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
  

February 2018

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)

• Redirect to ओष्ठ्य#Sanskrit. bd2412 T 14:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

  Do not redirect. I favour deletion, but the most important thing is not to proliferate obviously bad redirections that occupy a pagetitle where an entry for a word in a language could conceivably go. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:23, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

  If an entry for a word in a language can go here, then it should. If we are talking about a word that exists now, then there is no reason to delay in making such an entry. Otherwise, what harm is there in redirecting to the thing for which the reader is most likely to be looking? bd2412 T 20:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

  A great deal of harm. Anyone who doesn't know how redirects work will be discouraged from creating an entry. The burden of proof should be on those creating hard redirects to show that there's no possibility of a valid entry under the redirecting page's spelling. There's a reason we have a page like WT:REDIR, which, by the way, explicitly mentions this kind of redirect as unacceptable. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

  For the record, WT:REDIR is a policy draft that was reactivated and rewritten in 2018. It used to say "The actual common practice is to keep some redirects while avoiding others. There is no hard and fast rule for which redirects to avoid" and maybe it should say as much again, or else we have that kind of sneaky policy making that we want to avoid. And as for "show that there's no possibility of a valid entry under the redirecting page's spelling", no such thing can possibly be shown; rather, a search for "osthya" in Google books suggests that there would be no valid entry in another language. Likelihood of non-existence given current searches of evidence should be enough; proofs of non-existence that are impossible in principle should not be required. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

  Then keep per Chuck Entz; we should be including common transliterations, anyway. I would go so far as to say that we should have specific headers and categories for them. bd2412 T 19:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

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: [1], [2] (messy, 3 hits for "cardoor(s)" and 2 for "car door(s)"), [3], [4] ("car door" could be a less common variant), [5] ("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)

• Leaning keep. I would think that on an automobile, "car door" refers to the driver and passenger doors, but not to a rear door like a hatchback. I would agree that the door of a boxcar is also called a car door. bd2412 T 14:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

  Here and here, "hatchback door" is defined as "a sloping rear car door that is lifted to open".  --Lambiam 17:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

  Even so, a brief Google Books search suggests that it is more common to refer to the hatchback door as a "rear door" than a "car door". bd2412 T 03:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Delete – sum-of-parts. The argument (offered at the 2006 RFV) that a car door differs from a bathroom door in being specifically designed for a car does not cut it, as far as I'm concerned. The same is true for car fender, which is a fender specifically designed for a car. Likewise for car axle, car engine, car tyre, car spoiler, ..., all of which are in actual use.  --Lambiam 17:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 11:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep via WT:THUB: French portière and Spanish portezuela; other wikts suggest Dutch portier and Italian portiera. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:36, 28 September 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)

• Delete, transparently SOP. bd2412 T 01:01, 29 January 2019 (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)

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)
• Delete per SanctMinimalicen. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:10, 11 December 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)

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. bd2412 T 01:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

April 2018

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)

sinusoidal function

sinusoidal functions

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[6].--Dan Polansky (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Taken literally as a sum-of-parts, '"sinusoidal function" should mean: a function that is sinusoidal. So (discarding the anatomical sense) this would be a function in the form of a wave. But functions do not have a form. The graph of the function does, and if it is a sinusoid, by extension the function is called suicidal sinusoidal. So, strictly speaking, this is not a sum-of-parts; you need a modicum of mathematical literacy to apply the right amount of sloppiness that will lead you from the parts to the meaning.  --Lambiam 13:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 10:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

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)

• Keep. Having heard no answer to the suggestion that evidence be provided that the named entities are ever referred to as "Rock" without a preceding "the", I must presume that the combination is idiomatic. bd2412 T 03:51, 4 November 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)

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:27, 11 December 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)

IMO they are not the same. DonnanZ (talk) 10:17, 15 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

bow grip, bow hold

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

• Delete bow hold. Maybe keep bow grip for sense 1 and the relevant translations. Per utramque cavernam 22:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

feed out of

Sometimes people don't understand prepositions. Equinox ◑ 03:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, I feel like there might be something to this one. "The cows were fed out of troughs" is very different from "The cows were fed out of the chute into the slaughterhouse". The former seems clearly SoP, the latter not so much, at least based off of our current senses of feed. In any case, entry doesn't cover the distinction...so maybe add sense to feed that covers the regular, constant transmission of material from one point to another, and then delete. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

In "fed out of the chute into the slaughterhouse", feed is used in sense 4: "To give to a machine to be processed". Of course a slaughterhouse is not literally a machine; this is a metaphorical use. You could also say, extending the example at feed: Feed the paper gently out of the waste basket into the document shredder.  --Lambiam 01:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Per utramque cavernam 10:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Delete per SanctMinimalicen. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

sneak in

sneak up on

Each as SoP. See conversation at #sneak out.

• sneak in (sense 1) is purely sneak + in. Sense 2 is more idiomatic, and may end up warranting to keep the entry with the &lit designation on sense 1--but I think it would do better to add a relevant sense to sneak.

• sneak up is simply sneak + up (sense 12)--up can be used with just about any movement verb in this sense: I snuck up to the house, I walked up to the house, I ran up to the house, I drove up to the house, I bicycled up to the house, I roller-skated up to the house, I crawled up to the house, etc.

• sneak away is similar: sneak + away. E.g., I snuck away from the crowd, I ran away from the crowd, I somersaulted away from the crowd, etc.

• sneak off is the same thing: sneak + off (adverb sense 1). Sneak off, drive off, stomp off, etc.

• sneak up on, even though it has a narrower definition, is still simply sneak + up (sense 12) + on (sense 2).

--SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Is this a can of worms or Pandora's box? DonnanZ (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • It could be, I suppose--but it may also help avoid one. Because if we have sneak away, etc., if we are to be consistent we ought also have sneak into, sneak around, sneak on/sneak on to (as in, I snuck on (to) the ship when the sailors weren't looking), sneak under (I snuck under the gate), sneak behind, sneak along, sneak through, sneak between, etc. And those would behove us to do the same thing with other motion verbs: walk, run, creep, etc., which actually starts looking like a Pandora's box. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• Keep sneak up and/or sneak up on per lemming principle (in Cambridge, Collins, Macmillan, Longman), and maybe create sneak on, which is said to be old-fashioned by Longman – “sneak on” in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, Longman.); delete the rest. Per utramque cavernam 10:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

aspirational recycling

This is a preemptive RFD, as my last contribution was sent here and I'm twice shy now. Does anyone think this term ought to be deleted/excluded, or would it be safe for me to spend time on it? Here's a few attestations across the last four years: [7][8][9][10].--Father Goose (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

You didn't suggest a definition. Apparently it's when people put stuff in the recycling that they think should be recyclable but isn't. (I know the feeling. Damn those plastic lasagne trays.) I see maybe one or two hits on Google Books. With these buzzwords you just need to check whether there is real usage, or just some journalists talking about them on a slow day. Equinox ◑ 03:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a clearly a fairly new term, but not this-year new. Your definition is more or less the one I'd use. The Google Books hits don't match that definition; all the usage I see is in articles (in fairly high-profile media) and waste-industry specific sites. It's not exactly a conversational term. So there's real usage, but is it Wiktionary-real? This is why I am soliciting opinions here. Can I create the entry, or would people recommend against it?--Father Goose (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I've created it. The synonym wishful recycling is attestable too, as is aspirational recycler but I still won't assume deletion is not forthcoming.--Father Goose (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

he who can, does, he who cannot, teaches

Procedural completion of an incomplete RfD by User:Maaduu2017. This saying is actually originally a quotation from the play Man and Superman by George Bernard Shaw (see q:Man and Superman). I have, personally, no clear opinion as to whether this saying merits inclusion or not; the short reason "gibberish" provided by the original nominator, however, clearly has no merit.  --Lambiam 13:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

A profound statement like this isn't gibberish. Shown as an alternative form of those who can't do, teach which survived RFV earlier this year. Classified as a proverb, I'm not sure about that, but if it is kept the source of the quotation should be included. But it could just as easily be included as a quotation at teach for instance. DonnanZ (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I can't see how the phrase is anything but SoP. Contrast a true proverb like a rolling stone gathers no moss, which is metaphorical. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Counterpoint: a penny saved is a penny earned is not metaphorical, but clearly proverbial. - TheDaveRoss 16:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

So it shouldn't be considered a proverb. The statement may not always be true anyway, consider a motorcycle instructor who rides along with his pupils. I think we can delete this, but save the quotation elsewhere. DonnanZ (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Not gibberish. Though there might be other spellings and some might be better. E.g. one can also find: "He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.", "He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches(.)" [the second dot is optional -- or it might at least sometimes be a matter of different quotation styles as "TEXT." vs. "TEXT".], "He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches. He who cannot teach, teaches teachers.".
• Proverbs are often SOP, yet they are included as they're proverbs. Thus, if attestable (WT:RFVE) and an actual proverb (verifiable through citations and usages or through inclusion in proverb dictionaries?), it should stay -- or many proverbs should be deleted as they are SOP.
• Source or origin (George Bernard Shaw, Maxims, 1903?) can be added in the etymology section. -80.133.107.120 12:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'd say keep. google books:"he who can, does, he who cannot, teaches" dictionary finds e.g. Oxford Dictionary of Proverbs 2015. But I admit that this not a clear-cut case. As for OneLook dictionaries as proverb sources, "a rolling stone gathers no moss" is in oxforddictionaries.com[11], but not in M-W (“a rolling stone gathers no moss”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.). On a marginal note, the nominator User:Maaduu2017 looks like another user of User:TNMPChannel, who had a run of proverb creation, some of which were bad but some of which were fine; when some of their proverbs were nominated, they seemed to have an overreaction and started to RFV or RFD their own creations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Delete, doesn't seem extremely proverbialised. Per utramque cavernam 11:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionary of Proverbs 2015 does not agree with you. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I've never heard this version of the proverb, but I've heard other phrasings and I agree that it is a proverb. We have an entry for those who can't do, teach. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete; a slightly gnomic formulation does not an idiom make. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

sexual market value

DTLHS (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

What is the deletion rationale? Doesn't seem entirely SoP to me, based on market value. I have linked the abbreviation SMV which we already had. Equinox ◑ 21:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Strong keep Popular term that deserves inclusion, there is no reason for why it should be excluded. Amin (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it should be deleted, but you haven't provided any reason for why it should be kept either. Per utramque cavernam 11:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

It should go the other way: Giving a reason for deletion, then seeing if it applies, is convincing, and no reason given = no reason for deletion.
I can think of only three reasons:

• 1. not politically correct, immoral, offensive - which is no reason for deletion.
• 2. It doesn't exist, isn't attestable (WT:CFI) - this would be a matter for WT:RFVE and not of WT:RFD.
• 3. SOP. The parsing question might be a reason for keep. Is it sexual market + value (~ Germ. *Wert auf dem sexuellen Markt oder Sexualmarkt, *Sexualmarkt-wert) or sexual + market value (~ Germ. *sexueller Marktwert).

-80.133.107.120 12:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

>"you haven't provided any reason for why it should be kept" - @Per utramque cavernam:

I did; "Popular term" Amin (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• Leaning delete…I also see results for "emotional market value", "romantic market value", "intellectual market value", "nutritional market value", "environmental market value", "political market value" etc etc etc. Ƿidsiþ 19:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you accidentally proved my point that sexual market value deserved to be included lol. I searched for the terms you mentioned, here are the results.

Google search results:

"sexual market value": 35.000

"emotional market value": 22

"romantic market value": 338

"intellectual market value": 24

"nutritional market value": 765

"environmental market value": 21

"political market value": 6

Amin (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

"Sexual market value" only gets 500 hits on Google Books, an order of magnitude less than, say, "intrinsic market value" or "real market value". Should those have entries as well? Ƿidsiþ 07:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete, it may appear non-SOP because of the overly narrow definition that specifies a "dating market", but the term can also describe any sex appeal or attractiveness in non-dating contexts. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per Ƿidsiþ and Bingo. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Abstain. Also (not that it really has any bearing on this RFD request), Wiktionary:Tea room/2018/June § SMV - sexual market value: should we parse this as [[sexual market] + [value]] or [[sexual] + [market value]]? sexual market place (sexual marketplace?) seems pretty clearly to be [[sexual] + [market place]]. Per utramque cavernam 11:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

  @Per utramque cavernam It's sexual + market value, with the latter often being used figuratively. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Keep: Not SOP with respect to market value. Market value is a price expressed in currency; sexual market value as defined is not a price expressed in currency, unless it were the value of the sexual market, like the revenue or the net profit of all whores and the porno industry united. Our definition of market value matches the definitions found in “market value”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. Google Ngram Viewer finds nothing: sexual market value, romantic market value, intellectual market value at the Google Books Ngram Viewer.; it does find sexual market. Alternatives to keeping would be to create sexual market or expand market value with another sense; I wonder what sexual market really is. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

geographical-area

Moved from RFD/non-English.

crappy adj form entry. --Cien pies 6 (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

this should be at WT:RFDE, methinks — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Delete, per Wiktionary:Beer parlour § Entries for hyphenated attributive forms?. Per utramque cavernam 17:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep; this is the same kind of discussion as Talk:transitive-verb, which contains Talk:transitive-verb#RFDE: All English attributive forms (with hyphens) of noun phrases. In the latter, -sche argues for keeping, and I say this: "We have the practice of treating the hyphen as significant for the choice of the lemma: we have apple-tree (noun, not attributive form) and apple tree as separate entries. Therefore, transitive-verb is a lemma different from transitive verb. It is predictable, sure, but so are many trivial derivations such as -ness derivations."

  Let me note that geographical area is not deleted as sum of parts. If geographical area were sum of parts, I would be okay with considering geographical-area to be sum of parts, like green-leaf. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• I am rather dubious about this, and am leaning towards delete, unless quotations can be found. PUC has now gone and RFDed geographical area (which I would rather keep), sometimes you can't even mention a term for fear of an RFD. DonnanZ (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Delete, this is useless. It is silly to type such a thing into a dictionary. Fay Freak (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

blue film

Open to argument, but this doesn't convince me. "Blue movie", which is a lot more common, might perhaps be felt as a set phrase, but "blue film"? It feels to me just like blue + film, especially since it can be turned around: "The film was a bit blue" (sounds very dated, but this kind of usage is or was common). You can also have blue jokes, a blue novel etc etc. Ƿidsiþ 06:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't remember now, but I wouldn't rule it out, it has the same definition as blue movie. This term would be rather dated and I think this needs to go to RFV, to see if anything can be found in Google Books. DonnanZ (talk) 07:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

It's attestable, though it doesn't seem particularly common. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Delete: film is predominantly used in British English as opposed to movie in American English. However even in British English you would refer to a blue movie as a set phrase and not a blue film. -Stelio (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

That was my immediate reaction too. Equinox ◑ 18:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep: Both "blue movie" and "blue film" are commonly used terms for the same thing, i.e., a pornographic film. While 'blue movie' is now an outdated term, 'blue film' seems to be a more common usage over the world. I've commonly seen it used in media over the world when referring to a pornographic film/"blue movie", some recent examples: New Straits Times, The Copenhagen Post, Times of India. This should probably be submitted for an RFV than deletion.

PS: Also looks like 'blue movie' only became popular after Andy Warhol's movie of the same name, 'blue film' seems to be the older term.[1] Gotitbro (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

petrol engine

SOP. Unsigned by 2602:252:D2B:3AA0:85A2:1A9E:D7F7:47BC

It is a British term, so what do Americans call them? DonnanZ (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

gasoline engines, which is SOP, too. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, not a gas engine. Keep this for translations, and gasoline engine can be redirected here. DonnanZ (talk) 07:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Delete per proponent. Per utramque cavernam 08:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Wikidata[12]. I am confused by Finnish ottomoottori and German Ottomotor given in the entry. Are they correct as translations of "petrol engine"? If they are, does the attribute "petrol" tend to pick the most stereotypical kinds of petrol engines to the exclusion of some other engines that use petrol? W:Heinkel HeS 3 is a jet engine that uses gasoline; is that considered to be a "gasoline engine" or "petrol engine"? For some reasons, I was also thinking of Wankel engine (Wikidata[13]), but nothing interesting came out of it. Coordinate terms include diesel engine and gas engine. Collins has "petrol engine"[14], defined as a kind of "internal-combustion engine"; WT:LEMMING? A further confusion: German Ottomotor says it is a "four-stroke engine"; that would mean that W:Two-stroke_engine would not be a Ottomotor, where W:Two-stroke_engine does use gasoline, so not every gasoline engine would be a de:Ottomotor. Since Duden:Ottomotor does not mention anything about "four-stroke", maybe our Ottomotor entry is just wrong about it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

nowhere else

anything else

• A translation hub. DonnanZ (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

SOP; no one else, nothing else and anything else have already been successfully RFD'ed (see Talk:nothing else and Talk:anything else); I don't know why the latter has been kept or recreated. Keep something else as it has an idiomatic sense (see Talk:anything else). Per utramque cavernam 14:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Let's ask one of your favourite questions: WHY? Most of these have translations, apart from the synonyms, and I may be able to clear some red links. DonnanZ (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Because it's SOP, as I wrote above. Per utramque cavernam 23:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delete as to most, but keep "something else" as an &lit companion to the idiomatic sense, and keep "somewhere else", for which I just added the missing idiomatic sense for daydreaming. See, e.g., '2013, John Bemrose, The Island Walkers: A Novel, p. 3: "Hearing the laughter of his sons, Alf grinned. But he was somewhere else, thinking of the woman moving through the dim house behind him". bd2412 T 16:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• somewhere else is a synonym of elsewhere anyway. But I don't think we should pick and choose like that, I would prefer to keep the lot (and any others that were possibly missed). DonnanZ (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Not going to vote explicitly, but it does seem that we ought to be able to capture the sense of else without creating all (or most) of the collocations. Equinox ◑ 13:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• At least keep somewhere else (also has a non-SoP definition) and someone else as WT:THUB, as well as something else (not SoP). Alexis Jazz (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Alexis Jazz About someone else, which translations qualify? Per utramque cavernam 00:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Keep since it is hard to do a proper WT:THUB analysis in this volume nomination; somewhere else now has two senses entered; something else has an idiomatic sense and survived something per Talk:something else. The nomination is so made that I am supposed to pass some quick summary judgment; in this case, I disagree with that approach. The entries seem to have been here since 2005. anything else has German "sonst noch etwas" entered as a translation, which might be appropriate for a proto-sentence use. someone else seems to meet WT:THUB using Esperanto and Romanian. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "somewhere else now has two senses entered": indeed; as such I've removed somewhere else from the nomination.
  • "something else has an idiomatic sense and survived something per Talk:something else": indeed, which is why I didn't nominate something else (see above).
  • "The nomination is so made that I am supposed to pass some quick summary judgment": I don't know what you mean by that.
  • "The entries seem to have been here since 2005": is it somehow relevant?
  • "anything else has German "sonst noch etwas" entered as a translation, which might be appropriate for a proto-sentence use": I don't know what you mean by that.
  • "someone else seems to meet WT:THUB using Esperanto and Romanian": per WT:THUB, "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".
    • Romanian altcineva = alt- (“other, else”) + cineva (“someone”); compare altceva (“something else”) (alt- (“other, else”) + ceva (“something”)), altundeva (alt- (“other, else”) + undeva (“somewhere”))
    • Esperanto aliulo = alia (“other, else”) + -ulo (“a person; a ... someone”). But someone is translated as Esperanto iu, so this one might qualify. Per utramque cavernam 23:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

geographical area

geographical + area. See also the deletion debate for geographical-area above. Per utramque cavernam 10:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep this in preference to the other one. It is a possible translation target; yes, I know there are none at the moment. DonnanZ (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Delete per nom. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Delete, this is useless. It is silly to type such a thing into a dictionary. Fay Freak (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

interface description language

interface definition language

Software engineering; a language used to describe/define an interface... —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 03:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Delete both, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 11:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

not have the faintest idea

A common collocation, but does it warrant an entry? Per utramque cavernam 10:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

not have the faintest is a slightly shorter form. DonnanZ (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Or even I haven't the faintest. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz:

How is she doing?

- Not the faintest clue.

