Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup add new request | history | archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification English add new request | history CJK add new request | history Italic add new request | history Non-English (all other languages) add new request | history Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for deletion English add new request | history CJK add new request | history Italic add new request | history Reconstruction add new request | history Non-English (all other languages) add new request | history Requests for deletion of pages in the main and Reconstruction namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/Others add new request | 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 request | history | archives Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.			Language treatment requests add new request | history Requests for changes to Wiktionary's language treatment practices, including renames, merges and splits.
{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

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

This 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}}

See also:

• Criteria for inclusion
• Page deletion guidelines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oldest tagged RFDs

• fuck it up
  adult material
  not-to-scale
  elder
  occasional furniture
  instance dungeon
  take its toll
  Kube
  stealth wealth
  stem mutation
  morel
  abstinence
  non-Arabic
  dynamics
  ex-minister
  be at
  lavalier microphone
  in conclave
  square root of fuck all
  adoptive mother
  pro-Hamas
  anti-Hamas
  pro-Israel
  anti-American
  pro-American
  pro-Arab
  pro-British
  anti-British
  pro-Indonesian
  pro-Jew
  anti-Jew
  pro-Palestinian
  anti-Palestinian
  anti-Russian
  pro-Slavism
  anti-Slavism
  pro-US
  pro-Russian
  primiparous
  school-age
  fat lot of good
  blue light
  anti-Hindu
  accessory before the fact
  accessory after the fact
  unspoken rule
  unwritten rule
  Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
  subbranch
  Lulu
  -un-
  DKC2
  DKC3
  Nissia
  mean time
  foregoing
  unrequited love
  El Camino Real
  marine toilet
  quarter-
  do want
  do not want
  twelve hundred
  December solstice
  tacit collusion
  Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
  aluminium-27
  argon-36
  argon-38
  calcium-45
  argon-40
  beryllium-9
  U-235
  run
  queen bee
  neutron radiation
  anti-Israel
  number homophone
  two-move checkmate
  freak
  aerophobia
  hobosexual
  digital signal processing
  -faction
  bank loan
  time perception
  Magnificat and Nunc dimittis
  racial segregation
  diriment impediment
  breadcrumb navigation
  polynomial time
  takes (something) to
  set-in sleeve
  th sound
  -tive
  mutual aid
  reincarnation
  blue ribbon jury
  language resource
  -t
  

September 2017

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Seems like a good reason to delete. --Genecioso (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

October 2017

academic institution

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

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)

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

• 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)

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)

I've heard this term used in regular parlance to mean a whole host of things: including high schools, excluding high schools, excluding everything except colleges, including trade and professional schools, excluding the same, etc. I've heard it include all schools even, and even administrative centres of education. There may be a slight tendency to favour colleges and universities above other academic institutions types of schools and academic centres with this term (I even unconsciously used it there in a broad sense), but it's nowhere near systematic, and therefore can only be SoP in my thinking. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

If we can show that the term is sometimes used to include high schools, then documenting this in the entry is a lexicoservice to the user. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Move to RFV. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

November 2017

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)

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)

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)

@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)

• 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)

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)

Merge into one sense, assuming no one can show quotations that support there being multiple definitions. Senses were added by User:Iudexvivorum (diff), who is now Judexvivorum (talk • contribs). --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I second Bingo's delete plan. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 03:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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

• 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)

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

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

Make {{translation only}} or delete. pick up + the + phone. If we deleted it, could the translations be moved to pick up as a translation of sense 13? Of the languages I know it seems acceptable, but I don't know about the rest. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 03:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Delete the second sense. It doesn't matter to me whether the first sense is expanded or not; applying it to humans and animals sounds metaphorical and ironic, but not particularly lexical, to me. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

December 2017

Gibson

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

"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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

  • I see. Delete the company name. bd2412 T 19:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

-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)

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

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)

• I think we should keep this. In many cases in Latin these come from the combination of a number of verb stems, plus the suffix -tio (e.g. fundo + -tio = fusio, fusionis, whence fusion) In these cases, it's defensible to consider a -sion ending, as the English inheritance of that inflected -tio ending. The English version unproductive as far as I can tell, and it doesn't account for the words ending in "-sion" which are the -s--stem + -ion words. But it's a helpful linguistic unit for understanding the construction of these words, and I think the definition is very clear about the narrow scope of this suffix. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 03:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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

January 2018

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  @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)

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

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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

• 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)
• Delete as a rare misspelling, per WT:CFI#Spellings. The frequency ratio is 15 000 per website, (webside*15000) at the Google Books 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)
• Delete, rare mispelling. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Ƿidsiþ 18:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
• Delete, rare misspelling. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• It probably can be deleted in English, but strangely enough this spelling is used in Danish and Norwegian, side means page in these cases. DonnanZ (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Same for German Webseite. I made the mistake, learning the calque first and didn't associated "Seite" with page, not even knowing that -site means -location (the latter aptly calqued as Webpräsenz). As ESL mistake it's obvious that the error rate would be lower than for "occurance". So I am not sure the "usual policy on misspellings" applies, which doesn't have a hard and fast threshold for notability set in stone anyway. And it's not a mere spelling mistake where the speaker is unsure how to spell site. Hence it's a misunderstandin that is perceived as spelling mistake.

The phono semantic matching works because "Seite" (and Dansk, Norsk "side") can translate to side and page as well. It would be a false-friend if webside was in the English lexicon, but actually it is an imaginary false-friend -- A mistranslation. Rhyminreason (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

keep: Not sure my vote counts anything. Attestation not withstanding, the Rational on misspelling inclusion is clear about the purpose. That is discovery for language learners. As per my argument above, due to DonnanZ, rarity has to be seen in perspective. Common mistake is a misnomer, because it's not a mistake anyone would make and commonly perceive as such, but it might be common to a subset of L2 speakers, exactly those for whom we keep the misspellings. Therefore, search statistics might be informative. Whereas, in times of auto-correct it might be difficult to get the mistake published. The necessity isn't quite there, but the etymology is interesting and somebody put work in the edits. Rhyminreason (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Delete --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

wine legs

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

@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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Delete or hard redirect to legs as per -sche. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

absolute power

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

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

• Keep. Obviously not literally "absolute" (i.e., godlike). Also a set phrase. bd2412 T 21:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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[1] has a sane entry, and its exemplifications of the adjective in adj-noun phrases are excellent; so does AHD[2]. 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)
          • 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)
            • 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)
              • (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)
• Keep. I recognise this as a set phrase. John Cross (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. We don't keep set phrases merely because they are set. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• 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)
• Keep. It is a bit more specific than just [[absolute]] + [[power]]. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 13:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• 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)
  • I heartily agree with that. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. SOP. -- · (talk) 07:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. Not even a set phrase. absolute control, absolute rule, absolute supercalifragilisticexpialidociousness. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. As per PseudoSkull. Also, there's this. Not that it helps at all, but I figured it might be useful to bring it up. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

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

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

• Merriam-Webster has a "keep under one's hat" entry[3]. “under one's hat”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. finds Merriam-Webster.com, Wiktionary and dictionary.com[4], 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)

Keep, and add a note that it's most often used with keep. It doesn't seem inconceivable that one would use other verbs--I've definitely heard it used with have. Can't find any durably cited uses of it like that at the moment, but I don't think it hurts to leave the possibility open. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

• 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)

• Delete as per Nicole. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. gay pride surely predates pride, in the relevant sense. Ƿidsiþ 18:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• A long time ago, but wasn't it Gay Pride (along with Lesbian Strength, and ...) which predated Pride (in the 80s in London at least)? Did the names become genericised along the way, like hoover, or did the gay et al "trade marks" grow out of pre-existing generic phrases? If the latter, that particular meaning may have become non-SoP. --Enginear 23:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

white 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)

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)

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

Keep white supremacy per Dan Polansky. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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)

• Delete all. Sum of parts. Nicole Sharp (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• Delete all as sum of parts as well. I think, in accordance with on what Dan said, that there is snowcloning afoot here, but I don't think that even though a term is a parent of a snowclone that it necessarily merits its own lexical entry. Maybe create a snowclone and note that white supremacy is the likely parent? --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

  @SanctMinimalicen: But how do you make the snowclone accessible to the reader? Wouln't it be better to keep "white supremacy", redirect the others to it, and, in white supremacy, make a usage note stating that this has been snowcloned into X, Y, Z? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Dan Polansky: I definitely see the merit to that as well. I'm feeling a tension here between the ideals of usefulness and proper accuracy of lexical inclusion...my natural bent is towards the latter but the former certainly has weight. I noticed that on the entry for supremacy, sense three is pointing at what we're discussing. Could we make a usage note there that directs the readers to the "white supremacy", etc., snowclones? That might reconcile the two ideals I mentioned. Additionally, we could perhaps redirect "white supremacy" to "supremacy", where they would find the usage note and thereby the snowclones. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted black supremacy, Arab supremacy and racial supremacy, and brown supremacy and brown supremacist (SOP PAM creations) on the same model. There would seem to be consensus (6-2?) to delete white supremacy, too. - -sche (discuss) 01:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

white supremacist

Per white supremacy. --Atitarev 01:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just about to bring that up for discussion myself. :) It seems to be the only "supremacist" term with an entry, besides "brown supremacist" which I mentioned above. - -sche (discuss) 01:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

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.

See also Talk:mahā.

@DerekWinters --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Per utramque cavernam: To be honest it might be. I'll leave the decision up to you all. But there are quite a decent number of uses, strictly in Indian linguistics. DerekWinters (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it's citable; every cite I see on Google Books is oṣṭhya, not osthya. But I'll push my standard position; if osthya is verifiable as a word, I don't care much about exactly what language it's under, but I think it highly inappropriate to delete and leave no entry. "oṣṭhya" is an easily attestable word, and thus shouldn't be deleted over an argument about a header name.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I honestly think it's nothing else than Sanskrit (in transliteration, but still). It's the same deal as having Latin words in French sentences: l'ager publicus. That doesn't make ager publicus a French term.

We then have three options: 1) rely on the search engine, which will redirect us to the Devanagari-script Sanskrit entry; 2) create Sanskrit transliteration entries which are attested, or 3) always create Sanskrit transliteration entries, regardless of whether they're attested or not. I don't like 2) because of its randomness, and 3) is more or less out of the question (cf. this discussion). That leaves us 1), which is fine by me. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Delete - all cites I could find were in italics and with dots underneath (i.e. oṣṭhya) to signify cerebral consonants which are not part of English phonology. The authors are making it clear that these are Skt words used in English sentences. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's

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

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)

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)

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

• 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)

  An inexperienced puppetmaster trying to play innocent... —suzukaze (t・c) 02:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Delete per proponent. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Not a special sense of the word. bd2412 T 21:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• &lit sense 1, keep sense 2. PseudoSkull (talk) 07:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Kept, but I cleaned up sense 2 and added {{&lit}} to sense 1. - -sche (discuss) 01:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

No, some people brush their teeth with water only, or with a chewstick. Equinox ◑ 22:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Equinox Then maybe I'm just too used to the Western world. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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)

Restore. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

• 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)

@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)

• 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)

Keep for the translations. But the definition is right to say "especially using..." because brushing one's teeth without toothpaste (or even, with something other than a toothbrush) is still, on a lexical level, brushing one's teeth. See google books:"brushed my teeth with a" and Kesha for some creative possibilities... - -sche (discuss) 19:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• Restore Purplebackpack89 18:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Restore Purplebackpack89 18:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

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)

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

• 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)

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

Thanks. In Talk:car door, there is a RFV discussion from 2006. That was RFV. Time to send car door to RFD, I think. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

bond for general purposes

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

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

Abstain. I actually have no idea, I shouldn't vote on that. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 09:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• 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.]

