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
  

October 2019

fine-looking

Seems SoP. Raised above under #must-see. Compounds like "fine-looking" can be created in fairly arbitrary combinations according to standard rules of English: tired-looking, indistinct-looking, harsh-sounding, clever-seeming etc. etc. I don't believe that we need to list all possible combinations separately. On the other hand, I would support keeping good-looking. As much as anything, I am listing this to see if there are any objective criteria, other than frequency of use (which I believe we should not take into account, provided a minimum threshhold is reached), that would allow us to keep good-looking, and possibly also fine-looking if desired, while disallowing e.g. indistinct-looking and a million™ others similar. Mihia (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

It would depend on how common it is. I came across the term when extracting some quotes from an old magazine, and thought it merited an entry, having found enough usage. There is no problem with good-looking, which probably has lemmas anywhere you look. However, this entry is infinitely more preferable to fine-ass-looking. DonnanZ (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but my understanding is that we don't include or exclude entries based on how common they are, provided only that the minimum threshold for CFI is met. Mihia (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'd delete as meaning nothing more than "it looks fine". Equinox ◑ 21:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

If it was spelt finelooking nobody would bat an eyelid, but it isn't. I would keep it as a synonym - there may be times when one would prefer to use fine-looking instead of good-looking, as the author of the quote did. DonnanZ (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Canonicalization (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

To refresh your memory, you created bad-looking a few months ago. DonnanZ (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

See also good-looking, foul-smelling, gutaussehend, etc. Note that while in German this gutaussehend is quite lexical one can quite arbitrarily mash together participles with adverbs and other parts of speech, writing together. Fay Freak (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• See also Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2019/October#Inclusion_of_hyphenated_compounds. Mihia (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah, so this is the first victim of your brainchild. DonnanZ (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Donnanz, your only rule seems to be that you hate anything being deleted. Other people actually apply coherent rules to what they think is keepable or deletable, even though those rules differ from user to user. For you to accuse people (repeatedly) of being rabid/unprincipled deletionists is silly since you're a more rabid/unprincipled "keepist" than anyone. Equinox ◑ 15:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

No, his only rule is whether he likes a term or that to which it refers. He'd vote to delete dog if one bit him, but he'd vote to keep "I like trains" if he could do it without people laughing at him (I'm exaggerating, of course, but at times it's not that far from the truth). Chuck Entz (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Both of you are being unfair. You never see terms I reject, and there's plenty of those; today, for example, I looked at transport hub and single-bore and passed over both. DonnanZ (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Imagine a non-native speaker – let’s call him Deniz – trying to grasp the meaning of fine-looking after he overhears an attractive woman saying of him that he is a “fine-looking man”. Naturally, he will consult Wikipedia. Assume now that in the meantime we have deleted the entry, so he sees on the discussion page that it was deleted as being a sum-of-parts. All he has to do now is to decipher the meaning of fine-looking from its parts. Naturally he proceeds from the assumption that the overheard comment is equivalent to the statement that he looks fine. The first meaning of look is “to try to see, to pay attention to with one’s eyes”. This requires an adverb; skipping the definition “Expression of (typically) reluctant agreement”, which he suspects does not apply, he hits upon “well, nicely, in a positive way”. So did the commenter express the opinion that Deniz tries, in a positive way, to see (or that he pays nicely attention with his eyes)? Somehow feeling that this was not the utterer’s intention, he looks further. What about look meaning “to appear, to seem”? And perhaps nice = “being acceptable, adequate, passable, or satisfactory”? (Deniz is humble and does not consider himself to be of superior quality.) This results in the meaning ”to seem passable”. This meaning appears satisfactory to Deniz; satisfied with this answer and unaware of a missed opportunity, he concludes his semantic quest.  --Lambiam 18:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Don't give up your day job, Jonathan Swift. "Fine-looking" may in fact mean "looking fine" in pretty much any sense, not just one. So the mistake that you would blame on our not indicating which sense of "fine" is intended (hello, "brown leaf") could equally go badly the other way if we did have, say, the AAVE-style sense ("that's one fine-looking honey!") but omitted others. Equinox ◑ 18:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Three examples: "Damn baby, I don't know if I want to let your fine looking ass go, cause I know damn well muthafucka's gon be all over my tender white thickness" (Davine 2014; "fine" = attractive, sexy); "Glancing over the crowd, I noticed a fine-looking carriage and horses" (McLean 1886; "fine" = handsome, elegant); "the inside of the teeth will peel, and by rubbing coke or a piece of grindstone over the teeth's face, it will result in fine-looking teeth" (Dyson West 1882; "fine" = narrowly spaced). Equinox ◑ 19:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

You could always add those quotes to the entry... I did find "fine-looking cricketer" and "fine-looking goalie" (admittedly very few hits) where fine-looking seems to refer to the fact they appear to be good at their job. But looking at fine#Etymology 1#Adjective I'm not convinced that fine-looking is covered, the closest is sense 3, good-looking, attractive, but I'm not entirely convinced by the examples. In Oxford (1.6) is the closest, I think, (1.6 Imposing or impressive in appearance. ‘Donleavy was a fine figure of a man’). But I think "fine-looking" is not properly covered here either, and is something else again. DonnanZ (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

If you take the argument that including SOP terms because their components have multiple meanings, but then you also include all permutations of those meanings on the SOP terms page, how have you helped Deniz know which sense was meant? He was just as well off looking up the component terms and deciding among their meanings. Better off, really, since we are more likely to have things like translations on the component terms. - TheDaveRoss 12:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Adding those citations to the entry suggests I am validating the entry, whereas I actually think it is fucking stupid and should be deleted. I specifically found those cites to prove that "fine-looking" just means "looking fine IN ANY SENSE OF FINE". Why does it still exist? Equinox ◑ 05:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

In this case looking is really just taking on the old obsolete noun sense of "appearance". And because fine is an adjective that modifies looking, you really have an adjective-noun combination being used attributively to modify the man (in Lambiam's example). (Of course participles being what they are, you could analyse it as adverb-verb, but you should get the same result.) One from a previous era could have probably called Deniz "a man with a fine looking". -Mike (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