"I haven't the faintest" feels like an unfinished sentence to me, probably used to express confusion, like what the. Alexis Jazz (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

It's just a clipping, a shorter way of saying it. "I haven't the faintest" would normally be an answer to a question. DonnanZ (talk) 07:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I suppose that happens, I personally can't recall hearing it often though. When it comes to clippings, I think "Not the faintest clue/idea." is more common. And "Not a clue." is even shorter. And no idea is even shorter than that. I'd stick to not have the faintest (existing entry) in this case. Alexis Jazz (talk) 08:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Donnanz, Chuck Entz: Can you cite the clipping? I was unable to. Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English#not have the faintest Alexis Jazz (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Compare to foggiest and have the foggiest, and note the redirects pointing to the latter page. That seems a fine approach to use for "faintest" as well. -Stelio (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Model entries for faintest and have the faintest after foggiest and have the foggiest, respectively, as Stelio mentioned. I don't think that any of the forms of "Have the faintest/foggiest idea/clue/notion/etc. [about something]" warrant an entry, as they are essentially SoP. They can simply be referenced in the etymologies of faintest, foggiest, have the faintest and have the foggiest. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

(Though honestly it may be more useful to make the phrasal verbs negative, i.e. not have the faintest and not have the foggiest. Either way would work, I suppose.) --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• A {{R:GNV}} search: not have the * idea,not have the * clue,not have the * notion at the Google Books Ngram Viewer.. There, not have the slightest idea is most common. Making one entry a host of the whole pattern, and letting other entries redirect there could be useful or acceptable. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

  Keep. In the Ngram search I posted, this is the second most common item. It is useful for translation. The reader might be able to put the translation together from the translations of the parts, but it would be a process fraught with uncertainty since they would not know whether the resulting combination is actually used. If not that, create not have the slightest idea and redirect to that entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  Actually, this can be kept via WT:LEMMING: in Macmillan[15], Longman[16] and M-W[17]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Delete, not dictionary material. Fay Freak (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

  Dictionary makers disagree as per my post above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

pastry shop

Translation hub but translations refer to another entry? The single word does not seem attestable, so cannot COALMINE either. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 20:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• I must confess I have never heard of a pastry shop, patisserie yes. In fact I think patisserie is preferred in English. So if this is unverifiable, delete I think. DonnanZ (talk) 09:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

On second thoughts, it may be better to send it to RFV. DonnanZ (talk) 10:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Well no, because it's SOP. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 13:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

You will find other so-called SoP terms at shop#Derived terms, so that argument doesn't hold much water. The more pertinent question is whether the term is actually used or not, which is why I suggested RFV. DonnanZ (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Easily verified via Google Books. It seems slightly dated. Today I would expect "bakery", "cake shop", or "patisserie". Equinox ◑ 18:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it does hold water, because those entries pass via WT:LEMMING, which can be easily verified with OneLook. "pastry shop", however, does not. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 18:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the term should be mentioned in a user note for the "patisserie" entry? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The definition for patisserie reads "pastry shop" already, not "a shop that sells pastries". But being dated, as Equinox suggests, doesn't surprise me. DonnanZ (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

...which is bad anyway, since pastry shop itself has no gloss and is simply a translation hub. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 19:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see how it can be a translation hub (without a definition) when the creator decided to redirect translations to patisserie anyway. A bit contradictory. DonnanZ (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I have revised patisserie, and turned pastry shop into a synonym, scrapping the translations hub, which was pointless. It could still do with some quotations though, @Equinox? DonnanZ (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. I included pastry shop in a usage example at [[pastry]]. DCDuring (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per WT:COALMINE: [18], [19], [20]; for each, I verified on the scan that there is no space and no hyphen. The suspicion that this might be coalminable came from pastryshop,pastry-shop,pastry shop at the Google Books Ngram Viewer.. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

go to the bad

SOP. 2602:252:D2B:3AA0:B56D:C433:141:B84B 00:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Not really any more SOP than "go bad", is it...? Equinox ◑ 00:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Is it used in a different way to go bad? Would quotations be useful? DonnanZ (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Keep, idiom. Per utramque cavernam 11:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Move to to the bad, since there are several other constructions. Ƿidsiþ 11:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

pounce on

Isn't this sense already covered at pounce? --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Not exactly. We have the literal form of attack (like a cat does), and the figurative seizing on an opportunity, but not the figurative attack that seems to combine these senses. I'd say merge into pounce by adding the relevant sense. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete per SanctMinimalicen. DCDuring (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete per the above. Per utramque cavernam 10:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

OAuth

I understand the reasoning that the entry should exist just to illustrate the pronunciation, but that seems to be clear anyway. This is a proper noun that is not in common use as a household name. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 18:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The pronunciation can go in the lede of the Wikipedia page. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 19:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Per utramque cavernam 10:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

George VI

It is a well put together entry so I am reluctant to nominate it for deletion. Overall, I feel that the intent of the current CFI is that a complete name associated with one individual only should not be included (for example, Walt Disney [the person]) is mentioned as not being allowed an entry). John Cross (talk) 05:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• But this is a "regnal name". His actual name was "Albert Frederick Arthur George Windsor". As its creator, I would prefer this to be kept. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • We also have Louis XIV and a few others. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
    • @SemperBlotto Does this mean that the names of the last hundred-fifty-or-so popes are fair game? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Not to mention the names of hundreds (thousands?) of rulers of polities and religious denominations all over the planet. w:George VI (disambiguation) mentions kings of Georgia and Imereti, as well as a catholicos of the Armenian Armenian Apostolic Church. Then there are situations like w:James VI and I who was the sixth king of Scotland and the first in England by that name. As for George VI's actual name being different, that also applies to stage names and pen names. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
        • See w:John I for an idea of where this could lead. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• I'd say keep. WT:CFI doesn't deal with this directly, only stating that "[n]o individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic. For instance, Walter Elias Disney, the film producer and voice of Mickey Mouse, is not allowed a definition line at Walt Disney." However, this is a regnal name rather than "a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic". I would be in favour of WT:CFI being updated to allow for regnal names. — SGconlaw (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• I would say keep. It's worth mentioning that Britain has had only one Queen Victoria, and she is listed at English Victoria. DonnanZ (talk) 08:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• I would like to expand it to have a French entry, if only because of the different pronunciations "George sis" instead of "George the sixth". SemperBlotto (talk) 08:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Go for it if it is spelt the same. DonnanZ (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

But that's true for VI in general, surely. It's just how you say six in French! Your argument would seem to support also creating any old person called George just because French people say George differently. Equinox ◑ 13:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand, when a foreign term (such as double entendre) has been borrowed into English, don't we create an English section for it? — SGconlaw (talk) 06:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

In the case of double entendre, having a French section would be wrong anyway: it's not in use in French, as it makes no sense morphologically.

I suppose that’s a bad example, then. I was trying to think of a term that originates from French but is now also used in English and regarded as an English word. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

But I've been wondering asking myself that question a lot: from what point can we say a word has been genuinely borrowed in English, and isn't simply a French word used in running text? Per utramque cavernam 12:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I guess there is no hard and fast rule. I’d say that a lack of quotation marks or italics may point in that direction, but is not conclusive. At the end of the day, if the term appears regularly in English texts and doesn’t seem to be specifically regarded as foreign by the speaker or writer (for example, “e.g.” and “etc.”), it can probably be regarded as having entered the English language. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that; that's what I had in mind too.

I think something that can help is contrasting the use in different languages: there are some italicised Latin expressions found in English running text I was tempted to label as Latin; then I realised they're not used at all in French (unfortunately I can't give any example off the top of my head). That points towards genuine incorporation in English. But it's a grey area imo. Per utramque cavernam 21:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Replace with {{no entry}} and {{in wikipedia}}. DCDuring (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Replace with {{no entry}} and {{in wikipedia}} or delete. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete, or at least replace with {{no entry}} and {{in wikipedia}}. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• To make it explicit, Delete, or replace with {{no entry}} and {{in wikipedia}}. As I pointed out above, there can be literally dozens (see w:John I) of senses in one entry- not just kings but bans, burgraves, caliphs, catholicoses, counts, dukes, electors, emirs, emperors, khans, maharajahs, margraves, malietoas, nawabs, nizams, pashas, popes, princes, rajas, shahs, wālis, and holders of a number of other titles. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I think we decided some years ago that the "slippery slope" argument didn't hold here. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. Per utramque cavernam 07:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. Ƿidsiþ 11:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
• Replace with {{no entry}} and {{in wikipedia}}.John Cross (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete or soft-redirect to WP per Chuck Entz. This is a "disambiguated" name of a specific individual, like the example of "Walt Disney" (which uses a last name rather than a regnal number); I don't buy the argument that his also going by "Albert Frederick Arthur George Windsor" makes it any more includable: I would vote to delete [[Bill Clinton]] too, if it existed and were defined as referring to Bill Clinton, even though his legal name is "William" not "Bill". - -sche (discuss) 20:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

  One thing I've noticed is that the "keep" votes are almost all from or living in England. I suspect that there's a tendency to see British monarchs as not just individuals, but also as a piece of their history, a national symbol and a branch of the government. Part of the reason for my long list of other titles was to try to show the forest hidden by the trees that are a major part of the English landscape. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Keep using WT:LEMMING or similar: "George VI" is in oxforddictionaries.com in "George"[21], AHD[22], and Collins[23]; even MW has that is their George entry[24]: search for "biographical name" in MW. WT:NSE leaves discretion in this case, which it does not in the Walt Disney case. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

  They only include it because they include names of individuals, which is in direct contradiction of our policy. We have Wikipedia to cover individual people; those dictionaries don't. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

  We do include some individuals (individual people): Category:en:Individuals; Category talk:en:Individuals. WT:NSE is designed to exclude only certain kinds of names of individuals, intentionally so: "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both [1)] a given name or diminutive and [2)] a family name or patronymic", where I injected the numbering 1) and 2) and added italics to "both". --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

  Those dictionaries also include entries for John Paul II. Two of them have entries for John Paul I, and many other popes. Are we going to include all those too? I think it's ridiculous. That's outside of our purview, as far as I'm concerned. Regnal names do not generally have significant enough lexical value for them to be included in a dictionary that has an encyclopedic counterpart. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

  Our purview is incredibly broad. We have rules in place to include all attested taxonomic names such as Amanita muscaria, something which general dictionaries usually do not do; and we do have a Wikispecies counterpart that could be used to argue we do not need to include these. We can include John Paul II via WT:LEMMING; that's fine. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

  The problem is, like I said, that many dictionaries have biographical entries, whereas we explicitly disallow multi-word names. If we decide to allow these sorts of names, how do we decide who's incusion-worthy? I strongly oppose just using the lemming test, because it's an almost meaningless criterion, and it requires us to be beholden to other dictionaries. If our criterion is "non-legal names" or "names adopted by or given to individuals, that differ from their birth names," we'll be able to include entries for who knows how many saints, members of religious orders, popes, monarchs, etc. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

  As for "we explicitly disallow multi-word names", it really is not accurate to say that we disallow all multi-word names of people, as per the quoted WT:NSE. Currently included multi-word names of people include Jesus Christ, Alexander the Great, Darwin's Bulldog, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Mary Magdalene, Joan of Arc, Robin Hood and more, found in Category:en:Individuals. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Keep because the pronunciation 'George the Sixth' is not likely to be known to second language learners. A pronunciation section needs to be added. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• Would you also want entries for every calendar date, because "3rd of November" may not be obvious? Adding a missing word that isn't written is not a pronunciation issue! Equinox ◑ 10:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Well then, whatever kind of issue it is, if it is deleted there should be clear sections somewhere explaining that for people learning English. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. We're not supposed to teach everything there is to know about English. Per utramque cavernam 11:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete btw, strongest possible! Equinox ◑ 10:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

academic discipline

academic + discipline. See also talk:academic institution. Per utramque cavernam 16:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Replace with {{no entry}} and {{in wikipedia}}. DCDuring (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete, SoP. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Winn-Dixie

We don't have Walmart, Tesco, Walgreens, Hooters or Lidl so why should we have this? --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• "all words in all languages"? SemperBlotto (talk) 04:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Not a genericized trademark > delete. Per utramque cavernam 08:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete for the reason given by PUC. Don't think WT:BRAND has been satisfied in this case. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• That doesn't alter the fact that I didn't know about Winn-Dixie. Maybe we should include retail chains. Abstain. DonnanZ (talk) 08:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per PUC. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Replace with {{no entry}} and {{in wikipedia}}. DCDuring (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete / or Replace, whatever. Fay Freak (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete / soft-redirect to Wikipedia, per DCDuring. - -sche (discuss) 20:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Abstain. First off, the nomination does not refer to WT:CFI or any CFI-based rationale as formulated; it rather makes some form of extrapolative argument. To amend this, let us assume the nomination refers to WT:CFI#Company names; then, let me point out that the section of CFI has no consensus. That said, I admit that multi-word company names are more liable to deletion than single-word company names. By contrast, I support inclusion of Walmart, Tesco, Walgreens, Hooters and Lidl as company names. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Keep by the fcuk criteria. DTLHS (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • What does fcuk have to do with this? bd2412 T 20:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete

I find this heading very confusing. Is the Delete entry actually nominated for deletion? And if so, what is the rationale? Or is the section heading an ill-formatted attempt at requesting deletion of the entries below? This, that and the other (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The original deletion rationale was put under "stop" below. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep the "key" (on a keyboard) sense in Delete per WT:LEMMING: oxforddictionaries.com:delete:noun[25] has "command or key". I see no WT:CFI-based rationale for deletion: this is not a sum of parts. I see uses like "press Delete", with D capitalized. Furhermore, M-W:backspace[26] has "also : the key pressed ...", and "backspace" is similar. The rationales for deletion found in Talk:eject are unconvincing to me; rationales can be found in post by Chuck Entz and Equinox. As for Chuck Entz argument: sure, an eject button could have various functions, but it does have a typical function, and more importantly, there is a sense referring to a button, so existence is not put into question, nor is a sum of parts argument sustained. As for the Equinox argument that says '... the word is better read as a verb than as a noun meaning "the kind of button that this button is': the word behaves like a noun, a complement of the verb "press" ("press Delete"), and therefore can hardly be understood as a verb. On yet another note, more for eject: "press eject" does not necessarily mean "press a button labeled 'eject'" as there can be a symbol rather than a word; "press eject" is to be read as "press the button that is indicated to perform ejection, whether by word, a symbol or other means". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

fast forward

• Keep Cambridge Advanced Learner's has it. One can find uses like (He set the fast forward to 2x but quickly realized that wouldn't fit his time frame.) — This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talk • contribs) at 02:51, 18 August 2018‎.

Yes, keep, Oxford has it too. DonnanZ (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

In that case, are you suggesting that we keep all the noun button senses? If not, we need some sort of way of distinguishing between those that should be kept and those that shouldn't, and right now I'm not seeing one. Note that, in theory, every key on a keyboard and every button on a device could have a noun sense (for example, "She hit the H on the keyboard repeatedly" – does that mean we should add the noun sense "A key on a keyboard that produces the letter h or H when pressed"?). — SGconlaw (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I looked at some of the others and did not find clear use as a noun for them. IOW, I used citations of collocations like '(PREP) DET rewind(s)' to determine noun use. I thought that attributive use (eg, play button) did not by itself justify calling it a noun. As much as I sympathize with the desire to simplify by going after classes of words, I think that individual words are normally the units to be included or excluded. DCDuring (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@DCDuring: I don't think this is really a situation of verifying individual terms. I have no doubt that the terms are verifiable. It is more like our "Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Numbers, numerals, and ordinals" policy. In that case, we decided that, as a matter of policy, "[n]umbers, numerals, and ordinals over 100 that are not single words or are sequences of digits should not be included in the dictionary, unless the number, numeral, or ordinal in question has a separate idiomatic sense that meets the CFI". Similarly, is it desirable for us to create a noun sense for any word that might conceivably be the label for a key on a keyboard or button on a device? I don't think so. (Note that fast forward has a separate verb sense which is not challenged.) — SGconlaw (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The attestation would be of noun use with the definition in question, using grammatical tests: does it form a plural, accept modification by determiners, serve as a subject and an object of a verb and as an object of a preposition. I don't think it's necessary to do an RfV, but such attestation provides a fact base for decision-making. If you believe that our past practice of doing such attestation and grammatical testing (eg, for adjective PoS) is wrong in this and similar cases, it might be worth bringing it up at BP.DCDuring (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying that noun use doesn't exist. I agree it does. My point is that we should decide as a matter of policy whether, despite such a sense existing, we should be including such usage in the Wiktionary. Potentially every key in a keyboard and every button on a device could be used in a noun sense (e.g, H: "A key on a keyboard producing an h or H when pressed"; start: "A button on a machine that causes it to begin operating when pressed"). That doesn't mean we should then add such senses to the Wiktionary, just as we decided that we would exclude:

• numbers above 100 lacking any other idiomatic sense; and
• senses along the line of "an occurrence of the word [word]" (see, for example, "Talk:selah"), because potentially any word can be used in this way.

— SGconlaw (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• I think we need to make a distinction between a fast-forward mode and the fast-forward button. "He set the fast forward to 2x" can only refer to the mode, not the button. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

  • I agree that the mode should be listed as a noun sense. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep the button sense of fast forward per WT:LEMMING: oxforddictionaries.com#1 has "control"[27] and Macmillan#1 has "button"[28]. Also, "press fast forward" does not seem to be sum of parts; which parts? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

fire

• Abstain. Unlike other key or button senses, e.g. for pause, this is not in lemmings, it seems: “fire”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. Furthermore, google books:"press fire to" finds only two uses that show the scan and that I can inspect; if there were more of them, I would be more inclined to keep. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete—unless someone can show that this is more significant than "Jump" as in "Press Jump to jump" or "Reload" as in "Press Reload to reload" and so on.--Jtle515 (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

play

• Keep the button sense of play since there is no WT:CFI-based rationale for deletion and since lemmings (WT:LEMMING) have buttons or controls for stop, pause and rewind. Admittedly, lemmings do not seem to have a button or control sense for play: “play”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

pause, Pause

• Keep the button sense of pause per WT:LEMMING: Macmillan#3[29] has button; oxforddictionaries.com:noun#1.2[30] has "control". Do not see how this is a sum of parts; I see not CFI-based rationale for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

rewind

• Keep per “rewind”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. and usage like Without even glancing at the paper, I jammed it into my pocket and hit the rewind. — This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talk • contribs) at 03:03, 18 August 2018‎.
• Keep the button sense of rewind per DCDuring and WT:LEMMING, although some lemmings do not have button but mechanism; Macmillan[31] has button. The example "press rewind" does not seem to be sum of parts; which parts? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

stop

Following the deletion of the noun sense of eject which is merely the label of a button on a device, I nominate these co-ordinate entries or noun senses for similar treatment. Please feel free to add other entries, if any. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete all --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete all. Per utramque cavernam 12:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete all per multiple previous discussions. Equinox ◑ 11:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete all (see Talk:eject for rationales). - -sche (discuss) 04:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Keep the function sense of stop per WT:LEMMING:M-W:noun#11[32]; keep the button sense of stop per WT:LEMMING: AHD#17[33] has "control mechanism". Talk:eject does not contain any CFI-based rationale. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

crouch

Another button. "A button (of a joypad, joystick or similar device) whose only or main current function is that when it is pressed causes a video game character to crouch." I've never heard of a device with a designated crouch button on it, so this would purely be something defined by individual games. Equinox ◑ 17:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• Abstain as for a button sense of crouch. Does not appear in lemmings (WT:LEMMING): “crouch”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. Furthermore, google books:"press crouch" and google books:"press crouch to" do not find large enough use, to my taste. I guess RFV-sense could lead to deletion of this sense via WT:RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of button symbols

Comment: Would the symbols (the square, the two triangles, etc.) merit inclusion? Purplebackpack89 03:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Just putting your comment into a new subsection to keep it separate from the deletion discussion. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Keep all that are attestable. There may be quite a lot of them, but unlike numbers there is not an infinite number of buttons. But to me, "hit the delete" is a commonly heard phrase, and delete here is clearly a noun, and the sense is simply not covered by the verb definitions (though separate entries for capitalised forms seems unnecessary to me: even though most keyboards conventionally spell them that way, I believe this is just a case of using title case as though the labels are the first word in a vocative sentence). Also, these real-world referents will never have entries such as "tab key" or "delete button" in Wiktionary since such are SOP, so they'd never get in. Yet we frequently refer to these keys, so defs for their names seem useful as they are part of the language. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

To me, "Hit the delete" hardly makes sense. "Hit delete" makes sense, and though I'm sure many people would write it that way, I wonder whether strictly speaking it is correctly written, or whether strictly speaking "Delete" should be capitalised and/or put in quotes or something. The same goes for various other buttons: "Press play", "Press rewind", "Press eject". If these are accepted as correct usage then all these "button" definitions should be kept in my opinion as the nouns are clearly used in a distinct sense. Common sense, rather than blind adherence to attestation rules, should determine which to include, in my opinion. I do not think we need to be troubled by the "wibble" button which is present on some obscure console just because three people on a gaming site wrote "Press wibble". Mihia (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

in someone's wheelhouse

We have exactly the appropriate sense of wheelhouse, with usage examples of this phrase.

There are other prepositions that can be used with this figurative sense of wheelhouse (outside, out of, within, into, (right) up, from) and it can be used with PPs using of (this subject fell squarely in the wheelhouse of Congress)

This and some of the other PP's might make good redirects, especially to the specific definition, though the search engine alone would find the wheelhouse entry.

I rest my case. DCDuring (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete/redirect per nom. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, I found this useful when making sure I was using the phrase appropriately. I'd like it to stay. (RDZ)

fire (Interjection 1)

Rfd-redundant: "A cry of distress indicating that something is on fire, or that there is a fire"

AFAICT it is only relative frequency grounds that distinguish this from, say, shark#Interjection or grenade#Interjection or gun#Interjection (none of which have such a definition. DCDuring (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Above has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 19:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC) (section title also renamed so that rfd-redundant could work)
• Delete. I'm also not a fan of having a noun and an imperative under the same header. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Abstain: the French translation of sense 1 is au feu !, the translation of sense 2 is feu ! alone. Don't know if it's worth documenting. Per utramque cavernam 12:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Weak delete per nom; I'm open to reconsidering if there are more idiomatic translations (would the French yell "ours!" or "au ours!" if they spot a bear?) or other arguments for keeping. DCDuring makes a compelling point that you can do this with many words for threats; US police semi-notoriously yell "gun!" anytime they spot something that could be a gun, people yell "bomb!" if they spot a bomb, "bear!" if they spot a bear, etc. But then, isn't sense 2 in the same boat? You yell "fire!" to command people to fire, like you yell "halt" to command them to halt, or yell "go", or in these very discussions "keep" or "delete". Hmm... - -sche (discuss) 05:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@-sche: au ours doesn't work phonetically, it would be à l'ours :p. But no, neither "ours !" or "à l'ours !" is used; I'd say "attention, un ours !" or something like that.