  These are mentions, not uses. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 09:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

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)

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

Delete. The entry needs other cleanup / rewording, too. - -sche (discuss) 19:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

voice call sign

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

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

international call sign

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

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

tidal current

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

The def in the entry is OK. I would keep this. DonnanZ (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

Delete, because it should be deleted. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

• Keep using the lemming heuristic; is in Merriam-Webster[5]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

baby show

adult 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)

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)

What about conformation show? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

March 2018

-ogony

Useless; we can use the -o- interfix + -gony when necessary. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

A {{suffixsee}} test doesn't reveal any entries using it. I think it can be deleted. DonnanZ (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

@-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)

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

Delete. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

kit

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

• This is a question of attributive use of nouns, right? Sort of the silk problem mentioned down the list, but without the etymological complication. If so, I would agree with delete. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
• Delete, it's not an adjective. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

baby on board

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

Dunno about translations, but the wp article is interesting. DonnanZ (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete per the proponent. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

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

I don't know- any evidence? DTLHS (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm confused, are you answering to me or to BD2412? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

You, it's indented after your comment. DonnanZ (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

"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)

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)

• 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)
• Delete. Pretty obvious sum of parts. "Dog on board," etc. Nicole Sharp (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

Such an entry already exists, with the definition "on or in a means of transportation". I think perhaps the "have a baby on board" figurative option suggested by Sonofcawdrey is reasonable, especially mentioning it in the etymology; I think otherwise it's definitely SoP. So Delete; also possibly adding a "have a baby on board" entry to cover the figurative meaning. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Delete as SoP: baby + on board. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

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)
• Delete. There's no need to have these, even as altform defs. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• 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)

I suppose these should be sent to RFV to look for any usage where the lowercase form means one of those things specifically and can't just be taken as a use of the general sense. (If not such usage exists, delete.) - -sche (discuss) 19:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• Conditional delete, as per -sche. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
• Keep as an alt form if it can pass RfV. Purplebackpack89 15:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

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

• 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)

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)

What about fertility rate? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

Delete. Note that mortality also has the exact same sense and its translations. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 12:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete (or maybe redirect, to death rate). - -sche (discuss) 19:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Keep. Otherwise, where do we put the antonym for birthrate? ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

At death rate, as it was suggested above. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Standard Estonian

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

What about standard language and the related terms there like Standard German? -84.161.29.236 21:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Keep standard language, delete Standard German and the others. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Why? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

My instinct is to say delete, because this is just standard Estonian (plus capitalization because it's being used as a proper noun name of a lect), and the meaning is more transparent than North Estonian, where the division between the lects doesn't necessarily have to match a geographic decision with all North Estonian speakers or areas located further north than all natively-South Estonian-speaking areas. You can have Standard Anything. OTOH, we do have Standard English and it passed RFD... - -sche (discuss) 19:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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. [6] 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• Delete, SOP. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

• I have never ever heard overmorrow being used. Maybe I'm not old enough. DonnanZ (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

  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)

• Redirect to day after tomorrow. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• In my opinion the present entry is misconceived, as there is no definition. Even if it is "for translation purposes only" there should still be a definition. As far as redirection is concerned, I am not in favour of unexpected or "what happened there?" automatic redirects, if that is what is being suggested. In fact, I am not in favour of automatic redirects at all. Mihia (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd say Meta was speaking of a soft redirect, not a hard one. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. The only possible use of this entry that I can think of is as an antonym for nudiustertian. Nicole Sharp (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I've centralized the translations, effectively turning this into a soft redirect to day after tomorrow, but IMO it should be a hard redirect, as it is SOP, it accordingly has no definition, and its only claim to entry-worthiness is as a translation hub, but the translations are in another hub. I think there is enough support above to do that, but I'll leave this thread open in case anyone else wants to comment. - -sche (discuss) 19:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

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)

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

Keep. 86.138.231.153 11:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Why? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Delete per nom, not a particularly suitable translation target. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

• On WP, W:Personal data redirects to W:Personally identifiable information. The PII is there defined as "information that can be used on its own or with other information to identify, contact, or locate a single person, or to identify an individual in context". If "personal data" is used to mean the same thing, then it is not a sum of parts, IMHO. That would require replacing {{translation only}}, currently in the entry, with an actual definition. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The meaning of 'personal data' in Europe is strongly influenced by the Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC) and associated legislation (e.g. in the UK, the Data Protection Act 1998). It is comparable to PII in US privacy law. John Cross (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

pharmacological agent

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

Thanks and delete. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

The substance, not the salesperson, right :)? Present in The Oxford Dictionary of Sports Science & Medicine[7]. Also in Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 9th edition. © 2009, Elsevier[8]. 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)

Yes, I think so. They won't be misled into thinking that "pharmalogical agent" has an idiomatic sense that it doesn't have. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Keep then. 86.138.119.226 17:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Why? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

low-priced

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

Delete per Talk:short-legged, but this is possibly coalminable... Sigh. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Keep. Forget about coal mines, it passes the lemming test. DonnanZ (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

Fortunately there's no entry for lowpriced. DonnanZ (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmph, there is now. That'll teach me.DonnanZ (talk) 12:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Keep per COALMINE. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Also per the lemming heuristic. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

Oops, spoke too soon, someone already found three non-standard shitty cites by foreigners. Equinox ◑ 15:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

My fault, I should have kept my big gob shut, you can always RFD it. DonnanZ (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@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)

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

• Keep using the lemming heuristic (also lemming test): is in Collins[9]. 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)

  I have added three published citations, if that addresses your concerns about COALMINE. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• Weak keep per Dan Polansky. John Cross (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
• I consider hyphenated terms to be single words, so keep. This probably also passes under COALMINE. Ƿidsiþ 09:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems very SOPpy, but keep because it does seem to be regarded as a single word often enough to be found both in unhyphenated form in books (thus passing the WT:COALMINE test) and in other dictionaries (passing the WT:LEMMING test). - -sche (discuss) 18:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• Delete as regular formation from "low-" with self-evident meaning. low-energy, low-quality, low-carbon, low-wage, low-income, low-rated, low-mounted, low-valued ... the list is virtually endless. Mihia (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. Nicole Sharp (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• Delete. - -sche (discuss) 18:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

  Keep, there are now two additional senses, so I think this is sufficiently distinctive. There is also at least one occurrence of "book in newspaper format" on BGC. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Delete, SOP. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • To clarify: per Metaknowledge below, delete the second sense only. Use {{&lit}} seems acceptable, but I oppose having a full-fledged definition: "well, since we'll have an entry anyway, we might as well keep that sense". --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
• “paper book”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. shows Merriam-Webster[10] 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.[11]. If someone adds more definitions, we could unambiguously keep the entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

  Keep the entry since there is now a second definition. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• Keep, especially per Dan. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
• The disputed sense has three citations. How many more do you want? Keep SemperBlotto (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

  This is RFD, not RFV. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• Now that there is another definition, I have made it into an rfd-sense (when the RFD was started, there was only the one sense in the entry). The existence of the entry as a whole and the sense in question in particular are independent, so I would not consider @Dan Polansky's vote to be countable here unless he clarifies his position on the sense in question. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

  Keep the sense of "A traditional hardback or softback book, as opposed to an e-book" as well. What could be done is replace it with {{&lit}}, but I am no fan of that template, finding it user unfriendly. Elsewhere, Andrew Sheedy writes '"Paper book," if e-books, etc. didn't exist, might be taken to mean a paperback book, or a book made entirely of paper. As with many retronyms, the term would likely have been confusing had it been introduced before other types of books were introduced.' In M-W[12], there is entry "paperbook" defined as paperback, which reinforces Andrew's idea that "paper book" might otherwise be understood to refer to paperback. A next move in the game would be for someone to attest paperbook, and see whether coalmine could apply. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• Weak keep John Cross (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

apple-bearing

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

• 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)

• Keep all such, if really cited. There may even be separate senses here. Ƿidsiþ 09:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

  Changing to keep per -sche. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• 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)

  I don't think it can be a direct ancestor. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

  I think it could be, albeit an altered one--made over to fit modern word formation. As it evolves into Middle English, it would be *appelbere, then into EME as *applebeare, which doesn't make much sense according to modern usage...it would then , naturally, have to be altered to fit current ways of expression by appending an -ing to it, making apple-bearing--now it sounds sensible. Of course, none of this is recorded for our ease, but that's no matter. One cannot convince me that during Middle English there was no term meaning "apple-bearing". There had to have been. We just don't see it recorded. It's a mundane and quite ordinary concept Leasnam (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

This does seem SOPpy, but... although it ain't common, I just cited applebearing with citations from the 1600s through the 2000s, which lends support to keeping this per WT:COALMINE, and to the idea that it's sometimes regarded as a single word, and even lends some support to the possibility that it's an inherited form (one would need to look for Middle English examples to find more evidence of that). - -sche (discuss) 18:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Keep, then, via coalmine. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. This is nothing more than "apple" + "-bearing". "apple" could be replaced by anything that can be borne. Create -bearing if need be. Mihia (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

We had -bearing, and we deleted it ! :-o Leasnam (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not a suffix. DonnanZ (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

On reflection, probably the right decision, else where would it end ... Mihia (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, we have load-bearing, weight-bearing, etc. Leasnam (talk)
• Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Kept: no consensus for deletion, and policy (WT:COALMINE) backs keeping it. - -sche (discuss) 18:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

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)
• Keep. Orthodox is usually just an elision for Orthodox Catholic/Orthodox Christian. Nicole Sharp (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

  No, Orthodox is derived from Orthodox Church, and only later was it applied to the followers, i.e. Orthodox Christians. --WikiTiki89 19:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems idiomatic inasmuch as it typically refers to the specific (family of) denomination(s), and not to any orthodox Christian. - -sche (discuss) 17:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• See Orthodox. --WikiTiki89 19:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  What of it? There are very orthodox Roman Catholics, Lutherans, etc, but they are, apparently, not what is meant by "Orthodox Christian" or "Orthodox". - -sche (discuss) 19:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  They are orthodox, but not Orthodox. Thus, if it's SOP, it's Orthodox + Christian and not orthodox + Christian. --WikiTiki89 19:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Abstain for now. It strikes me as SOP, Orthodox (adj., senses 1 & 2) + Christian (n., sense 1), but I nonetheless tend towards keeping it, probably because of its paraphyly. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete. I've added an additional sense to Orthodox (adj.), which should now cover (almost) all the previously existing exceptions. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: That looks good--can we add a usage note though to the noun sense that indicates that its highly common to refer to these people as "Orthodox Christians" rather than as "Orthodoxes", which is a rather uncommon term in English? That, I think, would fully satisfy what Orthodox Christian seeks to offer. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@SanctMinimalicen That's a good idea.  Done. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: Thank you! With that I comfortably support delete. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you explain why paraphyly is a reason for keeping? --WikiTiki89 19:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89 Why would I? I haven't claimed anything of the sort. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

"but I nonetheless tend towards keeping it, probably because of its paraphyly" --WikiTiki89 13:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89 You are quoting me as I described. I'm describing a cause, not a reason. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Why does its paraphyly cause you to lean towards keeping? --WikiTiki89 14:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89 Mostly because it is an unusual feature in diachronic typologies of Christianity, which tend to be grouped by split, creed, etc. That said, I was also curious if there is a distinction in use between Orthodox and Orthodox Christian for the groups to which it can refer, e.g. with respect to sects like the Old Believers. There doesn't seem to be one. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete, per Wikitiki89. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

-zoan

The etymologies of the derived terms don't use this suffix. It seems to me that this page is a misanalysis. DTLHS (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow, the (early) edit history is weird, displaying the unlinked text "imported>SP-KP‎" in the space where the username of the creating editor should go. - -sche (discuss) 02:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

It is the username of the creating editor- with the prefix "imported>" tacked on. That's how they must have handled edit histories of interwikis in those days. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete. As mentioned above, this is not a true suffix. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm conflicted: on the one hand, this is obviously bogus. On the other hand, it would be nice to have someplace to explain the invariant pattern of individual members of taxa with translingual names ending in -zoa being called by an English name ending in -zoan. This is the same as with the taxonomic sense of -phyte (which also has other problems) and -phyta. Then there are -ids, -ines and -forms, as well as -aceous adjectives. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• Well the OED has it. Ƿidsiþ 06:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

car door

Could be a sum of parts. There is a 2006 discussion at Talk:car door. Can someone attest cardoor so that WT:COALMINE applies? And does translation hub argument apply, via French portière and Spanish portezuela? “car door”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. does not find the classical lemming dictionaries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

cardoor? Ugh. DP wants to use coalmine for all the wrong reasons. Just keep it. DonnanZ (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@DonnanZ: In the spirit of substance-based discussion seeking arguments and evidence, keep it why? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

It does appear to have two senses, one automotive, the other a railway carriage door, especially in American English; the quote appears to bear this out. DonnanZ (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I cannot see any reason why this is not sum of parts. Mihia (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Abstain. It probably passes COALMINE, but a problem is that most appearances on BGC are in snippet view and that in many cases where "cardoor(s)" is attested, there are also unverifiable hits for "car door". Leaving those out, some results where "cardoor(s)" is the most common are: [13], [14] (messy, 3 hits for "cardoor(s)" and 2 for "car door(s)"), [15], [16] ("car door" could be a less common variant), [17] ("car door" is less common than "cardoor"). Many hits refer to agricultural suppliers operating from their car in the US ca. 1910 to 1960.

The sense "carriage door" can be attested for "car door" (probably not for "cardoor"), but consider car senses 3 to 5. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Otherwise we need truck door, etc. Nicole Sharp (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

If "car door" exists as an elision of carriage door (as opposed to just being "the door of a car"), then keep. Nicole Sharp (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not in America, but what about a boxcar door? Can it also be called a car door? DonnanZ (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

less-than-stellar

• Can we do an RFD for the word of the day?  :-O It seems like sum-of-parts to me, e.g. "less-than-awesome," etc. Nicole Sharp (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Heh, is there a precedent? 'DonnanZ (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)'
    • I would describe it in the same vein as the RFD for "low-priced" above. The antonym here would just be "beyond-stellar." E.g. "a beyond-stellar performance," "a less-than-stellar performance," etc.—seems to be pretty clearly sum-of-parts. Nicole Sharp (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: there is the sarcasm element, though. Stellar usually means "exceptional, wonderful", and less-than-stellar doesn't simply mean "slightly less exceptional or wonderful" but actually "mediocre" or "poor". That, to my mind, may make it non-SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The sarcasm element is true, but isn't that kind of verbal irony element applicable to just about anything? I could be stuck in traffic and say "this is great", but one wouldn't include a "(sarcastic) undesireable, inoptimal" definition to the entry for great. Sarcasm, understatement, etc. being sources of definitions seems slippery and difficult to discern/regulate. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree with SanctMinimalicen. "Less-than-awesome" has the exact same sarcastic meaning as "less-than-stellar," and you can create many more such terms that include a sarcastic emphasis. Also, it can be argued that the word automatically implies sarcasm, since "stellar" can be defined literally as "astronomically great," such that being slightly less than stellar but still much greater than sky-high is relatively meaningless, unless it is a sarcastic sense to mean a much lower metaphorical height than the height of stars above the planetary surface. Nicole Sharp (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

      That brings to mind Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Sarcastic usage:

      The straightforward sarcastic use of irony, understatement and hyperbole does not usually qualify for inclusion. This means, for example, that big should not be defined as “(ironic) small”, “(understatement) gigantic” or “(hyperbole) moderately large”. Common rhetorical use can be explained in a usage note, a context tag (such as (Usually sarcastic)) or as part of the literal definition. Terms which are seldom or never used literally are not covered by this rule, and can be included on their own merits.