At the moment this compound sense of looking is not covered (yes, these are compound words, which some users prefer to overlook, probably because of the hyphen). It isn't regarded as a suffix, but there was a suffix entry once, before it was redirected as the result of an RFD. To be fair, Oxford doesn't deal with it either. DonnanZ (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I made an attempt at explaining this at looking. DonnanZ (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you can complete this by adding a sense at fine: “in relation to the visual appearance of a person: physically attractive”.  --Lambiam 22:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

As with bad-looking below, I think we should keep: does fine-looking also mean "slender/thin-looking" ? fine means "slender/thin". Does it mean "powdery-looking" ? fine can mean "consisting of minute particulate" ? We need to provide the accurate definition. Leasnam (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

It can mean slender/thin-looking, and other things too, yes; see my three examples above. Equinox ◑ 23:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Equinox ! I only lightly glanced over the entirety of the conversation. My bad :\ Leasnam (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Leasnam: So, will you maintain your keep anyway? Canonicalization (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete as hyphenated sum of parts with the current definition of looking. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Keep - Dentonius (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep, like "good-looking" this has a default meaning of "physically attractive" rather than say healthy. Troll Control (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The definitions do not clearly distinguish good and fine looking. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, wouldn't you stress them differently? FINE-looking teeth look slender, but fine-LOOking teeth look good. Troll Control (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• Going by the rules (WT:CFI) although they might be bad: Delete, but only if good-looking, nice-looking, bad-looking are deleted as well. All are "hyphenated compounds" (WT:CFI) and SOP-y. --幽霊四 (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Delete per the above. This RfD has been open for years. Can someone please close it? Chicdat (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete ASAP. There are any number of such SOP hyphenated compounds, e.g. great-looking, cool-looking, wonderful-looking, marvelous-looking, horrible-looking, nasty-looking... Also bad-looking can go and probably nice-looking. There are infinite combinations that we can't hope to cover and shouldn't spend our time on. good-looking can stay as a representative idiom and for translations to other languages. A good-looking contract. As per CFI: "General rule - A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means..." Facts707 (talk) 10:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete: SOP. J3133 (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• This has gone on long enough. Close as no consensus. DonnanZ (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

January 2020

Insert

The name of a button on a keyboard. In my life, I have never pressed the button to insert anything, or to have anything inserted in me. That is an irrelevant comment, of course. Anyway, I remember years ago a similar page was kept, much to my chagrin - PrtSc? or Page Up or Scr Lk of F12 or whatever. --ReloadtheMatrix (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

It has some limited use. Occasionally, switching to overtype mode is useful when making repetitive manual replacements in text files. Mihia (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

This kind of thing has been discussed before; e.g. Talk:F1, Talk:Bild ↓ Talk:Esc key. - -sche (discuss) 10:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

As discussed before I would delete the names of keys, joypad buttons, microwave oven controls, etc. (at least where the name describes what the key does; the Commodore 64 for example had a Run/Stop key, and the ZX Spectrum had one for inverse video). Regarding the use of the key: it usually toggles overtype mode as stated, but I think I've encountered a few rare scenarios where it is used for pasting. Equinox ◑ 19:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep: The sense is attested; "Insert" acts as a noun; what is the statement of the deletion rationale in relation to WT:CFI? If it is a sum of parts, which parts? An example of kept button is Talk:Start; multiple buttons were discussed in a discussion archived at Talk:Delete, which does not seem to have a clear and proper closure but was archived anyway. An example of deleted button is Talk:eject. One more note on "Insert": it does not even mean "button labeled Insert" since, on my keyboad, it is labeled "Ins". A note on examples given above: Esc key is dissimilar (it would be about Insert key); Esc is similar, and it says "Abbreviation of escape key. (on a computer keyboard)"; Escape is even more similar and is a redlink. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep It's now cited. Also, we should create the alternative form INSERT. (more common in the 80s and 90s) Alexis Jazz (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 13:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep, as there are also Esc, Bild ↓, maybe move to WT:RFVE. --幽霊四 (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

February 2020

see

"Interjection"

1. Directing the audience to pay attention to the following

   See here, fellas, there's no need for all this rucus!

   Synonyms: behold, look; see also Thesaurus:lo

2. Introducing an explanation

   See, in order to win the full prize we would have to come up with a scheme to land a rover on the Moon.

   Synonyms: look, well, so

How is the imperative of see an interjection in the usage examples? DCDuring (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

We've got an entry at see here, BTW. Equinox ◑ 20:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Given that we don't even label the interjectional (read: interjection-like) sense of "read" that I just used as an interjection, it does seem inconsistent to present these as interjections. - -sche (discuss) 07:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

It is very similar to “Listen, guys – we have to talk“, which we do not list as an interjection. On the other hand, we do list look as an interjection (as well as lo and behold). I have no strong opinion as to whether we should list such imperatives also as interjections, but it is IMO obvious that see in “See, it isn’t that hard” is not meant as a literal command to exercise one’s faculty of sight. (BTW, this use fits neither of the two given senses.)  --Lambiam 21:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete just the imperative. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it's similar to well although one could also analyze it as an imperative. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Probably Delete - not particularly interesting as a search term. Also listen, listen up, look, etc. I think this on the edge of a dictionary and getting into a style guide.Facts707 (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

