, as an alternative form of R-Pattz. Terms used for individuals have lexicographical value, even if some editors would rather dismiss pop culture lexicography as "cruft". —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete, to be consistent with the results at Talk:J-Lo where R-Pattz was kept. This is not a terribly valuable entry, but it is a proper name with no space and no hyphen in it, and these I generally favor including as long as they are attested; WT:NSE leaves editor discretion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Should we also include Ice Cube, Antigirl, Psy, etc.? PseudoSkull (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pricasso is an entry that really annoys me, heh. Equinox ◑ 23:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I removed many mention (not use) quotations from Citations:Pricasso, but there are still enough to have this attested, so it won't fail RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus for undeletion: I'm only seeing two votes for undeletion and one against despite the long discussion period. — SGconlaw (talk) 06:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH 2:1 ratio is usually considered a consensus; I admit that so few votes make a bad basis for anything. Could we perphaps get more bold votes? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Things like this are such edge cases; I don't see them as being the sort of thing that should obviously be included (we wouldn't have a sense at Robert or Robert Pattinson or R. Pattinson or hopefully even R. P. for "Robert Pattinson"), but I don't see them as the sort of thing that should obviously be deleted, either. Personally I would prefer to omit this and R-Pattz from Wiktionary, but as Talk:J-Lo shows, other editors prefer to keep these entries, and it's inconsistent to have R-Pattz but not RPattz. Because I have no strong feelings but do value consistency, and because the majority here is reaching the same conclusion as the previous consensus, I say undelete. - -sche (discuss) 01:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

-é

"Used on words borrowed from other languages, especially French, as a reminder that the final "e" is not silent". That's not a suffix! That's just not removing the é on the word that you borrowed. I note that the associated "words suffixed with é" category is empty (red link). Equinox ◑ 01:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea was actually to explain the odd acute accent on, say, animé. Regardless, that's not *animeé (anime + -é), so delete. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone actually going to look for this? I am leaning towards delete. DonnanZ (talk) 10:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to é as an English letter. The explanation is necessary and useful, but not as a suffix. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move per Shinji above. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move. —suzukaze (t・c) 01:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Am okay with the move. We do need to avoid treating this as a suffix. Equinox ◑ 01:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we may have more reason to move the article to ´. If we separate precisely, the grapheme added is ◌́ U+0301 COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT, even though it possibly does not appear on an other letter than e. Palaestrator verborum (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC) What is a “suffix” in graphemology called though? Palaestrator verborum (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved per the above, to é#English. I edited the definition; it is not strictly limited to being the last letter of a word; one sees not only résumé but also sometimes names (like Thériault). - -sche (discuss) 22:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flash

"(comics) A superhero". Equinox ◑ 19:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, we have Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. bd2412 T 01:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded that definition now. I'd say keep. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Citations meeting WT:FICTION would be useful here. bd2412 T 00:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Isn't it a matter of WT:RFVE with consideration of WT:FICTION? If it gets attesedt, it get's keeped; if it doesn't get attested, it get's deleted.
    If it was a matter of wording, wouldn't it belong to WT:RFC? -84.161.44.190 00:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The definition still needs refinement because several characters, e.g. Superman, have superspeed but are not the Flash. However, keep as an RFD matter (per bd's point), and send to RFV if there's a question of whether or not it meets FICTION. It probably does. - -sche (discuss) 23:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

risk tolerance

Per an old RFC, if this were to be given a proper definition, it'd be SOP. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but the term is almost exclusively used in business/finance/behavioral economics with a definition like: "the extent to wish a decision-maker, such as investor or businessperson, is willing to accept more risk in exchange for the possibility of a higher return". DCDuring (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet found a definition of tolerance that fits this, though "willingness or ability to tolerate (something)" would seem adequate. But such a definition is not to be found in most references at “tolerance”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. Oxford has "The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with." DCDuring (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The normal definitions of tolerance don't encompass the idea of a tradeoff between risk and return. DCDuring (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

be on about

= be + on about. Possibly worth a redirect. Equinox ◑ 22:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Harmless. bd2412 T 16:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; "on about" seems usually combined with "be"; the fuller phrase is in dictionary.cambridge.org[7] and oxforddictionaries.com[8]. Furthermore, this could be also rendered as (be on=talk) + about. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to "on about". - -sche (discuss) 23:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

F0

EF0

Also F1, F2, F3, F4, F5 and EF1, EF2, EF3, EF4, EF5. Should just be explained at F and EF, rather than having entries for individual values on the scale. Equinox ◑ 16:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clear delete --P5Nd2 (talk) 11:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Defined as "A rating of 0 on the Fujita scale" where Fujita scale is a scale for rating tornado intensity. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

delete - and explain in F and EF as per Equinox. John Cross (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per Eq. - -sche (discuss) 23:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1/4 d

A farthing. It's a quarter of a penny, hence 1/4 + d. Not really a lexical unit. Equinox ◑ 18:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be like saying $0.01 is an abbreviation for penny. --Wiki Tiki 89 19:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of interest, what would penny farthing be as a fraction? 1 d 1/4 or 1 1/4d? All the farthings had disappeared by the time I got to the UK. DonnanZ (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1 1/4d. See £sd#Writing_conventions_and_pronunciations. Equinox ◑ 21:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, same as with elevenpence ha'penny (11 1/2d). DonnanZ (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I'm inclined to say keep this, but remove the space. But there is no corresponding entry for halfpenny 1/2d or 1/2 d though. DonnanZ (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you see it as inherently different from, say, 9d for ninepence, or £3.27? Equinox ◑ 23:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to know where to draw the line. There are entries for 1D, 1/d and 1-D, but not for 1d (old penny) or indeed 1p (new penny), nor for /- (shilling) or 21/- (guinea). Forget about £9.99 etc. DonnanZ (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One solution would be to add abbreviations to say ninepence (9d) or elevenpence (11d) which should show up if anyone is looking for them. DonnanZ (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - -sche (discuss) 23:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

academic institution

academic + institution? Pinging the creator, @Dan Polansky. --Barytonesis (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per the entry, the point seems to be that this applies to "higher education" (e.g. university) but not to something like high school, even though that is also academic. Equinox ◑ 23:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep DCDuring (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I created that in Feb 2008, at which time I was a bit over 1 year Wiktionary-old, and I don't know what I thought at the time. In any case, above, Equinox makes a good point. On a different note, from the definition ("educational institution ...", a research-only institution does not pass as "academic", right? I think the definition would benefit from exemplification and counter-exemplification. I don't know whether the definition is right; I took it from WP, as indicated in the creation edit summary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to RfV. It is not clear to me that the English-speaking community as a whole excludes high schools from the definition. I have found uses that exclude trade schools, but include "college-prep" high schools, some that include all high schools. I wouldn't be surprised to find definitions that excluded professional training programs, such as in business, engineering, law, nursing, teaching, and medicine. The use of the collocation seems quite flexible.

It may be difficult to find usage citations that unambiguously support a non-SoP definition. DCDuring (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

bleed to death

Looks sum of parts to me. You can do anything "to death". 96.70.144.241 23:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. To death has a literal (SoP) and a figurative meaning. Bleed to death uses the literal one. DCDuring (talk) 09:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, SOP. --Barytonesis (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sonofcawdrey (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to serve as a translation hub (translation target), a better one than its synonym bleed out since it is much more common, believing bleed to death, bleed out at Google Ngram Viewer. The translations that make it worthwhile include German verbluten, Czech vykrvácet and Swedish förblöda. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Other references, including MWOnline, have it. [[bleed out]] (synonymous) has several translations. DCDuring (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is “to die from massive loss of blood, usually from severe arterial bleeding” different from “used other than with a figurative or idiomatic meaning”? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV Is that a "delete" vote on your part? bd2412 T 22:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ungoliant. - -sche (discuss) 23:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Rolling Stones

How is that dictionary material? --Barytonesis (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'll admit that the quotation points to a genericized usage, however. --Barytonesis (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Then we need an entry for Millard Fillmore because the following is just one of many instances of its use:

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2659: Parameter 1 is required.

Some more:

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2659: Parameter 1 is required.
Lua error in Module:quote at line 2659: Parameter 1 is required.
Lua error in Module:quote at line 2659: Parameter 1 is required.

IOW, IMO, Delete, unless we really do want to become a short-attention-span encyclopedia. DCDuring (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For a really funny list of many more, see this passage in Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking, by Douglas Hofstadter and Emmanuel Sander. DCDuring (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have an entry for Beatles, and a number of other Proper Nouns for people, e.g. Cicero, Homer.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the point about the usage example. This kind of "the X of Y" is a standard pattern of English usage that can be used with essentially any proper noun X. Mihia (talk)

Delete for the reason given by Mihia. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as currently defined (the band). I don't like the "Beatles of the 21st century"-type entries either but we do seem to have a historical consensus of inclusion; I have raised such entries for deletion before and been disagreed with. Equinox ◑ 14:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but alter the definition to cover the genericized use. When something is called the "Rolling Stones" of some field, the relevant point is not that they are a successful and long-lived band, it is that they had that "bad-boy" image, in contrast to the more innocent image of the Beatles. If someone looks up a proper noun like this in the dictionary, as opposed to in an encyclopedia, it is because they want to know what you mean by "the Rolling Stones of voice-over artists." The current definition does not answer that. Kiwima (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I myself am very curious about what might be meant by "the Mussolini of mulligatawny". I don't think a dictionary can or should address that. DCDuring (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By that token we would have to include in the dictionary virtually every proper noun in existence and explain each of their potential attributes or associations. Mihia (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "virtually every proper noun in existence": Far from it. A fraction of all proper names has this kind of "the X of Y" usage attested. And we could set a higher threshold for the number of such uses attested, if required, to limit the volume of included items. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For standard patterns that are used ad hoc, the issue of attestation is not very relevant. Mihia (talk)

There might be grounds for altering CFI to include such proper names that have attestable derived terms (Homeric, Ciceronian). DCDuring (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard worse ideas. Equinox ◑ 03:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Governed by WT:NSE, and thus, up to editor discretion. As for "Millard Fillmore", that is excluded by current CFI: "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic." The "X of Y" pattern is a usual construction, sure, but far from every attested proper name has such usage attested, and therefore, the pattern does provide a filter, an element potentially usable in guiding inclusion and exclusion of proper names. Returning back to "Millard Fillmore", google books:"the Millard Fillmore of" finds 24 hits in total but not all independent. By wading through google books:"the Rolling Stones of", I find more relevant usages (and many irrelevant ones). --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the Rolling Stones of, the Beatles of, the Bee Gees of at Google Ngram Viewer; "the Bee Gees of" is not found there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per "the Rolling Stones of" pattern; the pattern serves as a useful filter, preventing an overflood of similar entries: e.g. "the Bee Gees of" is not found above. More notes from me are above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DCD. - -sche (discuss) 23:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

right man

If it exists at all - bad caps, bad plural. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep. It does exist (see supporting cites), and with this capitalization. Kiwima (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"If it exists at all" sounds like a matter for WT:RFVE. "bad plural" sounds like a matter for WT:RFC (bad plural created by template {{en-noun}}). "bad caps" sounds like a matter for WT:RFVE or WT:RFC. I can't see any RFD relevant argument (like SOP, or maybe non-standard SMS/chat/internet mis-capitalisation which could be a reason to delete non-capitalised English proper nouns). 84.161.6.246 04:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if attested wth an idiomatic meaning, which it apparently is, although I can't make sense of it. - -sche (discuss) 23:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

bluff out

This doesn't seem idiomatic to me. — SGconlaw (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason people feel that a verb plus adverbial out usually makes a "phrasal verb". This one might be a bit like fake out. DCDuring (talk) 13:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And see “bluff out”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. DCDuring (talk) 13:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So is that a vote for deletion? — SGconlaw (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of "bluff out" that I know typically has a dummy "it" as its object, i.e. "bluff it out", meaning try to bluff one's way through a situation. Mihia (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it looks to me just like bluff + out, which makes it SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that bluff out, tough out, brave out, etc. are sufficiently unpredictable and idiomatic to deserve separate entries. Mihia (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

crowd in on

This doesn't seem idiomatic to me. — SGconlaw (talk) 09:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To me neither, but see “crowd in on”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. DCDuring (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"crowd in on" is a known expression to me (BrE). I guess there is a question about whether there should be an entry at crowd in instead of or in addition to this one. Mihia (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks SoP to me: crowd + in + on. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the use of the lemming heuristic: “crowd in on”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. (oxforddictionaries.com, Macmillan). An alternative is to make it a redirect to crown in, an entry in Merriam-Webster[9]. Similar entries are listed in User:Dan Polansky/Phrasal verbs#Three-word phrasal verb, with links to dicts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

public sector

Rfd-sense: The three definitions look redundant to me. I would want to combine them into one. Most of the "competition" on OneLook seems to be happy with one definition. Only Collins has two definitions, one of which is tagged "British":

Oxford: The part of an economy that is controlled by the government.

Collins: part of a country's economy which is controlled or supported financially by the government.

Collins (British): the part of an economy that consists of state-owned institutions, including nationalized industries and services provided by local authorities

Cambridge: businesses and industries that are owned or controlled by the government.

Dictionary.com: the area of the nation's affairs under governmental rather than private control.

MacMillan: the industries and services, for example schools, that are supported by tax money and controlled by the government of a country or an area

--Hekaheka (talk) 12:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also can’t tell the difference between the three senses. We can merge them all, unless someone can find some usage examples that apply to each sense and not to the others. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 12:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. I see no worthwhile distinction. I also question the "Any government" part of sense 1. I don't really think of the actual government as being part of the "public sector". Do other people? Mihia (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mihia I think the cabinet/administration isn't considered part of the public sector, but the government apparatus generally is. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support a merging of the three senses. It would be difficult to find attestations which clearly demarcate them. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete senses 2 and 3, remove "and deliver public services" from sense 1 and that should cover it nicely. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

pick up the phone

Delete (or convert to a {{translation only}} entry if it's really needed). --Barytonesis (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{translation only}} seems fine to me. The translations are hard to guess. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 16:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even though pick up has a phone-specific sense (which is reasonable, since you can “pick up” a phone by pressing a button or swiping an icon), I’d expect pick up the smartphone or pick up the mobile to be possible if this was just pick up + the + phone. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 11:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These may be possible (see a cite I found below); "phone" might just be more common. Equinox ◑ 12:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2012, Robyn Carr, Virgin River (page 424)
And to Sharon Lampert, RN, WHNP, for sharing her expertise as a women's health nurse practitioner, but mostly for picking up your cell phone no matter where you were and answering delicate questions about female anatomy and function with directness and honesty.