      Thus, the question is whether less-than-stellar is a term which is "seldom or never used literally", and I have a feeling that the term does meet this criterion. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

    • Hm, yeah, it does seem to fit that criterion--as Nicole pointed out, the word basically only exists in a sarcastic capacity. I'm okay with this in principle, but I'm uneasy that one could apply the formula to any adjective for the same ironic/sarcastic effect. It's still a slippery slope. I'm wondering if it wouldn't potentially be more appropriate to formulate this as a snowclone: "less-than-X"? --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
• I agree, it's completely normal litotes. Don't know if I'd push for deleting it, but certainly a weird choice to highlight for WotD. Ƿidsiþ 05:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  It was on the nomination list, so I featured it. Can't say I gave it much thought at the time. — SGconlaw (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per SanctMinimalicen. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I think I'm leaning towards delete as well, because I think what matters is the construction "less-than-x", and not so much the particular instance of less-than-stellar. There must be a way to include that structure elsewhere. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
    • @SanctMinimalicen: See this discussion. The consensus seems to be that these should be in the Appendix namespace; see Appendix:Snowclones/X_as_X_can_be for example. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
      • @Per utramque cavernam: Thank you--I wasn't certain where they belonged and that clarifies it. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete per "less-than-X" being a general construct as discussed above. Equinox ◑ 22:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete. How about we include less-than-great, less-than-fascinating, etc.? PseudoSkull (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Or less than impressed? That's me quite often. DonnanZ (talk) 09:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, if it is meant to be sarcastic (it's not a term I am familiar with), I would keep it, I'm not sure whether it is used globally. DonnanZ (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

But any phrase can be used "sarcastically" (it's really litotes rather than sarcasm). Not exactly Brad Pitt gets more than 120 Google Books hits. You can't codify irony. Ƿidsiþ 13:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

fault tolerance

Sum of parts? (Pretty sure that it is not German) SemperBlotto (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You're right, I changed the header. German Fehlertoleranz is included in the translations. DonnanZ (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Correct language headers are quite important actually, as I have found out. DonnanZ (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

But if it's a technical term, maybe we should keep this. DonnanZ (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

It is a technical term, so we should keep it.--Sae1962 (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Fault Tolerance exists, so keep it!--217.116.183.201 13:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Keep; is in M-W[18] (WT:LEMMING). --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

money

Rfd-sense 9: "(as a modifier) Of or pertaining to money; monetary." --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Definitely not, keep. Check derived terms. Maybe "monetary" can be removed. DonnanZ (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT: ::The two examples listed (money supply and money market) are both compound nouns. This is just attributive use. The definition is worded as if money were an adjective. I would be inclined to delete Leasnam (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment: isn't that just an attributive use? — SGconlaw (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete, the usage examples of 9 aren't even in the same sense. This sense purely exists to cover attributive use. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

It is correctly shown as being a noun modifier, which happens to be used attributively, but it is not an attributive adjective. Money supply is a supply of money, money market is a market for money, a money bag is a bag for money. DonnanZ (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Almost any noun can be used attributively, as a regular feature of the English language:

cupboard: Of or pertaining to cupboards (cupboard door)

cabbage: Of or pertaining to cabbages (cabbage soup)

and so on, about 10,000 times. I don't think we need that. Mihia (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

If it prevents an adjective being added it's worth keeping. DonnanZ (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

If there is a true adjective sense then that should be added. I can't think that there is, but if anyone wants to make a case for it ... Mihia (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete. There are already senses that cover the two usexes and any adjective-like use, namely the other senses, which are being used attributively. As Mihia says, this sense would be like adding a sense "of or pertaining to cabbage" to cabbage: unnecessary, because it's just the existing sense(s) being used attributively. - -sche (discuss) 21:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 18:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

all-pervading

This is one of many entries in Category:English citations of undefined terms (see Citations:all-pervading) which are trivially attestable but not obviously idiomatic. So: should it be created, or is it just a SOP of the sort that would be RFDed and deleted if it were created? I'm not going to spend time creating the entry if you agree it's SOP, so this is a pre-RFD of sorts. (The aim is to remove it from being "requested" by Category:English citations of undefined terms, either by creating the entry if people think it's idiomatic, or suppressing the categorization / [re]moving the citations if it's not idiomatic.) - -sche (discuss) 19:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose the creation. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
• Add, it passes the lemming test. [19] For the ones that don't pass, I prefer suppressing the categorisation. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support Oxford has it, as well as all-pervadingness. DonnanZ (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support, and I agree with Donnanz regarding all-pervadingness. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
• Add all-pervading with the help of lemming heuristic aka lemming principle: in oxforddictionaries.com and Collins. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

ever-gentle

As above. - -sche (discuss) 19:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Leave out, it is SOP and doesn't pass the lemming test. [20] ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
• Abstain: LBD gave us the wrong lemming test, the correct one still draws a blank. Most hits are for "ever gentle", but ever-gentle does appear in a couple of quotes from Shakespeare. DonnanZ (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  And in Frankenstein, believe it or not. DonnanZ (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks, fixed the link. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

ever-moving

As above. - -sche (discuss) 19:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Add, it looks like this passes COALMINE. [21] [22] [23] [24] ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Conditional support: That's "evermoving", "ever-moving" needs quotes as well. And another one. DonnanZ (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Just done ever-shifting, which could well be a synonym of this. DonnanZ (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Add per Lingo and thus COALMINE. Here's ever-moving, evermoving at the Google Books Ngram Viewer.. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

ever-varied

As above. - -sche (discuss) 19:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I would go for ever-varying, which is more common although not the same, and is more or less a synonym of ever-changing. DonnanZ (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

leave in

Allow to remain (e.g. shampoo in hair, or a joke in a speech). Isn't a special verb construct like "take in (the scenery)" or "drop out (of school)", as far as I can tell. More an SoP like "leave there" ("I left the book there overnight"). Equinox ◑ 22:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete, seems SoP to me. Similar to the first sense of take out, which seems to me also to be SoP, which I'm going to nominate here as well. The others seem properly idiomatic. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Regarding shampoo, it can be compared with the adjective leave-in. DonnanZ (talk) 23:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

It looks like just leave (verb) + in (adverb) rather than anything idiomatic, but we don't seem to have a fitting definition for the adverb. Delete, because this is rather productive. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Abstain for now. I think this entry (and others) would be more useful if it (they) gave some usage notes about the separability of the particle: can you say "I left the one about my mother-in-law in"? Is it natural? Which option is more common? It might be grammatical more than lexical though. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

take out

Verb, sense 1. Along with entry for leave in above. Seems SOP to me. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't make much sense to delete this and leave the rest in (pun intended). DonnanZ (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

If this sense is felt to be non-idiomatic then it may be better to keep it under the "&lit" template, as is done with various other phrasal verbs? Mihia (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't aware of that option. That would make sense. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

clinically proven

clinically + proven. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete. I'd forgotten I made this. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Move to form with a hyphen. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought modifiers with a word ending in -ly don't take a hyphen? — SGconlaw (talk) 06:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

They shouldn't. DonnanZ (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

In that case, delete. — SGconlaw (talk) 09:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that could only happen if it's part of an attributive noun phrase, like "clinically-proven-method instruction", which is not relevant to "clinically proven" or "clinically-proven" and which shouldn't be included either. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete per nom. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• Delete this entry as well as all hyphens after -ly adverbs. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 14:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

By the way, a very similar case, critically acclaimed, was deleted recently. Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Keep as a translation hub. Czech klinicky ověřený is of value since the word for word translation would be *"klinicky dokázaný", by my first impression; German klinisch getestet is the usual translation, where the Google translate yields much rarer "klinich bewiesen". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

  Another German translation that seem often used in Google books is klinisch geprüft. In any case, why should our users do the research themselves when we can find the best translations for them? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

A good point if translations are not what one would expect. DonnanZ (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

sexual frustration

sexually frustrated

SOP. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Abstain. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• sexual frustration has been here since 2006. What's wrong with the geezer? Keep the b****y lot, providing they are correct. DonnanZ (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Precision: I nominated the French and English terms only; PseudoSkull added the rest in this edit.

  I don't see how "it's been here since 2006" is an argument. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Probably keep both, but they might just be SoP. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

As I have said before, SoP is not always a good reason for deletion. DonnanZ (talk) 10:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, but what's your reason for keeping these? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Seems SoP to me. Note how all the translations are also noun+adj pairings. Also the top of this page says: "One of the reasons for posting an entry or a sense here is that it is a sum of parts, such as 'brown leaf'." Equinox ◑ 10:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Then it hinges on how important an issue this is globally. I can't help noticing the Chinese entries (not that I can read them). Can it be categorised as an emotion? DonnanZ (talk) 11:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete: also seems SoP to me. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete all as SOP. These entries would probably become PaM magnets anyway, there's no harm in taking away the chew toy before it is noticed. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Too late: diff and diff Chuck Entz (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, sod that blighted little bugger. At least we'd be throwing away actual chew toys. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Delete all as SoP. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 03:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

J-shaped

Tagged but not listed. Note that we decided to keep other similar entries. John Cross (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• @SemperBlotto RFD-tagged it when he created the entry. I wonder whether it was a slip-up. DonnanZ (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
• I was probably stoned at the time. Keep all. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

It is silly to delete them one by one when we have a full set and some kind of existing consensus. OTOH I feel there is something blatantly SoP about these: if I said "ᓴ-shaped", you might not know what ᓴ is but you can tell what it means because the shape is literally in front of your eyes. Equinox ◑ 06:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I will start by conceding that these do follow a predictable pattern. If you emailed me about a"ᓴ-shaped" walking stick, I would know what you meant. Without prior knowledge:

• I would not be able to distinguish between h-shaped and H-shaped.
• I would not know that F-shaped could mean shaped like the mirror image of an "F".
• I certainly would not know about the sense of U-shaped where the "U" is a broad-based "U".

Note also that Duden has L-förmig, S-förmig and X-förmig.

John Cross (talk) 06:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I'm gonna vote against these, but to be fair "I would not know that F can be mirror-F" is a pathetic argument. That's like saying you can't recognise a triangular thing as a triangle if I turn it upside-down. It is understood by us, as beings in a 3D world, that shapes can be rotated. Equinox ◑ 07:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I am pleased that you are not planning to vote against these. You obviously don't have to agree with me but I would not want anyone to think I was making poor arguments at least not deliberately or due to a unreasonable lack of care. I take your point that many objects can be rotated in the 3D world. I was coming at this from a different perspective. I was really trying to say that it would not have occurred to me to add the mirror-image point to the definitions had someone else not done so (it may be incorrect but if it is correct then it is important to the definition). Sometimes we impose the language of the 2D world on the 3D world when we say for example we might talk about a square-based prism, a triangular work surface or a circular stain. It turns out that some poles have a G-shaped base.[25] You could break the base off and flip it but then it would not be a base. You could dig up an F-shaped flower bed and change it to be another shape but it is not a trivial task. John Cross (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Note that I have made a list of other dictionaries that have entries for terms of the form *-shaped. John Cross (talk) 08:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Keep all John Cross (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
• Yep, keep all. DonnanZ (talk) 09:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
• Delete as SOP. It looks like this is absent from most if not all other general dictionaries written in English. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
• Keep J-shaped per Talk:H-shaped#RFD discussion: September–November 2017. Dictionaries: User:John Cross/letter-shaped; for some reason, only OED has J-shaped. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

K-shaped

Tagged but not listed. Note that we decided to keep other similar entries. John Cross (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• The same (as J-shaped) happened here. DonnanZ (talk) 00:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
• Delete all such cases where the meaning is no more than "shaped like the thing mentioned". Virtually anything with any kind of recognisable shape can be used in this pattern: bowl-shaped, horseshoe-shaped, bottle-shaped, pumpkin-shaped ... the list is virtually endless. Mihia (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

We do have heart-shaped, bell-shaped, mushroom-shaped, egg-shaped etc John Cross (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The FreeDictionary.com has pumpkin-shaped[26] and bowl-shaped[27] and bottle-shaped. I could not find horseshoe-shaped in an online dictionary. John Cross (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