cease to be

This seems SoP to me. I suspect it exists only for the opportunity to insert the citation. DCDuring (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I would say that "X has ceased to be" and minor variants is a sort of catchphrase, repeated after the said comedy sketch. Mihia (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I think saying that to be equals having a pulse is rather far-fetched. "be" means "To exist; to have real existence". The parrot has ceased to be, yet, it still exists. It's dead (or pining.. no, definitely dead), yet it ceased to be. So I lean towards keep. Alexis Jazz (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Seems like the same sense of be as in "To be or not to be" (from a soliloquy in which Hamlet is contemplating suicide). —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger I better add a sense to be then. (done) Alexis Jazz (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion; see below. PUC – 21:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. PUC – 10:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. --Uisleach (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz Are there any more examples? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, just SoP. Dead (living thing) or defunct (organization, country, etc.). Lots of similar SoP terms like "cease to exist", "no longer exist", etc. No independent meaning, dependent on context. Can always be re-added if someone can explain why. How about cease to exist, stopped existing, etc.? Just because it sounds nice or is poetic doesn't mean it should be here and not in a textbook or manual of something. Facts707 (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep. Has the qualities of a set phrase. "Stop to be," "stop being," "end to be," etc. do not work. There's also the more literal sense of the term that I would add to the entry. Imetsia (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

as far as

Adverb PoS. I have added conjunction and preposition PoS sections, moved L4 header content, and added a usage note. I believe that the Adverb PoS section was in error. AHD and MW online have conjunction and preposition PoS definitions. Oxford calls it a phrase. I have not yet found any reference that calls it an adverb. DCDuring (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

With regard to the preposition (and also presently adverb) sense "With respect to; as relates to", with examples such as "As far as financing, there will be no problems", I have always considered this usage an error in which the speaker forgets to say "... is concerned", or does not understand that "... is concerned" is required. Or perhaps some people confuse "as far as" with "as for". I feel that some sort of label might be in order. Mihia (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The omission of "is concerned" does not need to be an error; it may be intentional to achieve brevity. M-W:as far as[1] has this in its "as far as preposition" section and does not contain any proscription tag, although it does say that it is "chiefly in oral use".

As for the adverb section nominated here, it seems it can be deleted now that DCDuring has created the other sections, but I did not check carefully. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

According to [2]:

Usage Note: As far as is often used as a preposition meaning "as for" or "regarding," especially in speech. This construction derives from the term's use as a conjunction (as in as far as the election goes), but with the verb of the clause omitted (as far as the election). A large majority of the Usage Panel frowns on this usage. In our 2011 survey, 71 percent found the prepositional use unacceptable in the sentence As far as something to do on the weekend, we didn't even have miniature golf. And 74 percent objected to as far as when followed by a noun clause in the sentence As far as how the victim got shot, we don't know yet. Objection to this construction has decreased slightly among the Panelists since 1994, when 80 percent objected to the first sentence and 89 percent to the second.

To me "as far as" used in this way without a completion is purely nonsensical, but it seems that the longer it persists in use, the more people forget this. Mihia (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The source you have found (AHD) could be used to source the "sometimes proscribed" tag. But let me add from AHD:as far as[3]: "Our Living Language Despite the admonitions detailed in the Usage Note, it is the case that many speakers often drop the verbal part of the as far as construction, as in As far as a better house, I don't want one (instead of As far as a better house is concerned ...)". --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 13:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• I think it does mean something, but I'm not satisfied with the current definition. Maybe it is better defined as short for (something). Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Lexico (reference added) treats this as a phrase, pure and simple; no complication. Is that far too easy and simple for us? DonnanZ (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly not an adverb - adverbs don't take nouns as complements. The preposition def is a keeper. I don't hate the idea of renaming the PoS header to "phrase", as suggested by DonnanZ, but I would prefer to keep it as is for consistency with similar terms like regarding, as to, and concerning. Conjunction section should go too - maybe a conjunctive sense exists, I would need quotes to believe it. Colin M (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

madly in love

SOP. The Czech and Polish entries given as translations should be moved to až po uši and po uszy respectively, and added to the translation tables at madly and head over heels. Canonicalization (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Keep per WT:THUB. Even if až po uši (up to ears) is created, it would not necessarily be translated as "madly" outside of the phrase zamilovaný až po uši. Czech zamilovaný až po uši is listed in Slovník české frazeologie a idiomatiky and also in Nizozemsko-český/ česko-nizozemský kapesní slovník. Also of note is that madly in love is listed as a boldfaced item in Macmillan English Dictionarys love entry[4]. As for the Polish zakochany po uszy, I am much less certain about its translation in relation to po uszy, not being a Polish native speaker, but at least, the item is mentioned in Nowy słownik angielsko-polski 2003. There is also Japanese 首ったけ by @Suzukaze-c indicated to mean "head over heels in love; madly in love", but that is entered as a noun; should this perhaps be changed to adjective? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • To answer your first point: až po uši could contain all the information necessary: "madly (as in "madly in love")", "used exclusively with zamilovaný", etc.
  • If we really want a translation target entry, I think it should be head over heels in love, which strikes me as more idiomatic, and for which the lemming argument is somewhat stronger.
    • “be fall head over heels in love” in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, Longman..
    • “head over heels in love”, in Cambridge English Dictionary, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire: Cambridge University Press, 1999–present. Canonicalization (talk) 11:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • In general, I think this is a borderline case, and the translations are also borderline. Canonicalization (talk) 11:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

    I like to opt for a more user-friendly design rather than go for artificial constructions such as "madly (used exclusively with zamilovaný)" to achieve minimality at any and all costs; I do not want red dwarf be moved to red with the use of a similar artificial construction. As for the choice of the translation hub entry, madly in love, head over heels in love at the Google Books Ngram Viewer. shows madly in love to have a higher frequency; head over heels in love is subject to the same sum-of-parts argument, by being broken down to head over heels + in love. That said, it would be better to have the hub at head over heels in love than not to have it at all. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete: the sense at madly (wildly, without control, etc.) is perfectly adequate to explain this. Equinox ◑ 06:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

(outdent) Meanwhile, the translations include the following:

• Chinese:

  Mandarin: 熱戀／热恋 (zh) (rèliàn)

• Czech: zamilovaný až po uši
• Finnish: korviaan myöten rakastunut
• French: fou amoureux
• Hungarian: fülig szerelmes
• Japanese: 首ったけ (kubittake)
• Polish: zakochany po uszy
• Russian: влюблён по́ уши (vljubljón pó uši)
• Slovak: zaľúbený po uši
• Spanish: beber los vientos
• Turkish: sırılsıklam âşık

If madly in love gets deleted via RFD, let us create head over heels in love and put the translations there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 13:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete. It's just madly + in love. Ultimateria (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete and move the translations to head over heels in love. Or simply rename the page to preserve history. The translations aren't especially tied to this form. The Slavic phrases, for example, are "up to the ears" which is a better semantic match for head over heels. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Clearly just SOP. Do we want "deeply in love", "crazily in love", "deeply in debt", "driving madly down the street"? Facts707 (talk) 10:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Imetsia (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

RFD-deletedf. Imetsia (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

March 2020

sexa-

As was noted on the talk page, all but one of the derived terms are about sixty, not six.