I mean this wording specifically (pick up the <type of phone>). It is odd that you can say “pick up your <any type of phone>” and “your <any type of phone> is ringing, Joe. Pick it up”, but only “pick up the (tele)phone, God damn it!” (or rather, other nouns are unexpectedly rare in this construct specifically). — Ungoliant ^(falai) 12:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(note: my comments are not a vote) — Ungoliant ^(falai) 12:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does not seem to be idiomatic. Make a {{translation only}} or delete it, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 23:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

research gap

Not really idiomatic, in my experience, just a gap in the research that's been done. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the concept is totally essential to academic research and thus highly salient, and is refined/scoped in the way the definition is written - which is a bit clunky, so I will work on it.- Sonofcawdrey (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One can say "gap in the research", "gap in the field", "gap in the literature", etc. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sonofcawdrey: Your argument seems to be about the concept, but should be about the term. That the concept is important doesn't mean that the term is (from a lexicographical point of view).
To me "research gap" seems to be sum of parts (SOP). -84.161.6.246 04:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the term in question is the general term for the concept (e'en though there are other ways of expressing it), and the concept is more than SoP in that it is not just any gap in research, but one of enough significance to warrant research.- Sonofcawdrey (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

expiration date

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification#expiration date.

Rfv-sense "human being". Sure it could be applied to human beings, but also to cats, dogs, etc. Does it warrant a separate sense? – Jberkel (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This one is easily cited. I suggest you move this to requests for deletion... Kiwima (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it is moved: I think the first definition could pretty easily be reworded to cover this case as well - it is the date at which something or someone expires - whether by becoming worthless, degrading past the point where it should not be used, dying, etc. Kiwima (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The second definition is incomplete anyway; I've read many times the phrase "woman's expiration date", which means "the moment when she ceases to be attractive on the sexual market" (it's a reference to her sexual lifespan, not simply her lifespan) --Barytonesis (talk) 10:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge into the first definition, and expand it to also cover sexual expiration dates, per Barytonesis. - -sche (discuss) 22:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

Gibson

RFD-sense: the manufacturer. Does this satisfy WT:BRAND? PseudoSkull (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Does this satisfy WT:BRAND?" is a question for WT:RFVE and not for WT:RFDE.84.161.6.246 03:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a Gibson shoe, a lace-up shoe for men, so I don't know how you get on there, e.g. I'm going to wear my Gibsons today. DonnanZ (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know but nothing good for the dictionary user is going to come out of this nomination. The challenge is how to search for quotations meeting WT:BRAND. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the problem is. I remember most BRAND cases coming to RED. What did I miss? PseudoSkull (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one: 2008: Rick Rinehart, ‎Amy Rinehart, Dare to Survive: Death, Heartbreak, and Triumph in the Wild, p. xiv: "We'd like to think that his spirit lives on under the western sky he so loved, strumming his Gibson somewhere and belting out a Woody Guthrie ballad to an audience of coyotes and rabbitbrush". This is in the acknowledgments, and nowhere does the book state that a Gibson is a guitar. bd2412 T 22:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added the common noun (i.e. "Gibsons" are guitars) when I saw this nomination. The nom is for the proper noun, i.e. the company name, not its products. Equinox ◑ 19:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. Delete the company name. bd2412 T 19:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please note that the nomination is only for the company name itself. Any nouns that come from the company name aren't part of this, and can be added separately from this discussion. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PseudoSkull: Brand names can be included in WT, and whether or not they are attested as for WT's requirements for citations (cp. WT:CFI#Brand names) is a question of attestation, verification (i.e. for WT:RFVE). Maybe compare with Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English#Reddit above. Or do you emphasize WT:CFI#Brand names's "brand name for a product or service"? With Gibson being a manufacturer, one could argue that it's neither a product nor service, hence to be deleted? With "must not identify any such parties [which includes the manufacturer]" it might also be impossible to attest a manufacturing company's name, even if it where only "brand name" without "for a product or service". (Well, on the other hand one could argue that manufacturing is a service but that doesn't seem to work out.)
PS: There's WT:CFI#Company names, and the manufacturer Gibson is a company, ain't it? So with attestation of a common noun Gibson (= guitar made by the company Gibson), the company name Gibson can be included as by WT:CFI#Company names, can't it?

@BD2412: And why? Being a brand name alone isn't a reason for deletion (as else WT:CFI#Brand names should read "Brand names are excluded" instead of "brand name [...] should be included [...]").

-84.161.46.194 04:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gibson is a company that makes a product, and is not known for providing services apart from the construction of that product. It is common for brand names to enter the lexicon—Kleenex, Xerox, google, escalator, aspirin—but far less common for names of companies to enter the lexicon apart from their products or services. bd2412 T 20:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

paternal grandmother

Also RFD for paternal grandfather, maternal grandmother, maternal aunt and some translations like nonna paterna, abuela paterna etc.
As SOP as Großmutter väterlicherseits (diff, Talk:Großmutter väterlicherseits), just paternal (or maternal) + grandmother (or grandfather, aunt, oncle), or the non-English aequivalents. -84.161.6.246 03:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just an observation: this might be a good candidate for "this entry is here for translation purposes only", since IIRC there are a lot of cultures that do have single-word terms for family relationships where English doesn't. Equinox ◑ 04:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "translation target" or "{{translation only}}" might apply to the English entry. To SOP non-English translations like nonna paterna however it doesn't apply.
(By the way, I'm not sure if there should be another RFD at WT:RFDN, and if there should be several RFD headings for the several RFDed terms, and if there should be the RFD template in all SOP-looking entries.) -84.161.6.246 04:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as translation target, which is not a sentiment I commonly hold. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 10:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, cross-culturally useful. bd2412 T 22:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Translation only. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 20:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I find confusing is that the Czech translation entered in paternal grandfather is děda, děd, which is just grandfather without "paternal"; similarly, Hungarian entered is nagyapa, defined as grandfather. This is a result of diff (15 April 2008), which said "imported from grandfather". Languages having dedicated words seem to be seen best in this revision. Keep as translation hubs (translation targets), but I wonder what to do with the translations that just mean "grandfather"; maybe remove them. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest either adding the Czech (Hungarian, etc) equivalent of "paternal" to them in the manner of {{t|de|[[Großmutter]] [[väterlicherseits]]}}, or adding a qualifier like {{q|any grandfather}} or {{q|just means "grandfather"}} or something. - -sche (discuss) 05:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the English entries as translation targets. I think that, for clarity, the non-English SOP entries should undergo a separate RFD, since some commenters here don't seem to have even noticed them (I think the SOP non-English entries like nonna paterna should be deleted). - -sche (discuss) 05:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hash

Adjective: "Hashed, chopped into small pieces"; sole citation:

1855, William Makepeace Thackeray, The Newcomes
The Colonel, himself, was great at making hash mutton, hot-pot, curry, and pillau.

This does not seem to behave as an adjective. The citation and the derived terms in the Adjective PoS section seem to me to illustrate, without exception, attributive use of the noun. DCDuring (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it a matter of WT:RFVE to find better citations? -84.161.6.246 00:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's an RFV question. Equinox ◑ 03:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just move the quote – which does not support the adjectival sense – to the citation page and delete. This is too hard to verify. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 20:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an alt form of mutton hash AFAIK. —Aryaman^A ^{(मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 12:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to RFV. - -sche (discuss) 23:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-sion

I think this is a conceptual error. Historically English words ending in sion are actually from Latin verb stems ending s + -ion or borrowings from Latin nouns, directly or via French. I note that the only etymologically linked from this term are reversion (historically < Latin reversio) = revert/reverse + -ion and suspension (historically from Late Latin suspensio) = suspend/suspense + -ion. DCDuring (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is -ion, Delete. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 08:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there are examples of this being added to terms where the root/etymon does not have the s. (Strictly speaking, that's an RFV question.) - -sche (discuss) 23:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

XMLHttpRequest

Pretty much a class name or library name, like (to take a few random examples from the .NET Framework, out of thousands or millions) StringBuilder or HttpRequestException. In other words it's computer language akin to keywords and commands etc. which we exclude. Equinox ◑ 00:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It could lead to far. It does not even look like English with that spelling, but coders code-switching to computer language. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 08:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's also used in Ajax and it's an object. I think the acronym XHR is enough reason to keep. —Aryaman^A ^{(मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 12:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any actual policy saying "having an initialism means we must keep the expanded form"? I am happy with the useful entry ZWNJ but I would not want an entry for zero-width non joiner. Equinox ◑ 07:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (Equinox). --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - -sche (discuss) 23:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

get one's back up

Better as a redirect to [[get someone's back up]] as it is not always reflexive. DCDuring (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an altform or something. PseudoSkull (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, redirect. Have both reflexive and non-reflexive usexes in the lemma entry. - -sche (discuss) 23:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

adnominal case

Self-evidentally SoP. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Either keep and improve the definition or add the relevant sense to adnominal and then delete, but at the moment, even when I read our definition of adnominal I still have no idea what "adnominal case" means. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 11:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The definition is strange, but it could be as SOP as many other cases (e.g. nominative case, genitive case), moods (e.g. imperative mood), person-number combinations (e.g. third-person plural). Might be a matter of WT:RFC to clean-up the definition. -80.133.107.175 06:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite to no longer say just "The grammatical case that is adnominal"; thus, make more like nominative case. In general, I think the forms "ADJ case" pattern precedes the ADJ used alone as a noun. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Icehouse

A specific strategy game (of modern invention; more like a brand name than something like "ludo"). Wikipedia doesn't even deem it worth an article, though apparently the pyramidal playing-pieces have become popular for other games. Equinox ◑ 03:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. I'm not familiar enough with the relevance or importance of this game to make a good judgment. PseudoSkull (talk) 07:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Does it (need to) meet BRAND? As an RFD question, weak keep. - -sche (discuss) 23:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

stooping

Adjective looks like a verb. --Gente como tú (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some present participles do graduate into full-fledged adjective status. But I did a quick search at online-literature.com, and didn't find any convincing support that this one has. I'm leaning toward delete. -- · (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A smattering of examples such as "very stooping posture/shoulders/gait/etc." inclines me towards keep. Mihia (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for sure. Ƿidsiþ 18:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

webside

This failed RFV, but Kiwima later readded it with 4 citations. 2006 is a clear typo ("website" is used elsewhere on the same page), 2007 is an unpublished master's thesis and probably represents a true L2 error, 2008 is another typo ("website" is used everywhere else), and I can't access 2012 but the quote as input by Kiwima had obvious OCR errors. That leaves only one or two cites that are not typos. This is so uncommon when compared to website that our usual policy on misspellings would not allow for it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. A different definition (from Webside manner) was the one that failed RFV. This one has never gone through the RFV process. Kiwima (talk) 05:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, although it doesn't affect the RFD. Anyway, can you find the original text for the 2012 quote? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2012 quote is at google books.

"unpublished master's thesis": It's published (publisher being Grin as in de:w:GRIN Verlag, compare book at Grin, google books, amazon) and just a Hausarbeit, not a master's thesis. However, is it durably archived as required by WT:CFI? (L2 speakers, self-published books and print-on-demand books aren't excluded as per WT:CFI.) -80.133.107.175 06:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re 2012, your link does not lead to the page in question for me. Re 2007, thanks for clarifying. You seem to have misunderstood my comment about the author being an L2 speaker; I was indicating that this is the only one I could determine to be a true linguistic error rather than a typo or thinko. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe changing the URL (.de ~ .com ~ .whatever) might work or using a proxy server. The google book with the 2012 quote has "[...] familiar with a webside called Craigslist.org, which [...]". However, according to google's text search the book has once "webside" and 37-times "website" (including compounds as in "a step-by-step website-building wizard" and proper nouns as "'The Amazing "Send Me A Dollar" Website'"). Also according to the starting pages, it might be from 2004 with 2012 being a wrong year given by google or being a digitalisation year or year of the e-book release: "[...] Corgi edition published 2004 [...] Copyright (C) Karyn Bosnak 2003 [...]". BTW: google might have a few more results with English and non-English webside (German Webside). German Webside could even be attestable as for WT:CFI. -80.133.107.175 10:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you sometimes see an entry demoted to "rare, nonstandard" and get a mental image of someone slipping off the edge of a cliff and hanging on by the very edge of their fingernails? SCRAAAAAAAAAPE. Equinox ◑ 06:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This entry is the obvious result of misprints and typos in sources. Send it over the cliff. -- · (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we just add this as a misspelling and move on? ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't a misspelling (let alone a common misspelling). It's a typo or misprint, which is different. First delete it and then move on. -- · (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It still makes sense as a word. They are "sides" that are on the web after all. Not only that, the fact that it now says "nonstandard" and "rare" should be enough to warn others that it is not a standard, common word. - PhpBBthe2nd (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if you (or I) think it makes sense as a word. If it's almost always a typo, and a vanishingly rare one at that, then it probably doesn't belong in the dictionary. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But it does matter if it makes sense as a word. That is more or less the whole point of words. I also think it has been written down enough to be put on here. Combine both those facts and I think there is a good reason to keep it here. - PhpBBthe2nd (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@PhpBBthe2nd: When deciding whether a word should be included or not, it doesn't matter to this project (a descriptive dictionary) that a word "makes sense as a word"; the only criterion we are going by is whether that word is used or not. There are plenty of words that don't make sense but are used (so they belong here), and there are plenty of words that do make sense (or would make sense, if someone thought of them) but aren't used (so they don't belong here). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: webside is also a Danish term meaning "website" or "webpage", with the synonym website. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Scanning through b.g.c I'm finding sufficient use to be convinced that it's a common enough misprint/L2 error that it's conceivable someone would want to know what it means. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 08:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna abstain or whatever but I want to point out again that we are wasting way too much time on pseudo-entries for things that "look a bit like a word". This isn't something we should spend time on lexicographically unless there is an absolutely massive groundswell. We are living in a time when technologies like Google can finally deal with this kind of thing by context and work out what a typo probably meant. Equinox ◑ 08:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not see this as anything other than a typo or misspelling/mishearing/misunderstanding. If it is kept on the basis that "it's a common enough misprint/L2 error that it's conceivable someone would want to know what it means", per above, can we at least demote it from a "proper" entry to just saying "misspelling". Mihia (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 16:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have seen it fairly alot, so I figure that someone would want to look it up. -195.195.248.144 12:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a rare misspelling, per WT:CFI#Spellings. The frequency ratio is 15 000 per website, (webside*15000) at Google Ngram Viewer, which is too high for a common misspelling; a calibration is at User talk:Dan Polansky/2013#What is a misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, rare mispelling. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

what was someone thinking

what was someone smoking

I don't think this falls within the scope of a dictionary. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Per utramque cavernam First of all, they're quite common phrases. Second of all, I don't believe you can deduce the meaning of the phrases from what+were+they+thinking, and certainly not what+were+they+smoking. If you can tell me how this can be labelled as SOP, I'm all ears. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, the fact that "what were you thinking...?" doesn't simply mean "what were you thinking...?" (a neutral-tone question) hasn't much to do with lexicology; it's a semantic/pragmatic phenomenon. It doesn't operate at the level of the lexicon, but at a higher level, that of context.