"egg-shaped: Having the shape of an egg" pretty much makes my point for me. To the extent (which may be debated) that the others contain additional content beyond "shaped like the thing mentioned", they do not fall into my category. Mihia (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Whatever there is that's specific to a given letter and not predictable should be covered in the entry for the letter. After all, it's a simple matter to substitute "that's in the shape of a k" or "that has the form of a k" or "that looks like a k" or "that's reminiscent of a k", etc. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

If I understand your point correctly, I agree with you. If someone can come up with any worthwhile additional information for K-shaped beyond "Shaped like the letter 'K'" then it should be kept. Otherwise it should be deleted. (I do not count "or its mirror image" as "worthwhile".) Mihia (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Delete as per Mihia. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
• Sigh, keep. I thought the voting for both was above. DonnanZ (talk) 08:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
• Keep all. It is interesting and useful to know what these sorts of adjectives are applied to in practice. For instance, J-shaped is often used to describe graphs or distributions; V-shaped and U-shaped are used to describe types of valley. This stuff is what dictionaries do – just looking at the terms and declaring that they are sum-of-parts is not very rigorous IMO. Ƿidsiþ 04:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
• Delete I suggest to make a snowclone entry for these instead. --Octahedron80 (talk) 04:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

  I don't think that's what a snowclone is. Snowclones are entire phrases. Equinox ◑ 04:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

  Perhaps to make …-shaped like Chinese entries? It will cover things other than A-Z. I also have …ไป…ไป and …ใด…หนึ่ง. Ellipses are also useful. --Octahedron80 (talk) 05:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. John Cross (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
• Keep K-shaped per Talk:H-shaped#RFD discussion: September–November 2017. Dictionaries: User:John Cross/letter-shaped; for some reason, they do not have K-shaped. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• Abstain per Widsith (could potentially be interesting, but in their current state they're not). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

wait a minute

verb. SOP --Otra cuenta105 (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• keep. I agree it's SOP, and if it were the only definition in the entry, I would agree it should not be included, but given the use as an interjection, does it not make it in the same way we include literal senses of phrases that are also idioms? Kiwima (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

  I'm not convinced, KW. --Otra cuenta105 (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• Weak delete--I was leaning towards keeping at first due to the unliteral use of the phrase, but sense two of minute allows for the nonliteral use to be SoP, and even includes the phrase as its example with "minute" as the part. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Solidified my vote based on Equinox's point. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
• I'd be inclined to keep both senses. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
• Keep it, and what about hang on a minute? DonnanZ (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
• Delete; see sense 2 of minute: "(informal) A short but unspecified time period." It even gives this as a usage example! "Wait a minute, I’m not ready yet!" PseudoSkull (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
• Convert to {{&lit}}. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
• Convert to {{&lit}}. Per utramque cavernam (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
• Keep the nominated verb sense "Wait for an unspecified short period of time" without conversion to &lit. It may be SOP with respect to the particular definition of "minute", but it is unclear how much that sense of minute is used outside of "wait a minute" phrase. http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/wait+a+minute gives multiple idiom dictionaries (which do not count for WT:LEMMING as proposed, but anyway). --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

(Wait | hang on | hold on | just) a (minute | moment | mo | jiffy)... nothing special about this one. Delete. Equinox ◑ 22:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Delete/Convert to {{&lit}}. Equinox has demonstrated convincingly that this is SOP. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Convert to {{&lit}}. The interjections are idiomatic, but the verb sense is literally wait a minute. bd2412 T 15:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

man-on-man

gal-on-gal

Wonderfoolisms. He also made orangutan-on-orangutan, which sums up perfectly how transparent these are. (I believe the 15th sense of the preposition on covers this; "Denoting performance or action by contact with the surface, upper part, or outside of anything; hence, by means of; with." Do we need an extra sense covering sexual acts?) PseudoSkull (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Some were done by User:Pointon, but not girl-on-girl or gal-on-gal. DonnanZ (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Move to RFV and keep if they pass. Ƿidsiþ 13:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a question about whether or not they're attested; they most certainly are. This is a question about how transparent these are; i.e. I forgot to mention guy-on-guy but there's no entry for it yet. You could essentially say X-on-X for just about anything. It's SOP! PseudoSkull (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

You could say it, but could you find three durably archived cites for it? Ƿidsiþ 08:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The anything-on-anything point is well-made. Perhaps--though I hesitate to offer this again for fear of becoming the neighbourhood snowclone vendor--this is best as a snowclone? I'm not sold in any direction yet. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

My first impulse was delete as transparent, but thinking about it, I realize that the sexual implication is only for certain values of X - for example "white-on-white" has a definite, but very different meaning. Kiwima (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

These have generally previously been discussed and kept pursuant to that discussion. See Talk:man-on-man (discussing all of the above except gal-on-gal, which is a variation of a discussed term). bd2412 T 14:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Add relevant sense(s) to on and delete these entries. Could be something like "Denotes sexual engagement between parties" and "Denotes engagement between parties, often of a physical or violent nature" and some of these could be cited as usexes. Furthermore, because it's not a snowclone, it allows for instances where the two parties mentioned may not be the same (e.g. boy-on-girl) --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

death to

I think this interjection is a normal use of to. Compare "good luck to them!", "many happy returns to you" (on a birthday), etc. Equinox ◑ 14:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Is down with a synonym (more or less)? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

They're related, but I feel like synonym is a stretch. "Death to" is more specific--"down with" could just mean a removal from power, a defeat, etc., not necessarily death. It's almost like "death to" is hyponymic to "down with".

But yes, I agree with Equinox. In the same vein there are "happy birthday to you", "congratulations to her", "kudos to him", etc. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Abstain for now. This might have non-trivial translations that cannot be covered by down with. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

fan translation

SOP, afaict. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

It should be considered alongside its synonym, fanslation. DonnanZ (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

No, it's one word, not a sum of parts, so the rationale for deleting "fan translation" does not apply at all. Equinox ◑ 19:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

That difference shouldn't apply, but I will let other editors decide. I'm neutral. DonnanZ (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

No, because fanslation is one word. For instance, Japanese animation does not get an entry, but anime does. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Definitely keep fanslation if its CFI-compliant. Neutral on fan translation; I couldn't imagine what it meant until I read the definition, but now that I know, I suppose I could have figured it out if I had encountered it in context. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 20:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but if you're not an -aholic where computer games are concerned, you can be excused for not having any idea what it means. This is where the link to Wikipedia comes in handy. DonnanZ (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Possible keep. The definition seems too narrow though, per the Wikipedia explanation. Ƿidsiþ 17:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete the definition of "fan translation" should be "a translation done by a fan". That's SoP. Fan translations into a language the game was released in probably exist, due to bowdlerism or inaccuracies in the official translation. Kristin Anderson Terpstra's doctorate thesis about manga translation says "The first recorded fan translation occurred as early as 1977, that of Osamu Tezuka’s Phoenix, by fan translation group Dadakai (Palmer & Deskins, n.d.)." This (non-durably archived) article says "Fan translation, in general, refers to the unofficial translation of media, mostly computer games, films, books and music, from one language to another. Fan translations are distributed by fans for free." This (possibly durably archived) article talks about "fan translations" in the context of K-Pop.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Um, what kind of fan: hand-held, electric, a fan-atic? DonnanZ (talk) 09:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Any type of fan that translates. I'm sure with enough work you could come up with sentences that talked about a fan translation using many senses of fan and translation, but most are going to be talking about fanatics converting stuff from one language to another, not electric fans moving things in a straight line motion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I must confess that when I first looked at this I naively thought of a hand-held fan. DonnanZ (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

sexually mature

sexually + mature. The translations look straightforward. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed, Delete. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I was hasty to make a judgement on this one--Enginear makes an important point, and it is a specific scientific term. If we do keep it, it's behovely that we add sexual maturity as an entry as well. I'm going to abstain for now and wait to see what some others say. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
• On the contrary, keep as a translation target for the very translations the nominator rubbishes. Not every user is as "clever" as him. DonnanZ (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • You're starting to irritate me with your barbs. This is not the first time I see you make this kind of comments (diff).

  As for the translations, the emerging consensus is that "A translation does not qualify to support the English term if it is: a closed compound that is a word-for-word translation of the English term". --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

If you study the translations more closely, you will find that some are noun+adj compounds, not adv+adj compounds, so they are not word-for-word. DonnanZ (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Keep -- both sexually and mature have several definitions, leading to several reasonably possible SoP definitions, eg [of a show] erotically adult, or [of a person] having pubes smelling like rotting fish, careful/considered regarding sexual intercourse (aka practising safe sex and/or never-on-the-first-date?), beyond "beginners'" sex and wanting more advanced positions from the Kama Sutra, a MILF or sugar daddy, etc. Personally, until I learned the technical meaning, I always assumed "sexually mature" meant "with sexual organs looking like an adult" but even that is not correct. The real meaning: "having become able to reproduce" does not occur at exactly the same time as the organs begin to look fully adult -- and indeed, in some animals it is famously impossible for experts to visually identify sexual maturity. So while "sexually mature" is indeed an SoP definition, it is also NOT several other SoP definitions, and is a useful entry. --Enginear 22:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
• I tend toward keep as a translation target, Dutch geslachtsrijp is not a "word-for-word translation of the English term" and it is even idiomatic (geslacht does not mean "coitus, sex, sexual reproduction", it means "biological sex (category), gender, generation, lineage, genus, etc."); I suspect the same is true for several of the other Germanic translations that are listed. However, I would like to see whether there are similarly not-word-for-word translations from other language families. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

  I overlooked the Finnish translation sukukypsä, which seems like just such a case. @Hekaheka, does the above also apply to sukukypsä? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

  It apparently parses as suku (≈ geslacht) + kypsä. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

be one

I find this whole entry unclear; I don't see how the English term is supposed to be used ("I'm one with you"?), and the translations seem like they could/should go to agree. And "être unanime" in French isn't used that way (edit: it's indeed a very old-fashioned way of saying "to agree with sb"). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Abstain for now to see what others come up with. But I want to note that I'm not familiar with this sense of "be one"--whenever I've heard it used, it's meant either to mean some kind spiritual union (e.g. "Through the decades our friendship deepened, and in our old age we were one."; "She was one with God.") or sexual union, typically archaically (e.g. "And he lay with her and they were one.) With agreement, I've heard such things as "They were of one mind" or "They were of one accord", but never simply "They were one." --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Something like "On this question they were one", meaning that they were of the same opinion, seems feasible to me. Whether this justifies the entry I'm not sure. Also, I don't understand why the heading for the translations is "be fit". Where does "fit" come from?? Mihia (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

It's probably a copypasto. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

computer game

At #fan translation, DonnanZ said "if you're not an -aholic where computer games are concerned, ...". I went to make a comment about not needing "computer game", but then noticed that we had it. And that he didn't use the word with our narrow definition; fan translation refers largely to translation of console games, not computer games. Arguably we're missing a sense at computer that excludes video game consoles and cell phones; when I was trying to figure out where my computers were when moving, my inner pedant started talking about cell phones and Blu-Ray players but never even thought about the Nintendo Wii.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

That more or less proves that I am not a fan or an -aholic (as I put it) of video games, console games, computer games, arcade games etc., so it is probably better to keep the entries we have to explain the differences between them, but not just for myself. It definitely passes the lemming test, I added a ref to OneLook. DonnanZ (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

computer chess was kept (IMO wrongly). Equinox ◑ 15:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

One of my sons used to play that all the time, on a small electronic chessboard if I remember correctly. DonnanZ (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