What I noticed is that removing the prefix leaves things that don't seem like real morphemes (genarian?, gesimal?). Also, the compounding seems to have been in Latin, not in English.

Finally, this is simply not used in the dictionary: none of the derived terms references it in its etymology, and the category for the prefix is empty. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• It's an old form of hexa-. I've modified it accordingly. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  It’s not just a matter of age but of provenance; sexa- meaning "six" is dog Latin, whereas hexa- is from the genuine Ancient Greek prefix ἑξα- (hexa-).  --Lambiam 11:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

A New Eng. Dict.[5] mentions it in passing as an irreg. form of sex-, sexi-. It looks like the definitions of sexa- and sex- in Wiktionary are a bit mixed up. -Mike (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep I don't see how this one page can be deleted when it is part of a linked series of parallel terms (numeral prefixes), with quinque- before it and septua- after it. It was never the issue that sexa- was incorrect as the prefix for "six" but that the examples provided were for "sixty". Just find better examples!! Also, there is an issue of "taboo avoidance" in English concerning the prefix "sexa-" because it conjures up too many naughty images. This should be noted in the entry. English has leaned to preference for the Greek "hexa-" even in otherwise Latinate contexts. Again, this should be noted, but the special circumstances or connotations surrounding "sexa-" do not invalidate the entry itself. 70.27.169.176 15:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 13:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

RFD kept — Dentonius 09:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Reopened. Not enough input to call this. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Chuck opened this with the argument that this wasn't properly attested (which is really an RFV issue). Semper then provided some derived terms. Seems open-and-shut. Keep.__Gamren (talk) 13:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep, as there are sexadecimal, sexagon, sexavalent. --幽霊四 (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep for all the excellent reasons above. Used in sexangular as a synonym of hexangular (six-sided). Facts707 (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

dwagon

Eye dialect spelling of dragon. We don't have twuck, twicycle, etc. and I don't think we ought to. I'd go further and say that having eye-dialect spellings of any kind are not really of value -- they are infinitely and arbitrarily constructible, and they are not words in their own right but transformations of words -- but I am guessing that is a fight I would lose. - TheDaveRoss 13:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

This particular transformation is completely rule-based, like "igpay atinlay". Remember the gag in Life of Brian based on it? "Welease ... Woger!" Chuck Entz (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Move to RFV. If it can be cited CFI-compliantly, keep it; if not, delete it. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete per TheDaveRoss. But I know others like to keep silly "transformations" of this kind, like the autological duuumb. Whyever doesn't the OED bother, I ask myself. Equinox ◑ 18:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep; we're not paper, and we're not indexed by words, but by letter sequences.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Is this an argument that equally applies to all requests for deletion, or has it, in some way I was yet unable to detect, some more specific applicability to the present proposal?  --Lambiam 18:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

CFI lists various things that aren't included, largely because they're more encyclopedic than dictionary. It is an argument against deleting things that are clearly lexical and not called out in CFI.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• With some exceptions on phonetic or orthogwaphic gwounds, "r" can be changed to "w" to suggest "a childish voice or a speech impediment" pretty much anywhere it occurs, in a wegular and pwedictable way. It is like dropping an "h" or the "g" of "ing", as in 'overcraft or 'appenin'. Do we want entries for all these regular "eye dialect" variants? I don't think so. Where the alteration is predictable and regular, I think we should include only examples that have some special usage or quality. So, absent any such rationale for dwagon, delete it. Mihia (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• What we need here is a rule limiting usage to cases where a reader may actually reasonably need to look up a word. I would propose something along the lines of the rule we use for brand names: three independent citations in sources that do not otherwise provide the context for the word. For example, a book with a passage saying, "Bobby pointed at the dragon and said, 'look, a dwagon'" would be self defining, whereas a book containing such a "dwagon" reference with no proximate reference to the word "dragon" would not be, and would count as a cite. I would make this a presumptive rule so that the term could be sent to RfV, and deleted automatically if three such citations are not provided. I am fairly confident that such a rule would eliminate from inclusion variations such as "wegular" "pwedictable", "orthogwaphic" and "gwounds". bd2412 T 20:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

How would you apply the rule about "not providing context" to a word such as "wegular"? What sort of context would you require (or not require)? Mihia (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Much the same - are there sources that use "wegular" without some reasonably nearby use of the word "regular" to provide the sense that the eye-dialect version is a variation of the normal spelling? bd2412 T 23:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

When I search e.g. Google Books, I see a few hits for "wegular", mostly in dialogue, few or none of which, as far as I can tell, have the word "regular" anywhere nearby, and nor would I expect them to. Mihia (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Barring those being typos or a different sense (apparently "Wegular" is also the name of a font), that might end up being a term that a reader could come across and want defined. I suppose it should also matter if it is part of a string of clearly eye-dialect text, so that even a reader unfamiliar with the language might realize that it is not the normal spelling. bd2412 T 04:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I’m afraid such a rule would not do much: agweeable, bwoken, celebwate, dweadful, ... The problem is that it is supposed to indicate a speaker’s slightly peculiar pronunciation of the ‹r›, which can affect the spelling of any word containing that letter.  --Lambiam 17:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