I'm slightly more hesitant for "what were you smoking...", but I suspect it's not really a lexical phenomenon either.

Sorry, my answer is very vague; it's more of a feeling at the moment. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feel like we should probably keep the "smoking" one, because the set of people who would say "what was Bob smoking?" doesn't overlap much with the set of people who actually smoke drugs. A similar phrase is the "X is Y on acid!" thing, which again has nothing to do with the drug (and I, as someone who has never taken acid, might well use the phrase, and know what it means) but has entered popular culture. Equinox ◑ 08:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extra babble: I periodically look at the OED's quarterly "what's new" lists and some of the most interesting ones are phrases like this. They sometimes look a bit silly when you abstract them to the "one does this" level. I would rather that we have this is me than that we omit coverage because the lemma is ugly. (Still waiting for the WikiGrammar project too!) Equinox ◑ 08:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "...smoking", delete "...thinking". —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 08:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, keep "smoking" per Equinox, delete "thinking" per Utramque cavernam. Our !votes sound like "superliminal messaging" for a tobacco company, haha: keep smoking, delete thinking... - -sche (discuss) 16:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nomination rationale is not specified in terms of WT:CFI. As for the implied sum-of-parts claim, you cannot translate "what was someone thinking" word-for-word into Czech and get a useful translation; it seems something more is going on than the sum of parts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I find that Czech point (pun unintended) fairly irrelevant. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both, since they're not SOP. They're both set phrases and idiomatic. PseudoSkull (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hot as fire

~~This simile is so straightforward (and weak) that I don't see how it could be considered idiomatic. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

edit: I'm still voting for its deletion, but the question of SOPness or non-SOPness is irrelevant to me: my issue is that it's not a set phrase, a lexicalised unit. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Per utramque cavernam Borderline case, surely, but it can be interpreted like this. Maybe a room is extremely hot, and someone says it's "hot as fire", but it's not actually as hot as fire, but it was only an exaggeration. A similar example would be cold as ice. Abstain for now. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not even a fixed expression. The fixed expressions are hot as hell and hot as Hades. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 08:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mahagaja: hot as hell went through RFD as well, btw. I'm still wondering whether as hell was extracted from it. If yes, hot as hell is definitely idiomatic, at least historically (in contemporary English though, is it really felt like a true simile and not as the sum of hot + as hell?). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User created a fair amount of crap (Special:DeletedContributions/Jooge). We have cold as ice and that also seems straightforward (ice is colder than most things a human being is gonna deal with day to day). However I find it hard to say exactly why this should be deleted. It is obvious but so are some proverbs. Equinox ◑ 08:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's the same as cold as ice, white as snow, black as night etc. If this is deleted, those should be deleted too. RightGot (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @RightGot: How is it the same? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @RightGot: You do realise how annoying it can be to have someone who's never contributed here, bump in and vote without providing any semblance of argument, I hope? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Meaning is obvious from its parts + not strongly a set phrase. Mihia (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's bupkis, for God's sake. -- · (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After giving it some thought, I want to point out to everyone very clearly that this is not, technically speaking, a sum of its parts. Something that is "hot as fire" is, more often than not, not literally as hot as fire, so you can't interpret its meaning by looking at it literally, thus making it idiomatic. I encourage everyone to rethink the consensus here. I believe this consensus is very seriously going against our rules about idiomaticity. Therefore, keep. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this really matters, even if true (which I find a bit hard to judge since I don't really recognise "hot as fire" as a set expression). It is a regular feature of the English language to exaggerate in the "as ~ as ~" pattern. Mihia (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I could cite "rich as God" in describing a human. "Heavy as lead" is, or at least was, a standard expression, not usually applying to things with a density of 11 g/cm^3 (I suppose you can argue that the weight of lead is undefined without a quantity, making it pedantically even less SoP.) ("high enough to touch the sun.", etc.) With a little patience, I think you can find any number of such examples. And they're not lexicographically interesting; I could write "the day was as hot as the heart of Polaris" in a science fiction novel, and I don't think my readers would have any problem understanding.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wish we stopped throwing this concept of "SOPness" left and right; I don't think every case can and should be judged in that light. It's easy to carry it too far, to overthink: you'll start seeing non-SOPness everywhere (often for extra-linguistic reasons) and will soon be thinking everything should be kept; or you'll go down the other route, and want to delete things that are really lexicalised.

"you can't interpret its meaning by looking at it literally, thus making it idiomatic" is very wrong; there are plenty of linguistic "things" you can't look at literally; that doesn't necessarily make them idiomatic and lexical. I think figurativeness is not a sufficient (nor a necessary) condition for idiomaticity.

To me, the real questions are: is it a solid lexical unit? Are these words strongly associated in the mind of speakers? Is that a fixed/set string of words? Does it have a special "slot" allocated to it in the lexicon?

"hot as fire" simply evokes nothing special. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it our job to figure out what "evokes something special"? Ever heard of one man's trash is another man's treasure? The whole "special" thing also makes useless our point to remain neutral in our writing. And if we really want to change rules about what should and shouldn't be deleted, as far as similes go, it should be explained in WT:CFI. And that really calls for a WT:BP discussion. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that was badly worded. I'm not speaking of some emotional criterion, and saying that we should reject words that we find boring or nondescript, or that are not to our taste. When I'm writing "evoke something special", I mean that on a cognitive level: does it feel like a somewhat random string of words, or does it jump to our brain as a strong lexical unit? "it's hot as hell in here!" sounds instantaneously like idiomatic English to me, while "it's hot as fire in here!" does nothing of the sort; if anything, it sounds a bit clumsy. It's not even that I find it "ugly", displeasing or "bad", it's just that it doesn't really work. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Per utramque cavernam We need figurative entries to stay here if they are attested by the 3 cites rule. Figurative strings of words are exceedingly important for a dictionary because they cannot be deduced simply by looking at the definition of term 1 + term 2 + term 3, but can only be deduced by looking at all three as a unit. It doesn't matter that it's pleasing to the general mind. No; if it is used in 3 durable citations or more, it is a set enough phrase for us to include it, 'nuff said. In fact, that's the entire point of the 3 citations rule; is to make sure that the phrase is used enough to be considered a lexical unit. If hot as fire was only used in 1 Usenet post, that wouldn't be sufficient, but the term has extensive usage in all sorts of places according to my searches. Your definition of a solid lexical unit does not align properly with Wiktionary's definition of a solid lexical unit, and thus, even though the phrase is still "ugly", it should still be kept to inform readers. Like I said last night on Dan Polansky's talk page; Wiktionary isn't about what's pleasing to the eye, but the primary goal is to be informative. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it doesn't seem to be a set phrase but rather a SOPpy simile, with routine use of exaggeration. - -sche (discuss) 16:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SOPpy or sloppy? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think it is a set phrase/conventional simile - though a relatively obvious one. It is listed in "Life Is Just a Bowl of Cherries: And Other Delicious Sayings" (1997) and other books on English. John Cross (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep conventional similes so that non-native speakers know they are actually used, and find fitting translations (none entered yet). The Czech word-for-word translation *horký jako oheň is not used. hot as fire, cold as ice, thick as a brick at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some more Ngrams: hot as fire, hot as hell, hot as Hades at Google Ngram Viewer. There, hot as fire was the frequency leader until about 1930. On another note, to correct myself, I do find some uses of google books:"horký jako oheň", not too many. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find that Czech point (pun unintended) fairly irrelevant. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that Per utramque cavernam's comparison of "hot as hell" and "hot as fire" is misleading. Of course that "it is hot as fire in here" does not sound well, because this simile seems to be more often used with different things than places, eg. the breath was as hot as fire. Hot as fire seems to be a solid lexical unit with idiomatic meaning. There are thousands of hot things like a switched-on cooker, freshly fried chips, feverish body, and so on, but only a few of them form stabilized similes and as such should be kept. Btw: various printed phrasebooks accept this simile as a lexical unit too, e. g. here, here or here. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jan.Kamenicek: The entry needs to reflect that difference in usage then. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Per utramque cavernam: I added an example. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFD kept: no consensus for deletion; 5 keeps, 6 deletes (incl. Equinox). --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

anti-Viagra

Generic use of "anti-", doesn't literally mean "an anaphrodisiac". DTLHS (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems sufficiently lexical to me, and there are sufficient uses that do literally mean "an anaphrodisiac". —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because I believe the suffix anti- before a word does make it a word for Wiktionary still. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There may be another sense, that means against Viagra, perhaps? PseudoSkull (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFD kept: no consensus for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

wine legs

Sense 3 of legs is written almost identically, minus the wine. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Metaknowledge: That was my doing. I've reverted it. To what extent does that change your mind here? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. This is still SOP because that sense exists. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but as far as I'm aware, it's specifically called "wine legs", not "bourbon legs" or "whiskey legs". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So what? It's specifically called an "cat tooth" and not a "hawk tooth" because hawks don't have teeth. I fail to see how that would make cat tooth less SOP. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it's called "wine legs" even when it occurs in whisky and not wine, that is a point in favour of a "wine legs" entry. I briefly looked up "whisky legs" in Google Books and found one obvious hit; there might be more. Equinox ◑ 02:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hard redirect to the aforementioned sense of "legs". When I searched for "wine legs" on Google Books I noticed that a lot of hits are actually even more transparently SOP as "[the] wine's legs". The fact that people refer to bare "legs" or "legs of [the/a] wine" with these sense, and rarely also to "alcohol legs", "whisk[e]y['s] legs" and "liquor's legs", shows that the sense of "legs" is not limited to "wine legs", and hence the "red dwarf" test is not met. As an aside, what I expected when I saw the entry title was something like "(legs that are prone to) unsteadiness / stumbling due to drunkenness". - -sche (discuss) 16:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abigaille

A character in a specific opera. Equinox ◑ 22:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless we want tens of thousands of senses for characters in works of fiction having common names, e.g. Rachel, Dean, Jamie, Thomas, and Mallory. bd2412 T 16:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the operatic character sense, per bd. If Abigaille is also a {{given name}} in English, add that sense. - -sche (discuss) 18:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as long as "A character in the opera Nabucco (1842) by Giuseppe Verdi" is the only sense associated with this English word. Regulation: WT:NSE. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that require that sense of Abigaille to meet WT:FICTION? bd2412 T 03:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WT:FICTION seems to deal only with terms (including names) from fictional universes; opera Nabucco does not seem to deal with a fictional universe but rather takes place in Jerusalem and Babylon. The examples given in the policy (Harry Potter books, Tolkien's Middle Earth books, the Star Wars films) match my understanding of what a fictional universe is. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with that. Harry Potter includes some real places on Earth, but the characters (and other places) are fictional, as are the activities undertaken. I would say that WT:FICTION applies in every case where the term describes a fictional specific person, place, or thing. bd2412 T 04:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the general "female given name" sense, with citations of three women with the name. - -sche (discuss) 05:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per -sche. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Do the math: take every work of fiction our contributors are familiar with, and multiply it by the number of named characters in those works. Since selecting one work or one character over another would violate NPOV and we don't have notability rules, there would be nothing to keep the more compulsive of our editors from creating entries consisting of long lists of "a character in" senses. Some entries, such as Joe, might end up completely useless. Either that, or we spend all of our time here haggling over which ones to delete. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And it's not like it's Romeo from R&J or anything, either. This is just some random soap opera from a couple hundred years ago. We could have millions of these kinds of entries. PseudoSkull (talk) 07:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 16:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

absolute power

Strikes me as SoP. Equinox ◑ 07:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, delete for that reason. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously not literally "absolute" (i.e., godlike). Also a set phrase. bd2412 T 21:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't get this. absolute is used in its literal/etymological sense of "unfettered, unchecked". It doesn't mean "godlike". --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is it about the phrase "absolute power" that tells you which sense of "absolute" is meant? bd2412 T 22:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reason? Anyone, by looking at the 21 "different senses" at absolute, can discern the overarching etymological idea of "unfetteredness", and deduce that "absolute power" means "power that is untied, unconstrained, unbound, unlinked", etc. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hardly so. I certainly, from looking at all the senses, cannot discern any overarching etymological idea of "unfetteredness". And I don't see why I should even try to do so; when looking for semantics, I don't care about etymology, as I should not. If this is a sum of parts, it is a sum of parts with respect to some of the 21 senses. The required sense seems to be the subsense "Having unlimited power, without limits set by a constitution, parliament, or other means; independent in ownership or authority." The subsense does not match perfectly for syntactic reasons; it is formulated to fit the phrase "absolute monarch" or the like. From the usability standpoint, it does not help that someone ordered the absolute entry chronologically, so you have to wade through obsolete and archaic senses to find the most commonly used senses. The entry looked sane in this revision (2012) before someone reworked it to be more like OED, for which there is no consensus as per Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2012/December#Positions_of_obsolete_senses. Merriam-Webster[10] has a sane entry, and its exemplifications of the adjective in adj-noun phrases are excellent; so does AHD[11]. Sorry for the digression.
      - As to whether we should have "absolute power": its use of "absolute" is in the same sense as "absolute monarch", "absolute ruler", and "absolute monarchy". It reminds me a bit of Talk:free variable. If a user enters "absolute power" in the dictionary, they will be better served by the entry in that they do not need to search among the clutter that is now in absolute. Nonetheless, abstain. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Yep, you're right. Just ignore our crappy/nonsensical entry absolute, look up that word in any other dictionary than ours, and you won't have any trouble understanding absolute power. In other words, the entry absolute power is currently somewhat helpful only because the entry absolute is completely unhelpful. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I looked up absolute in the Oxford English Dictionary. It has around a dozen definitions, and is clearly not as cut and dried as you might think. bd2412 T 18:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        (Heads up: en.oxforddictionaries.com is not OED. --Dan Polansky (talk))
        Still, there's another dictionary for comparison. bd2412 T 18:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I recognise this as a set phrase. John Cross (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't keep set phrases merely because they are set. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem strongly lexicalised to me. And other dictionaries don't have it. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a bit more specific than just [[absolute]] + [[power]]. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 13:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The fact that absolute power is only sometimes godlike seems like a pragmatic rather than a lexical issue, like an absolute monarch/absolute ruler may rule only a single country or lack the power to revive the dead and reverse the flow of time, the way they could if "absolute" truly meant "godlike", and a brown car may not be entirely brown (the turn signals might be yellow, etc), and so on. - -sche (discuss) 19:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I heartily agree with that. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SOP. -- · (talk) 07:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