BTW, in my personal experience ('80s kid), "video games" were sort of pre-built games that were just "there" and you couldn't load or modify (like coin-ops), while "computer games" were the ones you would load and play on your 8-bit machine (ZX Spectrum, Commodore 64, Amstrad CPC). I played games heavily in the '80s and early '90s and they were definitely "computer games" to me; the "video game" term still feels a bit new (or else reminds me of 1980-era Space Invaders) but I am absolutely aware that this is overwhelmingly now the term for any kind of game you play on a screen with an input device. Things have changed. Just saying this so that it gets onto the archive page, I guess; nobody was recording our language in those pre-Internet days. Equinox ◑ 08:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Pre-Internet our language was being recorded in heavy tomes... you can still buy dictionaries in book form. DonnanZ (talk) 09:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, part of my interest in this project is the fact that I memorised significant portions of Chambers, and actually wrote to them in my early teens and suggested some missing words. Their definition of "playability" is still, IIRC, my exact childish wording. -- Anyway, paper dicts have always been slow to add subcultural and minority stuff, so the punks and Goths and computer nerds of the eighties didn't get much love and certainly weren't documented there. Equinox ◑ 09:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Funny you should say that: I suggested some missing words to Det Norske Akademis ordbok, as they ask for suggestions, and they have adopted three of them so far. Getting back to computer game and video game: both are listed in my 2005 Oxford Dictionary of English (the back cover fell off ages ago); I have an older Oxford somewhere, probably up in the loft. DonnanZ (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Getting off-topic a bit: the last time I checked Chambers, they still defined platform game along the lines of "a video game where each new level is harder than the last". What?! It's a genre that involves jumping or traveling between platforms suspended in the air. It's not about difficulty! Equinox ◑ 12:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I've never been a video game player, but isn't it true of all (or virtually all) video games that each new level is harder than the last? It would be kind of boring otherwise. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 12:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Not per se, sometimes easier levels deliberately follow more challenging ones or if not intended the difficulty curve could be bad. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Earlier in my life I was a big game player (typically early 90s games) and I have to admit that I've always thought platform game referred to games where there was a kind of non-playing overworld whence you selected levels that were of increasing difficulty (I thought of these as metaphorical 'platforms'). Take for example Super Mario World. It never occurred to me that 'platform' would be literally things you stand and jump on. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd say that's because coin-ops and consoles aren't computers and the Amstrad CPC is, for a definition of computer that we don't seem to have. (Does it normally run BASIC? If not, not a real computer. At least for that day, it's a silly but not inaccurate definition.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. I would at least call this a set phrase. Also, if I set up a giant chess board and use computers as chess pieces, it would not fall into this definition of "computer game". bd2412 T 12:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I enjoy this image immensely. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep. Maybe unrelated, but Danish seems to use computerspil (a direct cognate) much more often than videospil even in the modern day. I mean, think about it, every video game is run on some kind of computer by definition or it wouldn't be a video game. To say the very least, it seems to be a set phrase, though I guess if you boil it down it means "a game played on a computer"... But this is one of those rare cases where I think it should stay. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Could a case be made of the possibility that "computer game" was used before "video game"? PseudoSkull (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I have the impression that "computer game" is used in British English in contrast to "video game" in US English. -Stelio (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

to-gloried

The term is attested only once (in the quotation I have duly moved /having corrected it/ to the citation page); it is neither in the OED nor in the Middle English Dictionary. As it does not meet the criteria for inclusion, the entry can now be deleted without further ado. Jiří Bezděka (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Move to WT:RFVE? "Mankind: 1470" -- is it attestable as Middle English (requires only 1 cite)? -84.161.49.148 14:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Middle English does have the prefix to- (orange-linked, but I plan to add it soon) as a common prefix applied liberally to verbs and participles, including the function as an intensifier. It wouldn't be totally out of place considered as Middle English; that said, 1470 is pretty late and very ambiguous between ME and EModE. I can't find any other usage of in the more typical chronological range that would make a placement into ME more comfortable, and because I can't find a version of the cited text that isn't "updated" English, I can't really see how "Middle" or "Early Modern" the tendency of the original is. So I don't know. The formation of it would have been pretty commonplace and definitely unsurprising in ME, so I guess I lean slightly towards accepting it as ME, at least in theory. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

ISO 639-2 defines Middle English as existing 1050-1500. We've usually gone along with that definition, because there is no hard line, at least at the modern end, and an arbitrary round and standard 1500 is as good as anything.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I just like to approach ~1450-1530 with wariness and deliberation for exactly the reason you stated. This is just an odd case because often one can look forward or backward and see where the trend is with the word's use, but one data point obviously doesn't allow that.

Given this, and considering that the to- prefix tapered during EModE into rarity during ModE but was productive and common both in OE and ME, I think that including it in ME is valid. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I've never seen that done on Wiktionary. A work written in 1510 by a native English speaker in their native tongue is written in one language, not a mixture of two. Listing some words as Modern English (and not Middle) and some words as Middle English (and not Modern) does violence to the unity of the language. If necessary, I'd go the other way; a word in an intermediate text should attest both Middle English and Modern English, effectively calling the text simultaneously ME and ModE if we can't resolve it one way or the other.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

level

Sense:

1. (nonstandard, rare) To levy.
   • 2007, Mary Jacoby, EU investigators endorse charges against Intel, Wall Street Journal Europe, 17 January, p.32, col.5:

     Ultimately, Ms. Kroes [European Union Antitrust Commissioner] could level a fine and order Intel to change its business practices.

As far as I can see, the example quoted is nothing more than an error: mixing up two words that are a bit similar. If the confusion is sufficiently common then I guess a usage note could be added, but I don't think that people's errors deserve to be mentioned in the list of definitions. Mihia (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think it's an error, I just think it's use of of "level" meaning "to direct (something at someone)", perhaps following the idea of levelling a weapon at someone; you do see this use sometimes. I don't think "level" means "levy" however. Ƿidsiþ 08:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

It could be, I guess. I think it's probably impossible to say without asking the author. However, even if you're right, the definition "to levy" is still invalid IMO, as you also suggest. Mihia (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

It needs an {{rfd-sense}} added to it. I think Widsith is partially right; when you've got two similar words and two similar meanings, I don't think clearly disentangling something like this is possible; except for people who write at the speed of James Joyce, who apparently felt he was writing quickly when he got two sentences done in Ulysses in a day, people don't usually think that precisely in the first place.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

kill it with fire

Not sure this needs to be deleted, but it is sum of parts and merely special for the context it is used in, which, given the quotes, does not seem notable. But I have an aversion against phrase book entries in general, so take this with a grain of salt. Etymology section does not apply, the true sense is verbatim (if metaphoric), but origin is what's needed ... Rhyminreason (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems special. Fire isn't relevant to the way it is used. Nobody says "kill it by stabbing!" Equinox ◑ 22:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Equinox You say that phrase a lot. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep, it's quite idiomatic. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Just a bit of creative exaggeration that's got slightly popular. You also see nuke it from orbit quite a lot. Ƿidsiþ 14:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Is the word "it" an essential or invariable part of this expression? Mihia (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep: this is a relatively common metaphor, and not really sum of parts, as the intention is usually not to literally burn the item in question. GKFX (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep. Nominator does not understand how the CFI work (origin is irrelevant). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Move to kill with fire --Cien pies 6 (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@metaknowledge: I was merely explaining my thought process. To be precise, the literal allusion to killing is to a very subliminal degree really literal.

This request seems to have failed, but let me explain: The phrase is not idiomatic, because the sense is understandable in any literal translation. I might as well say erradicate it from the face of earth. The figurative meaning is purely from to kill. Adding with fire would simply normalize it to burn it. That's perfectly obvious from the sum of its parts. Hence, its not an idiom under thenmost specific definition of idiom ("especially when the meaning is illogical or separate from the meanings of its component words"). That definition is, to me at least, the most convincing reason to keep a phrase that is otherwise SOP. It's merely an exegarated vulgarity with limited use. It is dialect, sociolect ornwhatever, granted, but barely so. Therefore I found this merrits validation.

My last, admittedly confusing sentence in the nomination above means that if there is an illogical or separate sense, then that should be explained in the ety. But I don't see how there would be anything to explain that shouldn't be at kill.

There are citations for a mere "kill it" in a similarly figurative sense (1, 2, 3, 4)

There's also one example where the ground, ie. the lawn will be killed.

Of course, I would say that "kill this with fire" is a misappropriation of the meme. But in the same way, I think the meme is chiefly used in exagerated but literal reaction to spiders. The citations we have simply use it figuratively, but a metaphor, if you might call it that, needs to have a kernel of truth, doesn't it? I say it hasn't lost that, even if directed at things or people, and therefore were a sum of its parts. Rhyminreason (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

distributive property

SoP SemperBlotto (talk) 05:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

sinusoidal function

The phase "sinusoidal function" does not require a definition. It can be understood fully from its constituent words; the word sinusoidal only really makes sense in the context of a function of some sort. GKFX (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Non-mathematically, I think the phrase could also be used medically with regards to the sinusoids in the cardiovascular system-- a sentence like "The admission of albumin into the bloodstream is not arterial, but rather is a sinusoidal function." would not be all that abnormal. Other than this, I think 'sinusoidal' can also be descriptive of things other than function that resemble the shape of the function, e.g. sinusoidal clouds, sinusoidal waves (the water variety), and might even be used figuratively for rising and falling.

That said, I don't think that these other uses necessarily gainsay the SoP, but they're worth considering. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

It could mean more than one thing but I think all are SoP; I lean towards delete. Equinox ◑ 00:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. Redirect to sinusoidal? I considered the Talk:free variable argument, but found in sinusoidal wave, sinusoidal function at the Google Books Ngram Viewer. that the wave is even more common than function. Note that the definition would need to be ajusted to cover both waves and functions. For sine wave, “sine wave”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. finds multiple lemming dictionaries, including M-W[28].--Dan Polansky (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

brown leaf

sense: (biology) a disease of plants, characterised by the presence of brown leaves

I see no evidence that brown leaf is a specific disease, rather than a condition like dry skin in humans.

Thus, this sense would seem to be NISOP. Contrast it with the other definition of a specific condition affecting a specific product of timothy grass. DCDuring (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

What does NISOP stand for? --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Non-idiomatic sum of parts. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Ohh, gotcha. Thanks. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I like that. From now on I'm using NISOP rather than SOP. bd2412 T 17:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Ulster

I am sure the "adjective" (Ulster#Adjective) is purely a noun modifier. The translations could be a problem though. DonnanZ (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

New Zealand is a similar case which isn't an adjective. DonnanZ (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

blanket

Delete the adjective section, and add a new sense to the noun section. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

A possible keep, shown as an adjective here. DonnanZ (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

But it doesn't pass the tests for adjectivity. You can't say "**this ban is blanket" or "**a very blanket statement", for example. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

No it always seems to be attributive, found a couple more refs where it is listed as an adjective, Cambridge and Collins. It appears to be figurative usage of the noun; even the noun can be used figuratively, e.g. wet blanket. I'm not sure about blanket bath, which needs an entry (an all-over wash given to a person confined to bed); whether it's a literal or figurative sense I don't know. DonnanZ (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep the adjective section using the lemming heuristic: M-W[29], Macmillan[30], oxforddictionaries.com[31], dictionary.cambridge.org[32]; Collins[33] says "adjective [usually ADJECTIVE noun]", which I don't know that that means. On a marginal note: these dictionaries used to have such beautiful websites, before this pernicious tabletty design fashion came. Wiktionary still keeps its beautiful design free from locked in top search bars. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

So we're just going to propagate the mistake of other dictionaries? In fact, I'm not even convinced this a genuine mistake on their part; rather, it looks like an intentional shortcut, to avoid having to explain why it can't be an adjective (their websites aren't really suited to that). As we're more linguistically minded, do we really want to do that too?

Collins is probably saying, like the others, that this "adjective" is always found before the noun it qualifies. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 07:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky: Please see this revision for what I think would be the best solution. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 07:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Not my favorite; keep as is. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

How do you know it's a mistake? There is no ultimate test of adjectivity in English: obviously, not all adjectives are comparable, forming comparatives and superlatives. Note that the etymology of the word seems to be adjectival. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

There might be no ultimate test of adjectivity, but that this word passes none of the usual ones (as I said above, I don't think you can say "**this ban is blanket", nor "**a very blanket statement"; and you certainly can't say "**blanketer/**blanketest/**more blanket/**blanketly" (edit: actually you can, which seriously undermines my point...)) seems like a pretty good indicator that it's not an adjective. If I'm wrong, please show me why.

As for the etymology: that the word is of adjectival origin is irrelevant. Or are you arguing that that sense of blanket is actually a remnant of that? I very much doubt it, but again, I'm willing to be shown otherwise. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I delegate the lexicographical research to lemmings in this case. I do not have access to their internal records and deliberations. I point out again to there being no conclusive test of adjectivity since non-comparable adjectives exist. In Czech, the situation is very different: there, adjectivity is seen from the surface morphology. Thus, lumbální looks like an adjective and inflects like an adjective, and is non-comparable. In English, adjectivity is more difficult to recognize. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep. Equinox ◑ 10:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• I had a go at adding missing derived terms, and found it difficult in some cases to separate between noun and adjective, so in the end I lumped them all together. Perhaps another editor can do a better job. DonnanZ (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

royal family

SOP, the translations look straightforward (except perhaps the Hindi and the Chinese). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't quite understand why Japanese 王室 is SOP but Chinese 王室 (wángshì) isn't. They both literally mean "royal room", don't they? —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 20:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, brain fart. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I mean "Sorry, that was a brain fart." I'm not calling you a "brain fart". --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

And perhaps the Scandinavian translations too: Danish kongehus, Swedish kungahus. Though in that case I'm not convinced (English house ≈ family (sense 8)). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

"Royal house" is used in English as well, totally synonymous with "royal family". That may support what PUC was saying. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Is it? I would say the royal house of the UK is the House of Windsor, which is by no means synonymous with the royal family. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 21:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I suppose not. All of the instances I was thinking of were, but they were limited. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep. konge- (etc.) compounds are derived from king, and can mean royal, not what the inexperienced user would expect. DonnanZ (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you call the royal families of Luxembourg, Monaco and Liechtenstein kongehus/kungahus even though they don't have kings? (For that matter, can you call them royal families in English?) —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 10:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: It may be fyrstehus in those cases [34], [35]. DonnanZ (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep as translation target. Wyang (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Wyang, why did you do this? I think my concern about dumping qualifying and non-qualifying translations in the same place is a legitimate one, and I would like more people to see what I'm proposing. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a Eurocentric split. Wyang (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Wyang: I don't understand. If some European language had a "non word-for-word translation" (for lack of a better wording), then I'd put it in the first box; the fact that there's none in this specific instance is completely accidental. The point is definitely not to say "look at how Asia/Africa/Oceania/America does it, and how Europe does it". --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

What is a word-for-word translation anyway? It makes no difference- a translation is a translation. The fact is that multiple languages have words that are perfectly valid and includable to refer to "royal family", thus it is a translation target. Sure, in European languages you can have words characteristically thought of as equivalents of English words (e.g. family ~ famille), but most languages don't. Are 皇家, 皇室, 王室, etc. word-for-word translations of 'royal family'? I don't know, because there are no word-to-word correspondences between English and Chinese. The JKV words are borrowed from Chinese, so are they "word-for-word translations"? Wyang (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Wyang: As I only speak French and English fluently, I lack the knowledge and cognitive baggage to answer your questions properly.