(Keep) Meh. It's a grey area; one side of the spectrum has e.g. Winterpeg (changing the spelling to highlight Winnipeg's coldness) that are IMO clearly includable, the other side is baaaaaaad (chaning spelling to mark intensity, drawn-out pronunciation, or whatever), which we decided to make redirects. Is changing spelling to indicate childish, accented or speech-impaired speech includable? It's closer to baaaaaaad, I admit, but I still lean towards yes, keep, especially if we're just discussing one of the zillion eye-dialect spellings we've long included. (Also, and I'm surprised Mahagaja didn't raise this: is this really eye dialect, or a pronunciation respelling?) I get the idea of excluding eye dialect in general, but I worry that could have negative consequences (e.g., in the case where a word itself is limited to dialect, valid spellings might get suppressed), and (like Prosfilaes, I think) I don't really see a benefit to excluding such words. - -sche (discuss) 07:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The "eye dialect" issue that you mention has been raised several times I think. As I understood it, we are now consensually using the term "eye dialect" to include words such as "dwagon", per sense #2 at eye dialect: "(more broadly) Nonstandard spelling which indicates nonstandard pronunciation." If we aren't then, as has been pointed out, large numbers of "eye dialect" words are incorrectly labelled. Mihia (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there's a consensus. There's simply a general inertia surrounding this issue. PUC 18:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

See Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2020/March#.22Eye_dialect.22_label. Mihia (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

This strikes me as a stylistic device, rather than a lexical phenomenon. Ordinary language is distorted to evoke an image- the distinctiveness is in the pattern, not the words it's applied to. One may have a character saying "I'm fffreezing! It's cccold in here!", or "I habe a code in by dose", or "it maketh my tongue feel tho numb". Then there are all the ways of representing all the stereotyped accents that character actors and cartoon voice actors like to use. One character may go the "thee-yater", while another goes to the "theatuh". Think of all the "w" words that can be attested with "v" spellings in stereotypical German dialog, or all the "h" dropping in stereotypical Cockney dialog, or all the things that happen to vowels and syllable-final "r"s in stereotypical Southern dialog. We don't have snowclones in mainspace, and we shouldn't have this kind of thing, either. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we can't find some alternative solution that allows us to record evidence of citations for these forms without specifically having entries for them. bd2412 T 04:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

When any "r" in any word (subject to certain phonetic or orthographic restrictions) can be changed to "w" to indicate defective pronunciation, and thus any example can created in an ad hoc manner at any time according to an author's choosing, does evidence of citations actually matter? Does it actually matter whether or not someone so far ever wrote "orthogwaphic" or "cowonaviwus" or any other? I say no. Mihia (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Wiktionary isn't just for people who know the phonetic or orthographic restrictions. It is also a resource for language learners and foreign readers who may come here because they come across "dwagon" or the like in print, and are genuinely unclear as to its meaning. bd2412 T 03:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I think some wires have got slightly crossed. The issue of being able to look it up is one thing, but you were talking about recording citations without having an entry that people could look up. That is the suggestion that I was specifically responding to. Mihia (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I would presume that any system we set up to maintain such citations would note in some way that they reference an intentional misspelling, with the correct spelling being referenced (and linked) in some way. bd2412 T 03:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete, not lexical.  --Lambiam 17:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Abstain, though I'm somewhat curious whether this could pass RFV. Similar cases are waycism, waycist. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• I've cited it. I see no reason it would fail RFV; cites are plentiful, from a broad time period, and clearly independent.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. PUC 22:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Delete for the reason given by Chuck Entz. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: no CFI-relevant rationale has been provided. As for the stylistic-device argument by Chuck Entz, we do keep stylistic devices such as pleeease per Wiktionary:Votes/2014-01/Treatment of repeating letters and syllables. And again, CFI does not forbid stylistic devices. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, the CFI is not absolute but is a work in progress, and it is with the aid of investigations such as this that it may be developed. Mihia (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, then, here, here, here, here, here, and here is a mother lode of new entries- enjoy! Chuck Entz (talk) 05:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

If you propose a workable principle, we can add it to CFI or even use it as a CFI override. "What is rule-based is excluded" is not a workable principle, as per prefer → preferred or red → redness. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Undecided. But I like the idea of including terms used by children, they are underrepresented in dictionaries. – Jberkel 23:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete this particular usage of the "w" for "r" replacement, but I'm for waycism because it is (apparently) commonly used by adults for mockery. Note the distinction between this and adult eye dialect terms like cunnel (for colonel) and yeah#Etymology 2 (for year). Eye dialect forms in other cases are not easily predictable, and can therefore in many cases be mistaken for something else. There is no one rule for these. However, there is only one rule for this: replace the "r" in any term, except the "r" at the end, with "w".

By the way, has anyone thought of creating an entry for -w-? This would allow Wiktionary to explain how this phenomenon works, and having an entry like that would be more useful and concise than having thousands upon thousands of "w forms" of words. It might also be useful to have an appendix page for childish dialect in English. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not -w- because it can occur at the start or end of a word, not only as an interfix. It's simply replacing one letter (or sound) with another. Equinox ◑ 19:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Delete--non-lexical. --Uisleach (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Such can be done with any "r" word to indicate a childish or speech impediment pronunciation. Unless they have taken on a life of their own like wabbit has they shouldn't be included. 172.58.171.151 17:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

How do we decide whether they have, in fact, "taken on a life of their own"? bd2412 T 14:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

wabbit has another meaning. A computing word that comes from that pronunciation of the word rabbit. Therefore wabbit has taken on a life of its own. This has not happened with dwagon which has no meaning other than referring to dragons in a childish or speech impediment way. 172.58.171.32 21:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

They probably haven't when the creator is a Wiktionarian with a long habit of adding misspelled words. Equinox ◑ 15:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Oh, how this RfD does dwag on... Tharthan (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 13:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete per Mihia. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep, possible label it in someway or move to WT:RFVN. --幽霊四 (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Dewete. Weally. Sewiously. "A dwagon?" said the Prince as if he had never heard the word before. "A howwible dwagon? Me kill a dwagon? Widiculous!" And he pulled himself up to his full height in dignified disgust , while his skin-tight suit creaked and strained in ... Facts707 (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

umbrella body

SOP: see umbrella sense 3, "Something that covers a wide range of concepts, purposes, groups, etc." (also used in umbrella term and umbrella organisation, but I'm not going to RFD those). PUC 12:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 