And I wouldn't say "bombe !" / "à la bombe !" or "fusil !" / "au fusil !" either. It's not productive in French. Per utramque cavernam 11:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

fire

Rfd-redundant interjection sense 2 ("A signal to shoot") -- this is just verb sense 6 being used in the imperative, not a separate interjection Pppery (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Moved this from above. Per utramque cavernam 11:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I cannot see any basis on which this particular imperative should have a separate entry. It could be "Run!", "Jump!", "Stop!", "Duck!" or anything. There seems nothing special about "Fire!". Therefore delete. Mihia (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Weak delete per Mihia. - -sche (discuss) 20:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete; this is simply the imperative. -Stelio (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

semantic relation

A relation that is semantic, isn't it? DCDuring (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. --Robbie SWE (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 12:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
• Sum of parts. Delete. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. I usually call these "sense relations", but "semantic relations" seems to be a synonym. But, neither term refers to any relationship that is semantic in nature, for exmaple break and broken are semantically related, but their relationship is not one of the "sense relations" which are a restricted set (the -nymys). That's how the term is used in linguistics, anyhow.- Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per Sonofcawdrey. Let me add that the Hyponyms section (inaccurately so called) further reinforces the meaning of the term to the reader, and thereby fills a dictionary function. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

address using the formal pronoun

This reminds me of the recent discussion about teacher's desk in a classroom; do we allow that kind of titles for translation hubs?

Anyway, I think we can use you and thou (the verb sections) instead. Per utramque cavernam 16:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The verb entry at you is a good place for this, and anyway already has more translations. No reason to keep this, so move whatever translations necessary over to you (verb) and delete.

It admittedly is complicated by the fact that "you" is both formal and informal in English now, but I don't think that is a reason not to use this attestable verb form as the translation hub instead of this wordy entry. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. The content looks fine, but it needs to go under an entry title that people would actually search for. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I would search for like vouvoyer and hope to find a link... I bet nobody has said you#verb for 200 years 83.216.95.101 01:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a good point. Whatever we do, entries like vouvoyer and ustedear should link to the entry that houses all the translations. My inclination is to delete this entry and centralize the translations at you, though I'm open to hearing arguments for why we should have this translation hub instead. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC) Struck vote – see below.

Delete, after moving any useful content. Update entries in other languages to link to you#Verb, per Granger. - -sche (discuss) 05:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Keep until someone shows that you as a verb has attesting quotations and is actually used. I checked M-W and AHD online and they did not have "you" in a verb sense. I am sorry if the use of you as a verb is very obvious to native speakers; to me, it is not. I checked youing,youed at the Google Books Ngram Viewer. and there "youed" is not found at all while Czech vykal, past tense of vykat, is easily and plentifully attested. A related RFM discussion is at Talk:address with the polite V-form, where Angr (now Mahagaja) says "I think English really doesn't have a word for this, even when talking about other languages". If it is true that you (verb) is attested and is obsolete, I doubt we are doing a service to the reader by using that as the translation hub. A relevant article is W:T–V distinction. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per ...? Do we allow that kind of titles? Per utramque cavernam 12:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Since the entry title is unattested on Google Books, I've RFV'ed it. I've also RFV'ed the verb sense of you to make you happy. Per utramque cavernam 10:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep per Dan; the verb you does not seem current. "... not to be misled by a pestilent way that he has of youing me, ..." ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Dan Polansky makes a good point. I'm changing my vote to neutral on whether to centralize the translations here or at you. Since both entries have been taken to RFV, the outcome there may answer the question for us. One way or another, we should centralize the translations in one place and make sure entries like ustedear point to it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

  Given the attestation requirement, one solution could be to move the entry to address with the V-form or use the V-form, whichever is easier to attest. I added some quotations to V-form and T-form to show V-form and T-form are attested in the first place. One of the quotations them has "to use the T-form" and "address their parents with the V-form", but we would need more quotations showing combinations with verbs. Now as before, I find you (verb) to be unsatisfactory as the translation hub. Now, "address with the V-form" may not be particularly common either, but at least the non-native reader can see something strange is going on, which they would not see if the normal-looking English you appeared on the definition line of e.g. German siezen; currently, German siezen definition line does not link to you. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  We can perfectly gloss the various foreign terms with "address with the V-form", "address using the formal pronoun", "use the V-form" or whatever will make it clear what is meant; we can write to "you" with quote marks to indicate that the verb is not in common use (compare French déconner, sense 3), so that "the non-native reader can see something strange is going on". And we can do all that without having an actual entry at a weird-ass title, by centralizing the translations at you. I really don't understand the compulsion to create an entry that nobody is going to look for directly. Per utramque cavernam 12:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  By the way, I agree with the IP: the most probable scenario is that someone will look for a foreign language entry, and click on whatever link we've given there. Per utramque cavernam 12:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  Whether someone is going to look up a term like address with the V-form directly is not so important with translation hubs, as follows from the hub logic; as anon says above, "I would search for like vouvoyer and hope to find a link", and I, being a Czech speaker, would start at vykat. It seems improper to me to offer you as a translation in Czech vykat, but not so with address with the V-form; the definition line should have a most useful and functionally adequate translation, not one that is there artificially only so that a sum of parts entry can be deleted. Therefore, diff made vouvoyer worse, misleading the reader. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  @Dan Polansky: Upon reflection, I agree that you is not a good translation (nor a good translation hub), and have edited the entry.

  I still don't think cluttering the mainspace with entries such as "address using the formal pronoun" or "address with the formal pronoun" is a good idea. What happened of the first THUB provision: "The attested English term has to be common; rare terms don't qualify"?

  I propose we create an appendix on the V-form / T-form, and put the translations there. Per utramque cavernam 10:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

  The basic problem is that this is a completely foreign concept to modern English: we lost our informal pronouns centuries ago, and they've become associated with archaic speech, so they feel vaguely formal. Besides, indicating relative status isn't necessarily done with pronouns- particles and verb endings are two methods that come to mind, not to mention a whole range of all types of synonyms that line up with one register or another. In some South American Indian languages it's a really big deal whether you experienced something personally or heard about it secondhand- there are a whole set of different grammatical forms based on that distinction. Or how about inclusive vs. exclusive first- and second-person pronouns?

  Whether you put it in mainspace or somewhere else, a translation hub is more like an appendix or a footnote rather than an entry- it's not really English, though it claims to be, it violates the spelling-first organization of the dictionary as a whole, and being based on a concept rather than a specific term in a specific language makes it rather encyclopedic. Since no one arrives at it directly, there's no practical reason for it to be in any specific namespace that can't be fixed with a tweak or two to the code. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

  @Chuck Entz: Re "Since no one arrives at it directly, there's no practical reason for it [to?] be in any specific namespace that can't be fixed with a tweak or two to the code": exactly. I've slightly edited my previous message btw. Per utramque cavernam 13:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

  I was just about to fix the missing "to" when you posted your reply. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I can attest address with the formal pronoun, "with" rather than "using":

• "she addresses him with the formal pronoun and even the title her Parzival", Myers 2003
• "He had a completely different life-style from theirs, addressing his school-fellows ... with the formal pronoun “Sie”; which created a barrier.", Kanterian 2007
• "Theresa consistently addressed the students with the formal pronoun and while most students employed the informal pronoun in return, ...", Magnan 2008

--Dan Polansky (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion at Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/English#you confirms that the quotations currently placed at you#Verb are weak as for the intended sense; quoting Stelio: 'None of them [the quotations] are doing so "rather than thou"'. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

brick

Adjective sense 1: "Made of brick(s)"; a brick chimney, a brick wall. Standard attributive use of the noun. Per utramque cavernam 08:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, delete that sense (or refer users to the noun), leaving the "extremely cold" sense. The translations can be moved to the noun. DonnanZ (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete sense. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment. I think these "substance" words are among the most difficult to judge. Collins Dictionary gives adjective senses "built or paved with brick" and "like brick", but it seems to contradict itself as it also gives "a brick house" as an example of noun modifier use. American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language lists an adjective sense but gives no definition or examples. Chambers Dictionary is perhaps the clearest: "adj 1 made of brick or of bricks • a brick wall. 2 (also brick-red) having the dull brownish-red colour of ordinary bricks." Several other dictionaries that I looked at do not list a separate adjective sense. For my part, I wonder how e.g. "this house is brick" is explained if "brick" is not an adjective. Mihia (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd say "brick" is definitely an adjective in "this house is brick" (in which case the section should be kept and completed), but is that sentence grammatical? Per utramque cavernam 20:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's grammatical. Well it certainly is to me, anyway. See also GBS [34].

Not sure I agree. What about "this house is pure brick", or "this house is 18th-century brick"? For me, "this house is brick" seems to be using an uncountable noun. Equinox ◑ 22:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

If I have some water in a glass, for example, then I can say "this is water". It actually is water. I question whether a house actually is brick in the uncountable noun sense. I think it is of brick, or made of brick, in the uncountable noun sense. However, this can be a hair-splitting point. Mihia (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

But you can't say "the glass [of water] is water" (which would the equivalent of "the house is brick"). Maybe "my wedding ring is gold" would be a better example: I don't know how we would choose how to analyse "gold" there, but again because it could be "pure gold", "fake gold", or "18th-century gold" I'd go for the noun. Equinox ◑ 00:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I think this is explicable by a conflation of predicate adjectives and grammatical ellipsis. On one hand, we have predicate adjectives: "The wedding ring is gold[en]", "The house is brick[en]." (I've added the endings for clarity.)

On the other hand the semantic content is parsible as "The house is [of] brick", "the wedding ring is [of] gold", with textbook ellipsis allowing us to drop words we don't need, where the terms "brick" and "gold" are part of an understood prepositional phrase. When we say "The house is brick" or "The ring is gold", it seems to me that we are in effect using both of the above syntactic understands, and that the words "gold" and "brick" are simultaneously and ambiguously both adjectives and nouns. The addition of other parts to the sentence (e.g. "The house is pure brick") tips the scale one way or another where it is no longer so ambiguous. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Does that mean (I'm asking this neutrally, not as a passive-aggressive contradiction) that you would support adjective senses for things like rubidium, polyvinyl chloride, and polyester (lol already got polyester)? Equinox ◑ 01:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I believe you are correct that "The ring is gold" is interpretable either as saying the ring is a substance or that the ring is made of a substance. However, I find "The house is brick" harder to interpret in the first way, because of the "more complicated" nature of its construction. Mihia (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, you could say: "this glass is water, and this glass is vodka". As for brick, you can say "the houses in her neighborhood are red brick". Here in California, one is more likely to see brick referred to as unreinforced masonry, which is a Very Bad Thing if you're standing next to it during an earthquake. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I notice we have an adjective section at fire: "That shit is fire, yo!". Now that I've read Equinox's comments above, I'm not so sure either that or "The house is brick" are sufficient proof that we're dealing with adjectives (could we say "That shit is pure fire, yo!"?). Per utramque cavernam 08:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep per WT:LEMMING: “brick”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.; as adj in AHD[35], Collins[36]; Mihia tells us above it is in Chambers. On the substance itself, "this house is brick" does not seem to be a noun use to me, whereas "brick wall" appears to be a run-of-the-mill attributive use of a noun. For interest: house is brick, brick house at the Google Books Ngram Viewer.. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

defined benefit pension plan

NISOP: defined benefit + pension + plan. -Stelio (talk) 09:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 10:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

defined benefit pension scheme

NISOP: defined benefit + pension + scheme. -Stelio (talk) 09:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 10:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

mahā#English

Following on a similar discussion at Wiktionary:Tea_room/2018/September#tiru, determining that that term is not English, I would like to nominate the entry at mahā#English for deletion, on the grounds that this is also "clearly never productive in English", and is also not English. There was considerable discussion about this term in the past, as recorded at Talk:mahā. Said discussion included a refutation of the various citations intended to support the validity of the term's English-ness listed at Citations:mahā#English_citations_of_mahā, pointing out that none of the provided citations actually supports that position.

Looking forward to a thoughtful and reasoned discussion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I've already perused the mahā talk page several times in the past, and I'll issue a tentative delete: just as I do not believe osthya to be an English word, I don't believe this to be an English word. But we'll see.

The problem is that (in my view) quotations such as "All are classed among the eighteen mahā or ‘great’ purāṇas." or "hence in spite of its labio-dentality, it came to be listed as an oṣṭhya sound." are useless for our purposes: they cannot be used to attest the words in English, nor can they really be used to attest the words in Sanskrit. They simply aren't quality quotes / good for anything. Per utramque cavernam 16:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Delete the adjective. Abstain on the noun sense. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
• Keep in some form. This is a word that appears in print often enough that a reader may want to learn what it actually means. There are a small but concrete number of instances of this word appearing in English running text which are presented without italics or other formatting to distinguish it as a word in a different language. We should not delete words based on catch-22 reasoning, which seems to presume that words are bad, and should be eliminated from the dictionary if we can find a technical reason to justify their removal. Rather, we should consider how we can help readers define words they may reasonably come across. bd2412 T 13:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I have no judgment on words being "good" or "bad", that is entirely beside the point.

I am also not pushing to "eliminate" words from Wiktionary. I am much more concerned with accurate description.

As stated before, I am fine with the existence of an entry at [[mahā]]. What I am nominating for deletion is [[mahā#English]], and as noted at [[Talk:mahā]], those (exceedingly few) instances of mahā in running text without any gloss or special formatting are also in works that treat a broad array of Buddhist- or yoga-related terminology the same way: essentially as untranslated Sanskrit sprinkled through the body of the text. If inclusion in an otherwise English sentence, without regard for context or domain, is our only criterion for "English-ness", then it follows that we must also create English entries for ... a truly vast array of terms, so many that the significance of the "English" language label would be severely diluted. That, I argue, would do our readers more of a disservice. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I would welcome your proposal of what form this entry should take, if [[mahā#English]] (which is currently the entire entry) is removed. bd2412 T 19:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

In the past, the idea was floated (perhaps even by you?) to have romanized Sanskrit entries. I still support this option, as we also currently have for Gothic, Japanese, and Chinese (and perhaps others too). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

It was. I am not opposed to having this presented as something other than an English term. My concern is that different groups of editors will oppose different solutions, so that the end result is no solution, and the benefit to the reader of knowing what "mahā" means will be lost. I would prefer a process to determine how it should be included, rather than one which risks excluding an attested term from the dictionary entirely. bd2412 T 00:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't share the assumption that there must be an entry here if this string appears in print. Even a remit as broad as "all words in all languages" is not "all representations of all words or portions of words". There are enough works on German and its dialects that contain blocks of text transcribed in IPA or even other pronunciation systems that I could probably "cite" words like zaɪn or diː or ʃə, but I don't think we need an entry at [[zaɪn]] or [[diː]] or [[ʃə]]; the entries at [[sein]] and [[die]] and [[-sche]] cover the words as they exist in the language to which they belong. In this case, it's arguable (there is a case to be made) that there should be (soft) redirects of sorts at romanizations for Sanskrit as there are for Gothic, but I don't share what seems to be the underlying assumption. - -sche (discuss) 01:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

You say, "I don't share what seems to be the underlying assumption." Could you unpack that? What underlying assumption? (Honest question, I feel a bit confused and am seeking clarity.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 04:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

(I hope this doesn't sound curt,) Would it clarify things if I said the clause you quote, from the last sentence of my comment, is merely restating my first sentence? The assumption I'm referring to is the assumption (embedded in bd's comment about "what form this entry should take") that there should be an entry at this title because (quoting again) "this is a word that appears in print often enough". - -sche (discuss) 04:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@-sche I feel that you have either misunderstood or misrepresented my position. I have been consistent in opposing the inclusion of neologisms and brand names even where these appear in print "often enough". In this case, the term in question not only appears in print often enough, but has for a long time, as a freestanding word (not just a particle of another word), perhaps having a meaning unique in some subtle sense to this specific presentation of the word. bd2412 T 19:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Delete the adjective as it stands, or (if kept at RFD) send to RFV to seek better citations, as every one currently under the adjective section is inadmissable: under the first sense the 1980 and 2014 Shiva cites clearly set it off as a foreign language term, the 2012 cite doesn't use this spelling (in addition to other problems), the 2013 cite doesn't seem to be an adjective (in addition to other concerns), the 2014 Mohr cite is clearly a mention of a foreign language term and not a use, and not even a mention of this adjective but rather of a prefix with a hyphen; the cites under the second adjective sense suffer similar problems. It is also very questionable to use even a valid use of a compound word as an argument that its elements are also independently English; as I wrote recently in the Tea Room, the ability to say "I visited Bad Kreuznach and Bad Kissingen" doesn't in and of itself make "Bad" an English word meaning "spa" (although someone may now seek out better citations which do). Use in collocations that aren't viewable as wholesale borrowings/transliterations, e.g. "a mahā leader", "the mahā teachings of the ascetics", would be more convincing evidence of the existence of "mahā" as an English word. It is concievable that the string might exist as an English word the way e.g. verboten does, but it would need to be demonstrated. Abstain for now on the noun. Some investigation should be done to determine if the noun (or adjective) is more commonly spelled maha. - -sche (discuss) 19:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@-sche, @Μετάknowledge: regarding the noun form, we currently only have one citation given for the purported noun sense, from the work Luminous Essence: A Guide to the Guhyagarbha Tantra. As can be seen here, if Google Books search is working correctly, the term mahā only appears five times in this whole book, in three separate sentences (formatting kept as in the original):

• This is also the reasoning behind the subdivisions of the Nyingma School's mantra scriptures, such as the classification of mahāyoga into three parts, starting with the mahā of mahā. -- page 3
• The Tantra of the Secret Essence is the ati of mahā, which is the same as the mahā of ati in terms of the three divisions of the great perfection. -- page 5
• The liberating paths of the supramundane vehicles explained above can also be classified into nine vehicles: the three vehicles that guide through renunciation (the vehicles of the listeners, self-realized buddhas, and bodhisattvas), the three vehicles of Vedic austerities (krīya, ubhaya, and yoga), and the three vehicles of mastery in means (mahā, anu, and ati). -- page 23

The book's topic appears to be esoteric Tibetan Buddhism. No definitions are given anywhere for the terms mahā, ati, anu, krīya, or ubhaya. Yoga I only know as the common exercise practice of stretching and controlling one's breathing and posture; if it has any other meaning in this book, that is wholly lost on me. I would argue that these terms are untranslated Sanskrit, used on the assumption that the intended audience is sufficiently familiar with the Sanskrit terminology.