pearl necklace

SoP. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the second sense is clearly idiomatic, since it describes neither literal pearls, nor a literal necklace. The first sense could be converted to an &lit, but I think there is still some room for idiomacity in the fact that the phrase describes a string of individual pearls, not a necklace carved from a single pearl. bd2412 T 14:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the second sense; convert the first sense to an &lit, optionally retaining a short "definition" after the &lit as some entries do. To bd's point I would counter than one can speak of "diamond earrings" or "ruby necklaces" that are also set with diamonds or rubies rather than fashioned exclusively from those stones, and "steel airplanes" that are only principally steel, and so on. - -sche (discuss) 16:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But can one call an airplane steel if virtually the only steel is in the landing gear? DCDuring (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's the fallacy of the heap, no? An X(steel, oak, wood, jade, glass) Y is not usually going to be all X, but how much and in what ways is going to depend on the Y, and reasonable people are going to disagree on the dividing point, and probably with themselves on different days. Usually an X necklace uses X as the decorative, not structural elements.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Convert first sense per -sche (and obviously keep second sense). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2nd sense; I prefer the 1st sense "as is", without &lit. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dan Polansky, Google Images suggests that this is more commonly associated with a necklace consisting of multiple pearls than with a pearl pendant. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, we should probably tweak sense one to indicate a string of pearls, or multiple pearls strong together into a loop. bd2412 T 22:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't think that is necessary, many of them didn't form single loops or strings. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, have to Keep due to sense2. Genuine Urban Dictionary material, this. -- · (talk) 07:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

under one's hat

I don't think this merits an entry as under one's hat in the sense of "secret" does not seem to me to occur attestably except in keep under one's hat. DCDuring (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It could be a redirect. DCDuring (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, Change to redirect. -- · (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam-Webster has a "keep under one's hat" entry[12]. “under one's hat”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. finds Merriam-Webster.com, Wiktionary and dictionary.com[13], which in its "hat" entry has "under one's hat" item in its Idioms section. I think both under one's hat and keep under one's hat are candidates for the main entry, and the other one could probably be a redirect. The argument that the only verb used with "under one's hat" is "keep" seems to have some force. Keep or redirect to keep under one's hat; do not delete. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I need a guide

I request undeletion of this phrasebook entry. google books:"I need a guide" phrasebook finds the phrase in multiple phrasebooks. Thus, it should be kept using the lemming heuristic for phrasebook, which says, keep an English phrasebook entry if it is attested and is present in at least three independent phrasebooks. Admission: The heuristic is not part of formal policy, which is in WT:CFI#Idiomaticity, and says "Phrasebook entries are very common expressions that are considered useful to non-native speakers. Although these are included as entries in the dictionary (in the main namespace), they are not usually considered in these terms." --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me note that this never passed a deletion request, from what I can see, so this is the first request for deletion of the entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restore as a typical phrasebook phrase. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restore per Dan Polansky's rationale. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restore - as per reasoning above. John Cross (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I've grown quite sensitive to the lemming argument, but I still think many of these phrasebook entries are useless, including this one. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as useful for a (possibly colonial) phrasebook. Ha. I've expressed my feelings about splitting phrasebook out of mainspace before, but that's orthogonal. Equinox ◑ 06:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

gay pride

This seems SOP — if not to any sense of pride we have so far, then to one we should add, because you can have this kind of pride in a large number of attributes (possibly theoretically unlimited, only pragmatically limited by attestability?); there's "gay pride", "black pride", "straight pride", "white pride", "Irish pride", "trans pride", "pagan pride", etc. - -sche (discuss) 06:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The way it is currently defined it seems SoP, but I'm wondering whether it has some idiomatic sense, such as "a movement seeking equal rights and recognition for LGBTs". Perhaps we should find some quotations illustrating how the term is used? — SGconlaw (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, but is that different from "trans pride", "black pride" and arguably "pagan pride"? It still seems like the set of terms which use the same sense of "pride" as "gay pride" includes many entries, possibly enough to justify just having a sense at pride, I don't know. "White pride" is possibly also a little different from other "prides", in that it often (usually?) denotes/connotes white power/racism (leading to sayings like "good night white pride"), which might be idiomatic, I'm on the fence. - -sche (discuss) 17:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have entries for pride parade, pride march, pride event? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do have an entry for Pride as a specifically-LGBT pride event. Lowercase pride is attestable as an alt form of that, and could be made a subsense of whatever general sense covers these terms. Then the combination of the general sense of "pride" and such an LGBT-specific sense would probably cover most of those, covering general "pride parades" (including ones that happen to be for specific things), LGBT-specific parades that are just called "pride parades", and use with other designators, like "Arab pride parade". (I wouldn't mind redirecting them to the relevant [super-]sense of pride, though.) - -sche (discuss) 17:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. You can definitely have X pride for anything, but this seems to have been one of the earlier ones, or the first one: if we start with web site, and in 50 years there's only site, should we delete web site? Equinox ◑ 06:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Pride" is a sociopolitical movement that can refer to any identity: lesbian pride, bisexual pride, transgender pride, etc. Nicole Sharp (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ghost from one's past

SOP? @Suzukaze-c --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SOP with which sense of ghost? I don't see any fitting sense, hence it doesn't appear to be SOP. -84.161.27.215 20:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't a ghost simply "something that haunts"? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see it as an idiom. -- · (talk) 07:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; even if it's not directly idiomatic, the phrase is highly set. PseudoSkull (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (as a redirect) but move, IMO. Comparing "ghost from his past", "ghost from the past", "specter from the past", "spectre from the past" (specter/spectre "from his past" was too rare to plot), I find that "ghost from the past" is most common, so I think that should be the lemma. (Even if we still want a possessive as the lemma, I think it should be "someone's" since we normally use "one's" as a placeholder for the first person, right? but as those ngrams show, this often refers to other people.) The ngrams also show that the wording is a bit variable, but it does seem idiom-like. - -sche (discuss) 23:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

white supremacy

black supremacy

Arab supremacy

Jewish supremacy

racial supremacy

heterosexual supremacy

white Christian supremacy

To me, these are transparent sums-of-parts, using the same sense of supremacy that's also combined with many other terms: google books:"Caucasian supremacy", google books:"Negro supremacy", google books:"Germanic supremacy", google books:"German supremacy", google books:"straight supremacy", google books:"heterosexual supremacy", google books:"gay supremacy", google books:"Christian supremacy", even combinations, e.g. google books:"white Christian supremacy".
"White", "black" and "Arab supremacy" were kept after an RFD with moderate-to-low participation despite running from late 2012 to early 2014; "Jewish supremacy" failed RFD; "racial supremacy" has apparently never been RFDed, or updated much, since its creation in 2005 with excessively many senses, as discussed in Wiktionary:Tea room/2018/February#racial_supremacy. The others haven't been created yet. (I'm listing them all because presumably they either all merit entries and the redlinks should be restored, or they all merit deletion.)
- -sche (discuss) 05:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These, being short, sound good as titles of Wikipedia articles; that doesn't make them lexical and entryworthy. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There was also European supremacy at one time. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 'em all. -- · (talk) 07:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Got some reasoning but I'm tired. Will share on demand. Equinox ◑ 06:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep white supremacy with the use of lemming heuristic. I feel that especially "white supremacy" is something of a unit, based on the use I heard in U.S. media. And when I look at “white supremacy”, in OneLook Dictionary Search., I see it in multiple dictionaries including Merriam-Webster. The other supremacies appear to be something of snowclones, where "white supremacy" would be the parent of them all. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Sum of parts. Nicole Sharp (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

transitive-verb

We don't do that, right? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do do that, a lot: at-sign, open-book, criminal-law, shoulder-blade, sea-urchin. DTLHS (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to delete these, for reasons discussed at least twice before. There are many of them though; one user (Msh210? someone beginning with M, anyhow) was fond of creating them. Equinox ◑ 03:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's the one who created that entry, in any case. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Still not SOP. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PseudoSkull: How so? Why do you want to keep this if we already have transitive verb? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Per utramque cavernam: Because there's a hyphen, which makes it a different entry. Plus, it's not like it can't be classified as anything. Attributive forms should be considered as lexical as adding plurals, whenever attested, IMO. Also, if we're going to have an RFD discussion like this, we really should be going a step up and having a BP discussion or something to bring a very clear consensus to deleting all or almost all attributive forms of noun phrases. But I really don't see any problem with these entries personally; I've seen them quite a lot across enwikt, so there seems to at least be some consensus for having entries like these. It wouldn't be fair to just go as far as deleting this one and leaving all the rest, or even just this one and the 5 others mentioned above; that is, if they should be deleted. In such a discussion, I'd oppose, but still it's just my recommendation to the other members of this discussion. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"there's a hyphen, which makes it a different entry" is PRECISELY as silly as wanting entries for "dog" and "Dog" because sometimes it's at the start of a sentence. We have had this argument 99 times. Try to keep up. Equinox ◑ 19:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And furthermore the "there are lots of these entries so it isn't fair to delete one" is the same structure of argument as "Hitler killed lots of Jews so it isn't fair to save one". (I SAID STRUCTURE. I'm not a Nazi. See analogy.) That's no argument at all. Equinox ◑ 19:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do we delete alternative spellings in any other cases? AFAICT we only do so for cases where general rules (like, "capialize all Nouns" or "Capitalize the start of sentences.") sometimes result in capitalization, but not in cases where a particular form is capitalized (or spelled with a hyphen) regardless of its position in the sentence, etc... right? Or are there other cases where attested alternative forms (which are not alleged to be uncommon misspellings) are deleted? - -sche (discuss) 20:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that there is not a clear enough consensus to delete these kinds of entries, period. We need to work harder to gather a consensus on these entries as a whole rather than just one or five of them. You don't want one attributive-form entry to be deleted per discussion and one very similar one to be kept per discussion on the same rationales, because of different people signing, etc., right? Yeah... we need a universal consensus for this. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well I would certainly vote for removing these, because I see the process of forming the hyphenated attributive form from the spaced "normal" form as entirely mechanical. There aren't any irregular cases; it's not like the past tense of a verb where you sometimes have historical oddities like "sang", or noun plurals like "children". But I find administrivia incredibly tiresome and I am bad at it. If there is enough consensus to zap these then I assume someone else might set it up. Equinox ◑ 20:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-sche: I don't see how anyone can ingenuously call X an "alternative spelling" of Y when X and Y are the same except for spaces vs. hyphens. It's not spelling! And it's not an "alternative form" in the way that we usually use that, because the hyphenated form has its own specific usage (attributive) that mostly isn't acceptable for the "normal" usage (e.g. object of verb). I may have misunderstood what you are saying but unless we are prioritising Wiktionary templates over the language itself I don't get it. Equinox ◑ 20:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we have a lot of entries like this. msh210 created a lot, but even I've created some. I wouldn't often go out of my way to create them, but if they're attested, I don't see grounds for deleting them; attested alternative forms, unless they are e.g. rare misspellings, are always allowed. The most you could do would be argue that it should say more broadly "alternative form of" instead of "attributive form of", but that seems less informative (unless, in the case of some specific entry, the hyphenated form is usually used in non-attributive ways, meaning it is just an alt form), so I would keep the entry as-is. - -sche (discuss) 18:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How would this specific example be used in a sentence? I think it should be RFV'd at least. DTLHS (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I placed it to WT:RFVE to see whether this is attested in the first place. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found one occurrence in less than fifteen seconds: transitive-verb sentence; I suspect it will be easy to cite. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

transitive-verb pattern. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not so easy to cite after all. This, maybe? Anyway, I actually think it's beside the point. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I suggested, I started a new discussion for most English entries using Template:attributive form of below. I kindly ask that you please focus your RFD attention there. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

action at a distance

SOP. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Per utramque cavernam Can you do me a favor and explain why you think this is SOP? "without touching one another" isn't directly synonymous with "at a distance"; "at a distance" means "far away from" AFAIK. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And so as such, keep. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The meaning is not obvious to most people. In many, if not the vast majority, of usages it's a technical term. -- · (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 08:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes called spooky action at a distance (we also have that entry). Equinox ◑ 01:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's a different concept. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the terms are etymologically related (i.e. one influenced by the other)? PseudoSkull (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, obviously. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Metaknowledge No, not "obviously", because I did not know the context, and this is a dictionary so these things should be made very clear at their entries. For instance, if spooky action at a distance came from action at a distance, the header should say spooky action at a distance rather than spooky action at a distance. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PseudoSkull, indeed it should. I have now edited the page to link it properly. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, more specific than its parts. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 11:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This actually has multiple senses in physics. Nicole Sharp (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All English attributive forms (with hyphens) of noun phrases

See the RFD discussion for transitive-verb above. To see many other examples of entries like this, see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:attributive form of. The discussion refers only to attributive entries that are based on related entries with no hyphen; i.e. transitive verb used attributively is transitive-verb. If a noun phrase is only used attributively, then it does not apply to this discussion.

Some people believe these should be deleted, and some seem to believe they should be kept. However, I believe this separate discussion should be going on instead, since we shouldn't just delete (or keep) a needle in a haystack, but instead we need to gain a consensus about whether or not any of these entries should be kept or deleted. Perhaps this discussion should even be moved/also discussed at the Beer parlour, or maybe should even get its own formal vote, idk. But this is a start, anyway. This discussion could even result in adding to the wording of our criteria for inclusion.