• It sounds like a synonym of umbrella organisation, so it's a possible keep. DonnanZ (talk) 08:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 13:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. umbrella organisation can go too, it's as redundant. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete, just SOP and these terms are usually easily understood without referring to a dictionary. "An umbrella group for all Spanish-language newspapers..." Facts707 (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

provided that

I disagree that it's an alternative form of provided. The presence or absence of that is not a lexical feature but a grammatical one. PUC – 18:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that only if and as long as are mostly synonymous with provided:

•  You can ask questions here provided you have done your homework first.
•  You can ask questions here only if you have done your homework first.
•  You can ask questions here as long as you have done your homework first.

But they are not if the sentence uses provided together with that:

•  You can ask questions here provided that you have done your homework first.
• *You can ask questions here only if that you have done your homework first.
• *You can ask questions here as long as that you have done your homework first.

So this seems not to be just a grammatical feature. Personally, I feel the two ought to be swapped, with provided that as the main form, with synonyms, and the conjunction provided defined as an alternative, shortened form of provided that. We should have usage examples, though, with tmesis, as is possible in many multi-word expressions; that is, the components are separated by the insertion of one or more words, as in provided furthermore, that.  --Lambiam 12:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that this is a general grammatical feature, and nothing particularly to do with "provided". We don't have entries for assuming that, considering that or allowing that, though we do have one for given that. Hmm. Mihia (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 14:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. (That-dropping is common in English.) Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. As per Vox Sciurorum and others. "She said he could go" "She said that he could go". No one is going to look up "provided that". Facts707 (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

marine mammal

SOP. Has been RFD'ed and kept before, but I haven't seen any compelling argument from the keepers. The fact that polar bears are marine mammals might be surprising, but it has nothing to do with lexicology: it's a question of biology, ethology, ecology, what have you. There's Wikipedia for that. PUC – 17:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep again. DonnanZ (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
• The present definition is "A mammal, such as a whale, seal, sea cow or polar bear, which lives wholly or primarily in seawater." Strictly speaking, it is hard for me to see why this is anything more than "marine" + "mammal" along with a list of examples. Mihia (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article (and the inclusion of polar bears in the list) suggest that the definition is wrong, they don't need to leave in seawater, but they must rely on the sea/ocean ecosystem for survival. If we consider similar terms, say saltwater fish and farm animal, I would place marine mammal on the farm animal end of the spectrum. If it were, as you say, merely a mammal which lived in the sea then I would put it on the saltwater fish end. Unless Wikipedia is wrong, I would say fix definition and keep. - TheDaveRoss 13:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Isn't that just a part of the definition of "marine", though? I mean there are e.g. marine birds too, which may not live all the time "in seawater". So, even if the definition is adjusted along your lines, wouldn't it still be just as SoP? Mihia (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Based on our definitions of marine it is close to SOP, perhaps the right thing to do is clarify marine so that it clearly covers this sense. - TheDaveRoss 20:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

A slight complication is that the relevant sense of marine presently reads "(zoology) Inhabiting the high seas; oceanic; pelagic. (distinguished from maritime or littoral)", while maritime is defined as "Living near or in the sea". On this basis, possibly polar bears should technically be maritime and not marine animals, and indeed I have found some references to them as such. Unfortunately I do not have the technical knowledge to adjudicate on this, but, regardless, I do not believe that the word "marine" assumes any special meaning, be it loose or technical, in the term "marine mammal", beyond what we could and should explain at "marine", so Delete. Mihia (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I had updated marine a week ago, and I updated maritime today. -Mike (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete as SOP per updated def at marine. Ultimateria (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• In the previous RFD I voted keep but I am no longer certain given the definition that can cover "marine bird" along "marine mammal". What about a redirect? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep again. The problem is that our def is incorrect (and seems SOP), whereas the Wikipedia def is correct (and doesn't seem SOP). In the last iteration of this discussion I remember that pretty much no one could reliably state the set of mammals that should or shouldn't be classified as marine mammals, strongly indicating that it is not SOP. If it were SOP then it would be obvious. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I have edited the def to make it more specific as to which animals the term covers. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think this is any different from the issue surrounding aquatic animals. As User:Dunkleosteus77 says on the talk page for w:Aquatic mammal, "Is there a set definition or list of what constitutes an aquatic mammal? I get river dolphins and maybe even beavers as aquatic mammals, but I'm wondering if it would also include the fish-eating bat. Is it just any mammal that depends predominately on food from the water? Is it any mammal that lives primarily in the water?" Since this ambiguity seems to be present in the component parts, as with "aquatic animal/mammal", I say delete. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Under U.S. law (which need not reflect common use) as interpreted by the EPA[6]: The term “marine mammal” means any mammal that is morphologically adapted to the marine environment, including sea otters and members of the orders Sirenia (e.g., manatee, dugong), Pinnipedia (e.g., seal, sea lion), and Cetacea (e.g., dolphin, whale) or primarily inhabits the marine environment (e.g., polar bears, sea otters). Personally I think of a sea otter as a marine mammal but I do not think of a polar bear as a marine mammal. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 14:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep, more than just SOP as per Marine mammal. aquatic mammal and semi-aquatic mammal entries are not needed though, those entries cover them. Aquatic: whale, dolphin, sea otter. Semi-aquatic: river otter, beaver, etc. Facts707 (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2020

quarter of an hour

SOP. Ultimateria (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Yep, looks SoP. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete - TheDaveRoss 13:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Abstain: mildly useful as a translation target. PUC – 20:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep: quarter of an hour, quarter-hour at the Google Books Ngram Viewer. suggests this is much more common than the synonym quarter-hour, and it is in Lexico[7]. And the translations, if correct, are nothing like obvious; for Czech, it is čtvrt and it might fit for the Lexico sense 1.1, but for a period of time it is čtvrthodina. I would like to see in the entry an example sentence like the one in Lexico for their subsense 1.1. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep per Dan. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Delete, very SOP. Fay Freak (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Delete, as SOP. --幽霊四 (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Fay Freak, 幽霊四 What do you think of the THUB rationale for keeping the entry? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I wonder more why we don’t move to delete half an hour (half + accusativus mensurae) and half-hour too. We could create half a sandwich else. Fay Freak (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: Translations could be collected ad quarter-hour. If there are more quarter of * terms which are valid THUBs, then I might change to keep. --幽霊四 (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Fairly obvious keep, if only for the translations. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