Considering the overall context of the work -- the subject matter, the intended audience, usage of other esoteric terms -- I would argue that this work is using untranslated Sanskrit as Sanskrit and not as English, and that this is thus not a useful citation to show use of an English term. And without this one citation, we have no citations at all for the noun sense, and should therefore strike that from the EN entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

If that's the case, I recommend you RFV the noun sense. By the way, I also support romanisation soft redirects for Sanskrit. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

yell silently

The first deletion request was inconclusive. SOP. Per utramque cavernam 10:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Keep, per msh in Talk:yell silently: "I assumed on seeing the nomination that the phrase meant to quietly talk in a rebuking tone of voice. Bgc does not seem to have it that way: all its hits for the phrase are either for our current definition (to have a strong but unarticulated emotion) or ambiguous. So keep as undecipherable from parts." From my perspective, we do not say this in Czech and I would not know I can say this in English to the effect described in the entry. The fact that this is not literal speech is of note. However, yell silently, yell quietly, scream silently at the Google Books Ngram Viewer. gives me a pause: the term seems rather one-off and therefore possibly a non-lexicalized rhetorical construction, in this case oxymoron. screem silently gives less doubt. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

fortnight

I think "fortnight" in "Wednesday fortnight" is either a noun or an adjective, but not an adverb. If it is an adverb, that PoS should be added to "week" Helenpaws (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

If evening isn’t an adverb this is neither. It is to be understood as an accusativus mensurae, adverbial accusative Indo-European languages use often for time and space. Sometimes one creates these for Arabic but I tend to do not because it is regular use and not lexical, no kind of conversion has taken place usually. Remove because of the analogy. We could add adverb senses to night etc. else. Also remove in the other day, Friday, Tuesday and everywhere else where it can be spotted. I have been surprised to find that it is found as an adverb sense in Tuesday. Now I find mid-March … oh no. Nobody ascribes adverb quality to März despite German uses the month names without “in” (not “in March 2018” but “März 2018”; and we can also say “den März 2018” though this is usually too much to be said; but point is these all aren’t adverbs lexically). Fay Freak (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

If you're making an analogy between "Wednesday fortnight" and "Wednesday night/evening", I see these as rather different. The latter is a night/evening, while the former is not a fortnight. This makes the classification as a noun more straightforward in the latter, in my opinion. Mihia (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Not an adverb nor an adjective, delete. I moved the quote. DonnanZ (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I can see why these may appear to be adverbs. "I'll see you Wednesday fortnight" is elliptical for "I'll see you on Wednesday in a fortnight", where "on Wednesday" and "in a fortnight" are prep phrases that modify the verb "see", making them adverbial. I am leaning towards keep, since there seems to be a contained set of such words, i.e. this pattern doesn't work for all nouns (you can say "I'll see you on my birthday" but not *"I'll see you (my) birthday", and I don't think you can say "I'll see you June" or "I'll see you September" - they kinda sounds weird to me). Certainly, I wouldn't want to delete the other day meaning "recently". - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

F1

F5

Two more keys, along the lines of the rewind etc. buttons discussed recently. We already explain function keys at the F entry. (As a minor point of interest, some keyboards have F0 and/or go higher than F12.) Equinox ◑ 20:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• I looked at F, and it only explains F1. F1 doesn't say much, and F5 doesn't explain what it does, i.e. refresh the page. So there's a lot of missing info anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

What it does is entirely dependent on the particular operating system. DTLHS (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, not all browsers use F5 to refresh the page, and computers like the BBC Micro had an F5 key before the Web even existed. In many programming tools F5 means run/start the program. We can't hope to "define" all that. Equinox ◑ 23:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• Delete as non-dictionary material. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
• Abstain. DonnanZ (talk) 09:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
• Delete the sense for the key. I just added a verb sense that should be kept (easily attested by searching "F5ing" on Usenet). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
• Keep: they are not sum of parts, and they are attested in the noun sense challenged, as in "press F1" or "press F5". Admittedly, I don't see them in lemmings, but I see M-W:esc[37] and oxforddictionaries.com:ESC[38], which is a bit similar. As for the documentation at F: if I decided to look this up in a dictionary, I would not go to F. This could be handled by a redirect from F1 to F, but since F1 has other senses as well, that is not an option. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

  Why are they not SoP? It's the first function key (F short for function), just like S1E1 is the first episode of the first series. Equinox ◑ 14:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

  @Equinox: Whether something is SoP depends on what me mean by separate components. The usual standard for "separate components" is space separated, and many also support hyphen-separated. A different standard may be sought for the likes of H2O and H2SO4 (Category:mul:Chemical formulae), and for S1E1. For chemical formulas, we have not yet decided to use a different standard. It is not obvious to me that a different standard should be applied to F1. There is 3D, three-dimensional. We have Q1, the first quarter of the year. It seems we do apply a different standard of "separate components" for 3476, a decimal numeral--decimal numerals form an open-ended combinatorial system with very large number of items--but that is not so clear since we have a separate rule covering them: WT:CFI#Numbers, numerals, and ordinals. I'll grant that whether F1 is SoP is open to discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• See also failed Talk:HP1 re Harry Potter series. Equinox ◑ 14:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

high speed, low drag

Sum of parts. Adjective sense defined as if it were a noun. Adverb defined as if it were some sort of verb.SemperBlotto (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Fixed that, sorry ... I haven't written a definition for an entry that wasn't a noun in quite a while, perhaps ever. I will be adding attestation later today when I have a bit more time. Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

As for SOP ... that might be true in aviation, but as the attestations I've now added should make clear, it has an idiomatic, metaphorical meaning that would not be obvious just from those component words. Daniel Case (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

how many

The second sense under the Pronoun L2 seems duplicative of the determiner sense claimed to be a translation hub. DCDuring (talk) 04:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you want to remove it completely or can it be turned into a translation hub? I think the translations are the same. 83.216.80.232 05:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

bus route

Previously kept (in 2010, with a sigh). Still shit --XY3999 (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

They're very handy (hardly shit), I travelled on two today. It's a translation target, keep. DonnanZ (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

WF is talking about the entry, you're talking about the thing the term refers to (at least in your first sentence). I took Metro bus line 4 in downtown Los Angeles yesterday, but I wouldn't want to have a dictionary entry for it. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew that, a typical WF comment; I wouldn't have entries for individual bus routes either, that's Wikipedia material (if you're lucky). DonnanZ (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Keep per WT:COALMINE via busroute: [39], [40], [41]; bus route,busroute at the Google Books Ngram Viewer.. More, written before I found coalmine: With the help of translations entered in Wikidata's bus route (Q3240003), perhaps someone would be able to find the kind of translations that support WT:THUB. A similar entry is tram route, also in RFD. “bus route”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. does not find the kind of dictionaries required by WT:LEMMING. M-W has bus line[42]; is bus line a synonym of bus route? I guess an indirect lemming card could be played via M-W:bus line. However, the M-W justification for bus line could have been related to 2b sense, the company, or the 1st sense. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:57, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Delete because I don't think you need to know anything beyond 1. knowing what a bus is, and 2. knowing what a route is, in order to understand this phrase. I know Donnanz wants to keep it just because he likes buses/routes. But even so this is phrasebook territory at best. Equinox ◑ 02:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

From your comment, I gather you're more of a trainspotter, Eq. BTW, what kind of shit phrasebook phrase is "bus route", anyway? --XY3999 (talk) 08:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Delete. It is clearly SOP, and as a translation target can be given in parts. For a phrasebook phrase, "bus stop" is more useful. Kiwima (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

That's right, make users work harder. Having a bus stop without a bus route serving it is like having a railway station without a railway. DonnanZ (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Kiwima: Can you please clarify whether your vote has the intent to override WT:CFI's WT:COALMINE (also in WT:CFI#Idiomaticity)? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I am happy to keep if it is put in as an alternative form of busroute, but not as a stand-alone entry with no entry for "busroute". Kiwima (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kiwima: But that is not the idea of WT:COALMINE: the idea is to have the more common term as a full entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, but we need to have busroute as an entry, even if it is the alt form. Kiwima (talk) 09:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kiwima: That is not what WT:CFI says. It says "Unidiomatic terms made up of multiple words are included if they are significantly more common than single-word spellings that meet criteria for inclusion". Thus, the single word spelling has to meet WT:CFI, but it does not need an entry; and I showed that to be the case in my first post, by providing three links. Anyway, I went ahead and created busroute. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: Is this an intentional override of WT:CFI? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep Ƿidsiþ 07:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

oral mucositis

Deleted by me as SoP; restored by Wyang as a "valid clinical" something. So is "major depression" but it's clearly SoP unless we get into the nasty legal whatnots of "what, today, in the DSM, is defined as depression", or "what percentage of cream is legally allowed in milk". Equinox ◑ 06:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

It's a distinct clinical entity by itself, with an ICD-10 code (K12.3). The characteristics, aetiology, diagnosis and evaluation, and treatment are all entirely different for oral mucositis compared with mucositis elsewhere. major depression is not sum of parts; when a patient is diagnosed with “major depression” it isn't just depression that is major ― specific criteria need to be used before such diagnosis can be made. Wyang (talk) 06:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

If we accept ICD categories as a reason to keep (never mind the fact that doctors change their minds and their systems all the time), then we must have entries for e.g. ICD-10-CM K12 stomatitis and related lesions, and noninflammatory disorder of vagina, unspecified. If that's not okay, then you need a better "keep" argument. The fact that treatment is different is totally irrelevant because we aren't a medical textbook, we are a dictionary. Equinox ◑ 06:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Individual clinical disease entities (not ICD codes) warrant individual entries ― this is the default in medical dictionaries. Patients would say they suffer from oral mucositis, but no one would say they suffer from “stomatitis and related lesions”, or “noninflammatory disorder of vagina, unspecified”. Those are umbrella terms used in ICD classification, and are not disease entities. Similar examples: pyloric stenosis is stenosis of the pylorus, but it's a clinical entity and thus needs to be kept. So are ischaemic colitis, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary fibrosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, premature ejaculation, granulomatosis with polyangiitis, benign prostatic hyperplasia, familial hypercholesterolaemia, membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis, etc. Wyang (talk) 07:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• How does this compare to something like oral thrush? Ƿidsiþ 13:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep per Wyang. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Abstain: I tend to think Wyang is making a strong argument, and e.g. major depression is not a depression that is major. Still, oral mucositis really seems to be mucositis that is oral, and while having ICD-10 code could be suggestive, it is not conclusive for keeping as Equinox points out. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

no-

Not a prefix, nor slang as claimed. (And how "no-no" is supposed to fit the definition is anyone's guess.) Equinox ◑ 21:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep, in some form. Remove "slang" label. Mihia (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

  It looks to me like the examples are all phrases that are used attributively, with a couple having -er stuck on to the last word as an enclitic (i.e. "[no]+[brain]-->[no-brain]+[-er] / "It [requires] no [use of one's] brain --> "It's a no-brainer"). Either that, or it's a compound. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I think one of the issues with this entry is that the examples are a bit of a ragbag of different things. I guess the most common "no-" words are compound modifiers such as in "no-fault divorce" or "no-nonsense approach". To the extent that these are comparable to "low-margin business" or "wide-field camera", it may be seen as a regular feature of the English language rather than a true prefix. On the other hand, there are also the cases like "no-show", "no-ball", "no-op", "no-trumps", which are different in that they are not (only) modifiers, albeit there may be a question about how productive this usage is. "no-brainer" may be different again since there is no such thing as a "brainer" in a relevant sense. "no-no" is obviously misplaced. Mihia (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I shouldn't have said "all", since [[no-no] is probably reduplication of no. "no-ball" are poor examples, because they aren't always hyphenated. As for the others, there's some kind of reduction going on in many of these phrases. In modifier phrases, inflection seems often to be lost: it's not a three-pieces suit or a does-nothing/did-nothing administration. Perhaps something analogous is happening to not. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per Chuck. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. The derived terms need to be moved to the section at no. DonnanZ (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

detail oriented

Looks SOPpy --XY3999 (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It hurts me to see this without a hyphen. But, okay, USAGE IS KING. It does seem like "oriented to details". Probably delete. Equinox ◑ 14:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

If it had a hyphen it could be regarded as one word. The translations don't look very soppy. DonnanZ (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Compounds with "oriented" or "-oriented" are open-ended, e.g. people-oriented, task-oriented, subject-oriented, etc. I see this as a manifestation of a regular feature of English rather than something that needs a separate dictionary entry in each instance. Mihia (talk) 03:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The translations all parse out to detailist (for which we might want to consider creating an entry; see google books:"detailist"). That strikes me as simply a different construction, and not grounds for keeping the EN term detail oriented, which really looks like SOP to me. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete per Mihia, and delete labor-intensive at the same time. Per utramque cavernam 16:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Why the latter? DonnanZ (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

For the same reason: "I see this as a manifestation of a regular feature of English rather than something that needs a separate dictionary entry in each instance". Per utramque cavernam 22:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

If you forget about your own home-baked ideals for a minute, you will find that labor-intensive and labour-intensive pass the lemming test with flying colours, check the refs. DonnanZ (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

As for translations, detail oriented, (detailist*10) at the Google Books Ngram Viewer. shows "detailist" to be much less common as of recent use. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Northern America

Seems nonidiomatic. DTLHS (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep: It's a real term used by the United Nations and even has its own dedicated Wikipedia article. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Why should idiomacy be a factor with a geographical definition? DonnanZ (talk) 10:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

While not terribly relevant in this case, there does have to be a line drawn somewhere, for instance we would probably not want "terms" like five mountains immediately north of Everest or Atlantic Ocean around 25°N 71°W. I don't think this entry is nearly to those extremes, but it does matter a bit. - TheDaveRoss 13:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

lame

"strangely corny or sweet to an extent". The Usex looks to me like just another example of the previous definition (uncool). Isn't this just putting a positive spin on the same meaning? Kiwima (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Made-up usexes do not serve to attest senses anyway. To include the corny sense we need examples of actual use in that sense.  --Lambiam 10:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete, or RFV if necessary. Per utramque cavernam 10:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I recall noticing this myself and wondering about the distinctness of it. It does seem like, in the second usex, the carrots aren't exactly "uncool" in a way that makes it "disliked", but if our chief RFV-tender/parser-of-cites thinks it's the same sense, I'm inclined to go along with that assessment. There does seem to be a continuum, like "before he was deployed overseas I never realized how much I liked seeing his lame ___ every morning", where the person did dislike the thing but now views it positively (like the corny carrots), which also suggests that a merger is in order, although we might need to expand/tweak the "failing to be cool" definition. - -sche (discuss) 18:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

GBA SP

Specific game console brand, not a hugely well-known one. Since the "SP" part is just "SP" and doesn't really stand for anything, the space means that the GBA entry is probably enough to steer people in the right direction anyway. Equinox ◑ 18:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete, not really dictionary material. Per utramque cavernam 22:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep by the fcuk criteria. DTLHS (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Redirect to GBA or delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

theoretician

sense: someone who is expert in the theory of a particular science or art

Isn't this a verbose obfuscation of the other definition: "a theorist"? Most other dictionaries seem to think so. DCDuring (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Per our definitions, one could be expert in the theory (theoretician) without ever having constructed a theory of one's own (theorist). Equinox ◑ 18:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I think "expert" is a bad way to express it, but a theoretician is someone who examines or studies the theory and theoretical assumptions relating to a certain academic study, field of inquiry, etc.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

feminist theology

SOP. Per utramque cavernam 10:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 23:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@PUC: Couldn't it be a (non-SOP) contradiction in terms?.. --80.133.109.107 13:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

That is the type of arcane judgement that isn't a dictionary's task to make. And a contradiction in terms could be SOP either way. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete, perfectly SOP. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep. Also probably add the adjective feminist-theological. Ƿidsiþ 13:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment. If theology is the critical study of the nature of the divine (Wikipedia), then feminist theology should be the critical study of the nature of the divine from a feminist perspective. To me, that does not suggest the sense of “a movement”. So how is the meaning of this term a sum of the meanings of its components? I am not saying that the term is not an instance of SoP, but if it is, the given definition is not quite right.  --Lambiam 10:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Theology isn't exclusively the study of the divine, but also of practices, adherents, texts, beliefs and religious organisations, hence terms like "scientific theology" for Biblical studies and "practical theology" for studying religious practices. I'm not convinced it really is a single movement, though it may well be more interfaith than other types of theology. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

-s'

-es'

it's -s (for plural) + -' (possessive marker), and it's already present in -' as sense 1 ("Possessive marker used on plurals that end with -s"). --80.133.109.107 13:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. A case of SOP for a pair of suffixes. There are endless combinations of such, like -ize + -ing and -ness + -es.  --Lambiam 22:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Delete, per Lambiam. Leasnam (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per above. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, Delete SemperBlotto (talk) 07:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
• Note: if deleted, also delete -es' with it.  --Lambiam 07:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

IMO it's (weakly) worth keeping for the pronunciation information and usage notes. - -sche (discuss) 18:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Can’t this info be presented at -' and -'s?  --Lambiam 07:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Weak keep per above, but I'm not opposed to the information being included elsewhere. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've moved the pronunciation and usage notes over to -' (please review it). - -sche (discuss) 05:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

MAGA chud

NISoP: MAGA + chud.

DCDuring (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Then you should probably add the relevant sense to chud. DTLHS (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep unless such a sense is added and attested. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep per jiffy. If chud (noun) is citable as a hot word in any one sense, it is derivative of MAGA chud. But the meanings seem all over the place, from just a short for MAGA chud to "rube" to something like "troll" to "ugly person" (given by UD), depending on whatever stereotype a writer wants to use. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

How could anyone possibly sincerely believe that IRW chud is derived from MAGA chud? I thought that our horde of contemporary slang collectors would not have failed to surpass Urban Dictionary, which has chud in its current cloudy, but clearly abusive sense as well as its etymology. I personally do not feel at all competent to add the missing contemporary sense. Nevertheless, though in WiktWorld wikt-lawyering may provide a tortured rationale for inclusion, the challenged term remains in reality SoP. DCDuring (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@DCDuring My bad, now dial down the hyperbole. Anyway, the sense is obscure enough to be absent from several recent dictionaries of slang. I have added an adjective and noun sense. Check whether you agree with the definition. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge Pinging you because you indicated that you might vote differently when there is a sense that could make "MAGA chud" SOP. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@DTLHS Also pinging you because of the noun definition at chud. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly CHUD/C.H.U.D. might not meet CFI because of WT:FICTION. Sad that only the poisonous political atmosphere has provided sufficient motivation to make this use of chud in this sense attestable. DCDuring (talk) 12:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Now that I see how chud is defined... I'm not sure. There's still a slight jump between "Make America Great Again" + "disgusting person" to "[pejorative for] Trump supporter". It's definitely a set phrase, but does it go beyond that to reach some level of idiomaticity? To pose a couple concrete questions, is there a range of words that could be substituted for "chud" in this phrase that would be similarly easily attested? And should MAGA have another sense that refers to Trump in particular, rather than his political movement? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

This really needs cites before we start drawing conclusions about equivalents. DTLHS (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Like DCDuring, I will be very surprised if the slur (broadly 'gross/unliked person') sense of "chud" originated in, let alone is specific to, this phrase. (If necessary, move to RFV and then re-open / open a new RFD if evidence refutes a 'jiffy' argument.) I also don't think slurring people who support Trump['s movement to "MAGA"] by referring to their support for that movement is idiomatic, either in this phrase or in a phrase like "MAGA idiots", which is also a set/common collocation. There must be more examples of partisans for one side or another being referred to by a notable phrase, movement, etc they're associated with. I think this collocation only seems idiomat-ish because "chud" is not that common of an insult. - -sche (discuss) 22:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

But that depends on a figurative interpretation of chud that isn't in the entry yet and that I doubt is citable even on Usenet. Even the Usenet cites lean more toward "hideous person" rather than "non-hideous person causing disgust". The closest I get to a figurative sense is an exception like this that is an obvious short for MAGA chud. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Delete, SOP, implying that who supports MAGA is a chud. Fay Freak (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete as SOP. I looked for MAGA redneck and found examples, and there are prob. a host of other similar collocations of MAGA. chud seems to have a life of its own as a noun. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

ride the ... train

Uuuuggghhh. Serious WTF-age. Meh, we cooouuuld move this to train. --XY3999 (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn’t this first go to rfv? The WTF-ness does not determine the idiomaticity. BTW, you’ll also find surf the AI wave and jump on the AI bandwagon.  --Lambiam 07:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I think there is no doubt that the expression "ride the ~ train" is verifiably in reasonably common use (though I question how precisely the present definition captures its meaning). I guess the question is more whether it deserves to be a dictionary lemma in itself, and, if so, how it should be presented. Do we normally allow lemmas to contain "..."? Mihia (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

This is more of a metaphor than anything fixed and lexical. You can {be on|be on board|board|catch|get on|get on board|ride|take}(or {get off|miss|skip}) the {huge variety of nouns/proper nouns- e.g. w:Peace Train} {bandwagon|train|? possibly others}. I'd call it a snowclone, but it's a bit looser than that. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Move to Appendix:Snowclones/ride the X train. That's how we normally deal with these. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

"snowclone" is a word that I had never heard of until I heard it here, but our definition says "A type of cliché which uses an old idiom formulaically placed in a new context", so for it to be one of those, would there not need to be an original or prototype idiom of the form "ride the ~ train", which the others copy? Is there one? Mihia (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Could the old idiom be ride the gravy train?  --Lambiam 16:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

That seems more likely than ride the crazy train or any other alternative, yes. Move per MK. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Not a term I'm familiar with, is it American? I also think the pro-Trump usex should be deleted, even if tne entry survives. DonnanZ (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Keep where it is unless existence is in doubt, which is for RFV. I don't like Appendix:Snowclones; let's keep items in mainspace for maximum convenience. We have I'm ... year(s) old, although I prefer I'm twenty years old. An alternative would be to find a high-frequency representative term of the pattern, create an entry for that term to host the snowclone, and redirect other terms matching the pattern to it. The entry to host the whole snowclone could be ride the gravy train (now redirect); see also ride the * train at the Google Books Ngram Viewer.. If that approach would be chosen, the nominated entry ride the ... train could be redirected to it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• Move to the snowclones appendix. Per utramque cavernam 21:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

face the facts

SoP? Dixtosa (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, SoP. Just compare accept the facts and face the truth.  --Lambiam 23:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 17:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Seems an everyday use of face, like face reality, face the inevitable. Equinox ◑ 18:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• Delete, SOP. Fay Freak (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete; and I have added to the relevant def of face to cover this a bit more clearly. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Please delete face facts as well. Per utramque cavernam 20:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

go out to eat

SOP. Per utramque cavernam 15:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. Just like "go out for lunch and a game of miniature golf". Chuck Entz (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Wow what? NO! Delete twice. Equinox ◑ 20:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be some meaning here that isn't covered by the meanings of the four individual words. Having a picnic, or a snack in your backyard, isn't going out to eat. Maybe this is a missing sense of go out. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. "Go out" may imply socialising but only because that's a common reason for leaving one's house. Equinox ◑ 01:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not missing. It's the second sense at go out: "To leave one's abode to go to public places". It's not strictly one's abode, though: it can be your workplace, or some event you're attending- basically wherever you're currently based. One might ask a coworker "Are you going out for lunch?" They might respond: "no, I'll just order in". A more informal version would be "step out", as in "I think I'll step out for a bit to get something to eat." As you can see, there are zillions of permutations, and things like "while you're out, could you get something for me, too?" Now that I think about it, even this sense of go out might be SOP. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

But it doesn't just mean eating in a public place. Like I said above, having a picnic (even in a public park) is not going out to eat. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• 'Redirect to go out, and keep the definition of "go out" that means to leave one's house. Purplebackpack89 02:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Make into alternative form of eat out. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Support this option, otherwise delete. - TheDaveRoss 22:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that's an "alternative form" in the sense we usually use that word here, though. It's a synonym, but a SOP one. Per utramque cavernam 13:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete, totally SoP. You can go out to buy food, you can go out to fish, you can go out to collect firewood, and then you can go home to eat whatever you bought or caught. Or go out to eat if you can’t cook.  --Lambiam 11:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Abstain. DonnanZ (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Delete, SOP. Fay Freak (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Delete, SoP. --Robbie SWE (talk) 07:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• FYI, I changed "To leave one's abode to go to public places" to "To leave one's abode to go to public places, especially for recreation or entertainment." Mihia (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• Keep: no one has satisfactorily addressed the point made by Granger that going out of one's abode to a public park to make a picnic is not go out to eat, or is it?; go out: "to leave one's abode to go to public places, especially for recreation or entertainment". Put differently, what makes go out to eat select a public restaurant to the exclusion of a picnic in a park? How should a non-native speaker, by perusing go out and eat, know that it excludes certain things? Or does it really exclude a picnic? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  Despite my point about picnics vs. restaurants, I'm not sure go out to eat means more than the sum of its parts, because one can say things like "go out for lunch" or "go out for dinner", which equally imply going to a restaurant. I think an additional sense at go out could cover this. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

sift through

Isn't it pretty transparent and also covered at sift? --Robbie SWE (talk) 07:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. Delete. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Keep, I think. No reference is made to "sift through" at sift, the most likely place is sense 3. When sifting something like flour, which my mother used to do, "through" isn't normally used, even though the flour goes through a sieve. DonnanZ (talk) 10:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, sense 3 ("to examine carefully"). Sift through is simply "to go through while examining carefully". I think it would be adequate to give a usage example. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

This entry could be incorporated there as a subsense rather than lose it completely. DonnanZ (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Certainly the meanings are close, though I think the def "examine carefully" is wanting. In any case, I think we need to treat sift through in somewhere, somehow, since this is the most common collocation/usage now, whereas sift with a direct object (to "sift the evidence" for example) is much less common. I originally added this entry as I wanted to be able to use it in the def for "sieve through" which is the Singapore English variant of "sift through" (e'en though I haven't gotten around to adding that yet). - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete/hard redirect as it is not special enough not to be SOP. One can form such things with through many verbs and one expression being more common does not make it non-SOP. It is just the verb having two different ways of government. Fay Freak (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Note also that sieben durch, durch etwas sieben in German would be SOP, unlike durchsieben (in both stresses). This here is the very same. It’s just been created because of helplessness about adding the government with through at sift in a fair fashion.