Pinging everyone from the transitive-verb discussion as of the time of this post: @Per utramque cavernam, @DTLHS, @Equinox, @-sche, @Dan Polansky. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, that's my vote for now. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yuk. clothes-maiden, inverted-snobbery, peat-moss and rugby-boot are some crappy entries and should be deleted. The rest may well be equally crappy and deletable. --Otra cuenta105 (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see a justification for deleting these anywhere in our WT:CFI, and I don't see a good reason to add such a ban. In particular, we not only include many alternative forms that are regular / predictable, like -ise/-ize variants, but AFAICT we always allow attested alternative forms that are not perfectly predictable (is there anyone who wants to delete those?) and some terms are sometimes hyphenated and sometimes not, so the idea of including those hyphenated spellings that are attested in non-attributive positions (as we also already do), but not ones attested only in attributive positions, seems weird. Compare my (and others') comments about the specific case of transitive-verb, discussed above. - -sche (discuss) 20:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@-sche I don't see why you've been comparing attributive forms to alternative forms. An alternative form is something like standardize being changed to standardise; a different spelling of the same word. But transitive verb being changed to transitive-verb implies a different usage of the word; a different way that the word is inflected. So, I am confused by your posts on this subject, and I think others are too for this reason. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PseudoSkull, Equinox: I'm sorry I haven't made myself intelligible. What I mean is: there are cases where a hyphen has nothing to do with attributiveness, it's just an alt form, e.g. most or all instances of co-operative, hara-kiri, trans-woman, buck-hoist and non-believer aren't attributive, those are just other spellings of cooperative, harakiri, trans woman ~ transwoman, buck hoist ~ buckhoist, and nonbeliever. And AFAICT, this proposal wouldn't delete those hyphenated entries. It seems silly to me to allow those but ban transitive-verb, especially because, although transitive-verb is mostly attributive, enough citations seem to exist for it to meet CFI as a simple non-attributive {{alternative form of}} (like co-operative etc), so the entry is still going to exist (just with a vaguer definition), unless you want to make a second change to CFI to also ban non-attributive alternative forms that just happen to have hyphens in them. And this will be true of many hyphenated spellings, so we'll still be documenting most of them, just under the less informative definition "alternative form of" (rather than "attributive form of", or what it should perhaps be changed to, "alternative, chiefly attributive, form of") and with citations of non-attributive use that mislead people as to what the main occurrence of them is. That seems silly to me. - -sche (discuss) 19:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whom will this serve, apart from some misguided god of "all words in all languages"? It's a perfectly regular (AFAICT) spelling rule, and I don't see why a dictionary should feel the need to document that; it's not lexical information.

~~Or should we run a bot to create all the possible combinations?~~ --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above does not seem to bear any relation to WT:CFI; in particular, the last question ignores WT:ATTEST. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Please let me strike my second sentence. About the first: diff --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Am inclined to delete. I don't see it as comparable to -ise/-ize because those are variant spellings and not in any way mandated by the grammar. Equinox ◑ 01:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my vote; delete. These are not separate lexical entities, but are a grammatical feature. They are inflected the same way for every noun phrase. Unless someone can convince me that there are exceptions to the grammatical rule of inserting hyphens to use attributively, then go ahead and tell me. Even if that were the case, such an exception would probably be rare enough to merit its own entry without having entries for all the other ones. The pattern is predictable, and a dictionary does not need to document every single case.

Now, to be fair, the grammatical rule to always insert a hyphen when attributively using noun phrases isn't one that seems to be super well-known, in my experience. You'll probably see sources from lots of unprofessional writers that have attributive noun phrase usage in their writings and don't use a hyphen. That's a lot like what I just did in the previous sentence. You see the point, right? So, technically, nouns can attestedly be used either way, though the first is proper. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per -sche: We have the practice of treating the hyphen as significant for the choice of the lemma: we have apple-tree (noun, not attributive form) and apple tree as separate entries. Therefore, transitive-verb is a lemma different from transitive verb. It is predictable, sure, but so are many trivial derivations such as -ness derivations. On a process note, this fits RFD poorly. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This diff is an example of how hyphenated attributive forms have been dealt with differently in other situations. I removed it, since it was still redundant, but an entry is not the only answer. Perhaps the grammatical rule needs to be mentioned somewhere in our appendix or something (and maybe it already is; I'm not all that familiar with the contents of the appendix myself). PseudoSkull (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

osthya

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

rich kid

Sum of parts, I think. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes yes, but not always. A (rich kid) is not necessarily a (rich) + (kid) ("kid who is rich"), rather a privileged and stereo-typically spoiled youngster. The kid isn't rich, his or her parents/grandparents/etc. likely are. The stress is different when pronounced /ˈrɪt͡ʃkɪd/ vs. /rɪt͡ʃ.ˈkɪd/ Leasnam (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can be compared to poor boy, maybe (?) Leasnam (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think rich kid becomes non-SoP just because the kid is not literally rich because the wealth is owned by his or her parents. That seems an unrealistic view of how language works. The kid in question is rich because the parents lavish him or her with material goods. Moreover, I don't think one would use the term to describe a child who is spoiled if he or she wasn't privileged or wealthy. Thus, I'm still not seeing why this isn't SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, SOP. (@Leasnam, I'm not buying into a pronunciation difference. As for poor boy, that term has a 2nd sense of "submarine sandwich"; otherwise it would be SOP too.) -- · (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The stress difference also applies to "cool kid", "bad kid", "good kid"... Equinox ◑ 19:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -@Equinox, Would you like to "buy into" the alternative form rich-kid, which is used synonymously, and also as an attributive ? Leasnam (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't understand why someone would put a hyphen between adjective and noun like that. Equinox ◑ 20:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you prefer, we can label it "US"... Leasnam (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really like your implication! I also don't see why an American would put a hyphen between adjective and noun like that. Equinox ◑ 06:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per Leasnam - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; "rich" is not necessarily all about the numbers in your bank account, and rich child/children/girl/boy/student, etc. all follow the same pattern.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now that you put it this way I can see that we do not need rich boy, rich girl, rich man, etc. Leasnam (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Prosfilaes, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 21:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's

Tagged but not listed. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. I don't know how it's used in English, so I'm not casting any vote yet. Is render unto Caesar better? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think render unto Caesar is better. I doubt that the line is often quoted in full. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It could be an alternative form of render unto Caesar. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I prefer the full version, it makes more sense. It's certainly not gibberish as suggested in the RFD notice (what cheek!). DonnanZ (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An inexperienced puppetmaster trying to play innocent... —suzukaze (t・c) 02:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it's attested, keep it. Whichever form isn't lemmatized can soft- (or hard-) redirect to whichever form is lemmatized. - -sche (discuss) 17:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's attested in millions of bibles, I would have thought. And it doesn't stop there... DonnanZ (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a translation of a Greek phrase (Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι) there are a range of variations in how it is written in English. Here's a Google Ngram of some (constrained by the five word limit in search terms) to consider as alternative formations. The term render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's is the most common. -Stelio (talk) 09:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

implicitedly

This is a very rare error; Ngrams shows it to be somewhere roughly on the order of twenty thousand times less common than "implicitly". (On the other hand, some people might feel that misconstructions (where a morpheme has been added to a word where it does not belong) are more includable than simple misspellings like, say, implicitely. So, discuss.) - -sche (discuss) 18:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - seems to have a long history in Google books - back to 19thC. Enough worthy cites there to satisfy CFI. It's comparative rareness is not really a factor, not if we want to include every word in every language. A usage note would be useful.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However, CFI explicitly (or explicitedly;) says "Rare misspellings should be excluded". - -sche (discuss) 05:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Righto, forgot about that criterion, tho' must have read it before. Change my vote to delete - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 06:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a rare misspelling. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a rare misspelling. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. As -sche said: I wouldn't call that a misspelling but a misformation/misconstruction, and am tempted to count it as a new word. Perhaps {{lb|en|nonstandard}} {{synonym of|lang=en|implicitly}}? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Though I initiated the RFD, I'm tempted to change my position to abstain. Perhaps it's a misspelling by someone assuming /ɪt/~/ɪd/ meant -ed, and not thinking through that adding -ed to -it would make /ɪtɪd/; compare impliced (20 BGC hits), implicedly (2). Even if it's a misconstruction, I'm not sure rare misconstructions are any more includable than misspellings, especially since we delete rare misspellings (intentional uses of a spelling that's wrong, whether or not the user knows it's wrong), not just typos (unintentional uses of a wrong spelling/form, especially identifiable when the author uses the expected spelling elsewhere). Paging through the Books results, ~150 books use "implicitedly", only 6 use "implicitedly" "implicitly", so, the spelling seems to be intentional; but again, we delete even intentional misspellings when they're rare. Bleh. I remain a weak delete at this point. - -sche (discuss) 16:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Delete. DonnanZ (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. The frequency ratio of 20000 provided by -sche above via link to GNV is rather convincing. However, what is not so clear is that this is a misspelling. Indeed, the entry is marked as "Misconstruction". Do we want to keep vanishingly rare but attested misconstructions? For a calibration there is a much better ratio: regardless, (irregardless*600) at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

analysises

A very rare error, about twenty thousand times less common than analyses per Ngrams, hence/but in the same boat as WT:RFD#implicitedly. - -sche (discuss) 18:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reason to keep that I can think of. DonnanZ (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to have a long history in Google books - back to 19thC. Enough worthy cites there to satisfy CFI. It's comparative rareness is not really a factor, not if we want to include every word in every language. A usage note would be useful.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However, CFI explicitly (or explicitedly;) says "Rare misspellings should be excluded". - -sche (discuss) 05:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping my vote with "keep" for this one - seems to have been once used as a legitimate plural. In any case, not a misspelling. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 06:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a rare misspelling. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a rare misspelling. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it seems to have been a genuine rare alternative plural used by native speakers in the 19th century, especially in the US. [14] [15] [16] ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk)  10:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On one hand, that's a fair point. OTOH, paging through Google Books, the number of hits for "analysises" "analyses" seems to closely match the number of hits for "analysises", which is suggestive evidence that "analysises" is mostly something like a typo (an occasional unintentional error by people who also use the expected spelling) rather than an intentional (mis- or alternative-) spelling; most of the hits I get for "analysises" -"analyses" are by Chinese authors (not native English speakers?); and as I noted about #implicitedly, we delete even intentional (i.e. non-typo) misspellings when they're rare. Still, I'm almost persuaded to change my position to abstain. I wonder if we could find spoken examples of this form. - -sche (discuss) 16:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that most of hits from the 20th and 21st century are errors by non-native speakers. For me the question is about when sg. -is, pl. -es became a common type in English. "Analysises" doesn't seem to appear before the 19th century but I get the impression that plurals of "analysis" weren't very common before that either. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk)  14:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. (Although I am the nominator,) I'm changing my position to abstain. (But, to be clear, the RFD discussion should proceed; I don't think it's proper to "withdraw" an RFD that other people have !voted on.) - -sche (discuss) 03:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

accident

The following sense: "(military) An unplanned event that results in injury (including death) or occupational illness to person(s) and/or damage to property, exclusive of injury and/or damage caused by action of an enemy or hostile force." I'm a bit confused how this is distinct, but maybe making the def more concise and adding a quote would make it all clear. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was added by CORNELIUSSEON who apparently based some entries on the definitions in the Dictionary of United States Army Terms. If it is simply a military specialisation of "accident", delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk)  11:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Lingo Bingo Dingo. This is merely an "accident" occurring in the military. bd2412 T 14:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and search and destroy any more like it. - -sche (discuss) 17:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sense deleted. This guy was a real problem. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would have said delete per nom and bd2412. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

magnetic declination

We have a relevant sense at declination, making this SOP. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. As declination has several meanings, I'm inclined to keep this one, but improve its definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep using the lemming heuristic: “magnetic declination”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. includes Merriam-Webster, AHD, and Collins. Admittedly, M-W has ": declination 6", a kind of soft redirect. I think our readers are better served with the definition now provided by SemperBlotto. Incidentally, I seem to have looked this up recently, under "magnetic declination". --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.  This is a very specific term that is not a sum of parts.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

magnetic compass

A compass that is magnetic. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Flowery wording does not stop it from being SOP. - -sche (discuss) 18:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WT:FLOWERY, anyone? Equinox ◑ 21:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can be established that the term "magnetic compass" is older than "compass" in the relevant sense, as the entry implies by saying that "compass" is a shortening of "magnetic compass". If that's the case, then "magnetic compass" passes the WT:JIFFY test. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 22:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - other dictionaries have it. John Cross (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have noted the other dictionaries in the references section.  One sense of "compass" means a magnetic compass. The term 'magnetic compass' functions as a retronym as it distinguishes the magnetic compass from solid state compasses etc. We should accept this just as we accept analogue watch. John Cross (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-02/Allow retronyms John Cross (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the use of lemming heuristic: “magnetic compass”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. includes Merriam-Webster and more. There is also a chance (not certainty) that this could pass WT:JIFFY test mentioned by Mahagaja. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --WikiTiki89 15:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.  Sum of parts for a compass that uses magnetism.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Internet personality

"A person who appears in a reality-based online publication and/or website and who uses the Internet as a virtual stage for the events taking place in his or her life." SoP: there are pop personalities, rock personalities, TV personalities. We have a sense at "personality" that means "celebrity". Equinox ◑ 21:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk)  12:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - -sche (discuss) 17:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. John Cross (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nicole Sharp (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

toneless final syllable variant

This looks SOP and encyclopaedic, not lexical. No idea about the Chinese 重·次輕詞語 (of which it's the English translation) though. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not a translation for 重·次輕詞語, which is also SOP. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 21:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a distinct concept that needs specific definition- the standard wording of wiktionary articles to describe the condition of multiple pronunciations with no meaning change is toneless final syllable variant- expand the pronunciation box at the 聰明 page for an example. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Geographyinitiative: This is not the same as 重·次輕詞語 (though here in Wiktionary it seems to serve a similar function). "toneless final syllable variant" is literally a variant pronunciation in which the final syllable is toneless/neutral tone. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
created a new page at 重·次輕 --Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

connected

Sense "related by marriage or kin". Some rewriting might be in order, but I think this is just a specialised use of the most general sense of "having relationships". —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

true believer

It seems like SOP to me: true (sense 4, also 5?) + believer (“one who believes”). If it is kept, the current senses are probably too narrow. This can also be used for anybody who is enthusiastic or zealous about any belief or proposed action ("a true believer in pivots to video") or holds unfashionable beliefs. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk)  12:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. It sure seems SOP, but it's a set phrase at the very least. When I use it to refer to a certain religious individual, I don't mean that the others don't believe in the religion just as much as he does, but that he's a zealot who can never examine his own beliefs. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sense which pertains to true-believer syndrome seems idiomatic; someone could be a true (senses 4-5: loyal, faithful, genuine) believer in e.g. string theory or the existence of an axis of evil, but shift their view if strong evidence subsequently came to light that it was wrong/impossible; whereas, a "true believer" is defined by not changing their view even in the face of conclusive proof that their view is bogus. So, clean up and keep sense 2. But sense 1 is just an &lit. - -sche (discuss) 19:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep using lemming heuristic: “true believer”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. shows this is in Merriam-Webster. I think substantive arguments can be made as well, but the point of lemming heuristic is to spare us the effort. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
&lit sense 1, keep sense 2. PseudoSkull (talk) 07:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan River