An obvious keep, and synonym of quarter-hour. DonnanZ (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

quarter-hour can’t be kept if not quarter of an hour, as it is only a hyphenated compound and WT:COALMINE does not apply (?). And if quarter-hour has to be kept then quarter of an hour too as more idiomatic. Fay Freak (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

kicking tee

This is just a tee used for kicking. It is also not exclusive to rugby. Old Man Consequences (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Apart from the Wonderfool hallmark of no definition, it is an interesting variation of tee#Etymology 3, sense 2, that isn't covered there. I would keep the quote at least, and transfer it there. DonnanZ (talk) 09:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 14:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with DonnanZ. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete. I generalized the sense of tee#Etymology 3 and copied the quotation there. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Rather delete because of {{rfdef|en}} & SOP. --幽霊四 (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

May 2020

playing apparatus

DTLHS (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be anything other than playground equipment. DonnanZ (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

What is the issue? SOP? The term is used: [8], [9], [10].  --Lambiam 06:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I would call this a playset, but we seem to not have that definition listed. —Soap— 17:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

And so I have decided to add that definition, which I think is the more common term for what this is. I would even go so far as to say there's a difference between a playset, which is a unitary structure, and the often freestanding structures seen on large wide-open playgrounds ... e.g. a playground is often going to have a separate swingset, one or more slides, maybe some sand to play in, etc... but most people dont have 26 kids so they buy a single piece of equipment that combines all that into one (and saves space too). By contrast playing apparatus looks like it covers the broader sense of any furniture, typically outdoors, that children are able to play on. —Soap— 18:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Delete, sum of parts. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Delete, sum of parts as above. Not in wikipedia or any other dictionary. Google Books gives hundreds of different meanings, all context dependent. Facts707 (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

hic et ubique

Supposedly English. I don't think so. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Clearly not a noun (except in the rare sense “Royal Forester”^[11]), more an adverb. This expression sneaked into English discourse through a dialogue between Hamlet and the Ghost (Hamlet Act 1 Scene 5). The Bard may have lifted it from a prayer.^[12] While widely recognized as a Latin phrase, some Latin phrases are so entrenched that they are considered part of the English lexicon, such as ex post facto, pro tempore, and quod erat demonstrandum. Some citations of hic et ubique in English texts: [13], [14], [15]. Is this code-switching? The authors expect the reader to understand the phrase.  --Lambiam 17:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I think an argument can be made that it is indeed code switching. It hasn't replaced the native-English expression here and everywhere, neither authors nor speakesr use it as a drop-in replacement for that phrase, and indeed, this only persists in use in English-language contexts precisely because it's Latin. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 15:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 15:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep, maybe move to WT:RFVE (is it common, also used without italics etc.?). --幽霊四 (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete from English WT but keep as a Latin entry. Just because a foreign word/phrase is uttered in an English sentence doesn't mean its become part of the language. Répondez s'il vous plaît? Facts707 (talk) 02:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Jigglypuff

My concern about this entry is that it relies on an entirely in-universe definition and citations simply refer to this in-universe character. We do have Pikachu though, but I'd vote to delete it too. If we could have this entry, why don't we have Kirby, or Link, or heck, even Mario? I'm sure you could find similar citations for those. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Delete. You mention Kirby, Link, Mario... people are so short-sighted that they think only "their" toys count. When you think about it neutrally and take a step back, there have been millions of toys and game characters, not just the ones that are popular on YouTube etc. Many of them have been occasionally mentioned in a book without a whole lot of context. It's just out of scope; delete; Wikipedia has reams and reams of stuff about toys and characters. Equinox ◑ 14:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually a pet peeve of mine is that (America-centric) gamers think the history of video games was basically: Pong, Mario, Doom, [everything modern]. Equinox ◑ 23:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, a disclaimer: Pokémon are not "my toys". I have never played the Pokémon video game, although I have been exposed to the anime episodes which my 1988-born brother watched, videotaped, and rewatched incessantly. Khemehekis (talk) 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The above seems to ignore WT:FICTION, and rather provides arguments with no obvious bearing on CFI but rather seem to argue in favor of policy change, or maybe rather a policy override. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Delete: doubt that it satisfies WT:FICTION. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Delete, per Equinox. The simple discussion of this entry makes me drowsy. ;) Tharthan (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep per evidence in the entry. For instance, 'And when your body type is "Kirby" or "Jigglypuff", finding a style that is meant for your shape is next to impossible' does not seem to be in universe, nor does 'They sleep when you on the mic, you're fucking Jigglypuff'. It depends on what one means by "independent of reference to that universe" (WT:FICTION). And then things get lexicographically interesting when one notes French Rondoudou and German Pummeluff. For further calibration, one may look at Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion/Fictional_universes, where an example quotation supporting inclusion is e.g. "[...], was rapidly becoming the Darth Vader of Japanese baseball." --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

There's another thing: The criterion "independent of reference to that universe" seems to pertain to common nouns and such, not to proper names, although that is merely implicit in there being a sentence covering "names of persons or places from fictional universes", which uses a different criterion, namely "shall not be included unless they are used out of context in an attributive sense". --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