So I added the government in this sift revision. Wiktionary can peruse much more addenda regarding the regimina of verbs – especially if formatted smartly, which currently is not so easy. I like the templates {{+preo}} and {{+obj}} quite and one could make the dictionary much more usable and competitive if one were to combine multiple governments at once (on which further discussion should take place at Module talk:object usage, @Rua, Erutuon) Fay Freak (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Fay Freak for alerting me to those templates which I did not know existed. I have preliminarily re-edited the entry to split the two defs since one is trans (and archaic) and the other intrans (and current), and have used the +preo template. I didn't think it was necessary to keep {{+obj}} for the orig. def since the "(something)" in the def makes it clear enough. That said, with the +preo template, the object is actually an indirect object (i.e. it is not sifting something(obj) through a sieve, just sifting through something), but I suppose the entry is clear enough now. Finally, also, the phrase "sift through" needs a hard redirect (sorry, dunno how to do that). - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Sonofcawdrey But that’s not what “transitive” means. ”Transitivity” can be mediated through prepositions. It is purely semantical. On Wiktionary transitive is glossed as “takes an object”, and what have you written? “(intransitive) [+ through (object)]” – a paradox. It is not an indirect object either but a prepositional object. Fay Freak (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Fay Freak Yeah, you're right, I was only thinking that as I walked to work this morning. Still, the def "examine carefully" is substitutable for the orig. "sift" examples, but not for "sift through" (you can't "examine carefully through something"); so I have re-edited again. Other dicts make a point of mentioning the "through" construction as well. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete, SOP, not a phrasal verb. Per utramque cavernam 01:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Keep: In Macmillan and in three idiom dictionaries[43]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Muslimo-

Merely Muslim with -o- as an interfix. DonnanZ (talk) 13:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

That is its etymology, but it doesn't invalidate considering it to be a prefix in its own right. (As with Islamo-.) Keep. Ƿidsiþ 08:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Even so, it's not a true prefix but what I think should be called a combining form. It is only being treated as a prefix for convenience. DonnanZ (talk) 10:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The half-dozen entries recorded as using it could easily be revised etymology-wise, e.g. Muslimophobia to Muslim + -o- + -phobia. DonnanZ (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

But so what? You could just as easily reanalyse entries in Islamo- as being Islam + -o-. Why does that make this entry invalid? Ƿidsiþ 09:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Oxford doesn't appear to have any Muslimo- entries, which is hardly surprising, and their treatment of Islamo- seems to vary. I found a couple of entries saying it's from Islamo-, and another one giving Islamophobia as Islam + -o- -phobia. DonnanZ (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete: This is a PaM toy and keeping it would be as silly as adding Christiano- or Hinduo- as a prefix. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

We do have Christo-. Agreed this is a PaM obsession entry; the usual prefix is Islamo-. Equinox ◑ 11:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

True, though that more often seems to mean "Christian" than "Christ", and it is a Kulturwordlike prefix present in several European languages—the English pronunciation even differs from a putative Christ + -o- combining form. You wouldn't expect Muslimo- outside English coinages. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Christiano- is in the OED with citations going back to the 17th century. Ƿidsiþ 09:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

That would make for an acceptable lemming argument, but I'm not going to extrapolate from there. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete for reason stated by OP. Fay Freak (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete per Donnanz. Per utramque cavernam 18:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Keep unless you want to delete magneto-, which is magnet + -o-; magneto- is in multiple lemmings including M-W. Similarly for iono- = ion + -o-. The existence of the form is significant, I think, and should be documented. We would have to delete Christo- and Islamo-. CFI specifies in terms of separate components; we keep greenness = green + -ness. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

  "We would have to delete Christo- and Islamo-." We wouldn't, both prefixes are also used with the meaning "adherent", and Christo- is phonemically distinct from Christ + -o-. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

  The adherent argument has some force for Christo-, but I do not see how it applies to Islamo-: fear of Islam and fear of its adherents must be the same thing, I figure. What about magneto-? Is it a prefix and if so why so, and why not Muslimo-? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

  Magneto- can be justified by the lemming criterion anyway, and some terms with that prefix may in fact be borrowed. In that case the analysis magnet + -o- would be bizarre. I am just more prone to accept fairly widespread elements of Kulturwörter as affixes, especially because -phobia is so incredibly productive in informal English: fatphobia, scatphobia, catphobia, dogphobia, dingophobia (which is "fear of dings", not "fear of dingos", and not durably attestable). Perhaps that preference isn't entirely justifiable, but oh well. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

  I think magnetophone is a nice illustration. I am not certain that the German word predates the English (EN from 1883) (DE from 1884), but the sense "tape recorder" was borrowed from German. Words of this type are often borrowed crisscross and the same goes for many of their meanings. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete, since I'm not finding any evidence that it is a prefix and not, as others have said, Muslim+-o-; this is in contrast to e.g. Judeo-, which is in other dictionaries and is discussed in literature as a prefix, and Christo- which at least forms compounds that are hyphenated as if it were a prefix, like Christo-centric (which resembles Judeo-Christian and contrasts with *Christ-o-centric which sounds like a carnival game or ride, counterpart to a Christ-o-matic). One text I found while looking for evidence of "Muslimo-" as a prefix, B. Erdenir's tract on Islamophobia in Muslims in 21st Century Europe: Structural and Cultural Perspectives, specifically says that in "the term Muslimophobia [...] the 'Muslim-' prefix stands for" Muslims and the -phobia suffix for fear (i.e. the prefix is not Muslimo-). - -sche (discuss) 23:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

"Muslim-" is not a prefix by any stretch; the quoted reference claiming as much is thereby weakened as a source of analysis for the subject at hand. The question why magneto- is a prefix is left unanswered. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

google books:"Muslimphobia" exists; why do you think "Muslim-" "is not a prefix by any stretch", if you think "Muslimo-" is a prefix? That seems inconsistent, unlike my view that both Muslimphobia and Muslimophobia are formed using Muslim. - -sche (discuss) 22:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

It is because Muslimphobia is a compound: it is Muslim + phobia. Muslimophobia certainly is formed using Muslim but there is the implied Muslimo- as a middleman; it is only a question of bracketing or nesting, like a + b + c vs. (a + b) + c, or plus3(a, b, c) vs. plus2(plus2(a, b), c). And Muslimo- is not a standalone form, so it is a prefix, which admittedly can be seen as sum of parts; Muslim is a standalone form. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I would be happy to call these things combining forms rather than prefixes, but that's orthogonal to whether the entry should be deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Saying that you can analyse words beginning this way as Muslim + -o- is not an argument for deleting this. You can ALSO analyse them as Muslimo- with just as much justification. We already list Islamo- quite uncontroversially, and we could just as easily analyse all examples as Islam + -o-. Ƿidsiþ 13:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

To me, "you can also analyse them as Muslimo-" seems like an empty argument: you could also analyse "catfood" and "dogfood" as using the prefixes *"cat-" and *"dog-" and the suffix *"-food", but why? Is there evidence? To me, it seems simpler (Occam's razor) to not posit any more affixes than necessary. I suppose to you and Dan, your view seems simpler. I would say that this might just be an intractable philosophical difference like with lumpers vs splitters, except that I would be won over by any actual evidence, like works on grammar or other dictionaries, that said Muslimo- existed as a prefix. I don't see any, whereas it's easy to find evidence that the word Muslim and interfix -o- exist. - -sche (discuss) 22:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I think we can agree that Muslimo- results from Muslim + -o-; we only disagree about whether Muslimo- should be deleted and on what grounds. For your consideration, would you ever consider -ophobia as a thing, as if the b + c part of the a + b + c sum? For some reason, I tend to bracket -o- to the left, maybe because there are so many customarily recognized prefixes or combining forms that do bracket -o- to the left, such as physio-. We might ask why physio- is not analyzed as physi- + -o-; and since physi- exists, should physio- be deleted as sum of parts, to make Occam happy and minimize the number of entities in the world? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

skew-

Not a prefix as I understand it. Equinox ◑ 14:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• I tend to agree. It's already covered by skew#Adjective, I think. Delete. DonnanZ (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per Donnanz. Per utramque cavernam 19:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

CTAL

Not an initialism. --Pious Eterino (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

It is actually an initialism of “Certified Tester Advanced Level”. I’m not sure though it meets our CFI, but that is a question for RfV.  --Lambiam 13:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

stetho-

steth-

If the only word using stetho- (steth- doesn't have any), namely stethoscope and derivatives, was derived from French they shouldn't be regarded as prefixes. At best Ancient Greek στῆθος (stêthos) could be included in the etymology of stethoscope. DonnanZ (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

There are several other words using steth(o)-: stetharteritis; stethogoniometer; stethograph; stethokyrtograph; stethometer; stethoparalysis; stethophone; stethospasm (and derivatives). Most may not have found their way to Wiktionary yet, but they exist.  --Lambiam 18:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Right, OK, both stethograph and stethometer say they are from Ancient Greek, but with the term missing. Well, we know what that is now. DonnanZ (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Keep per WT:LEMMING: sthetho- is in Merriam-Webster. And Lambian shows the prefix is included in multiple derivations or implied derivations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per Lambiam. Per utramque cavernam 19:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

lord over

As rule over above, I think this is SOP: lord, verb, sense 1: "to domineer or act like a lord" + over.

lord it over seems like the real idiom to me, and that's what other dictionaries have an entry for. Per utramque cavernam 17:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, lord over was initially a redirect to lord it over, before being turned to a full-blown entry by the notorious SOP-content creator WurdSnatcher (talk • contribs). I suggest we go back to the old state of things. Per utramque cavernam 17:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Delete, SOP. It should redirect to lord. Fay Freak (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• My impression was that "lord over" could mean to brag, even without acting in a domineering manner. bd2412 T 01:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • My English isn't good enough for me to judge. RFV? Per utramque cavernam 01:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Moving to RfV would be a reasonable course of action. bd2412 T 15:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

allocation of resources

I think it's SoP. The entry only talks about the economic sense, but see Allocation of resources on WP: it can be used in numerous other fields. Equinox ◑ 21:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. The usual sense of the term – which is the only one in use* – is indeed a sum of parts. But this definition is so strangely and awkwardly phrased that it is hard to make out what exactly is meant. Usually, when people allocate resources, they attempt to do so in a reasonably economic (i.e., not wasteful) way, but optimality should not be included as part of the definition any more than healthful should be part of the definition of lifestyle. After all, you can have very bad allocation of resources as well.  --Lambiam 21:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  *Strictly speaking there are two senses: (1) the activity of allocating resources, and (2) the outcome of that activity.
• Delete, so obvious, wow. I could never conceive the idea of looking up this phrase at whole. Fay Freak (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - sum of parts, crap definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - resource allocation is also widely used - I am not seeing a set form here. John Cross (talk) 06:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 15:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

y'go

You go (girl!). I see this as SoP despite the lack of a space. Another one that can easily be found in GBooks is "y'want". Equinox ◑ 00:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• I assume you mean that this is SOP to y' go. We should be adding pronunciation information to y', in that case. bd2412 T 03:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • F'goodness' sake! Jus' 'bout any (unaccented) syll'ble can be 'lided- y'want us t'have entries fr'all those forms? Chuck Entz (talk) 08:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Did I say that? No, I did not. I suggested adding pronunciation information to y' (which generally appears to be pronounced like a /jɜ/ or a clipped /ē/ in all of these formulations). With respect to forms we do include, which happens to include jus' and 'bout, obviously they need to be attested. I actually have an additional concern about y'go, which is that we have an existing entry for ygo, and I consider it useful to have entries for such variations to avoid confusion with the existing unpunctuated word. There is no parallel to this for syllble, lided, frall, fgoodness, or ywant. We do have thave, but t'have doesn't appear to be attested. bd2412 T 13:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

      "It takes a lot o' effort t'allow ye t'see me as such" (The Hill Witch, J J Christopher). Equinox ◑ 15:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

      • Find two more citations spanning a year, and you'll have something that meets the CFI, as currently written. I don't know that three citations can be found for y'go, which leads me to think that sending this to RfV would have been a cleaner solution (or at least a cleaner first step). bd2412 T 15:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete, but it'd be nice if we had some policy that helped us distinguish contractions like this from ones like he's, as far as determining which ones to keep vs delete. (See Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2018/December#English_words_with_contraction-'s,_etc. - -sche (discuss) 15:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• On further examination, delete, as a I have made a diligent search and found no instances of use of this word in Google Books. I have found numerous instances of "y' go", with a space between, but none without, after going through pages and pages of false positives. This experience frankly reinforces my sense that this would have been better dealt with as an RfV matter. bd2412 T 03:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete as SoP. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete, one must keep a low profile with censored and elided forms, see #m*therfucker, see what Chuck Entz said. Fay Freak (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Keep in RFD; delete via RFV if not attested. We have y'all and y'know. The usual standard for separate components (WT:SOP, "An expression is idiomatic if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components") is space separated, and, less unanimously, hyphen separated. No serious attempt has been made to refute the hypothesis that the requirement of attestation prevents overflood. On the other hand, we could only keep the most commons combinations involving elisions; see also t'allow,y'go,y'all,y'know at the Google Books Ngram Viewer.; t'allow is not in GNV at all and y'go is rather rare, compared to y'all and y'know. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Poleszuk‏‎

This is Polish, not English. --Mustliza (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I've added two clearly English cites from Google Books; maybe Google Groups has a third.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

keep ahead

SOP. 2602:252:D2B:3AA0:3DEF:997D:6268:B6DF 12:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Is the second sense given (“To keep track of new developments in area of study or inquiry; to monitor a situation”) really correct? Can you say, “Good physicians keep ahead” when you mean, “Good physicians keep track of new medical developments”? If so, perhaps this is not truly SoP, but I think one would say (when using the collocation) something more like “Good physicians keep ahead of new medical developments”, in which case the “new developments” aspect should not be part of the definition. Also, how is stay ahead not as much or more SoP than this? Should it be listed too?  --Lambiam 13:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and all the other entries created by 2601:14D:C200:3C20:789A:23D2:4002:1BAE (talk). Per utramque cavernam 13:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

So let’s forge ahead and get rid of ’em; I look forward to it.  --Lambiam 18:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Not all of them, actually. Some of them give me pause, and some of them are found in other dictionaries. Per utramque cavernam 11:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I've converted it to a synonym of stay ahead. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete, SOP; not a phrasal verb. Per utramque cavernam 09:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Fay Freak (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Keep: present in two idiom dictionaries[44]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

stay ahead

SOP; not a phrasal verb. You can also keep abreast of recent developments, stay abreast of them, etc. Per utramque cavernam 09:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Delete.  --Lambiam 17:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete both - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete, SOP. Fay Freak (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

come out ahead

I think this is SOP: come out + ahead. It's just a common collocation. You can also end up ahead ([45]), which looks more or less synonymous; or come out first. Per utramque cavernam 09:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. I think (in case this doesn’t get deleted) that the def conflates two distinct sense, both of them SOP. First, you can come out ahead of where you started – you made a profit; never mind how others did – maybe there even aren’t any. Second, you can come out ahead of everyone else – maybe you suffered a net loss, like everyone else, but still, you did better than the rest.  --Lambiam 17:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
• A person can also come out on top. John Cross (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Indeed, thanks. come out + on top Per utramque cavernam 11:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete SOP - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete, SOP. Fay Freak (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
• Keep: present in three idiom dictionaries[46]. Note that this is not strictly per WT:LEMMING since that only allows general dictionaries. I would not know how to obtain the meaning from come out and ahead. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

mutual friend

SOP. Per utramque cavernam 15:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Delete obviously SOP. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete, SOP. Fay Freak (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
• We don't say this in Czech and it is in one OneLook dictionary[47]. I'll see later whether a stronger case can be made for this phrase. Later: Well, maybe we do a bit: google books:"vzájemný přítel", but clicking to the right shows there are only few actual hits, in contrast to google books:"společný přítel". In any case, how is the part "each of whom may not know each other" as sum of parts? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

  I don't think that the phrase "each of whom may not know each other" makes it less SOP, it doesn't narrow the definition, it just clarifies that whether the referents of mutual know each other is irrelevant to the definition. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

  You may have a point in there. In any case, keep per WT:LEMMING: it is in dictionary.cambridge.org and you (Lingo) tell us below it is in Chambers. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

IIRC this may have appeared in some older dictionaries (did I spot it in Webster 1913 perhaps?), probably because it was a famous Dickens novel title and also once widely regarded as an erroneous use of mutual. Equinox ◑ 19:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Keep per lemming, it is in some editions of Chambers. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Definitely keep. Idiomatic and tough to translate. Ƿidsiþ 10:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thames River

Sum of parts. Seems to have been created only to tell people not to use it. Equinox ◑ 18:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

River Thames is a redirect to Thames. We could do likewise for Thames River. On Wikipedia, Thames and Thames River are redirects to River Thames.  --Lambiam 21:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Redirect. The usage note can go to Thames. Fay Freak (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I don’t know what it means to claim that it is “technically incorrect” – and who is the arbiter regarding correctness?  --Lambiam 08:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

In the case of a geographic feature, those who live on, in, or beside it generally get to set the naming rules. No matter how many people read "Reading" off the map as reed-ing, if the inhabitants insist it's red-ing, red-ing it is. Local or national geographic boards also may have legal power to name things. If the English, particularly Londoners, agree "Thames River" is incorrect, I'd say it's reasonable to call it incorrect.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's technically incorrect, just incorrect in language usage in Great Britain and Ireland. In New Zealand and Australia "River" follows the name, e.g. Clutha River. DonnanZ (talk) 09:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

It generally does in the US as well. But if the English insist that it's the "River Thames", most other English speakers are going to respect that as correct. (Likewise "Kolkata", "Côte d’Ivoire", and "Bejing", and only the first nation has any English-speaking tradition.) Maybe "technically correct" isn't the best way to write it, but I do think that most English speakers, if told that the English use the River Thames, would accept that as the correct name.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I had a go at rewording it. DonnanZ (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks good.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

As for diff, where can I verify the following: "(nonstandard, not the customary language usage in Great Britain and Ireland)"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

You might be able to find evidence for it with a clever Google Ngrams search, or you could look for prescriptions in reference works. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Google Ngram did not show Thames River to be dispreferred by language users (River Thames, Thames River at the Google Books Ngram Viewer.); it probably was not clever enough. And as for the reference works, I would have thought it is the task of people entering that kind of information to tell us which reference work they used. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Local knowledge helps. I live near the River Thames, as well as a tributary, the River Crane. You can also refer to River Shannon and River Liffey, two Irish rivers. DonnanZ (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