For the same reason that we don't have Nile River or Amazon River — it's covered at Jordan. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 08:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, Brits would say River Jordan, River Nile, River Amazon, River Thames etc. I think the contributor is an Aussie, and the British way doesn't apply in Australia and NZ. There are times when River has to be included. I will abstain. DonnanZ (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep. DonnanZ (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 12:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but do something about the translations first. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. The capitalized River suggests it is part of the name. Compare to New York City and see Talk:New York City. Geographic names that contain their entity type in the name include Hudson River, Cooper Creek, Lake Ontario, Atlantic Ocean, Adriatic Sea, Chesapeake Bay, Cape Horn, Mount Everest, Longs Peak, Death Valley, Copper Canyon, Red River Gorge, Mexico City, New York City, Cape Town, New York State, Main Street, Grant Avenue, Jack Kerouac Alley, Leicester Square, Piccadilly Circus, and Abbey Road. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting point, looking through my Master Atlas of Greater London I can find the River Thames spelt in full, as well as River Colne, River Crane, River Brent, River Lea or Lee, River Darent, River Wandle, River Mole and River Wey (some of them are in neighbouring counties). DonnanZ (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly in the Road Atlas of New Zealand I find the Waiau River, Aparima River, Oreti (New) River and Mataura River, and that's only the main rivers in Southland. DonnanZ (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Around here, there is a city named Mount Charleston, but fussy mountaineers will remind you the mountain is Charleston Peak. It can be pedantic, but the name of something often requires that descriptor.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Like calling Mount Cook or the Cook Islands just Cook. I think we tend to shorten river names because of the SoP bogey (the creation of red links can also be a factor), and they are also shortened in spoken and written language: "The Thames is tidal up to Teddington Lock", conversely "Mataura is situated on the Mataura River". DonnanZ (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion of brush one's teeth

The deletion discussion for this was really in comb one's hair, but not many comments were made on this entry specifically. The reason I disagree with this particular entry's deletion is because "brush one's teeth" always implies the use of both a toothbrush and toothpaste, without it saying either of these things in the idiom. Besides just its idiomaticity, the amount of usefulness of this verb-phrase for translation purposes is quite massive. If you pick apart brush + one's + teeth, you could guess that that could mean brushing it with anything, such as a hairbrush, and there's not even an implication of using any antiseptic either, which would be the toothpaste, so you're left assuming that to brush your teeth, you use a hairbrush and nothing else. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, some people brush their teeth with water only, or with a chewstick. Equinox ◑ 22:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]@Equinox Then maybe I'm just too used to the Western world. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could an entry say "especially with a toothbrush and toothpaste."? PseudoSkull (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should have it as a translation target at least. Very important to learners of foreign languages IMO, where the phrase is not always translated literally. Wyang (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restore. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The translation target reasoning seems applicable here (for once!). For example, Persian مسواک زدن (mesvâk zadan, “to brush one's teeth”, literally “to hit the toothbrush”). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in Vietnamese you hit your teeth instead: đánh răng (literally “to beat the teeth”). :) Wyang (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Μετάknowledge has provided a link to the deletion in Talk:brush one's teeth. Should comb one's hair also be used as a "translation target"? I have restored and edited brush one's teeth with some translations for now and added to Category:English non-idiomatic translation targets. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restore as a translation hub (translation target), per Persian example of Metaknowledge, per Vietnamese example of Wyang, and per Czech "čistit zuby" (clean teeth) and Russian "чи́стить зу́бы". The entry could be more palatable to some if it contained a label "translation hub"; I prefer translation hubs to have normal definitions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan Polansky I don't think this particular term is fully SOP in English though, since it as a term implies a lot in many cultures. The methods Equinox mentioned for brushing one's teeth are ones I've never heard of, as a person living in the US. My dentist would kill me (metaphorical) if I told him I only brushed my teeth with water. I think it's one of those borderline SOP cases, but still, I think it should be fully kept, and not specifically designated a translation hub. Normal entries get translations anyway. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I believe this is idiomatic, although it's a little weak because clean one's teeth is also used. Ƿidsiþ 18:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion of comb one's hair

Can this have a similar translation target treatment to the above? It may be even more idiomatic in some languages, cf Russian, расчёсываться impf (rasčósyvatʹsja), расчеса́ться pf (rasčesátʹsja), German sich kämmen but this can possibly go to comb#Verb. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a fit translation for Czech učesat se; and Russian is mentioned above. But I am not sure. Can you say "I have to comb" and mean "I have to comb my hair" by it? Does at least "I have to comb my hair" sound idiomatic, something one would say once in a while? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

car wheel

Per Talk:motorcycle wheel. It's been around since 2006 though and has 2 senses. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd def can be compared to wagon wheel in British railway terminology. DonnanZ (talk) 12:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as SOP; I don't see any redeeming qualities. There are two senses matching this sum of parts term, depending on which "car" you mean, but that does not make it any less SOP. “car wheel”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. does not find any of the dictionaries which we like to follow in a lemming manner. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - but, that said, in the past it was decided car door should be kept.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

bond for general purposes

Not actually a set term in legalese. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears in some law dictionaries.  I have added these to citations.  John Cross (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC) [typos corrected subsequently.][reply]

oath

Sense: "(law) An affirmation of the truth of a statement." The same as sense 1, in a legal situation. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

voice call sign

A call sign that uses the voice. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

international call sign

A call sign that's international. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

visual call sign

A call sign that's visual. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to visualise a visual call sign, but I think it can be deleted. DonnanZ (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

tidal current

A current that's tidal. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The def in the entry is OK. I would keep this. DonnanZ (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you voting keep because the def in the entry is correct? How is that relevant? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am voting "keep" because it should be kept, and I may be able to find a translation or two. DonnanZ (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because it should be deleted. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, that is terribly negative, why don't you add some translations like I have? It is no more SOP than ocean current and other terms at tidal. In any case, I think Metaknowledge was targeting entries created by one particular user, but it doesn't mean it should be deleted. DonnanZ (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep using the lemming heuristic; is in Merriam-Webster[17]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

special thanks

This... isn't even a good reflection of how it's used. But really, it's SOP. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See here, for instance. It's also commonly used in another community I'm involved in and used in the way I defined it. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also have seen "special thanks" be used in books to thank people like family members. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, SOP. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 09:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it does seem to be just thanks that are special, i.e. above/beyond the norm. As an aside I think it should be a noun rather than an intj. Equinox ◑ 12:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While it may be SOP in nature, I added it because it seems to only be used this way in particular situations. I would be interested to see whether or not "special thanks" can be reworded in those same situations mentioned in the def. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Means nothing more than the sum of its parts. ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

year-end countdown

tagged not listed --Otra cuenta105 (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with fire. I don't deny that "year-end countdowns" are a thing, but it's transparently SoP, like having a "late-Friday coffee" or something. Equinox ◑ 06:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's just an "extended" usage of the word countdown to mean a radio program that occurs as or during a countdown. Additionally, you could also reword this in a lot of different ways, "end-of-the-year countdown", "countdown to the end of the year", etc. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Equinox. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The definition in the entry is over-specific. - -sche (discuss) 17:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (with regret). John Cross (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

cool grey

tagged not listed --Otra cuenta105 (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Cool" sense 2 sort of covers this but might be improvable. We do have quite a few SOP colour entries, because IIRC they were added wholesale from lists of standard "Web colours". Equinox ◑ 14:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka step

tagged not listed --Otra cuenta105 (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in the absence of any reason to delete. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 15:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the argument is that it's SOP as a step at which one goes "eureka!"; but we also have eureka moment, so I abstain for now (although maybe the variability of the phrase indicates that no one version is idiomatic). The lemma should probably be lowercase like that entry, though. - -sche (discuss) 04:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The SOPpiness would perhaps be easier to spot if it were eureka step, but capitalized Eureka doesn't have anything to help me understand what a Eureka step is. Nevertheless, I still think eureka + step isn't sufficient to explain what a eureka step is. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 10:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a mistake for eureka moment to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's also eureka effect. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

plus size model

This seems SOP to me, though I notice fashion model (to which I was going to compare it) also has an entry. OTOH, it is just a model who is plus size and hence wears plus size clothes. It doesn't have to be a clothing model, either, AFAICT (despite the current definition); it can be a model for photography who is plus size. - -sche (discuss) 04:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a similar SoP phrase would be "BBW model". Equinox ◑ 19:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.  This is not even spelled correctly, it should be "plus-size (plus-sized) model."  Nicole Sharp (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stuck in traffic

Defined as a verb (easily fixed), and SOP? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being stuck in traffic doesn't mean that you're stuck + in + traffic. It is an idiom that specifically means you're delayed in a traffic jam. Reference: https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/stuck+in+traffic (On another note, is this US-only?) PseudoSkull (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not a verb. Some quotations would be nice. DonnanZ (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Donnanz no I defined it as a verb by mistake. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Try as I may, I don't see what else it could mean. It looks like a common collocation at best. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems SoP to me. (Anyone else remember the infant school/"kindergarten" thing where you'd be in a queue, e.g. waiting for dinner, with a girl each side, and be told that you were "trapped in girls"?) Equinox ◑ 20:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More: you can be "held up in traffic" or "spend an hour in traffic". PseudoSkull: "maybe there should be a sense meaning when there's an overabundant amount of vehicles on the road (you get the idea)". Me: "Not necessarily. If there wasn't much of it then you wouldn't be stuck in it! Like: I slipped on jam [jelly] suggests jam is on the floor but that isn't a definition." Equinox ◑ 20:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Stuck in traffic" can also mean being in a slow-moving queue of traffic, so when is a traffic jam not a traffic jam? DonnanZ (talk) 11:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...When it's ajar? Equinox ◑ 19:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Hundreds of jam jars stuck in traffic... DonnanZ (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Our guest called to say she's stuck on the 405, so we'll have to start without her." Chuck Entz (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 04:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

baby show

kid show/kid's showadult show

I can't believe I was the one who made this (a long time ago). Seems pretty SOP, you could deduce this to "a show for babies", "a show for adults", etc. Compare adult comedy, adult cartoon, etc. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. When I saw the title of this thread, I figured a baby show was like a dog show (should that be made blue?) but with babies instead of dogs. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 21:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What about conformation show? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What are you like? RFDing your own entries? Like Mahagaja, I thought a baby show is a beauty contest for babies. You never listed them as derived terms, but TV-related ones are talk show, television show or TV show. DonnanZ (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Donnanz People change over time. Some of those entries I made bordering on 4 years ago aren't ones I'd necessarily agree with today, esp. since at the time I was fairly new to the project. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, OK. I try to make my entries "stick", only one deleted so far, touch wood.... You can pass your critical eye over tidal flat. DonnanZ (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

-ogony

Useless; we can use the -o- interfix + -gony when necessary. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A {{suffixsee}} test doesn't reveal any entries using it. I think it can be deleted. DonnanZ (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of a discussion on de.Wikt about whether the verb suffix -ieren should have an entry, or just be considered -ier + -en. (de.Wikt decided "no", we've so far decided "yes" in that partcular case.) I wonder if it would be useful to make this into a hard or soft redirect to "-gony". I only see an underwhelming two books mentioning it as a suffix, both by a Helen Buss Mitchell. - -sche (discuss) 20:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@-sche: I personally think we aren't segmenting enough, and give a wrong picture of the variety of derivational processes. Does English really have 700 different suffixes?
For instance, I'm not fond of "semantic" suffixes (things like -κλῆς (-klês)), and think we should stick as much as possible to grammatical/morphological suffixes (which serve to switch from one POS to another, basically); we should make heavier use of composition instead. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to -gony. - -sche (discuss) 18:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

kit

The adjective. DonnanZ (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

strike while the iron is hot

A proverb defined as “(imperative, idiomatic) Take advantage of opportunity.”
Redundant to the definition given under the verb POS. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the proverb sense is redundant to the second (nonliteral) verb sense, so delete. - -sche (discuss) 15:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a duplicate. Is it a proverb anyway, or just an idiom? DonnanZ (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since this seems uncontroversial (since no actual sense information is being removed, it all being present in the verb section) I've gone ahead and removed the "proverb" section. - -sche (discuss) 18:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

silk

The adjective is attributive use of the noun. I would have thought the true adjective is silken (silky is a wee bit different). DonnanZ (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases like this, I would be inclined to agree...but silk as in a silk blouse seems like an adjective to me. You can say another blouse is more silk or less silk (that may or not prove anything though). It may derive from an adjective in Middle English (silk, silke) and therefore warrant its own Etym header. Leasnam (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the new etym header to the page. Leasnam (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the fence. I can't find any clearly adjectival use in English. If this is indeed derived from a Middle English adjective, it would be evidence that the adjective section might merit inclusion under a "jiffy"-like "aliquot" rationale. But the Middle English adjective is homographic to and supposedly derived from the noun, which makes the case less convincing. OTOH, although Merriam-Webster has it only as a "noun, often attributive", Dictionary.com does have an adjective section, which is a "lemming" rationale for inclusion. The fact that other languages have adjectives for this means it would be useful (in the general case) to have an adjective section to put them in, but in this particular case they can go in silken regardless of whether or not silk has an adjective section. Meh. Weak keep. - -sche (discuss) 20:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are more concerned with current usage than with possible etymology. I would say a silk shirt, blouse, dress or handkerchief is made of silk (or artificial silk); I'm not sure about making a silk purse from a sow's ear! DonnanZ (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

baby on board

Not lexical, doesn't make sense as a translation target. DTLHS (talk) 05:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno about translations, but the wp article is interesting. DonnanZ (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the proponent. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this also used, idiomatically, to refer to being pregnant? bd2412 T 21:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know- any evidence? DTLHS (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is, from Wikipedia: "Following popular request and trials in 2005,  Transport for London (TfL) began issuing badges with the TfL logo and the words "Baby on board!" to pregnant women travelling on the London Underground, to help other passengers identify pregnant commuters who would like to be offered a seat." Sorry, forgot to sign. DonnanZ (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a cite - 2016, Victoria Pade, A Camden's Baby Secret: "And even if there wasn't a baby on board, I'd still be here telling you this and asking you to give me another chance". bd2412 T 22:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt the existence of that sense, but I don't see it as idiomatic; it's simply a metaphoric use. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If so, it is not a transparent metaphor. If I say someone "has a baby", the presumption is that they have given birth to a child. If I say someone "has a baby on board", the addition of "on board" alone changes the meaning to indicate a current pregnancy, which is also not the sense of a vehicle having a baby on board. bd2412 T 17:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I didn't understand a word of what you just wrote.
on board = aboard ≈ inside. "She has a baby on board" = "she has a baby inside [her]". I don't see what's not transparent about it. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just imagine you're heavily pregnant carrying a baby, if that's possible. You would feel the weight and definitely know you had something "on board". DonnanZ (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, are you answering to me or to BD2412? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You, it's indented after your comment. DonnanZ (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"On board" is not generally used to mean inside with respect to a living body. Would you refer to kidneys or a liver as being "on board"? bd2412 T 14:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Used in the same jocular way as "baby on board" seems to me to be employed, I wouldn't find it terribly shocking. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not just because it's very SOP, but because it's pretty specifically on signs. Signs aren't things we can or should cite, and most reference to this phrase as the definition is written would be mentioning the content of the signs. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.  Pretty obvious sum of parts.  "Dog on board," etc.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tending towards Keep here ... maybe. Foremost, there is the metaphorical use "She has a baby on board" = she is pregnant. Was easy to find cites for this. But perhaps that should best be entered as "have a baby on board" - for which the present info about the car sign should be included in the etymology. As for the car sign, well, perhaps an entry for "on board" would cover all the possible variants (I found "dog on board", "cat on board", "camel on board", "Mickey/Minnie on board", ... but did not find "gecko on board", "fish on board", unsurprisingly). - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

dustbowl

“The central region of the United States during the 1930s.” and “The 1930s period.”