You might want to weigh in on the Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-03/Including translation hubs vote (I've voted against the proposal) though. It states that "A translation does not qualify to support the English term if it is: 1) a closed compound that is a word-for-word translation of the English term 2) a multi-word phrase that is a word-for-word translation of the English term". If the distinction is worthless to you, your definition of a translation target is different than most other people's. --Per utramque cavernam 19:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Wyang: Thanks for voting. I've opposed in part for the opposite reason than you: the criteria aren't stringent enough to my taste :p. If I understood correctly, you're thinking more along the lines of Widsith's message? --Per utramque cavernam 10:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, largely. Well, this is what happens when discussions don't happen and votes are used instead to make decisions. Mob ignorance. Wyang (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep using the lemming heuristic (WT:LEMMING): in Collins[36] and Macmillan[37]. As for translation hub (Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-03/Including translation hubs), I have doubts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

tits and bums

See tits and ass above. – Gormflaith (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Tits and ass is no longer above (having survived RFV), so this should probably be addressed separately. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

daily paper

Entered as a synonym of daily. Seems to me akin to "monthly magazine" or "twice-yearly newsletter". (The fact that there are non-newspaper kinds of "paper" is IMO a red herring, as that argument equally supports entries for things like "conservative paper", "sensationalist paper".) Equinox ◑ 21:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Weak delete. It would be interesting to know whether "daily" as a noun in this sense is a direct shortening of something like "daily paper" or "daily newspaper". After a cursory look I didn't find anything in support or contrary to that, but it may have some bearing on whether to keep daily paper. My inclination is to see it as SOP daily (adjective) + paper (sense 2). --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep as a synonym. I don't think anything will be achieved by deleting this, and it may be helpful to those whose native language is not English. DonnanZ (talk) 07:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep because paper has multiple meanings. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Did you even read the-- oh well. Equinox ◑ 02:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Just chalk it up alongside that rain triple entry.--SanctMinimalicen (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

modest fashion

"A fashion trend of wearing less skin-revealing clothes." Sum of parts, not (AFAIK) particularly idiomatic; the WP article is a bad opinion piece. Equinox ◑ 15:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. Interestingly and unimportantly, on the WP article at the Fashion navigation box on the bottom the article is identified as "Hijabi fashion". Could use a little work I guess. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Ways to change fashion: (i) be a wealthy moron and invent a new kind of shirt; (ii) try to make "covering yourself up" a fashion trend by creating a WP article. I can smell spam a mile off. Equinox ◑ 02:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Err, regardless of whether it is demonstrably SoP or not, for the record, this is a real thing. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

barbecue cottage cheese salad

Strikes me as SoP. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 12:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• How can you barbecue cottage cheese? Sounds horrible, anyway. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • It sounds revolting, but not SoP since the word "sauce" has been omitted from barbecue sauce. Looking through b.g.c, however, I'm not convinced it's attestable. Move to RFV, perhaps? —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 13:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I would be tempted to nuke it, bearing in mind there is no entry for cottage cheese salad anyway, but RFV is probably the best solution. DonnanZ (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

... and perhaps someone would like to provide an image for cottage cheese ass... DonnanZ (talk) 09:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Lol, very classy! --Per utramque cavernam 20:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Nuke it, eh? Sounds even more delicious. Equinox ◑ 21:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Per utramque cavernam 13:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

snaketivity

This seems like a nonce word for a specific event that happened one time. DTLHS (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

No plural in evidence, and should probably be capitalised. Deserves RFV though? Equinox ◑ 13:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Three times. Alexis Jazz (talk) 06:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep (as entry creator), this also seems to be used in reference to more recent displays than just 2014. [38] I'm fine with moving it to an upper-case entry; it seems this spelling is becoming more common in durable sources. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Restore ʾiʿrāb

Requesting a restoration of ʾiʿrāb a loanword from Arabic إِعْرَاب (ʔiʕrāb), an important term in reference to the Arabic grammar. Asking kindly to provide citations. The current spelling is hard to search for but there are many hits with "iʿrāb" or "irāb". Perhaps it could be lemmatised as iʿrāb, which is probably more appropriate than "ʾiʿrāb". The initial hamza, transliterated as "ʾ" can probably be ignored, as is normally the case in borrowings from Arabic but the second "ʿ" must be kept as the normalised spelling. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

See Talk:ʾiʿrāb. Calling the person who initiated the RFD and deleted the entry: @Kiwima, please review, we just need to keep it under "iʿrāb", minus initial "ʾ". --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

You will need to find examples that are not italicized. DTLHS (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

This was not RFD'd, it was RFV'd. I could not find unitalicized citations of ʾiʿrāb before, and I cannot find unitalicized citations of iʿrāb now. @Atitarev:, you will need to provide the citations if you want this restored. Kiwima (talk) 06:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Atitarev: Couldn't we add this as an Arabic romanisation entry? Per utramque cavernam 09:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Per utramque cavernam: Thanks but I oppose creation of Arabic romanisation entries. This term is always used by learners and teachers of Arabic, by grammarians and in references, it's just having trouble being assimilated as English. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The Rock, the Rock

The senses provided here are already at Rock and my understanding is that we note the use of articles at the base term outside of phrases (the rubber meets the road, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, etc.). — LlywelynII 08:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I think a separate header at Rock (en-prop|head=the Rock) would be needed. DonnanZ (talk) 09:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Redirect: Terms that include "the" are always a bit tricky, but I suspect these can be used without "the" some of the time, like "a Rock spokeswoman said...", "Rock officials asked for...", in which case redirecting these seems best. Having two Proper noun sections so one can have "the" in the headword is one possibility, but probably just having a label "with 'the'" / "with definite article" like [[Rock]] currently does is sufficient. (If these aren't deleted, some of the senses at [[Rock]] should be switched to "see the Rock"; the definitions don't need to be in two places, one with "the" in the pagetitle and one with a label saying "with 'the'"...) - -sche (discuss) 21:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I doubt that a formal sense would use "Rock" without "The", since formal uses would just refer to "Gibraltar" or "Alcatraz". bd2412 T 23:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

But newspapers etc might well use "Rock". - -sche (discuss) 19:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

That sounds more like an RfV matter. What newspapers might hypothetically do is outweighed by what they actually do. Is it possible to find examples of newspapers referring to either Alcatraz or Gibralter as "Rock" without "The" or "the"? bd2412 T 11:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

guaranteed

"(poker) Said of the minimum amount of money (or satellite entries, or other prize) that is guaranteed to make the prize pool in a certain poker tournament. $100k guaranteed (or: $100k gtd) = at least 100,000 dollars are going to be split among the winners." I think this is just a specialised context of the usual meaning. Equinox ◑ 19:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Agree. Ƿidsiþ 14:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, delete it and move the usex under the usual sense. - -sche (discuss) 19:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, delete. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Sandy Hook

Sense: "a school shooting that took place in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012."

Not to be crass, but if we were to add "memorable" shootings as definitions from now on, we would soon flood entries with horrible tragedies. Columbine, Bataclan, Orlando, Parkland, Las Vegas, Charleston, San Bernadino, the list goes on and on, and on... --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Should be kept if we can find three citations for the sense. Lockerbie got through the RfD process some years ago. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, but I think there is a difference - Lockerbie became a common noun hence the plural forms ("[...]to prevent Lockerbies", "[...]another Lockerbie", "[...]to stage seven Lockerbies"). I'm not sure Sandy Hook has had the same linguistic development. Don't get me wrong, a horrific event but I still don't think that it belongs here. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not the kind of information I wanted to include, and Semper did this with Dunblane. DonnanZ (talk) 09:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Robbie--it doesn't seem to me that it's gotten the same linguistic quality. Of all of the aforelisted shootings, the only one that seems to come close in my experience is Columbine--I hear people saying things like "It's just another Columbine" or "How many Columbines will we have to suffer?"--but I'm not sure that even that is mainstream enough to consider a lemma like this. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The main problem is that we don't have a notability requirement, and there are huge numbers of events that have entered the discourse of local communities in the form of a short-hand references to a place, a person, a date, or some associated phrase, especially since news media need these to save space in headlines and titles. Dunblaine and Sandy Hook are particularly notable because they have been the subject of much debate in important and influential countries, but I'm sure there are terms we've never heard of with similar significance for many, many other places in the world. It's true that we're not paper, but I can see how this kind of thing could really get out of hand with only a 3-attestation requirement. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Does CFI have anything on this? I can't be bothered to look. DonnanZ (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• I would keep this and add Columbine. I think that the distinction here are that the place names are obscure enough that they are only popularly known for having mass shootings. bd2412 T 13:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Columbine, Colorado is the place where it happened, so that can be added at least. DonnanZ (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The event is fairly universally known as just "Columbine". bd2412 T 22:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

phono-semantic compound

Looks SoP. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

aim to

I don't see the point of this, and apparently I'm not alone. --Per utramque cavernam 13:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

admire to

Move to admire. --Per utramque cavernam 13:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It may not be as easy as that. Equinox did add a quote, and it seems to be an unusual use of English. DonnanZ (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but we can very well handle that at admire. --Per utramque cavernam 15:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be possible to use it without "to", so I do think it should be moved (at this point, merged) into admire. - -sche (discuss) 19:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Merge with admire, as per -sche. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

report to

Move to report (or do we already have a relevant sense there?). In any case, delete. --Per utramque cavernam 13:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, merge into report (sense 8 "to be accountable", with the usex "the financial director reports to the CEO", seems intended to cover this, although it might benefit from report to's longer definition). - -sche (discuss) 19:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I second -sche's idea. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

crash together

WurdSnatcher (talk • contribs) created dozens of entries like this... I don't understand. --Per utramque cavernam 13:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Delete. This is manifestly SoP. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

grow fond of

This was entered as a translation hub, but I don't really see the point; surely we can put the translations somewhere else? At take a liking to, for example? --Per utramque cavernam 14:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a suitable place. DonnanZ (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Why? --Per utramque cavernam 13:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

fcuk

This has no lexical significance. DTLHS (talk) 06:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep. Initialisms do technically have lexical significance here, even if standing for companies alone. See also similar entries such as AVGN, SDA, and all sorts of others. Reason? People can't deduce them as company name initialisms from simply looking at them. I think if you want to make a serious effort to change this, you should bring it up somewhere bigger, like the Beer parlour, instead of tackling a single lonely entry, since tons of these entries already exist and it would be virtually impossible at this point to find every one. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not an initialism, and I'm not interested in policies. I just want this particular entry deleted. DTLHS (talk) 06:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Why? Because it's weirdly used in the lowercase? "I'm not interested in policies" sort of defeats the purpose of RFD, too. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Isn't it also used as a euphemism for the F-word, for example, to avoid NSFW filters? — SGconlaw (talk) 06:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but that doesn't really make a word; it's on-the-spot messing around to dodge the filter, like bithc or w&a&nker. Equinox ◑ 06:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Inclined to delete: if it were the same thing (a clothing brand) and not an initialism, there'd be no reason to keep. As it is, it's not particularly understood as "standing for" French Connection United Kingdom; it's more like a logo. Equinox ◑ 06:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

WT:CFI says, and I quote:

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

[...]

• Abbreviations, acronyms, and initialisms such as NBA."

Then the brand name section goes on to say:

"A brand name for a product or service should be included if it has entered the lexicon. Apart from genericized trademarks, this is measured objectively by the brand name’s use in at least three independent durably archived citations spanning a period of at least three years."

Then we must consider the line about usage:

"This filters out appearance in raw word lists, commentary on the form of a word, such as “The word ‘foo’ has three letters,” lone definitions, and made-up examples of how a word might be used. For example, an appearance in someone’s online dictionary is suggestive, but it does not show the word actually used to convey meaning. On the other hand, a sentence like “They raised the jib (a small sail forward of the mainsail) in order to get the most out of the light wind,” appearing in an account of a sailboat race, would be fine. It happens to contain a definition, but the word is also used for its meaning."

Having all these things in mind, I think our mission now for anyone actually advocating this entry would be to see if anyone refers to this initialism outside of any reference to the company or anything related? This is sort of contradictory when using this approach, though, because it says that in the first quoted line that any initialisms, abbreviations, or acronyms are allowed, and then never mentions initialisms, acronyms, or abbreviations again on the entire page. There's no "unless" in that line, so... To those opposing this entry, should we change that part of CFI? PseudoSkull (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Keep and add a sense for the euphemism. Let's not pretend that the word isn't used as a euphemism, or that the euphemism isn't derived from the acronym, or that the creators of the acronym didn't intend precisely that outcome. See Gaynor Lea-Greenwood, Fashion Marketing Communications (2012), p. 11: "Every time a new version of the fcuk slogan was released, it was considered relevant to the target market, which enjoyed the iconic and cheeky slogans"; Thomas Riggs, Encyclopedia of major marketing campaigns, Volume 2 (2006), p. 580: "French Connection was rebranded as FCUK, a move that generated extensive controversy while fueling unprecedented company growth. Outdoor advertisements in London, tagged "FCUK fashion," were outlawed by Britain's Advertising Standards Authority after widespread outrage". bd2412 T 22:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Nobles County

And every other US county page I have created, well over 1000 of them.