River Thames, or R Thames, or River Thames or Isis in the Oxford area, is the name which appears on Ordnance Survey (OS) maps (published under Crown copyright). The same applies to other rivers; there are exceptions such as the Longford River, which is not a natural river. DonnanZ (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible to do a Google Ngrams search that excludes hits that include the word "Connecticut"? Or exclude hits with American spellings like "center"? Many of the "Thames River" hits seem to be talking about the river in Connecticut. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: Thames River:eng_us_2012,River Thames:eng_us_2012,Thames River:eng_gb_2012,River Thames:eng_gb_2012 at the Google Books Ngram Viewer.. Per utramque cavernam 16:59, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I modified the above GNV: (Thames River:eng_gb_2012*10),River Thames:eng_gb_2012 at the Google Books Ngram Viewer., and I get frequency ratio of 10. That does not suggest "non-standard" to me; "much less common", sure. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Some facts: Thames River,River Thames,(Thames*0.07) at the Google Books Ngram Viewer.. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. A river in Connecticut has this name. DonnanZ (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Most rivers are entered without "River", but this can be a grey area, e.g. Red River, Orange River. Seas are usually entered in full, Black Sea, North Sea, Mediterranean Sea, but there is also Mediterranean. I think there is a case for retaining "River" in certain entries at least. DonnanZ (talk) 10:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The Grey River in NZ was derived from the surname, not the colour (see Grey), but may be worth an entry all the same. The same sort of thing applies to the Orange River. DonnanZ (talk) 12:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

British Pharmaceutical Codex

Title of a specific book (and quite clear in meaning from its component words). Equinox ◑ 23:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete, not dictionary material. Per utramque cavernam 01:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete, not dictionary material. Fay Freak (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The regulation is WT:NSE and allows editor discretion. "not dictionary material" is not a WT:CFI-relevant rationale. As for books, we have Bible, King James Bible, Book of Mormon, Octapla, Qur'an, Tao Te Ching,‎ I Ching, Torah,‎ Veda, Bhagavad Gita, Decameron, Little Red Book, Shahnameh, and Edda; and further dictionaries: AHD, OED, CCE, COD, DARE, DCHP, LDE, NOAD, and RHD. There is Category:en:Books. That said, not every book title should be included, and it is unclear what would recommend the multi-word semantically transparent title of British Pharmaceutical Codex. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete. It's not as egregious as having an entry for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, but it doesn't seem to be on the level of the Iliad or the Bible (which are clearly worth having, IMO); for one thing, the title is several words (which were combined together in English, unlike with the Bhagavad Gita where that name was borrowed/transliterated intact / as a unit). Re "OED" et al, initials of book names have somewhat more merit but are still a grey area, since any multi-word work name can be abbreviated. - -sche (discuss) 07:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• RFD failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

foundation myth

Sounds somewhat SOP, and not particularly set: the literature speaks also of founding myth, etiological myth, origin myth. I'm unsure. Per utramque cavernam 15:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I tend to assume that it is a technical term and also a useful translation target because it is not obvious which words to choose in other languages. Fay Freak (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

For a translation target rationale to apply there should at least be several idiomatic translations. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

lose one's virginity

SOP. The previous discussion doesn't seem conclusive to me:

• Widsith says "Keep, this is the idiomatic way to express the idea in English, no one talks about discarding or breaking one's virginity": but none of the languages found in the translation table speaks of "discarding" or "breaking" the virginity either; all use the same idea of "losing" it. Hence it's not specific to English.
• He adds "anyway, ‘lose’ otherwise implies carelessness, whereas losing one's virginity is normally a deliberate thing": I don't think people go about with the intent of losing their virginity; they go about with the intent of making love/fucking for the first time, and a byproduct of that is that they lose their virginity (but losing it wasn't the aim in itself).

Possible idiomatic translations would be Chinese 失身 (shīshēn) and Spanish debutar. Per utramque cavernam 15:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• MW has it (ergo Lemming), and also this feels like a set enough phrase that I would favor keeping it regardless. Re intentionality, I think it goes both ways (e.g. movie trope summer camp pact to lose virginity). - TheDaveRoss 15:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Delete, SOP, obvious choice of words, I can’t follow the idiomaticity claim. Fay Freak (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  It is non-obvious that the concept is expressed in specifically this way. While you can say that someone lost their sanity, it is far more common to say that they became insane. So why don’t we say equally commonly that someone became deflowered?  --Lambiam 08:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  Maybe that's because "insane" is a common word and "deflowered" isn't. There may also be a problem with "become" + past participle—other examples of that structure sound strange to me ("*became eaten", "*became erased"). I think "lose one's virginity" is clearly SOP, but it's the kind of common collocation that English learners need to know and that we haven't found a good way to cover here at en.wikt. The phrase should be an example sentence at virginity, I'd say. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  I've added it to virginity. Per utramque cavernam 13:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• Keep: 1) WT:LEMMING via M-W; 2) WT:THUB via Chinese 失身 (shīshēn) and Spanish debutar thanks to nom; now THUB does not really allow Chinese, but that's a defect in THUB. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
• Leaning keep per Dan Polansky. bd2412 T 21:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. Classic case of a set phrase or common collocation that is nevertheless SOP and easy to understand from the parts. These seem to come up fairly frequently. I believe that some kind of "set phrase / common collocation" category has been discussed in the past? Perhaps this should be revisited. Mihia (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

WBAGNFARB

Initialism of Would Be A Good Name For A Rock Band. It looks like a neologism that never took off. --Pious Eterino (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

This request should be at RFV, not RFD. I have now added 3 cites from Usenet. Equinox ◑ 19:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• RFD passed (in effect, RFV passed). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

formula bar

"A toolbar at the top of the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet window whereby formulae can be put into cells or charts." This is pretty much SoP and the fact that it belongs to a specific piece of proprietary software seals the deal AFAIAC. You might be able to find the phrase in use elsewhere but I bet it just means "a bar for formulas", SOP. Compare, for example, OK button or File menu. Equinox ◑ 04:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Alas, nothing for an establishment that sells different mixtures for baby bottles ... ;) Chuck Entz (talk) 05:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

We do have address bar (web browser sense), omnibox and search box, so UI elements are not totally unheard of. Any idea if OpenOffice or LibreOffice use the same nomenclature? - TheDaveRoss 14:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

They use the same name. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• RFD failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

FJI

Car code for Fiji. Doesn't the Translingual section cover that? --Pious Eterino (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

That would appear to be the case. It can simply be moved to Translingual, not deleted. DonnanZ (talk) 10:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I deleted the English section. --Pious Eterino (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• RFD resolved. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

justice system

SOP?

• Curiously other dictionaries only have an entry for criminal justice system (which looks even more SOP to me), and none for this. See “criminal justice system”, in OneLook Dictionary Search., “justice system”, in OneLook Dictionary Search..
• See also this Ngram: justice system vs. judicial system.

Per utramque cavernam 10:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• Delete for nominator's reason. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete, no lemmings on Onelook. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Captain Hook

A fictional pirate captain. Equinox ◑ 16:48, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

And why? Cp. WT:CFI#Fictional universes ("With respect to names of persons or places [...]") + Category:en:Fictional characters. Matter of WT:RFVE? ---84.161.31.128 13:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete. If it were to go to RFV it would need a definition which wasn't encyclopedic. - TheDaveRoss 13:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

NAN

An airport code. Do we accept these? Probably should be Translingual. --Pious Eterino (talk) 01:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

There are other examples: JFK (both Translingual and English) and LHR (as English). I think they are useful information actually, so I would like them to be considered acceptable. I agree that it probably should be Translingual and moved there. DonnanZ (talk) 09:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

DCA is another that we can probably consider together. --Pious Eterino (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

and JST, FAO, CAI, VER and SHJ --Pious Eterino (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I feel like we have had a discussion where we decided that we did not want these in general, but I don't know where that discussion might be. I would include them all, though. bd2412 T 17:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Searching the talk namespace for 'airport code', the most relevant RFD discussion that I spotted was Talk:A (about a stock symbol, but as DCDuring opined, those seem to be on all fours with airport codes). - -sche (discuss) 12:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Keep: Purplebackpack89 13:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Without weighing in (directly) on the matter at hand, I don't think IATA codes should be considered initialisms. An initialism is usually the starting point, but there are modifications such as the "X" in LAX and lots of Y's and Z's in Canadian airport codes, not to mention oddities such as Kahului Airport's OGG (from the last three letters of "Hogg"). I also think "IATA code for..." is a bad definition. The fact that "LAX" is an IATA code is more a matter of etymology than a definition. In LA we get commercials touting w:Ontario International Airport as an alternative to "the mess at LAX". Those are referring to the airport, not the IATA code. By itself, an IATA code is a quasi-arbitrary sequence of letters. It's only its use in running speech to refer to an airport that makes it anything worth having an entry for. I would hazard a guess that most of the people who refer to Los Angeles International Airport as LAX don't even know what the IATA is. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

In some sense, if the codes were actual abbreviations of the words, they would be in local language rather than Translingual. (BTW, these remind me of the British railway station codes, which are also always three letters, and usually a shortening of the name, but sometimes [due to overused letters] slightly different.) Equinox ◑ 03:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

A code is a code, not an initialism, a term I'm not fond of. Also consider AKL, the IATA code for Auckland International, which appears to come from AucKLand. DonnanZ (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

There are IATA codes (usually two-letter) for airlines as well, e.g. CX (not mentioned there added it) for Cathay Pacific. DonnanZ (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Chuck Entz mentioned LAX (yes, my late wife and I have been there as transit passengers, not a great experience), which I think should also have a Translingual entry. It will probably have to stay as an English entry because of the quotes included. DonnanZ (talk) 12:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Weak keep. As to whether it should be English or Translingual, I'm not sure, but Chuck is right that they're clearly not initialisms. "Proper noun" may be the best POS (although we do have some things labelled "symbol", like SM, that seem like nouns). - -sche (discuss) 07:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, what PoS should codes be given? I'm not absolutely sure that they are proper nouns. With IATA codes I would regard them as Translingual first, as they are used in many languages, if not all. DonnanZ (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I would say keep airport codes, but I am scared of the precedent. They constitute a limited set, I can easily envision people encountering them in text with little context and thus interested in looking them up, their etymologies are often non-transparent and thus of some interest, etc. I can also imagine that a very similar set of terms would fall into the delete category for me without much distinction, though. Also agree with translingual, and I would call them proper nouns. - TheDaveRoss 13:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Japan Socialist Party

Doesn't seem to fall within our purview. We don't have entries for Democratic Party and Republican Party; see Talk:Republican Party and Talk:Democratic Party. Per utramque cavernam 19:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Keep. The nomination does not refer to any item of WT:CFI. This could be deleted via editor discretion, per WT:NSE. Rereading now Talk:Democratic Party, I now realize that the claims of SOP made in support of the deletion were wrong: both Democratic Party and Republican Party are democratic, but only one of them is called Democratic. Anyone remembers German Democratic Republic or Holy Roman Empire, about the latter of which Quine opined that it was neither holy nor Roman nor an empire? Is the Japan Socialist Party socialist? Who knows. As for WT:COMPANY, it does not have a consensus support, and it is questionable that political parties are companies--not in my universe. The same talk page shows that other political parties have not been deleted yet, e.g. Conservative Party and Labour Party. A 2015 keeping is at Talk:Transhumanist Party. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Democratic Party and Republican Party could have been kept via WT:LEMMING, per “Democratic Party”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. and “Republican Party”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.; it is a pity I did not realize that in the deletion discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we should have entries for specific political or corporate entities, books, buildings, people, etc. except in some very rare circumstances. That's stuff for Wikipedia. Equinox ◑ 06:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Single-word names of companies have pronunciation, and in non-English languages inflection, both classes of lexicographical information. A related question is whether we should have species names and whether that is a job for Wikispecies. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Having lexicographical information is not (IMO) sufficient to argue for inclusion. That way we could include every Pokémon, every (single-named) character from literature ever, every product made by a company. To me (perhaps someone who doesn't belong to this modern pop-culture world) it's absurd even to contemplate. Equinox ◑ 07:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

There's a point in what you say, and I'm not keen on covering every Pokémon either. That said, Tesco (redlink) is not part of any pop-culture world; it is part of everyday experience of shoppers. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

CFI has no notability criteria, so Tesco is no different from (to give some hypothetical examples) Sam's Hardware, Al's Pizza, Joe's Diner, etc in various small towns. There's also no time limit, so a business that used to be on a corner that's now a subway station would be fair game. The main objection I have, however, is that it leaves an opening for people to use our dictionary to promote their own businesses- we won't know who they are if they didn't tell us. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

They would need to meet WT:ATTEST for their Joe's Diner, and there would not be much to state for promotion in a dictionary definition. By contrast, Wikipedia is a real venue for business promotion; indeed, companies are not excluded from Wikipedia. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

If their local paper is archived, attestation isn't much of an obstacle. As for motivation: anyone who does much first-line patrolling sees people trying to sneak in references to their businesses all the time (not to mention spambots). Wikipedia can handle promotional edits because it has notability and referencing requirements- we don't. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate that you know better than I do what you are talking about as for people trying to promote their business. We might create notability guidelines for companies. Current CFI basically forbids companies, even though there is no consensus for that (cca 50:50). where there is a will. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete. I don't think this is the sort of thing someone should expect to find in a dictionary as opposed to an encyclopedia. Tesco is at least a single short opaque word, but this is (not a single word and) transparently the name of a political party. - -sche (discuss) 08:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Iceland is also a UK supermarket chain that specialises in frozen food, but it doesn't get a mention. DonnanZ (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not saying Tesco merits inclusion, only that Japan Socialist Party has even less merit than Tesco. - -sche (discuss) 18:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the Iceland supermarket deserves a mention either … DonnanZ (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I have only just discovered the {{no entry}} template, which is used for Walmart. Could it be used for Japan Socialist Party? DonnanZ (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Keep, as Dan notes editor discretion is allowed, this seems unusual as there was a fierce factional dispute about what English translation to use (this is the former name). ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

fourth gear

The current definition is "second highest gear of an engine", which is incorrect, my car has six gears and fourth is the third highest. The correct definition would be "the fourth gear in ascending order", which is about as SOP as you get. We have the appropriate definition at gear (twice). - TheDaveRoss 15:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The standard version of the Maruti 800 had a four-speed gearbox, so then it was the highest gear. The gearbox is normally not integrated with the engine, so the formulation “gear of an engine” is strange, to say the least. An engine-less mountain bike can also have a fourth gear. So few words, so many errors. (Sighs.) And, of course, we also have a terminal case of SOP-hood here.  --Lambiam 19:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The definition is misleading as it stands; I remember my father had a 1938 Dodge with a 3-speed gearbox plus overdrive. DonnanZ (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Del per nom. - -sche (discuss) 23:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Remember to adjust all translations if deleted. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah, translations. Keep as translation-only, I see the def has been fixed. DonnanZ (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Delete the new SOP definition. The translations look like straightforward SOP, closed compounds or just the word for "fourth", so that's not a basis for keeping the entry. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete, SOP, translations SOP. Per utramque cavernam 10:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete, I doubt that there are going to be any idiomatic translations for this. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

This is unrelated, but French en quatrième vitesse has an idiomatic meaning. Presumably arose when the fourth gear was a novelty. Per utramque cavernam 00:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

taste like chicken

I don't think the previous RFD (Talk:taste like chicken) explored this adequately! Things tasting like chicken is a mainstay of cultural comedy, maybe, but it's the idea that is important, not the wording. This phrase is still pure SoP. (Perhaps comparable: there is also a cultural idea that nerds live in their mothers' basements, but that wouldn't justify an entry for live in one's mother's basement.) Equinox ◑ 15:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete. People use it literally before knowing it is idiomatic. It’s just the answer one gives on the question how some meat tastes, comparing it with a more known meat. It ends up being humourous when the taste cannot be described well then, or explained why one eats snakes when one could eat just chicken. Fay Freak (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Even in those cases where the intention is humorous, the meaning is still the literal one.  --Lambiam 17:00, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete. The definition reads like the malformed offspring of a usage note and an etymology, with no actual meaning. As an amateur ethnobiologist who has read a great deal on the subject, I can attest that this is a serious cliché in popular writing on wild foods, the animal counterpart to "tastes like spinach/potatoes when boiled" for plant foods. Appropriating clichés for humorous purposes is fairly common- but that doesn't make it lexical.

If anything, this might be the non-variant part of a snowclone ("X tastes like chicken"), but I don't think there's a strong enough lexical element to justify even that. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

ICA

Initialism of International Contract Agency - I think it should be deleted because of WT:FICTION --Pious Eterino (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Send to RfV, where it will almost certainly fail verification. bd2412 T 23:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

January 2019

ALP

Noun sense for "Initialism of applied learning programme". Sent here for the following reasons: All articles provided in the quotations have this: "[…] Applied Learning Programme (ALP) […]" before the initialism is used. In addition, 3 out of 4 quotations are from the same date (5 March 2018). According to Wiktionary:CFI, quotations need to be independent and spanning at least a year. KevinUp (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete. New quotation added from February 2017 also has the full term followed by abbreviated term in brackets before the initialism is used. The quotation where the initialism is found is actually extracted from a subsequent paragraph. The same trend is also found in all 5 quotations provided (refer to the source documents provided in the URL links). Note that this PDF file also has many other abbreviations listed in it, such as "21CC" for "21st Century Competencies". KevinUp (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

make love to

make love with

Redirect both to make love, and add the appropriate usage notes wherever necessary. Per utramque cavernam 22:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Redirect, as per Per utramque cavernam. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Redirect. Basically this is a duplicate of the shorter entry and not distinct. Imagine it would use {{altform}} – it isn’t an alternative form, it’s that “with” and “to” should not be part of the headword. Fay Freak (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Redirect per nom. - -sche (discuss) 09:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

funeral store

What do we think about this one? - TheDaveRoss 14:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Obvious SOP. KevinUp (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Something I have never heard of. Is it an American thing? I would say keep it. In Britain an undertaker has an office where one can arrange a funeral, show a death certificate, and choose a coffin from a catalogue. It ain't no "store". DonnanZ (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

This puts a funeral store right in the middle of 1927 Swansea.  --Lambiam 20:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is meant there, it appears to be a mortuary. Is that the only British link to be found? DonnanZ (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Possibly a store for storage, not for selling things. DonnanZ (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Some more: [48]; [49]; [50]; [51].  --Lambiam 16:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

A couple of those are for "mortuary and funeral equipment", which doesn't fit the definition of the entry. The other two may be isolated copycats. DonnanZ (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

In the good ol' U-S-of-A you might not get free health care, but you can absolutely accessorize your coffin. - TheDaveRoss 16:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete – a fūnus-related store. Fay Freak (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, do we speak Latin all of a sudden? I think there is a good case for keeping this for the benefit of non-American users. DonnanZ (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep. They don't sell funerals. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Pace User:Tooironic, they sell things for funerals just like a google books:"Christmas shop" sells Christmas-themed things (without selling the holiday itself somehow), a google books:"wedding store" sells things for weddings, a google books:"party rental" store rents tuxedos etc for parties, etc, etc... and it's not even a set phrase, "funeral shop" and "funeral shoppe" are also attested, as is "mortuary store" (about half the hits I see are for a store selling things, with the other half referring to storage spaces). (And pace Donnanz, I don't get the impression that it's common in American English and absent from other dialects; as Lambiam points out, they exist in the UK and other places; it just seems they're not very common anywhere — because it seems like funeral homes usually handle the sale of urns, etc.) - -sche (discuss) 09:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete per -sche. Per utramque cavernam 10:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

senior scientist

& senior research scientist
There are senior versions of lots of professions, are these special? - TheDaveRoss 14:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete both. Another SOP. There's also senior doctor, senior nurse, senior staff, senior teacher etc. KevinUp (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Per utramque cavernam 16:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete, dangerous. Fay Freak (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete, Richardb43 (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC). As per KevinUp.