I don’t think these are common nouns. Dust Bowl has both senses (and they are better written there). — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no need to have these, even as altform defs. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.  There is a distinct difference between "a dustbowl" and "the dustbowl."  Though it would be less ambiguous if capitalized as Dustbowl.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

light roller

heavy roller

SOP: sense 3 of roller, "large rolling device used to flatten the surface of the pitch". These were RFDed ten years ago and kept; one person suggested "they name specific physical items": but as can be seen from the two pictures I just added to "roller" and more you can see if you Google "cricket"+"light roller" and "cricket"+"heavy roller", rollers actually come in a variety of designs, including ones that are hand-pushed and ones than are driven like steamrollers, and the only consistent distinction between the light and heavy roller I see is that the light one is lighter than the heavy one. - -sche (discuss) 22:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. They have pretty specific meanings in cricket. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought. Cricket is a game of tactics, and which roller is used depends on circumstances. I would imagine it would only be the larger county cricket grounds that have a choice of rollers, and smaller village and town grounds would have only one (looking at those images). I must have a look on my local cricket green next time I go past it. DonnanZ (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

mortality rate

The rate of mortality. Note that death rate can serve as a suitable translation target (and is protected by COALMINE, unlike mortality rate). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about fertility rate? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And then there's interest rate.  Strangely enough, mortality rate is treated as the main entry, not death rate. Either way they are synonyms, and I would keep both. DonnanZ (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For context, coordinate terms used in the insurance industry for transitions from one policy state to another include divorce rate, lapse rate, morbidity rate, PUP rate, recovery rate, remarriage rate, retirement rate, surrender rate. I suppose the wider question is, given a term for an activity, should we also have an entry for activity rate (which seems like a sum of parts construction)? Should it depend on whether it can be attested or not (PUP rate may be hard to attest outside of internal company documentation, and lapse rate gets drowned out by geographical texts, but the others are probably easy to cite)? Should it depend on whether we have translations of the term into other languages (where the translated terms are themselves not SOP)? I'm neutral on this question, and happy to abide by site policy. -Stelio (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Note that mortality also has the exact same sense and its translations. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 12:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You could have a rate for lots of things. Nothing particularly special about this one over the others either. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk)  11:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Conquest

Encyclopaedic, not lexical; SOP. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as I've only seen this capitalisation used in reference to the conquest of England. There was also a Norman conquest of Sicily, but "Norman Conquest" out of context would never refer to it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong there, it appears in at least three dictionaries. Keep. DonnanZ (talk) 09:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, striking this out. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I'm still not entirely convinced this is lexical, but the lemming argument is good enough for me here. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 09:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the capitalized form since it is a specific sense, but delete any lowercase form of Norman conquest or Norman invasion as a sum of parts.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

global player

SoP from player "significant participant": we also find "international player", "major player in the industry" etc. The "production/distribution" detail in the definition seems to make it overly narrow. Equinox ◑ 19:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards keep. Can it be regarded as a catchphrase or idiom? DonnanZ (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, SOP, not lexicalised. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk)  11:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Estonian

SOP; not dictionary material. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about standard language and the related terms there like Standard German? -84.161.29.236 21:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep standard language, delete Standard German and the others. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 86.138.231.153 00:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

North Estonian

SOP; not dictionary material. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nicole Sharp. DonnanZ (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about several terms in Category:en:Languages like Algerian Arabic, Central Kurdish, Eastern Armenian, East Central German? -84.161.29.236 22:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.  "North Estonian" (noun) as the name of a specific dialect group of Estonian is not a sum of parts, since it is a distinct sense from "North Estonian" (adjective) to refer to anything from the northern parts of Estonia.  Someone can be in southern Estonia and still speak North Estonian, which needs a specific linguistic definition.  Compare for example Southern American English or Appalachian English as not being a sum of parts either (i.e. Appalachian English is not simply any kind of English spoken in Appalachia, but is rather a specific dialect of English from Appalachia).  Nicole Sharp (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I think I've been hasty on that one. I'll abstain for now (verging on keep). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 86.138.231.153 00:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

mechanical mouse

SOP. @John Cross, maybe hold off on creating entries relating to your upcoming vote, especially ones that other people say probably shouldn't have entries... —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Aside from the vote that is currently in place about retronyms, let's talk about this entry as if that doesn't exist. Can someone please explain the lexical nature of this lemma? Is it deducible from its parts (i.e. mechanical + mouse)? The current definition (as of the time of this post) says "A pointing device which uses a ball to detect movement." That's the part that's leaning me right now towards a keep vote, since no sense at mechanical very specifically covers the usage of a ball to detect movement (as I expected). Does what is now called a mechanical mouse specifically and only include this feature, as suggests the current definition (as I've loosely gathered from my bit of reading up on the topic)? If so, I will vote keep (later), since this can't be assumed just by looking at the two words mechanical and mouse as fit together in that order. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A mechanical mouse is just a mouse operated through mechanical means. The details of what these means are will vary from one contraption to the other, but this has nothing to do with lexicography; "mechanical" doesn't have ten thousands different senses... --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I first thought "clockwork mouse", but reading the entry more closely it dawned on me, it's a computer mouse... DonnanZ (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy contributing to Wiktionary and I think that the community behind the site matters. With that in mind, I will refrain from creating new entries related to the vote for the remainder of the month.  I thought that the mechanical mouse entry would be acceptable irrespective of the retronym vote as it appears to satisfy the so-called Lemming test - the term appears in specialised dictionaries. John Cross (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The formulation "Terms with little of their own merit for inclusion except that they have entries in specialized dictionaries" (italics mine) is wrong as per Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/January#Proposal: Use Lemming principle to speed RfDs. So you have been mislead. This discussion allows general, not specialized, dictionaries to be used, as per "Initially, I would suggest that we include only general monolingual dictionaries and exclude idiom dictionaries, phrasebooks, technical glossaries, and WordNet." I have edited Wiktionary:Idioms that survived RFD to correct the issue, and it now says "Terms with little of their own merit for inclusion except that they have entries in general monolingual dictionaries." --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I was misled.  I expect others are confused also.  There seem to be two versions of the Lemming Test (A) that allows for specialised dictionaries and possibly even prefers them to general dictionaries and (B) that only allows general monolingual dictionaries.  This is all before my time but looking back I can see that in September 2007 there was an 'if your dictionaries jumped off a cliff test' that refers to specialised dictionaries and predates the lemming 'general dictionaries' vote in January 2014 by about six years.  [18] See also talk pages of technological unemployment (discussion references "Dictionary of Business Terms" and of "The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy") and genuine issue of material fact (discussion references Black's law dictionary). There does seem to be some precedent for the approach I have taken but it is not as solid as I thought based on reading Wiktionary:Idioms that survived RFD. John Cross (talk) 07:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the interim. I think the vote starts tomorrow, and wannabe deletionists should hold off RFDing any more SoP entries for the time being. DonnanZ (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clarify community policy.  The main aim of the Lemming Test seems to me to be reducing the need for long debates/detailed analysis - clarity is essential to achieving that.  John Cross (talk) 07:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Social Health Education

I sent this to RFD, because I'm more leaning towards delete than keep on this one, but...this entry just confuses me. Do we really need an entry for this? And, according to the Wikipedia article, this isn't even a common form; it at least usually has a comma. If this does get kept, the entry's titling needs some serious cleanup to say the least. PseudoSkull (talk) 08:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only opinion I have at the moment is it shouldn't be capitalised. DonnanZ (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, when I was at school it was PSE; the health bit is new (lol obesity epidemic). I think move to RFV if you doubt the commonness of the form. We have plenty of other set-phrase subjects like gender studies. Equinox ◑ 19:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

electroshock weapon

electroshock + weapon. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really want to open the batting here, but is that a reason? DonnanZ (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. Delete. Transparently SOP. bd2412 T 14:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course I disagree. You shouldn't think that no thought was put into this entry. Not only is it not obvious at electroshock, it is a collective term for this type of weapon, and can be regarded as a synonym also. If you think this doesn't qualify for an entry, nor does electroshock therapy, in fact even less so. DonnanZ (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any weapon using electric shock is an electroshock weapon, but electroshock therapy is specifically applied to the brain, and specifically to treat depression. Equinox ◑ 19:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't made clear that electroshock means electric shock, that is left to the user to fathom out, whether it's used in therapy applied to the brain or in a weapon. At least this entry helps do that. And electroconvulsive therapy refers to an electric current, not electric shock, even if it's a shock to the brain. I wonder why the name was changed? To sound less threatening? That doesn't apply to the weapon of course, weapons are meant to be threatening. DonnanZ (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, our entry on electroshock was deficient. I've added the sense "an electric shock". - -sche (discuss) 20:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have put some more work into this, and am voting keep. DonnanZ (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. DTLHS (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk)  11:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strange vote, I'm tempted to RFD lowpriced. DonnanZ (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

electroshock therapy

Not tagged. It should be considered alongside electroshock weapon above. Deletion is not the aim, so I'm voting keep. DonnanZ (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But I can always reverse this decision, and tag it. DonnanZ (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. DTLHS (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one reason to do so is the lemming heuristic. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk)  11:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

group communication

SOP. DTLHS (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether it's entry-worthy or not. Maybe some quotes would help. DonnanZ (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the proponent. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk)  11:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

right for the wrong reasons

Along with right for the wrong reason. PseudoSkull, I think you're pushing the limits in the wrong way. These sorts of things are just not lexical, and very SOPpy. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete all upon author request. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

in two days

This seems redundant to both day after tomorrow#Adverb and overmorrow. I suggest redirecting it to the first of those pages (or the second, I don't care). (The reason for redirecting is that we also have in three days, so it makes sense to keep a redirect of the same form for this concept.) - -sche (discuss) 18:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have never ever heard overmorrow being used. Maybe I'm not old enough. DonnanZ (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's just always been very rare (Google's Ngram Viewer can't even plot it). - -sche (discuss) 04:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to day after tomorrow. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

gay couple

Currently a translation-only entry, created by @Daniel Carrero. I don't see many translations here that are not either slang (and therefore poor translations of the entry) or easily interpretable compounds. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A slang translation is better than nothing. In countries with low LGBT visibility, these terms will probably eventually enter the mainstream lexicon. Anyway, two bisexual men in a relationship can still be called a gay couple. It's an idiomatic term actually. See gay bar, gay marriage, etc. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tooironic. But I believe it's not actually idiomatic. The entry gay has this sense: "Being between two people of the same gender or the same sex, especially between two men." Examples given: gay marriage, gay weddings, gay sex, gay acts (?). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Other possible examples of that sense: gay kiss, gay love, gay romance, gay love story, gay relationship... Still, as said, keep gay couple as a translation-only entry. This is comparable to married couple. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not, at least with the current state of the entry. married couple has translations like 부부 (bubu) that justify it being a translation target. I would change my mind on this entry if it had several translations of that type. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@People who want to keep this entry: should straight couple also have an entry? - -sche (discuss) 04:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Or lesbian couple. I will abstain as I regard the whole concept of being gay (especially men) as rather disgusting. DonnanZ (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless more idiomatic translations like the Chinese ones are forthcoming. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 12:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.  This is clearly a sum of parts.  Otherwise we will need heterosexual couple, lesbian couple, etc.  Translations for "gay couple" and other such LGBT terms and phrases should instead be listed in an LGBT phrasebook.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also nominated "married couple" and "husband and wife" for deletion on the same grounds.  Translations for all of these terms would best be placed inside Wiktionary:Relationships Phrasebook, which can include common phrases and terms for human sexual and romantic relationships (including LGBT, etc. relationships).  Nicole Sharp (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / redirect to "married couple" (for the benefit of anyone looking to add translations). I will reconsider if more idiomatic translations come out, but still lean towards deletion because if this and/or husband and wife/man and wife (discussed below) is deleted, the translations can go in [[married couple]] with a {{qualifier}} IMO. - -sche (discuss) 19:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, SOP and I'm not convinced that it'll be a useful translation hub. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appendix:Relationships