This is the last one I created. I don't really want to delete this, but I want to protest at the way User:Koavf summarily deleted Category:en:United States county index without any warning, and without going through the normal RFD procedure. Further discussion can be found here and here]

Before anyone questions my sanity: Yes, I am of sound mind; no, I don't need to see a psychiatrist; and no, I haven't entered my second childhood yet. DonnanZ (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Since there is no rationale for deletion, let alone a valid one. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh there's a rationale all right. The RFD can be withdrawn if sanity returns. DonnanZ (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Move to the name without the word "County" (which makes each of these entries SOP). We should include Nobles County and all the other ones at Wiktionary, but we should list them at Nobles and the like, not Nobles County. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 19:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

That was discussed before, see Talk:McClain County, and it was decided to keep the present format. In any case, in many cases I don't recommend that, if the county index still existed you would be able to study it and see why. DonnanZ (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

That particular issue was barely discussed there. Most people there were simply voting on whether to keep or delete McClain County; the option of keeping it under the nmae McClain was considered by only a minority of the participants in the discussion. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 21:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I tend to think this should be moved to Nobles per Mahagaja, like e.g. Talk:Hyderabad State / Hyderabad Division (where however only Metaknowledge and I expressed opinions). Do we have a way of determining how often county names are used without "county"? - -sche (discuss) 21:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the nom was mostly done because of the controversy with Category:en:United States county index. But I need to address something else here:

• I don't know that Nobles County is necessarily a set proper noun phrase. For instance, see this: "The city of Landsville is located inside both Lincoln and Nobles Counties." (I made up those names off the top of my head.) You'll find this "Counties" thing on a lot of Wikipedia pages, for instance. It could also be written as "Lincoln and Nobles counties". What do you think of this, lexically speaking? PseudoSkull (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

There are cases too where county and county seat share the same name, so I think it would be disadvantageous to remove County, e.g. he lives in Bloggsville County, not in Bloggsville. Also look at Switzerland County for example. DonnanZ (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep because you don't use RFD to complain about another user's behaviour. Use WT:BP or something. Equinox ◑ 02:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

There already is a BP discussion if you want to contribute to it. DonnanZ (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Keep all. County names are set phrases. Having this at "Nobles" would be like having fire engine at fire. bd2412 T 22:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Keep It's a proper noun. "I live in Nobles" has a different meaning than "I live in Nobles County". – Julia ☺ ^{• formerly Gormflaith •} 22:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Keep--county names are protected under primary administrative divisions in WT:CFI. Also, in response to the "Lincoln and Nobles counties" point, it seems to me that that's just a standard instance of ellipsis, which doesn't compromise the proper noun-ness of the phrase. The construct "Mr. & Mrs. Jones" doesn't make the "Mr." any less of a "Jones", in other words. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

RFD nomination withdrawn. I have created a substitute county index on my user page, and all users are welcome to pop in and browse. I still need to add Alaskan boroughs (those that are done). DonnanZ (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

cocolture

Rare misspelling. --Per utramque cavernam 10:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• I can provide four citations from [39] if you really want them. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't feel like that's sufficient to make this a common misspelling. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 10:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Del as an overly-rare misspelling. - -sche (discuss) 01:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

guisto

The entry is misspelt; it should be giusto, which I have added. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• I've converted it into a misspelling. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Delete as a rare misspelling (and some of those are clearly typos: an example, where giusto is spelled correctly most of the time.) --Per utramque cavernam 17:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per PUC. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 18:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Keep as a very common misspelling: the frequency ratio is about 100, which is very favorable for a misspelling. (guisto*100),giusto at the Google Books Ngram Viewer.. By the way, the entry is entered as English. Policy: WT:CFI#Spellings. Frequency ratio calibration: User talk:Dan Polansky/2013#What is a misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
• Delete as a rare misspelling. @Dan Polansky, did you see PUC's links above? When I actually page through BGC results, I see that the misspelling is really quite rare, and other usage seems to be getting in the way. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 14:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

  The first link by PUC is GNV without multiplication by 100, whereas I have posted the same with multiplication by 100 to show the ratio. The other PUC link shows text that has both "guisto" and "giusto", which only confirms this to be a misspelling rather than an intentional spelling by the author of the text. I don't see any negative bearing of this on my conclusion. Note that even if the frequency ratio were wrong by factor of 10, it would be 1000, which is still good for keeping a misspelling, per my calibration. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

surprise

Sense 2: "(attributive) Unexpected". --Per utramque cavernam 17:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I would keep it as it is. Surprise is not an adjective, but can be used attributively. Other examples are "a surprise visit" and "a surprise present" DonnanZ (talk) 10:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete per Donnanz: this is attributive use...of sense 1. It's not a separate sense; that's the nature of attributive use. "Her visit came as a suprise; it was a suprise visit." "The attack was a suprise; it was a suprise attack." "The enemy's artillery fired a shell at us; we were hit by their artillery shell." Notice we don't have a separate sense at "artillery" for "attributive: fired by artillery". - -sche (discuss) 01:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Um, I said "keep". DonnanZ (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

And your logic explained why it's not a separate sense. Delete per Donnanz. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 13:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete per -sche. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

A question though: what should we do with the translation table pertaining to that sense? I think it's pointless but I dunno. Per utramque cavernam 13:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

It wouldn't bother me to just drop the table--a number of those words, especially in the Germanic/Scandinavian sphere, use that form of compounding as a normal construct that isn't really a special, ad hoc affix, so designating them in a translation table seems needless. And some of them may also belong in the translation table for sense 1, depending on the language. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

User:DCDuring and I have talked about the question of what to do with translations of "attributive" uses of nouns (especially ones that are adjectives in other languages) from time to time. One simple idea is to put the translations in the table for the relevant noun sense and {{qualifier}} them, like in cork. Another idea is to have a separate table for attributive use, as in brass. (Another approach, which is less helpful but more common at the moment, is to omit such translations entirely.) - -sche (discuss) 19:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

My point is that showing attributive usage is useful to readers in cases where there is no adjective. IMO the nomination is rather silly. DonnanZ (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

As I understand it:

1. For any English speaker (say, EN-3 and up) decoding or encoding in English such adjective sections are not at all useful

2. For an English speaker wanting to go from an English word to an FL translation in a given language, then a translation table indicating how the FL delivers the meaning might be useful for encoding into the FL, if it were complete or at least handled many common cases. The adjective section is not of any use for decoding because that job is undertaken by the FL entry for the word.

3. For an FL speaker seeking to decode an English expression using a noun attributively, I don't see how the adjective section is much help that could not delivered by using {{label|en|often used attributively}} in the noun definition. For an FL speaker seeking to find how to express a thought in which attributive use of a noun is normal English usage, finding the English noun should be all that is necessary, if the user were not able to use the gloss in the entry for the word appropriate in the FL.

I suppose a hard case is one in which the most natural translation of an SOP multi-word expression in one language is an SoP multi-word expression in the other language. This seems to bring us up against a combinatorial explosion of the number of entries potentially required. DCDuring (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

national supremacy

SOP, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 01:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, delete. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete per proponent. Per utramque cavernam 09:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

garage door

garage + door. --Per utramque cavernam 09:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment: It might pass the fried egg test. In my house we have a door that leads to the garage from inside, which is a "garage door", but not the big type that you think of when someone says garage door. Often called a "garage entry door". – Julia ☺ ^{• formerly Gormflaith •} 22:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Keep as per Julia--she makes an important point. My garage actually has three different things that we might call the "garage door"--the ingang door into the house, the outgang door to the yard, and then the actual proper garage door that the car comes in through. I definitely think it passes the fried egg test. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - per Julia. John Cross (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per SanctMinimalicen. I grew up in a house with a similar set-up, with a door leading from the house to the garage, another leading from the garage to the side of the house (the strip of land between houses), and the main "garage door" for cars to pass through. bd2412 T 12:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

full to the brim

full + to the brim. Per utramque cavernam 19:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete per PUC. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

make a mistake

Sum of parts, IMO. Created by WF with comment of "common collocation", which isn't inherently enough for an entry. Move translations over to err, and maybe move Thesaurus:make a mistake to Thesaurus:err as well? – Julia ☺ ^{• formerly Gormflaith •} 12:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Abstain. At Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-03/Including translation hubs, the last rule states that "The existence of a rare single-word English synonym of the considered English term does not disqualify the considered English term". While I'm not too keen on those translation targets, I think this one is all right (err isn't rare, but it's not the most common term either, I'd say). But whatever the outcome, let's put all the translations in a single place.

However, I oppose moving the Thesaurus entry. Per utramque cavernam 13:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

According to “make a mistake”, in OneLook Dictionary Search., general dictionaries don't have this, though I've found usage examples at entries for make in some I've looked at. One legal dictionary offers a list of synonyms (presumably to help lawyers write more formal-sounding briefs); McGraw-Hill idioms has it; and WordNet (a semantic net-based reference, more conceptual than dictionaries) too. I'd say this represents close to the outer limit of what I'd call entryworthy. There are many synonyms for mistake that can be found (eg, error, faux pas, blunder, ?miscue); additionally many specialized hyponyms (eg, wild pitch, foul). I think a usage note indicating that there are numerous terms that substitute for mistake and a reference to a specific definition of make, such as MWOnline's "14a: to produce as a result of action, effort, or behavior with respect to something" make a mess of the job; tried to make a thorough job of it. I don't think we actually have a definition of make that fits make a mistake ("err"), make a throw ("throw"), make a turn ("turn"). DCDuring (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@DCDuring Sense 1.3 "to bring about" might fit. It has "to make trouble" as one of its usexes, which seems to be in the family of the ones you mentioned. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I added a clause to that sense which might clarify its use as well, and may cover the usage mentioned above. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe. Usually I would say that we need a substitutable definition, but I doubt that we can do that for the most common senses of make. (MWOnline's definition seems awkward when substituted as well.) In make a throw (or mistake, turn, about-face, leap, attempt), there is an element of performance, rather than creation. DCDuring (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

That's true. I'm inclined to treat the "to perform a feat" sense of make as a separate sense from the effect, bring about sense. There are a lot of instances of it: make a pass, make a goal, make an attempt, make a start, make a basket (as in basketball), make a turn, make a leap, make a jump, make a feat, make a stop, etc. I might add a sense for that. Make a mistake could arguably belong to either sense. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete, along with everything else that WF ever made. --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 10:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • :-| Julia ☺ ☆ ^{• formerly Gormflaith •} 12:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• New proposal: Keep as a translation hub; move err translations over; keep thesaurus entry. Now that there's a sense at make I think it should be good. (thanks PUC for this idea, and StMin for the sense) – Julia ☺ ☆ ^{• formerly Gormflaith •} 12:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Julia Nobody's used that abbreviation before--I love it. :) --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• That seems reasonable to me--I can get behind that.--SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

A tentative keep. It can be compared with make no mistake. DonnanZ (talk) 10:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

make no mistake seems more idiomatic, though–it only refers to a certain type of mistake, and I feel like it would be a bit odd if used as a command in a more literal sense: "Make no mistake! Read very carefully, please." – Julia ☺ ☆ ^{• formerly Gormflaith •} 15:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed--it may have originated more literally, but now the idiomatic "believe me" kind of meaning is well departed from a literal injunction not to err--whereas "make a mistake" is simply literal. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

teacher's desk in a classroom

An RFD tag was added by an anon, but removed out of process by the creator (User:Wyang). The entry is designated as a translation hub, the existence of which was approved by a vote, but such entries are still subject to deletion at RFD. A potential compromise would be to move the entry to teacher's desk, which is at least something that might conceivably be searched for. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 13:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Definitely move to teacher's desk. The full entry, while it is very precise, leans towards being redundant. Sure, teachers have desks in offices and such, but such desks don't require the "teacher's" distinction the way a classroom desk does. And if there is any qualm about adding ambiguity by dropping the "in a classroom" part, we could always add a {{n-g}} note or usage note or something to clarify--though I don't think anything like that would be necessary. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep at current entry. It is a concept in many foreign languages, and it is not the same as “teacher’s desk”. Multiple single-word foreign equivalents exist, and there is no reason for deleting this translation-only entry. The translation adder seems to overwrite any revisions subsequent to content being fetched: diff. Wyang (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Move per nom; the current title is overly specific. - -sche (discuss) 02:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

“Google Images: teacher's desk” gives quite different results from that of this concept. Wyang (talk) 02:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