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• RFD failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

city car

A car for use in cities. It does seem to be a term which is used, but it doesn't seem to be an idiom. - TheDaveRoss 14:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep. Redirects to A-segment on Wikipedia. KevinUp (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a keep. I didn't expect to find a reference, but it's in Oxford (added it). DonnanZ (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

savvy

Interjection sense. Headword is displayed as "savvy?" and the definition is "Do you understand?". Duplicates the existing verb sense "To understand". (Surely we don't also want a "savvy!" = "I understand" sense.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. I have added a reference from Oxford which shows it: "I've been told, but I want to make sure. Savvy?" DonnanZ (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • This isn't RFV and I didn't doubt it exists. I said only that it's the same sense as the verb.​—msh210℠ (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Note FWIW that the Oxford pages linked to from the entry include the "Savvy?" example under the verb sense.​—msh210℠ (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per proponent. Per utramque cavernam 14:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

ylw

I can also find yllw, yel, yelow and yell as abbreviations, my vote is that all of them are ad hoc. - TheDaveRoss 17:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete, not lexicalized. Fay Freak (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Move to RFV and keep if attested, IMO. This is a bit of a grey area; we almost certainly don't want every name that starts with M and has been reduced to an initial to be listed at "M.", and having {{abbreviation of|yellow}} at "y." is at least a little murky (probably a large number of non-name words that start with any given letter can be abbreviated to their first letter)...but this seems like the sort of abbreviation we've tended to include. - -sche (discuss) 09:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I think there is no question that this can be fairly readily attested. I think the question is more a matter of policy -- whether we want to include these somewhat ad-hoc-seeming abbreviations, and where to draw the line. The extent of such abbreviations in attestable use is pretty enormous, I think. In this case I vote weak keep. Mihia (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Send to RFV. If I were a non-native speaker of English, chances are I'd want to be able to look this sort of thing up. There are a finite number of abbreviations out there, and no reason why we can't include them. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

worse light

& better light - we have the senses at light to cover these, there are lots of adjectives which work in this formation. - TheDaveRoss 18:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete per proponent. Per utramque cavernam 18:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete. I tried to look at this in another light, but it was not a more favourable light.  --Lambiam 20:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete, who looks this up? Fay Freak (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 09:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

much-mocked

SoP, like much-derided, much-hyped, much-publicised, etc. Equinox ◑ 10:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

That would make a lot of terms SoP, well-behaved, well-deserved, ill-advised etc. We don't have mocked as an adjective, only mock. DonnanZ (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I say keep as I created it. DonnanZ (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Donnanz: What is your opinion about much-admired, much-derided, ..., much-vilified, all of which can be attested? Are all equally inclusion-worthy? And what then about eagerly-anticipated, eagerly-awaited, eagerly-expected? (And so on.)  --Lambiam 19:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a massive grey area. Firstly I would say that the eagerly- examples are not includable as it is normal English practice not to include hyphens with adverbs ending in -ly (but it's still done, of course). However I would like to see an entry for fully automatic, helautomatisk (Bokmål) gets one, and so does semi-automatic. Yes, I would like to see the much- examples you gave, another one is much-maligned, the only one I could find in Oxford was much-needed, I don't know why no more are included there. But again I would only include them as attributive adjectives where a hyphen is normally used, e.g. the much-maligned president, but not where it is used after the subject without a hyphen (a predicative adjective): the president is much maligned. The same applies to well- combinations and others. That's my rule of thumb anyway, but I expect nobody else agrees with it. DonnanZ (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

My inclination is to delete per nom, though Donnanz points to a lot of comparable bluelinks and is right that this is a massive grey area. I will observe that terms formed with "well" can sometmes be found written "solid" (like "wellknown"), which points to them being considered single words, whereas this isn't (AFAICT). - -sche (discuss) 06:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The argument that well-known can be kept because it also exists as a non-standard spelling seems to be a bit flimsy, it should be kept anyway. I would keep any hyphenated adjective as they can be regarded as one word, albeit not compounded; words like much-mocked don't lend themselves to compounding. DonnanZ (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

All such hyphenated terms should be kept if they can be verified to exist. But I wouldn't go out of my way to create more of them. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I really don't see what's magic about the hyphens. Any such phrase ("not-quite-legal", "all-too-smug") has exactly the same meaning as if it were written with spaces. Equinox ◑ 17:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Words with more than one hyphen - what would you call them - ad-hoc? That's a slightly different issue, I think; I don't have any desire to enter anything like the examples you gave. DonnanZ (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

They would need to be set phrases, e.g. holier-than-thou. DonnanZ (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Does it follow, then, that we should include hyphenated forms such as "not-legal" or "too-smug"? bd2412 T 20:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete for sure per nom.​—msh210℠ (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

It's hard to know what is acceptable and what isn't (to some), I don't see anything wrong with much- combinations, but I think this is the only one of its kind; perhaps that is the problem. It is no small wonder that I create very few English entries of this nature for fear of someone slapping an RFD on them (that action combined with the fear is often counter-productive), it's all very inhibiting. But they are still words that are used even so. DonnanZ (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete - TheDaveRoss 16:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 20:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete. There are potentially hundreds and hundreds of such combinations with "much-", all formed in a regular way as a regular feature of the English language. There is no need for a dictionary to list them all separately. Mihia (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep single word. Ƿidsiþ 15:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

option

"(graphical user interface) A button on a screen used to select an action (often menu option)." I think this is redundant to sense 1, "one of a set of choices that can be made". It's certainly not just menus that can offer options: they might be hyperlinks, dropdown list entries, etc. (Note this is all unrelated to the option button, which is one specific type of on-screen element.) Equinox ◑ 22:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Not a separate sense. The current translations, apart from Hungarian lehetőség (which should move to sense #1), are all wrong. The definition is also pretty awful; in most cases the graphical element representing an option would not be called a “button”, and the options may be preferences (like the date format) rather than actions.  --Lambiam 09:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

president-elect

President-elect

Isn't this just [[president]] + [[-elect]]? One can also speak of a "senator-elect", "chairman-elect", "attorney general-elect", etc. - -sche (discuss) 06:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is just that, but should we consider this two words, or is it one word? (Also, by the way, isn‘t attorney general “just” [[attorney]] + [[general]], sense #2)?  --Lambiam 09:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep per WT:LEMMING (“president-elect”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.), although the lemming support looks more uncertain than before: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-12/Lemming principle into CFI. Apart from lemming, why should the reader look at -elect and not elect, and how should they know? “-elect”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. I think president-elect is a very convenient entry for someone looking for the meaning; if not for WT:LEMMING, I would at least suggest a redirection. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep president-elect, a reference added. President-elect is apparently used as a title; I suppose it can be kept but modified slightly. DonnanZ (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Abstain. I'm not bothered by this one. Per utramque cavernam 20:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The O2

Was tagged rfd but not added to this page. --Pious Eterino (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

If kept, move to O2 (as we have Eiffel Tower, not the Eiffel Tower). Equinox ◑ 15:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

In this case the word "the" helps to clarify the meaning as it is used for the building but not for the company. John Cross (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

"The" can be displayed in the headword: ((en-proper noun|head=the O2)). No need to put it on entry titles. Equinox ◑ 20:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

dual screen

"Two adjacent screens", evidently created in reference to the Nintendo DS game console. I think it's SoP: two computer monitors would also be a dual-screen setup, for example. Equinox ◑ 19:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete, SoP. Ultimateria (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

capital of the world

SoP, where capital is in the sense "the most important city in the field specified". Equinox ◑ 03:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete per proponent. Per utramque cavernam 10:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete, the definition is terrible as well. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Del per nom. - -sche (discuss) 22:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hassidic Jew

Still SOP. The last RFD was derailed by pointless considerations about the validity of the RFD procedure. Per utramque cavernam 16:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. If kept, we should also include Hassidic Rebbe, Hassidic village and Hassidic wedding, to name just a few. And of course Askhenazi Jew.  --Lambiam 20:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Is there any difference between Hassidic Jew and Hassid? I can't think of a good reason to keep the entry. No lemming in “Hassidic Jew”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. Talk:free variable probably does not apply given the examples provided by Lambiam above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete (and the redirect(!) at Hasidic Jew). - -sche (discuss) 22:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

S1000D

Appears to be a reference number, something like "RFC 1918". Equinox ◑ 20:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I have not been able to figure out where the name comes from, but it does not appear to be a reference number; it is not the successor to S999D or S10000C. It is more like a proper noun, such as “XML” or "3GPP".  --Lambiam 20:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Lambiam See S-Series of ILS specifications, the "D" stands for "documentation". - TheDaveRoss 13:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

tenth century

This is the only entry we have of this type (I think). Should we get rid of this one or create all of the others? We have 1900s (e.g.), and the tenth century does refer to two periods of time (BCE/BC and CE/AD), so there is some nuance, but perhaps that is all encyclopedic and has too little lexicographic value to bother with. Thoughts? - TheDaveRoss 13:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

My impression is that centuries BC are always referred to that way, or provided some context to that effect. bd2412 T 14:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection to this, it's worth looking at short twentieth century, which is the only reference to the 20th century. DonnanZ (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Donnanz, just to be clear, you are OK with deletion or OK with the entry? We also have long nineteenth century, which seems like a worthy entry to me, and we probably ought to have long eighteenth century as well. - TheDaveRoss 13:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm ok with these too, but I don't see how it's relevant to the matter at hand. Per utramque cavernam 13:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@TheDaveRoss: I would say keep, it does explain that refers to 901-1000, not 1001-1100, which can be a pitfall for some. DonnanZ (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It may be a pitfall, but that doesn't make it any less SOP. It's only a pitfall when people don't stop to think about the fact that the first century AD must of necessity have passed by the year 100, rather than beginning in that year. Delete. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a need to create all of these -- and anyway, where would one stop? The first definition at century seems to cover this kind of usage. Mihia (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 13:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

weak keep - there are two possible meanings - general usage has '99 as the last year in the nth century and 'OO as the first, but strict usage has centuries starting in Jan '01. John Cross (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@John Cross That is an ambiguity with the term century and has nothing to do with tenth century in particular though, right? We do address that ambiguity in our definition at century. - TheDaveRoss 20:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. - -sche (discuss) 22:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

end in

end with

Delete or redirect: SOP, the usage should be documented at end, not in separate entries. Per utramque cavernam 13:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC) 

Advanced Encryption Standard

This is purely encyclopedic. - TheDaveRoss 14:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

antique shop

Seems NISOP, antiques shop as well. - TheDaveRoss 14:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, it's not the shop itself that's antique. DonnanZ (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

In chocolate shop the shop is not chocolate itself either. And most record shops won’t make The Guinness Book of Records.  --Lambiam 17:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I would still keep this though, in speech one could say "We bought it in an antique shop", in the other sense "This is a really antique shop". The only reason bookshop gets an entry is that it's one word, but there is another entry for book shop. This is an odd place. DonnanZ (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The only reason this is any different is that antique can be either a noun or an adjective: the shop takes the noun as a modifier, but (generally) not the adjective. That argument would apply to any phrase that uses the noun attributively- antique buyer, antique collector, antique fancier, antique forger, antique restorer, antique seller, antique showroom, etc. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Delete, clearly SoP.  --Lambiam 17:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 22:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Though I guess it can be kept by THUB. Per utramque cavernam 12:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• I'm quite happy to keep this, if only because "antique" doesn't apply to the shop, but to what it sells. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • And "antique" applies to an antique commode, but not what it's designed to hold. Context and common sense should be enough to sort these things out. After all, we don't need an entry for orange suspenders to tell us they're not multiple devices for suspending oranges... Chuck Entz (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per WT:THUB (Polish, Portuguese) and WT:LEMMING. Admission: The lemming principle is not supported as a rigid policy per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-12/Lemming principle into CFI. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• It's interesting that /an'tik ʃop/ and /antik 'ʃop/ mean different things…but I'm neutral over whether or not this is kept. Ƿidsiþ 07:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

That occurred to me too, different stress on antique. DonnanZ (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep per lemming. [52] ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

-culture

"culture" in "cyberculture" etc. is absolutely not a suffix! It's just a common word that gets prefixed sometimes! Equinox ◑ 14:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Speedy. Per utramque cavernam 14:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete only after cleaning up all the terms that point to it. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete. I think the terms that use it can be cleaned up beforehand. DonnanZ (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Modify the French entry too, I'm not sure whether it's a legit suffix in French though. DonnanZ (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

No it's not, no more than it is in English. I don't know why the TLFi saw fit to speak of a "suffixal element" at “aviculture”, in Trésor de la langue française informatisé [Digitized Treasury of the French Language], 2012. Per utramque cavernam 15:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The whole page was created only a few days ago by Alumnum, so you can probably rfd French too. DonnanZ (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

KOS

1. (fantasy) (Should we delete⁽⁺⁾ this sense?) Knights of Solamnia (DragonLance fictional organization)
2. (fantasy, gaming) (Should we delete⁽⁺⁾ this sense?) Knights of Siberys (gaming, Dungeons & Dragons)

• Delete both senses. We should not start collecting fictional acronyms, unless they are attested in advance as meeting WT:FICTION. I would suggest a shoot-on-sight rule. bd2412 T 11:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete - TheDaveRoss 13:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

crazy-paving

This one of about a thousand "attributive form of noun", I suggest we convert them all to redirects (unless there is another sense or language). This is a standard construction, I think the user is better served landing on the page with actual content. - TheDaveRoss 15:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete most for essentially the same reason as "much-mocked" above. The hyphenation of compound modifiers is a regular feature of the English language, with practically unlimited potential from "aardvark-skin handbag" to "zebra-stripe socks". Learners of English (and in fact many native speakers) may need to be taught this, but it is not the job of a dictionary to list every possibility individually. Mihia (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not an adjective like much-mocked, which should be kept, just attributive. This will probably end up being deleted, but I will abstain. DonnanZ (talk) 10:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

They are both compound modifiers hyphenated in exactly the same mechanically predictable way that is repeated across a virtually limitless number of combinations. All of these hyphenated compound modifiers that are composed predictably from separate words should be deleted (or not created) unless there are special usage issues or special idiomatic considerations applying. Mihia (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep, this is more of a BP matter anyway. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you know what we're missing here? There is a larger problem. There are a lot of terms that were traditionally spelled with a hyphen that has now been lost, either by dropping the space or by changing the hyphen into a space (people today will probably write "icecream" or "ice cream" but not "ice-cream"). These hyphen-attributive entries seem to suggest that the hyphen form is a magical attributive thing whereas in real usage it's often just an alternative of the everyday noun. If I saw "they're adding crazy-paving to their garden" I wouldn't blink. Equinox ◑ 17:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

None of which is captured by a bare bones "attributive form of" entry which is useful to nobody. Put up or shut up, whoever wants to create these types of pages should do their homework and research historical and contemporary uses. Otherwise they can get bent. DTLHS (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Wow I never saw DTLHS angry before. Related: check this out: the OED realised hyphens were bullshit 12 years ago: [53] Equinox ◑ 17:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

In this case, judging from the results on Google Books, the hyphenated form is a very rare recent development used in medical terminology as an attributive form, not a relic of the dated compound hyphen. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't these all be kept if someone can find actual usage for them (not me). SemperBlotto (talk) 10:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@SemperBlotto, I don't believe that combining hyphens de facto create distinct terms, no more than spaces between terms, or punctuation before or after them. In some cases the hyphen does combine two terms into a single term, but this is not one of those cases. By the same logic which would make this idiomatic so would be word! (exclamatory form of word), word? (inquisitive form of word) and word... (at the end of an unfinished thought form of word). Combining hyphens are just a form of punctuation, the fact that that punctuation has meaning (as all punctuation does) does not mean we need to define every construct in which that punctuation is present. - TheDaveRoss 13:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

heckuva job

This passed a decade ago, so perhaps I am wrong to list it. Doing it anyway. Heckuva has been combined with lots of nouns, and we have that sense covered. Sarcastic usage does not equate to idiomacity. - TheDaveRoss 21:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Is this any different from the interjection sense of good job? bd2412 T 00:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps in commonality, but no I don't think it is much different from that or nice job or good work or well done or any of hundreds of other similar constructions which can all be used literally or sarcastically. - TheDaveRoss 13:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• For me personally, if someone says good job, I take that at face value (within the context of the discourse, of course). If someone says heckuva job, or more specifically writes it with that spelling, that does unavoidably bring to mind the sarcastic use by association with Hurricane Katrina and the Bush administration's bungled response. That association might be stronger for me as an American, than it might be for other English readers in other countries.

I'm not sure if this has sufficiently lexicalized, however, to merit inclusion for this specific sense. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Note that WT:CFI#Sarcastic usage states: "The straightforward sarcastic use of irony, understatement and hyperbole does not usually qualify for inclusion". — SGconlaw (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that applies here, as this is not just straightforward. Due to the association with political history, the specific collocation heckuva job winds up meaning the opposite of its initial sense. See also thanks a lot, where the sarcastic sense is strong enough to merit at least a usage note. For that matter, I wonder if the sarcastic usage is what merits the entry at all -- without that, thanks a lot is purely SOP as thanks + a lot. If we keep thanks a lot, should we not also keep heckuva job? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, there was a long discussion about sarcastic usage concerning less-than-stellar (now archived on the entry's talk page), and the RFD only failed because fewer than two-thirds of participants voted for deletion – the ratio was 5:3 in favour of deletion. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

There is a reason that no consensus is needed for any person in the world to add a sense or create an entry here, but a strong consensus - basically a supermajoritarian one - is needed to remove a sense or an entry. It only takes a small proportion of the relevant community of interest to find a term useful to warrant including it in the dictionary. bd2412 T 02:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete heckuva job, keep good job. Per utramque cavernam 18:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Eirikr: I agree with Jberkel: thanks a lot seems fairly lexcialised to me, while heckuva job not so. Maybe I shouldn't vote on this one though. Per utramque cavernam 10:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete, move useful information / usage examples into heckuva. Jberkel 16:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• I'm curious -- @Per utramque cavernam, Jberkel, would you also advocate deleting thanks a lot? If not, what distinction do you make between our handling of thanks a lot and heckuva job? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Eirikr: Looking at usage patterns this might be material for Appendix:Snowclones (“Heckuva job, X”). I'd say that thanks a lot is fairly idiomatic and therefore warrants an entry of its own (are there similar constructions “[noun] a lot”? can't think of any). I think it's ok to delete the entry and add a usage note to heckuva. As you say, it doesn't seem to be fully lexicalized, and I noticed that many usages are followed by an explanation. – Jberkel 11:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing how "heckuva job, X" is a snowclone unlike, say, "X is the new X". What is supposed to substitute for the X? — SGconlaw (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

A name replacing the original “Brownie”, sometimes with added -ie/-y/-ey e.g. “Heckuva Job, Trumpie/Barack/Bidey etc.” – Jberkel 11:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

From the quotations, I don't see the term used exclusively in the format "heckuva job, X", though. — SGconlaw (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I am relatively new to the idea of "snowclone", but I wouldn't think that tacking the name of the person being addressed onto the end of a phrase would count. Mihia (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe not, but as I mentioned in some cases the names are changed (Trumpie/Bidey), so it's not simply “tacking the name at the end of a phrase”. It doesn't seem to be widely used though. – Jberkel 11:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

WT:CFI#Sarcastic usage states "[...] Terms which are seldom or never used literally are not covered by this rule, and can be included on their own merits." heckuva job has "(US politics, usually ironic)" label. Do the two things said yield keep? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Possibly. That was the reason I suggested that less-than-stellar should be kept. — SGconlaw (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Going by my experience, delete: it's no different from "heck of a job" and "constructually" (lol) no different from "heck of an anything". Equinox ◑ 22:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Google Books does not suggest that this is mostly ironic, the oft-quoted "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job." was intended as a commendation. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

WASD

This feels like a list of key names rather than a "noun". The article at Arrow keys lists, among others, ESDF, DCAS, QAOP, ESDX, WAXD, QEZC. Equinox ◑ 10:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It's fairly commonly used attributively, modifying nouns like key(s), movement, method, keyboard+mouse combination, user(s), layout etc. It is pronounced "wazz-dee". I am not sure whether the other keyboard groups used similarly have gotten enough recent (post-BBS) traction. Keep, I think. DCDuring (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

give someone a big head

SOP, per Wiktionary:Tea room/2019/January § give someone a big head: give + someone + a + big head (“inflated ego”) (though we're currently missing that sense). We can also say "have a big head", etc. Per utramque cavernam 22:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete. When I first saw this, I thought it was about giving someone head. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I've added what I think is the definition missing at big head, which is IMO only rarely an alternative form of bighead. They are also pronounced differently, bighead being heavily stressed on big, big head having roughly equal stress on its parts. DCDuring (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, delete. DCDuring (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Does not have any idiomatic or dictionary-worthy content beyond what can be explained at "big head". BTW, I agree with DCDuring that "big head" is not a well-known (possibly not even a correct) variant of "bighead". Mihia (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Redirect to big head Purplebackpack89 06:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

zoo break

SOP. See also Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English § zoo break, soon to be archived at Talk:zoo break. Per utramque cavernam 20:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. Not very obvious from parts. I had to click on the link to understand what was being referred to. Mihia (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

  Out of curiosity, before clicking on the link what other concept did you think the term might represent? - TheDaveRoss 18:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

  • @Mihia: But how is it different from prison break? Per utramque cavernam 11:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I would say that "zoo break" is harder to understand from the parts than "prison break" (but I wouldn't object if someone also wanted to create "prison break"). Mihia (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

There is an entry for jail break after all. DonnanZ (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