I propose that all of the current definitions and translations for the sum-of-parts articles gay couple, married couple, husband and wife, etc. be ported into a new page, Appendix:Relationships, and the sum-of-parts entries be deleted from mainspace.  This can act as the translation hub needed for the many terms used to describe human sexual and romantic relationships around the world, not all of which may be valid as mainspace entries.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

married couple

Delete as sum of parts, per discussion for gay couple.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would keep this, if not just for the translations. A gay couple may or may not be a married couple of course, which is why the entry doesn't say it's a man and woman as a married couple (but it normally is). DonnanZ (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a translation hub. In particular, I think this can also house {{qualifier}}-ed translations that mean "gay couple" or "straight couple"/"husband and wife" if either of those entries is deleted. - -sche (discuss) 15:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It passes the lemming test anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Translation hub" seems a poor excuse to keep a sum-of-parts entry, unless there is a specific Wiktionary policy for this.  There are a lot of non-English terms that do not translate directly into English, and would require sum-of-parts entries like this.  A word translating into English as "married couple" could also presumably be translated as "married pair," "couple who is married," etc., all of which can be defined using the individual parts, without needing a new English Wiktionary entry.  Such translations are best organized instead in a Wiktionary multilingual phrasebook of terms for relationships.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that something should be kept as a "translation target" or "translation hub" is moderately often encountered at RFD in cases where something is a single word or unexpected phrase in a lot of languages, especially ones which would not otherwise use single words for sum-of-parts compounds. There was some support for adding it to CFI, but as far as I recall there's no overarching policy one way or the other and the community makes case-by-case decisions. (I don't always agree with everything that's kept, but I imagine other people don't always agree with everything that's deleted, c'est la vie.) Dan Polansky can probably say more about it. - -sche (discuss) 16:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, I would support this as Wiktionary policy, except that in highly synthetic languages (such as German or Nahuatl), there are very large number of one-word terms that would cause a very large number of unnecessary English terms being added.  I never liked Wiktionary:SOP in the first place though.  The more inclusive the better in my opinion, but consistency is important.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If married couple is a valid entry, then we also need to add unmarried couple.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do we, though, or is that a slippery slope fallacy? Is it as common a phrase and does it have as many idiomatic translations? - -sche (discuss) 16:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would be needed both as an antonym, and also as a synonymous term for such phrases as "living in sin."  However, I propose that all of these sum-of-parts terms just be ported into Appendix:Relationships instead.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are many idiomatic terms whose antonyms are SOP, and can be listed (in married couple) as "unmarried couple" without having an entry. AFAICT languages are less likely to have idiomatic translations for "unmarried couple" than "married couple", and the term is less set, so it has less merit and we needn't slide down any slopes towards it. - -sche (discuss) 18:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The translation argument is imo important. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

husband and wife

Sum of parts, per discussion for gay couple.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This has been RFDed twice before. Arguments previously made for it: it's a set phrase (fixed order), it's one word in a lot of Asian languages (so it's a translation target/hub), it doesn't refer to a husband and (somebody else's) wife, but rather a married couple, but it is a more frequent term (see Ngrams) and also a semantically different term from "married couple". Arguments previously made against it: despite setness it is not an idiom; the ordering is cultural, not necessarily linguistic; translations can go in [[married couple]] (with a qualifier to note if they're restricted to an opposite-sex married couple). - -sche (discuss) 15:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the translations look like they would fit better in [[married couple]] because they seem to literally mean that. The Czech one apparently means "husbands" but apparently idiomatically means either a man and wife (quite unexpected and hence a useful translation if accurate!) or two (gay) married husbands (which IMO would make the whole thing a great {{qualifier}}ed translation in [[married couple]]). - -sche (discuss) 15:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right, although the literal translation of Czech manželé is "husbands", it is much more often used in the sense "husband and wife" or "married couple". --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can say the same thing about husband and husband, wife and wife, etc. though.  Are the two husbands married to each other, or is it just two husbands not married to each other?  This is entirely from context, and they do not necessitate their own dictionary definitions.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that you will then need to create additional entries such as husband and wife and wife for polygamist marriages.  Clearly a sum of parts.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, most of the arguments don't extend to "husband and husband", which is about 2000 times rarer than "husband and wife" and used going back to the 1800s at nearly the same frequency as in the present day, which strongly suggests it's usually not a set term for a married same-sex couple but rather a chance instance of "[...husband] | [and husband (to, etc)...]" (indeed, looking at the books, they are strings like "relations of wife to husband and husband to wife are expounded..."). ("Wife and wife" is similar; see Ngrams.) It also remains to be demonstrated that the arguments about translations would apply to "husband and husband". However, I see no reason not to redirect husband and husband and wife and wife to gay couple if that entry is kept (and to redirect straight couple to this entry if it is kept). Your argument about husband and wife and wife is a clearly slippery slope fallacy; checking now, I don't even see enough hits to think that it would meet WT:ATTEST. - -sche (discuss) 16:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, these kinds of arguments based on usage are very politically sensitive.  "Husband and husband," "wife and wife," etc. would of course be rare in jurisdictions where this is or was illegal (including the USA until recently).  A quick Google Search though clearly shows these terms in use in the same context as "husband and wife."  Even so, as a minority, there are less LGBT people than there are cisheterosexual people, so such terms will always be used less than their heteronormative equivalents.  But attempting to exclude LGBT terms because they are less popular is a discrimination that cannot be tolerated on Wiktionary.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that wife and wife refers to a lesbian couple (not a gay couple) who are also a married couple.  I say to delete all of these terms as sums of parts.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With three RFDs in just on two years this must be breaking a record, I voted "keep" last time and I'm voting keep again. I think it needs protection against further RFDs if it survives yet again. As most users should know, I am quite liberal regarding SoP terms, and there's many I would like to create, but I'm already in trouble with electroshock weapon. However I do not see the need for other entries that Nicole mentioned, which strike me as arguments for the sake of it. I think an entry husband and wife is quite sufficient. Funnily enough Oxford has an entry for husband-and-wife as an adjective, which we don't have. DonnanZ (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is not a sum of parts, because there are many many people who are husbands or wives and they still do not make husband and wife relationship together. The translation argument is imo also important. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the arguments in favour of it, above, including light idiomaticity, translation target-ness, and the lemming argument (Merriam-Webster has it). (And if gay couple passes, create a hard direct from straight couple to this entry, for the sake of anyone looking to add translations.) Incidentally, Cambridge has "as husband as wife" defined as "in the manner of..." an opposite sex couple, presumably to cover "lived|behaved as husband and wife" which however seems transparent. - -sche (discuss) 19:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

man and wife

Presumably this should be discussed alongside husband and wife, above. I've added trans-see so we don't end up with translations at both. One could hard- or soft- redirect to the other (or they could both, along with [[straight couple]], redirect to [[married couple]], where any opposite-sex-specific translations can have {{qualifier}}s). - -sche (discuss) 15:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't nominate this one due to the use of "man" to mean "husband," so I wouldn't view that as a sum of parts (since "man and wife" is not a man and a wife).  I am not sure what terms are used for gay marriage ceremonies, e.g. if man and man (to mean husband and husband) should also be added.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (as nominator — i just nominated the term because I think it should probably be discussed alongside husband and wife), on the grounds that it's at least as idiomatic as "husband and wife" if not more so, and that entry has been repeatedly kept. - -sche (discuss) 19:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason as "husband and wife", it is idomatic. I am a man, my female neighbour is married, so she is a wife. Despite this we are not "man and wife". --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

personal data

All translations are literal, including Finnish (which is written as a single word). Don't think it is a good translation target.--Zcreator alt (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I think. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 86.138.231.153 11:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not a particularly suitable translation target. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk)  11:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It sounds like it is 'sum of parts' but it is really a legal term that has entered common usage at least in the UK public sector  - it really means any information, truthful or otherwise, relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (usually a living person). When used correctly the term would exclude data about a person who was not identified or identifiable. It includes opinions which not everyone would consider to be data. I appreciate that this is quite a subtle distinction but I think it is worth making. John Cross (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

post-Soviet

All translations are literal and should not be a good translation target. Note this term may instead merit a full entry.--Zcreator alt (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a full entry, not a translation target. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 17:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason as every other post- entry, over 900 of them. It has been translation-only since creation. DonnanZ (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a full entry. There are so many hits for "postSoviet" which actually have a hyphen which OCR has elided that it's hard to find the hits of postsoviet which Ngrams says exist (which would make unambiguous through COALMINE that this deserved an entry), but I don't doubt that they exist and I therefore think this is a single word. It also passes the lemming test, and needs to have actual definitions because it apparently has two of them: "after the formation of the Soviets / Soviet Union" (similar to "post-Revolution") and "after the dissolution of the Soviets / Soviet Union" (post-breakup). - -sche (discuss) 18:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tauberian theorem

Should theorems be in wiktionary? (also, it shouldn't begin with a capitalized letter) Yurivict (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't sum of parts because you can't know from the surname "Tauber" what the person's theorem is about (OR IS IT? we seem to cover it all at Tauberian). The form with capital T does occur; lower-case seems an alternative. Equinox ◑ 18:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then half of math theorems should be in wiktionary, because many of them are named in a similar way. Yurivict (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't an individual theorem almost always be a proper noun in the includable uses? In Latin the names of gentes and in scientific Latin supergeneric taxonomic names are proper names that are plural in form. So, perhaps even Tauberian theorems is a proper noun. DCDuring (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yurivict, yes. Why exclude useful terms like Huffman coding just because it has a name in it? Equinox ◑ 22:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely.  We should be able to look these up on Wiktionary, and not have to google for a separate mathematical dictionary instead for such terms.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As an eponym, the default form is usually capitalized.  "abelian" is actually a rare exception where I have often seen the eponym uncapitalized.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from RFD/Others. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; a related discussion is at Talk:Pauli exclusion principle. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

swap box

Term is specific to some ranch, not a common English term. Yurivict (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I already deleted that sense and added the more general sense. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from RFD/Others. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

pharmacological agent

Same reason as Talk:chemotherapeutic agent. Equinox ◑ 23:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and delete. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk)  11:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The substance, not the salesperson, right :)? Present in The Oxford Dictionary of Sports Science & Medicine[19]. Also in Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 9th edition. © 2009, Elsevier[20]. These are not the typical lemming-heuristic dictionaries, but they do give me a pause. Are our users really better off when the entry is deleted? --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

low-priced

Seems completely SOP to me. --WikiTiki89 20:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Talk:short-legged, but this is possibly coalminable... Sigh. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Forget about coal mines, it passes the lemming test. DonnanZ (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of course. You can be high-priced, average-priced, reasonable-priced... We have to credit our users with some basic degree of intelligence, even if we don't have it ourselves. Equinox ◑ 02:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The hyphen makes it a single word, not a phrase. And we keep all single words no matter how SOPpy they are. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 10:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately there's no entry for lowpriced. DonnanZ (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmph, there is now. That'll teach me.DonnanZ (talk) 12:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per COALMINE. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk)  11:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also per the lemming heuristic. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk)  11:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have to justify this: lowpriced without a hyphen is not (AFAIK) standard English. Are we gonna find three stupid cites by foreigners? Fuck coalmine. Equinox ◑ 15:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, spoke too soon, someone already found three non-standard shitty cites by foreigners. Equinox ◑ 15:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My fault, I should have kept my big gob shut, you can always RFD it. DonnanZ (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Equinox " […]  by foreigners." Incorrect, two of the three Usenet cites are from English-speaking countries. "Macdiarmid" even seems to have been a far-right xenophobe. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk)  11:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. DTLHS (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep using the lemming heuristic (also lemming test): is in Collins[21]. The WT:COALMINE argument is weakened by the dubious quality of the attesting quotations at lowpriced; they are all from Usenet, which is not copyedited, and one of the quotations contains the lowercase "canada". --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have added three published citations, if that addresses your concerns about COALMINE. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk)  11:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Dan Polansky. John Cross (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I consider hyphenated terms to be single words, so keep. This probably also passes under COALMINE. Ƿidsiþ 09:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

paper book

SOP. And the vote to allow retronyms has neither passed, nor is it likely to pass. --WikiTiki89 14:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain for now. I am sure Semper is up to something, and I respect him for that. DonnanZ (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Semper is certainly up to something, and that something is creating a SOP entry that nobody would think to look up. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - -sche (discuss) 18:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as bad-faith politics. I don't care whether this entry should exist or not. Creating it in response to an ongoing vote is fucking tacky. SB I thought better of you. Equinox ◑ 23:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't find this SOP. And I don't agree that no would would ever look it up. Quite the contrary.- Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain.  I personally call them printed books.  "Paper book" just seems so ridiculously redundant.  And there is such a thing as e-paper also.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk)  11:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, SOP. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
“paper book”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. shows Merriam-Webster[22] has two legal definitions; these are not what we have now, that is, a book like it used to be before electronic books. Legal definitions are also in A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.[23]. If someone adds more definitions, we could unambiguously keep the entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

apple-bearing

I think this is clearly a SOP, but am inexperienced at this. —TeragR ^disc./con. 21:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.  Otherwise we need to add pineapple-bearing and pear-bearing, amongst many others.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 04:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of a reason to save this one, as an apple-bearing tree is normally called an apple tree. On the other hand, I agree with the entry for fruit-bearing, which covers all fruit-bearing plants. DonnanZ (talk) 09:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all such, if really cited. There may even be separate senses here. Ƿidsiþ 09:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk)  11:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is Old English æppelbære. This could recommend keeping, or not. Like, keep it if it has a solid-written ancestor term. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it can be a direct ancestor. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Christian

I made this page with the fact in mind that it's the only normal demonym noun form for this religion (in comparison to Buddhist, Catholic, Protestant, etc.), but afterwards it occurred to me that it is probably SoP. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.  Orthodox is usually just an elision for Orthodox Catholic/Orthodox Christian.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1,188: / Line 1,188: @@
 : '''Delete'''. [[User:DTLHS|DTLHS]] ([[User talk:DTLHS|talk]]) 16:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 : '''Delete'''. <s>←₰-→</s> [[User:Lingo Bingo Dingo|<small>Lingo</small> <sup>Bingo</sup> <sub>Dingo</sub>]] ([[User talk:Lingo Bingo Dingo|talk]])  11:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
+:: Strange vote, I'm tempted to RFD {{m|en|lowpriced}}. ''[[User:Donnanz|DonnanZ]] ([[User talk:Donnanz|talk]]) 13:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)''
 == [[electroshock therapy]] ==

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}}

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English: difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:16, 17 March 2018

April 2017

August 2017

September 2017

October 2017

November 2017

December 2017

January 2018

February 2018

All English attributive forms (with hyphens) of noun phrases

Undeletion of brush one's teeth

Undeletion of comb one's hair

kid show/kid's show

March 2018

Navigation menu

Search