For me, at least, Google Image searches for "teacher's desk", "teacher's desk in a classroom", "teacher's desk in classroom" and "teacher's classroom desk" all show a wide variety of desk types, most of which are the same between the searches, including table-like desks, table-like desks with front panels, and desks with drawers. I imagine the differences are artifacts of my not paging through enough search results. - -sche (discuss) 03:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

This is called a lectern, in UK English at least. I can see why there could be a need for its own hub, though. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 08:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, when I Google Image search the Chinese translations, the thing that turns up looks like / would probably be termed by an English-speaker a lectern (podium), not a desk. - -sche (discuss) 02:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

This is what Chinese 講臺 looks like: [40]. Wyang (talk) 02:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Originally, it was {{rfd|en|SOP, 0 translations}} as it is Sum of Parts and as there were no translations. With the addition of translations, the RfD became obsolete and it was ok to remove it the tag.
The new stuff above is an unrelated RfM. -84.161.37.130 03:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Move: if there is ambiguity then resolve it within the entry (e.g. split into two senses). Equinox ◑ 11:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Move to teacher's desk and adjust senses as necessary. bd2412 T 12:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Deleted as created in error. Either have it right, or don't have it at all. Wyang (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Unstruck. The RFD is still ongoing, and the currently all other commenters support moving. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 13:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It was speedied. I would like to withdraw my contribution. It's a waste of time. Wyang (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

If it is a waste of time, it is only so because you insist on continued wheel-warring. You have now deleted the entry three times, two of which being after I had recreated it with the explanation that the RFD was ongoing. I will not engage you any further by recreating the entry, but it will be recreated if the consensus in this RFD supports the entry's existence (with any pagetitle). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 13:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Antagonistic interactions like the one above are exactly what is causing Wiktionary to be increasingly unenjoyable. Wyang (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

What's making this interaction antagonistic, though? You created a page, other editors think it should be moved, but you're taking a "my way or the highway" attitude. - -sche (discuss) 15:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

If my contributions are picked on, targeted repeatedly with RfD - I honestly think it was an error for me to have created this. Speedy deletion has a criterion of "created in error" for situations like this. I regret that I had believed the community would find this valuable. Translation-only entries need to describe what the concept is clearly. Teacher's desk and Teacher's desk in a classroom are different in other languages; in Chinese teacher's desk in a classroom is 講臺, 講桌, and teacher's desk is 教師桌. Student's desk in a classroom is 課桌, and student's desk in general is a 學習桌. Wyang (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't this be resolved by saying that 講臺, 講桌, and 教師桌 are translations of different senses of "teacher's desk" as it is used in English? bd2412 T 10:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think so--that's something I'd advocate for, at least. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Please someone undelete the entry while the RFD discussion continues. Please allow me and other participants of the discussion have a look at what the translations are, what other content of the entry is, and the like. Please let the discussion be opened for a month or so, as usual, unless there is overwhelming consensus earlier. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing to 'undelete'. It was speedily deleted because it satisfied the criterion of "Created in error" - the creator regards its creation as an error. The discussion here should have finished at the comment at 12:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC). No more comments here please. If you believe this entry should exist, create it anew yourself. Wyang (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Let me remind that contributors do not own entries and content that they contribute, and that the license granted by the contribution into the mainspace is irrevocable. The proper course of action going forward is undeletion, and disposition as per editor consensus. It is also obvious that the entry creator does not consider the entry content erroneous, and therefore, "creation in error" does not properly apply, but rather, -sche's diagnosis of '"my way or the highway" attitude' seems to be the accurate explanation of why the deletion took place. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you should create a vote proposing to delete the "created in error" criterion in speedy deletion first. Wyang (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The "created in error" does not apply to this entry (as pointed out above), but it does find some application. It follows that the proposed deletion of the rationale does not make sense; it can at best be used to sarcasically inflame the discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

As for the WT:THUB rationale: the entry contains Czech katedra, Danish kateder, and Hungarian katedra, which seems to meet WT:THUB, leading to my boldface keep, whether at teacher's desk in a classroom or teacher's desk. (I saw these translations in the entry before short, but it now has been deleted again, by the same deletor. Looks like wheel-warring takes place, against multiple admins.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

"Created in error" doesn't mean "the creator wishes s/he hadn't made it", or else anybody leaving the project in a huff could unilaterally delete everything they had ever done, as revenge. Equinox ◑ 14:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

"Created in error" means exactly "the creator wishes s/he hadn't made it", which is why it warrants speedy deletion. "In error": by accident, erroneously. Wyang (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

For the unsuspecting reader: the entry was moved to teacher's desk by bd2412, then two times deleted. Then, -sche created teacher's desk from the scratch. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

political spectrum

"The spectrum of political viewpoints represented as a continuum..."
Seems SOP. Many spectra are represented by continua, and have extremes (e.g. the spectrum of visible light), so those aspects of the definition don't seem to confer any idiomaticity. - -sche (discuss) 02:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, but there's also light spectrum--should that be treated the same? --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 03:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

There are also electromagnetic spectrum and visible spectrum (and also optical spectrum, nuclear spectrum, hydrogen spectrum, mass spectrum, first-order spectrum).
Maybe at least light spectrum could become a translation hub (there's Lichtspektrum which is a single word)? -84.161.37.130 03:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

individual racism

institutional racism

SOP. - -sche (discuss) 02:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree, delete. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 03:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't the same apply to institutional racism, i.e. shouldn't it be deleted as well? -84.161.37.130 03:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'll add it. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 03:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete both. But @-sche, are you ok with adding institutional racism to your nom? Per utramque cavernam 09:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry--I should have asked first. We can definitely separate it out as a separate nom if you prefer, -sche. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It may have a bit more claim to idiomaticity than "individual racism" does, but it's fine to add it to this section—people who want to vote to delete one and keep the other can do that. - -sche (discuss) 16:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Can't really believe that "individual racism" merits an entry. It's one of those hot/trending topics but that doesn't make it not SoP. Delete. (Probably "institutional racism" too but that's more arguable.) Equinox ◑ 20:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep institutional racism - it is a term defined in the 1999 Lawrence report (UK) (though that wasn't the first usage). John Cross (talk) 10:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

teacher's desk

Inappropriate and misleading title; “teacher's desk” is not in a classroom by default. Either define it clearly in the title (as a translations-only entry should), or convert it into a non-translations-only entry for it to be kept. Wyang (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

(See also a discussion at #teacher's desk in a classroom.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC))

Personally, I believe that this entry is a WT:SOP, as the definition is simply "a desk that belongs to a teacher". EhSayer (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

It is. However, the entry is supposed to be for translations. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 00:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

That's not what the def says. Equinox ◑ 00:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Translation hubs are subject to slightly different rules of inclusion--reference WT:THUB. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. This is not a desk that belongs to a teacher or even one necessarily assigned to a particular teacher. It is a feature of a classroom. It isn't necessarily even a desk. bd2412 T 02:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean this is not a translations-only entry? At the moment it is saying a "teacher's desk" is literally a desk used by a teacher in a classroom (which it isn't), with no idiomaticity of the phrase. Wyang (talk) 06:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

If it literally isn't, then it is idiomatic. bd2412 T 16:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

show up as

SoP show up + as. (If kept, might need to fix the past tense to include shown.) Equinox ◑ 00:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Deleet per above. Mihia (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

bow grip, bow hold

Both sum of parts. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Without hesitation

This seems SoP and not sufficiently idiomatic to me. One also sees constructions like "without pausing", "without pausing to think", "without waiting", "without another moment's time", etc. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 02:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete without hesitation! – Julia ☺ ☆ ^{• formerly Gormflaith •} 03:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

:] --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Without delay is also common and also SoP. Wonder if we can move the translation somewhere. Equinox ◑ 04:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking about that. Looking at a few Maori dictionaries, it looks like the creator of the page didn't even fully understand the word--it's more like "steadfast, unwavering" than it is "immediately", but seems to apply to both senses. I don't know Maori really at all, but based on the dictionaries, I think that "unwavering" is a good choice because it covers both the immediacy and the firmness. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It's actually a verb: "to be steadfast, unwavering". Perhaps move the translation to stand firm, or something like that? --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe all Maori adjectives are stative verbs, and I'm not sure what our convention is with such languages- it would be odd to have no translation for green because Maori treats it as "to be green". Chuck Entz (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

That's fascinating--taking the "green" example, we currently have the Maori word for "to be green" as a translation of our adjective "green"--so to mimic that we could go with the first idea I put forth (which is now unstricken), and put it in "unwavering". --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Per utramque cavernam 14:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

American option

European option

These are not the only collocations. One can talk about American options, American calls, and American puts. Better therefore to move the definition to American as an adjective applying to financial options. The equivalent is true for Bermudan and European, as well as a range of other option types that I haven't yet added as entries (I'm holding off pending this decision, but other types include: Asian, Boston, Canary, Evergreen, Israeli, Parisian, Russian, Verde). -Stelio (talk) 11:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

eatin' like a bird

eatin' and eating like a bird seem sufficient. Equinox ◑ 22:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Definitely. Delete. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Jew-free

Jew + free. I don't think the translations support making this a translation hub, since "A translation does not qualify to support the English term if it is: a closed compound that is a word-for-word translation of the English term: German Autoschlüssel does not qualify to support the English "car key". DTLHS (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you're right on both counts--delete. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not Jewish, but to me it sounds a little anti-Jewish. But on the other hand we would end up deleting all terms suffixed with -free, whether they have a hyphen or not. That is a rather slippery slope. Keep, I think. DonnanZ (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

But when an apparently Israeli source uses the term [41]. Hmm. DonnanZ (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

How is that relevant? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 11:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Referring to my comment about sounding anti-Jewish. DonnanZ (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete, unless WT:COALMINE applies. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 11:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

There are a number of instances of Jewfree, though most of them are calques of judenrein provided to translate the word in context. There may be enough though to justify Jewfree, though--but I suppose that's an RFV matter. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I retract that--I looked back at the sources I had mentioned and they were all hyphenated. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

XML-based

XML + based. DTLHS (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 11:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

half-free

Seems like an entry created solely for its etymology. DTLHS (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Isn't it still a word though ? Leasnam (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that's a useful question. I hope we can come up with better criteria for suffixed words than "is there an unsuffixed form" (COALMINE). DTLHS (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Suffixed? do you mean prefixed (i.e. half-) ? Leasnam (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

We have the page -free, so I guess you could say both. DTLHS (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It would appear to be a synonym of semi-free or semifree; I don't think the suffix -free should be used here. DonnanZ (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

disease-free

Free of disease. DTLHS (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep, along with all other hyphenated adjectives and verbs. They count as one word. DonnanZ (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Something doesn't become includable just because you've declared it a word. That's a circular argument and you should stop making it. DTLHS (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, I didn't invent the word. I did find a couple of hits on Google Books for disease free; diseasefree can also be found, some are scannos for disease-free, but I did find one instance of diseasefree and disease-free both occurring in the same article. Looking at CFI, I don't think anything in there goes against this word. DonnanZ (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

That's true. I really think we need to agree on something that can be written down in CFI that applies to hyphenated compounds. DTLHS (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

If you do that, you have to bear in mind that certain words are more likely to be hyphenated in British English than in American English, one exception is seamfree for some reason. DonnanZ (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed about somehow codifying CFI on hyphenated words. They play so many semantic roles and enjoy such broad productivity that I think it behoves us to have a consistent policy as to when they count and when they do not. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest as a first step a provision that phrases which are hyphenated due to being used attributively should be treated as if the hyphens were spaces for purposes of determining whether they're SOP. That would prevent deletion of hyphenated true compounds and of all phrases that are idiomatic, but would get rid of the "it-must-be-a-single-word-because-it's-hyphenated" argument (yes, I did that on purpose...). It wouldn't cover this type of construction, but it would be relatively easy to apply, and it might be accepted by some who would object to a more sweeping proposal. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete this and all "X-free" where the meaning is no more than "free of/from X". This is a regular formation from -free. weed-free, football-free, buffalo-free ... the list is virtually limitless. Mihia (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

words-formulated-with--free-free... --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

ice-free

Free of ice. DTLHS (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Temporarily abstain until icefree is verified. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

What would you prefer - icefree? It is often used when referring to areas of water. Reference added, keep. DonnanZ (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep since icefree seems to be attested, counterpart to icebound. - -sche (discuss) 19:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It looks like we have two cites for icefree--if we can find a third that would be good. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Ironically, it shouldn't make any difference, as ice-free is still a single albeit suffixed hyphenated word. DonnanZ (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

various computing related -based entries

JavaScript-based, Java-based, Linux-based, PHP-based, Perl-based, HTML-based, XHTML-based, Web-based, browser-based DTLHS (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑

Delete all. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't they be treated in the same way as compounds of shaped? DonnanZ (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete all entries of the form "X-based" where the meaning is no more than "based on/around X". If necessary add -based, or note the combining form at based. Mihia (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

anglecized

Seems to be an overly rare misspelling. Paging through to the end of the Google Books hits, I count 74 books using this spelling. ("Anglecize" and "anglecizing" also get a few hits, from as far back as the 1700s, so perhaps the argument could be made that this should rather be labelled an obsolete spelling, but its continued erroneous use seems to argue against that.) - -sche (discuss) 19:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

No hesitation, delete. A possible confusion with angle. DonnanZ (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)