It's protected by coalmine. This one is not. Per utramque cavernam 19:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The animals (and birds) are the inmates, if not true "criminals". DonnanZ (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete, sense 1 of zoo and noun sense 10 of break. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. There are no less than 17 senses of the noun break, and this one appears to be a shortening of breakout. It certainly doesn't have the same meaning as daybreak, century break, tea break, weekend break, etc. DonnanZ (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  I have to imagine that there are orders of magnitude fewer two-word terms which comprise two words which each have only one meaning than those in which one or both terms have multiple senses. There may not be any such terms at all, if nuance is allowed. - TheDaveRoss 18:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per Mihia. Jberkel 18:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

two hundred

Can be regarded as 'multiple of parts'. Over 100. John Cross (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

eight hundred

Multiple of parts, over 100. John Cross (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

nine hundred

multiple of parts, over 100... unless this is about two and a half turns... John Cross (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

eleven hundred

Multiple of parts. John Cross (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

three hundred

Multiple of parts. Could conceivably be kept as translation target. John Cross (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep all Purplebackpack89 12:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect all speedily to "Appendix:English numerals" unless any have an idiomatic sense, as per the policy previously put in place: see "Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Numbers, numerals, and ordinals". — SGconlaw (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if some of these would be worthy translation targets, but on their own merit the should probably be deleted per the rule SG linked. - TheDaveRoss 13:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep two hundred, three hundred, ..., nine hundred. Some of them will be per WT:THUB. Now, the items to apply for WT:THUB need to be looked for, but I believe can be found. For instance, pl:dwieście is not obvious from pl:sto, and cs:dvě stě is not obvious from cs:sto; it is not obvious why it is not "dvě sta". Or taking pl:dziewięćset, the inflection in pl:sto does not provide anything for me to guess pl:dziewięćset. If WT:THUB would not apply, I would support keeping these multiples of "hundred" as an exception to the passed rule; this is a small set of round numerals and I think the reader is better off our having these entries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• Keep two hundred per Semitic (where a dual of "hundred" is typically used) and certain Slavic languages, per Dan. eleven hundred might also be kept as a translation target. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • In that case, a translation hub exception needs to be added to "Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Numbers, numerals, and ordinals", and it needs to be clarified exactly which numerals the exception applies to (for example, "200" but not "729"?). — SGconlaw (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
    • The easy solution is to rescind proposal 2 of Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals as redundant to proposal 1 of that vote; that is, remove "Numbers, numerals, and ordinals" as covered by "An attested integer word (such as twenty-three or twenty-third) or a decimal numeral (sequence of 0, ..., 9 digits) that is ≥ 0 and ≤ 100 should be kept even if it is not idiomatic. [...]" --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

urine therapy

Potentially a SOP, see urine therapy. However, that it can also refer to cosmetic practices might make it not SOP. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep. Specifically refers to a set of pseudoscientific practices, rather than any therapy with urine. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

so help me God

Isn't this simply a wish commonly used in oaths, similar to "may God help me"? Not in published general dictionaries in OneLook. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

It's very much a set phrase at this point, as indicated by its continued use despite the somewhat archaic grammar and as indicated by the derivate so help me. Keep, imo. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

It may be the original form, but it's mostly been replaced in modern English by so help me. I would call it an alternative form, albeit perhaps a bit stronger. As for being SOP: it definitely was, originally, but now most speakers are unaware of the literal meaning and would have difficulty parsing the archaic wording to figure it out. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The implied imprecation in the etymology provided (“The phrase implies that the speaker is willing to risk their chance of salvation upon their truthfulness”) makes this somewhat different from a simple wish.  --Lambiam 20:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

That implication about risking salvation seems rather strong, though perhaps it might occasionally be understood to mean that during oaths before testimonies. But it makes no sense to interpret it like that for swearing in for an office or when making a promise, then it is just a request for divine aid. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• I remember when I was a child, if I was misbehaving, my mother would walk in the room and say "So help me God!", and that meant that if I didn't start behaving right away, I'd get a whuppin'. bd2412 T 03:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Inclined to keep. Per utramque cavernam 19:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep like "once upon a time": the archaic grammar diminishes the ability to sum its parts, and the meaning is now usually specific, used in specific circumstances like the definition mentions, not just at any time when one would like to invoke God's help. If you are lost and say "I will find my way to the restaurant, so help me God", it comes across like a resolute oath that you will find your way, quite different to an "I think I can, I think I can"-style "I will find my way to the restaurant, if you help me out here, God" or a more resigned-to-whatever-may-happen or even disinterested-in-going "I will find my way to the restaurant, inshallah". - -sche (discuss) 21:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

fish for compliments

SOP. 32.210.179.170 20:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• The definition may need refining. My understanding has always been that "fishing for compliments" involved making overly humble or self-effacing comments in the hope that another person will counter them with praise. bd2412 T 21:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I would comment that (AFAIK) you can't be said to "fish for flattery" or "fish for love" etc. even though you could equally well use emotional manipulation to get those things. Equinox ◑ 22:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

There are a number of Google Book Search hits for "fishing for flattery", and one or two for "fishing for love", along with hits for fishing for information, details, clues, an admission, the right answer, confirmation, news, gossip, and so on and so forth. I don't see anything much special about "compliments". Mihia (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I should add, apropos of a comment that I made above in relation to "lose one's virginity", that there is nothing special except that it is a common collocation. AFAIAA from previous discussions, there is presently no rule for including common collocations that are straightforward SOP, but perhaps that is open to discussion. Mihia (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Easy enough SOP. Mihia (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The strange thing (in my eyes) is that there is also the verb angle with a sense of “attempt to subtly persuade someone to offer a desired thing”. One can be angling for a promotion, or a spot on a committee, or a contract. But when the desired thing is getting a compliment, the idiomatically preferred verb switches to fish.  --Lambiam 14:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• Inclined to keep per Equinox. Per utramque cavernam 19:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Abstain. Per utramque cavernam 19:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete, one can fish for information, fish for trouble, etc. - TheDaveRoss 14:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm twenty years old

So this passed RFD in 2012. The logic to keep was basically:

• the reader could not put together the phrase by just the translations at old (#5)
• "Twenty is a round number, so "I'm twenty years old" seems to be a fit example entry to represent all the other phrases with different number word."

But I'm ... year(s) old shows the reader how to put together this phrase, and it's better at showing how to build the phrase with different numbers. If I were trying to say "I'm 19 years old" in Hungarian, the translation at I'm twenty years old (húszéves vagyok) is useless. I don't know which part means "twenty", so I can't apply it. But with the translation at I'm ... year(s) old (...éves vagyok), I can just plug in the Hungarian word for 19 in the ... — Julia ☺ ☆ 19:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep again: I find it better to have a representative phrase for the phrasebook than have an abstract parametrized phrase I'm ... year(s) old. The Hungarian translation would be more useful if húszéves vagyok had an entry rather than being a redlink; in that entry, each separate word would be glossed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hm. I would imagine there must be some languages where you can't just plug in a missing word (due to inflection, or adjacent words merging together, etc.?). I also have unpleasant memories of those old snowclone-type entries where we would put "X" as a placeholder in the entry title. But the twenty does seem a bit silly and arbitrary. Equinox ◑ 18:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Admittedly, twenty is arbitrary. It is round, to say the least. I'm eighteen years old was deleted; 18 would be a legally significant age in some countries, I guess, so it would be less arbitrary. One such entry is enough, I think, but I would not object to I'm eighteen years old being restored instead of the 20 entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep per Dan, but okay with moving it to a less arbitrary age. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

miniature circuit breaker

Does not have a real definition, just a "miniature" + "circuit breaker"? (Has a single redlink translation.) Equinox ◑ 23:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

My knowledge in the matter is solely based on the Wikipedia article Circuit breaker. It gives me the impression that “miniature” in “miniature circuit breaker” does not so much refer to the device’s diminished size (although they are among the smallest circuit breakers) but identifies a specific type. Pages like this one and this one strengthen that impression.  --Lambiam 00:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Either it needs a proper definition, or it needs to be deleted. Not in my field of knowledge. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

gold

"Miscellaneous unit of currency in fantasy genre." This is just sense 1, the yellow metal. Many everyday objects occur in fantasy games but they are not separate senses of the words. Equinox ◑ 00:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

It's sense 2, "A coin or coinage made of this material, or supposedly so." But, yes, not a distinct sense.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete, covered in sense 2. Ultimateria (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete. There are games where your wealth is recorded in "gold" although you may acquire not only gold coins but silver coins, copper coins, etc, but that seems no different from recording your wealth in "dollars" even if some of it is in the form of dimes. - -sche (discuss) 20:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm genderfluid

And I'm cisgender, I'm transgender, I'm homosexual, I'm heterosexual... Seems completely pointless. Do we want that? Per utramque cavernam 16:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• Surely any entry of the form "I'm <adjective>" is SoP and can be translated part by part. Delete all. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't go so far as to say that (for example "I'm hungry" has non-straightforward translations in French - "I have hunger" - and Russian - "I want to eat" / "To me is the want to eat"), but yes, there's a good deal of cruft in Category:English phrasebook. Per utramque cavernam 16:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete: sum of parts and not worthwhile for the phrasebook. However, I would keep I'm hungry: 1) Czech mám hlad is not word for word; 2) lemming principle: google books:intitle:phrasebook "I'm hungry". For English phrasebook entries, I like to use something like a lemming criterion: google books:intitle:phrasebook "I'm genderfluid". --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete. The definition is most unhelpful. DonnanZ (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Not much worse than other things in the phrasebook. People seem to talk about their gender identity a lot these days so these phrases might be useful in their conversation. (As I've said before, I don't like phrasebook in mainspace, but that's another issue.) Equinox ◑ 00:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete. I'm totally flabbergasted.  --Lambiam 01:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I would understand the possible need for I'm not gay. DonnanZ (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep I'm gay and I'm straight if those were intended to be nominated for deletion; I'm homosexual and I'm heterosexual are red links. Those are included in Dutch phrasebooks with some frequency and do have high utility in all kinds of settings (romance, recreation, reporting crimes), especially in places with a lot of gay tourism. I don't know why so few English phrasebooks on BGC show these terms, but there are some with such phrases. [54] [55] [56] I would also support the creation of I'm lesbian or some equivalent.
• I lean keep I'm cisgender and I'm transgender. Again very few phrasebooks have these, [57] but similar considerations apply as above. Print phrasebooks that still exclude those will probably have another think coming soon.
• Abstain on I'm genderfluid; I don't think genderfluidity is any good as a catch-all or substitute for non-binary gender, it is too specific for that. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete per Semper. - -sche (discuss) 20:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

box

Computing sense: "An input field on an interactive electronic display; a text box." The given citation uses the phrases "dialog box" and "text box" but never "box" alone. Really it just means a rectangle, no different from a "box" on a paper form, e.g. applying for a passport. I think this is a case of trying to get a bit too specialised when it isn't necessary. Equinox ◑ 10:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, a dialog box isn't an "input field" at all, so that bolded part of the citation is wrong. Equinox ◑ 10:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the definition is not good, but a separate graphical user interface sense may be in order, as seen in these cites: [58], [59], [60]. Only in the first is it clear that this concerns an input box. Here is an attempt at a definition:

(graphical user interface) A relatively small rectangular area on the screen of an electronic device such as a computer or a smartphone, possibly located in a window or presented on top of any windows, intended for communication with the user, such as a text box, dialog box, check box or list box.

Admittedly lengthish, but the def should exclude windows, which are also rectangular areas on a screen intended for communication. — This unsigned comment was added by Lambiam (talk • contribs) at 20:18, 28 January 2019‎.

That seems so narrow. "Usually located in a window" etc.? Why not have a sense for the box where you sign on a paper form for your passport? "A small rectangular area, usually printed in ink on a form, in which a human being is intended to write...": it's still just a damn rectangle. Equinox ◑ 12:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete per Equinox, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 20:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

witness intimidation

It being a crime in the US is not really part of the definition, and I don't think it affects whether it's sum of parts. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - seems SoP to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, SOP and the definition also appears too narrow, unless intimidation of a witness to compel a change in a testimony isn't covered by the U.S. law. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Witness intimidation is also a crime under UK law, so the definition is definitely too narrow in more than one respect.  --Lambiam 16:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 18:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Many sequences of words which are codified as names of crimes are still SOP, like "driving with a revoked license" or "encouraging or assisting [a] crime". - -sche (discuss) 20:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

periodic-table

I don't think this attributive form needs a distinct entry from periodic table. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Do we have a rule for attributive forms solely distinguished by a hyphen? There appear to be loads of them, such as abstinence-only, accusative-case, action-movie, ad-banner, address-book, adult-movie, age-of-consent, air-resistance, allopathic-medicine, angst-bunny, apocrine-gland, arm's-length, army-ant, artificial-intelligence, at-sign, auto-insurance, automobile-racing, auto-racing, auxiliary-verb, award-ceremony, and awards-ceremony, limiting myself to the ones I found that start with an a. Many seem equally or more superfluous than periodic-table. If we decide such forms deserve distinct entries, there are probably tens of thousands more, such as limited-time (as in limited-time offer) or open-access (as in open-access journal).  --Lambiam 17:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Some of the above seem more attestable than others. For example, I can well imagine arm's-length being used attributively (for example, "an arm's-length transaction"), but can't see how likely it would be to use address-book or award-ceremony in the same way. I lean towards deleting them unless they qualify as adjectives. For what it's worth, when looking for quotations of periodic table I didn't come across a single attributive use. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete for the same reasons as "crazy-paving" above. All predictably created cases, such as when "an X that is of or related to Y Z" becomes "a Y-Z X", should be deleted. Mihia (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Per utramque cavernam 13:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

prison gang

SoP, a gang in prison. Ultimateria (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Could it also mean a prison work gang? (that's a term that should have an entry). DonnanZ (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Seems SOP to me, delete unless there is some more specific sense. Re work gang, I have not seen it used in that way, and we do have chain gang, beyond that specific term I have seen a few different formulations related to groups of prisoners working outside of the prison, work gang, work crew and work detail among them. - TheDaveRoss 14:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Oxford has an entry for work gang. DonnanZ (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think a conscientious writer would use the term “prison gang” for a work gang of prisoners, for the simple reason it would surely be misunderstood by almost every reader, just like one wouldn’t use the term “kitchen table” for a table of weights and measures used in a kitchen.  --Lambiam 14:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

In fact, that was the first meaning I thought of when I read the thread title. Of course, I understand the other meaning well enough too. Mihia (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is a question that has come up before with arguably SoPpy terms: How should an ESL learner know which of the many senses of gang is the one to choose for understanding the term prison gang? I think sense 6, but that may not be obvious – and, moreover, that sense does not impart the persistence of prison gangs. Therefore I’m leaning towards Keep. (BTW, the somewhat figurative sense for a group of politicians – which I think could also be high-level executives or officials in a non-political organization – ought to be a sense on its own, rather than being lump together with criminal gangs, which tend to be more structured and have a longer lifespan.)  --Lambiam 14:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

CESAT voltage

Apparently no such thing exists. --Pious Eterino (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete. The concept (and term) “collector–emitter saturation voltage” exists. It is symbolically abbreviated as V_CE(sat), V_CE(SAT) or very rarely V_CESAT. The word “CESAT” as an acronym for “collector-emitter saturation” (a collocation that arises from a misbracketing of “collector–emitter {saturation voltage}”, the voltage drop from collector to emitter in a saturated transistor) is only found in dictionaries and collections of acronyms.  --Lambiam 14:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Speedied based on the Google results. - TheDaveRoss 14:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

drawn game

We don't have won game, lost game, tied game, all are clearly SOP. - TheDaveRoss 14:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, "the match was drawn" etc. Delete. Equinox ◑ 14:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete, SoP.  --Lambiam 11:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 11:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• It is actually a game in which neither side wins. It has inspired me to enter no-score draw however. DonnanZ (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

American imperialism

American + imperialism. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete, SoP.  --Lambiam

Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 11:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete - TheDaveRoss 13:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete. - -sche (discuss) 20:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

acute-angled triangle

right triangle

FYI, the relevant sense at right seemed to be absent, so I have had a go at adding it. Mihia (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

equilateral triangle

• Keep - recognised term. John Cross (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/equilateral-triangle

isosceles triangle

• Keep recognised term John Cross (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Cambridge Dictionary: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/isosceles-triangle

Macmillan: https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/isosceles-triangle

Merriam-Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/isosceles%20triangle

scalene triangle

I admit they're vaguely useful, but all of these are SOP. Delete the numerous SOP translations (such as French triangle rectangle) as well. Per utramque cavernam 18:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I would say you have ordered them roughly in order from most delete-able to least, I am totally on board with deleting the first three, after that I am on the fence. - TheDaveRoss 18:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete the ones containing "-angled"; keep the rest. bd2412 T 15:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

wax technician

Based on the synonyms section this is not a unique formulation, and based on the definitions is isn't for just one type of wax professional either. SOP. - TheDaveRoss 15:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Telugu Brahmin Surnames

Or possibly move to some sort of appendix. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Speedied. It's not English, it's not Telugu, it's not a dictionary entry- but it does look like an exact copy of the scribd document linked to as a reference. That makes it either a copyvio or an attempt to use us as a sort of vanity press. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

irregular plural

SOP. Per utramque cavernam 13:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Why? They do exist. Keep for the same reason as irregular verb. DonnanZ (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Appendix:English irregular nouns does list irregular plurals, but they occur in other languages too. DonnanZ (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

You realise we're talking about words here, not concepts, right?

As to your question "why?", I'll repeat myself if it pleases you: SOP, as in "Sum-Of-Parts". Per utramque cavernam 20:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. DonnanZ (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

You're confusing words and concepts, and you're asking for a rationale which I've already provided, so pardon me if I sound a bit disgruntled. Do you have anything of substance to answer? Per utramque cavernam 08:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I could say a lot more, but it's better left unsaid. DonnanZ (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Please go ahead, I'm interested. Per utramque cavernam 18:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

So do words with plurals that don't end in "s", but we wouldn't want a dictionary entry for words with plurals that don't end with "s" Chuck Entz (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. A dictionary should carefully define terms describing the construction of words. bd2412 T 03:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

  I don't know what that means. Everything could be accomplished at irregular, why isn't that enough? Per utramque cavernam 08:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

  The appropriate place to explain various linguistic (grammatical, phonological, rhetorical) concepts “carefully” would be in the appendices. We have Appendix:Glossary#irregular; I imagine that (if desired) this could be expanded, although it is simpler to refer to Wikipedia’s section on Regular and irregular inflection in the article over there on Inflection (to which Irregular plural redirects).  --Lambiam 15:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per BD2412 John Cross (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, SoP.  --Lambiam 15:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, SOP. Compare "irregular verb", "irregular pluralization", "irregular inflection", ... - -sche (discuss) 20:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Bizarre reasoning that terms related to the dictionary are subject to laxer rules is unexpected from the likes of @BD2412. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  I have not proposed any laxer rules. "irregular plural" is a set phrase, and should meet the CFI. bd2412 T 04:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  That's a valid argument. We don't normally keep set phrases and collocations if they're not idiomatic, and CFI does not say we should, but you could conceivably argue that CFI should change to reflect that view. (I would disagree.) That wasn't the argument that you made, however, which was based on the how the term descibes "the construction of words". —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  Try this on, then: the plural of "irregular" is irregulars. However, "irregulars" is not an irregular plural. Therefore, a phrase referring to plurals that are irregular, and not to the plural of irregular, is idiomatic. Also, just for fun, other languages contain both the word "irregular" (with the same meaning) and "plural" (with the same meaning), but don't construct the phrase the same. bd2412 T 05:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

regular polygon

SOP. Per utramque cavernam 13:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. The use of "regular" here is different from the normal sense of regularity (e.g. a "regular guy"). bd2412 T 15:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

  The regular sense of “regular” is ”following a rule”. So is a “regular guy” someone who follows a rule? Then Benedict monks are regular guys: they follow the Rule of St. Benedict. But I guess “regular guy” means something else; the use of “regular” here is different from the normal sense of regularity. So by the above argument we should have an entry regular guy.  --Lambiam 15:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

  The use of "regular" and "irregular" with respect to polygons are unique to those shapes. Would you call a six-sided shape with five straight sides and one curved side an "irregular polygon"? No, it wouldn't be a polygon at all. bd2412 T 19:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

  Sorry, I cannot follow the argument (apart from the incorrect statement about uniqueness; the concept also applies to polyhedra and in fact also higher-dimensional polytopes). Suppose someone proposes to delete happy customer (“a customer that is satisfied with the service offered”) because it is SOP. Someone argues that it should be kept because this is not the “normal” meaning of happy, although it is one of its listed senses. In response to criticism of that argument (specifically the notion of the “normal” meaning), they now ask: “Would you call a shoplifter that walks out with the goods without being detected a ‘disenchanted customer’? No, they wouldn’t be a customer at all.” Indeed, they wouldn’t, but what has that to do with anything?  --Lambiam 20:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

  A shoplifter could be a disenchanted customer. A shape that is a polygon but for the irregularity of having one non-straight side can't be a polygon. A shape that would be a "regular polygon" but for that difference is therefore neither a regular nor an irregular polygon. bd2412 T 20:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

  I still don’t see the relevance of not calling something a polygon that is not a polygon to the question whether the term “regular polygon” is SoP.  --Lambiam 00:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  One could easily think that a "regular" polygon means a "typical" polygon, like any triangle, or any five or six-sided figure that doesn't have some crazy indentation. In fact, it is limited to one that is "both equiangular and equilateral". However, the theoretically interchangeable phrases "equiangular and equilateral polygon" and "equiangular equilateral polygon" get one ten-thousandth as many Google Books hits as "regular polygon". I would suggest that a meaning of the word "regular" that only applies when specifically used in combination with a handful of other words, and disproportionately found in only one of those combinations, is idiomatic. Otherwise, we might as well get rid of stop sign and police car, and have entries at "stop" and "police", respectively, reading "when used with sign..." and "when used with car..." bd2412 T 05:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep by all means. An illustration would be useful however. DonnanZ (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

What part of WT:CFI is "all means" referring to? Per utramque cavernam 18:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

By all means is a figure of speech. bd2412 T 19:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I know, I was jesting. Per utramque cavernam 19:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep - The word regular has 15 different meanings. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

aesthetic emotion

SOP. Per utramque cavernam 13:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)