What on earth do you, @Dan Polansky:, think that "you're fucking Jigglypuff" means, without reference to a Pokémon? Shall we have an entry for "Bill Gates" because someone said I look like Bill Gates? Equinox ◑ 14:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Equinox: There sure is a reference to Pokémon, but is it "in universe reference" or, rather, is it true that "they are used out of context in an attributive sense"? I'd think the latter is true and relevant, and a distinction between "X is B" and "X looks like B" should be maintained and the "X is B" taken as a stronger attributive use of B where B is a proper name. And what does "was rapidly becoming the Darth Vader of Japanese baseball" mean without reference to Darth Vader, an example from that very policy? Bill Gates is not covered by WT:FICTION, but if he were, he would be inclusion worthy per the example given by the policy, via e.g. "Edison was the Bill Gates of his day." --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Note I am arguing in terms of policy, not in terms of general inclusion-worthiness driven by my taste. In disregard of CFI, I would say, "Jigglypuff" is a single word attested in use, has pronunciation and non-trivial translations => let's include it. It is lexicographically marginal but so are all the species names that can be included. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

If you think "is a single word attested in use, has pronunciation and non-trivial translations" is really on its own justification for inclusion in a proper dictionary, I'm just staggered. But I think whoever publishes Harry Potter, and hundreds of other kiddie books, might want a Czech translator. Equinox ◑ 15:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I do think that it is a justification for inclusion in a ridiculously inclusive dictionary. And a dictionary that includes all the place names that we do and will (all the village names if I get it right), all the two-word species names that are attested, all the names of chemicals, you name it, is a ridiculously inclusive dictionary. By the way, I would not really miss Jigglypuff, and I don't care about Pokémons; I miss Tolkien's Shelob, in Czech Odula. By another way, it is in the slogan: all words in all languages. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

From yet another angle, Wikipedia's article is about the Pokémon, Wiktionary's entry is about the word Jigglypuff: how do you pronounce it, etc. Is Jigglypuff fit for an encyclopedia proper? I don't really think so, but the thing is, Wikipedia is ridiculously inclusive, covering all manner of popular culture that many would consider unfit for a serious encyclopedia. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

If having a pronunciation is enough then we should include every commercial trade name? pls Gooby... Equinox ◑ 20:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

If you see that it's ridiculous then you should be arguing against that ridiculousness because being ridiculous is inherently a bad thing for a reference work. If you just wanna say "well we're shit, so let's dump another ton of shit on top" then umm. Equinox ◑ 20:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I did not say having a pronunciation is enough; I required attestation, which requires three independent uses, and I mentioned translations. That is a much stronger filter. I would admit that making even stronger filter is up to a meaningul discussion, but what I reject is the idea that if something stems from popular culture, it should therefore be excluded.

I have spent a lot of effort to make Wiktionary better, and I do not want to make it "shit". Let it be accurate, let it provide very extensive coverage of terms but only in so far as existence can be verified and let it dispense with genuine cruft such as certain absurd image captions and absurd quotation identifications. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep: What does Scheherazade mean without reference to 1001 Nights? The entry seems to pass WT:CFI.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

After reading the quotations, there may be some value in keeping a definition that boils down to “Someone/something that is similar to the Pokemon Jigglypuff in some way” (with the actual definition detailing the properties that may be shared between the refernt and the fictional creature). We have similar situations in Nazgul (the first def; the second is a different deal) and сталкер (stalker) (the second def).

Out of the current citations, the only ones I find convincing for such a definition are 2007 and 2015. As for the definition as it currently stands, delete as it doesn’t pass WT:FICTION IMO. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I should point out that the 2016 cote (the rap lyrics) fits this criterion too. According to this page, "Jigglypuff linen" means that the linen in the van is ponk, the color of Jigglypuff. Khemehekis (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

WT:FICTION does not say anything about definitions, only about names. The name has to be used in an "attributive sense", but CFI does not say that such a sense should be put on the definition line. Indeed, I find a practice where the proper-noun definition is replaced with some kind of invented common-noun definition unwise and not based on the practice of other dictionaries concerning fictional entities. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep: various uses that aren't in-universe. (@Dan Polansky, Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV: and I added some more) Being a reference to the Pokémon universe doesn't disqualify it IMHO, you're not going to remove all the generic trademarks either. Alexis Jazz (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

As the creator of this entry, I'm going to !vote strong keep. It meets WP:FICTION, as none of the cites except the "swelled in size" one give any indication to those who don't already know it that Jigglypuff is from the Pokémon universe. They would have to look it up. Also, it's important to note that the word "Jigglypuff" in English (and "Purin" in Japanese) refers to both the famous anime character and an entire species of Pokémon, a species with possibly millions of individuals on Earth (or whatever planet the Pokémon universe is set on). So it's not just a proper name.

Why does this matter? We aren't Bulbapedia. Moreover, we aren't Wikipedia. Why is WP:FICTION relevant? This is a dictionary. Tharthan (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

At first I read this and thought, "How is it not relevant?" But then I saw Chuck Entz' comment below. Chuck Entz is correct: I meant WT:FICTION. Khemehekis (talk) 22:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Also: why not have Kirby, Link, or Mario? As for character names in general . . . two-part names identifiable with a human ethnicity (like Harry Potter, which is an English first name combined with an English surname) need to be used figuratively, for the same reason we can't have a Walt Disney entry (until someone finds the perfect three cites at least), but we have lots of one-word person's names, like Confucius, Aristophanes, or even the Biebs or the Trumpster. Jigglypuff, even when referring to the character rather than the species, is one-word. Khemehekis (talk) 06:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep. Passes WT:FICTION. The cites demonstrate that this is used figuratively to refer to things with Jigglypuff-like attributes, i.e. rotund, pink, sleep-inducing. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Doesn't seem to pass FICTION to me, at least from the current cites. I don't see the lexicographic argument here at all. Ƿidsiþ 10:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I get the sneaking suspicion, as Equinox seemed to also suggest in his "Delete" vote, that a lot of the people (though not all) demanding that this be kept are really just saying "I want my preferred beloved character to have an entry in this dictionary!" Listen, I'm a long time POKéMON aficionado myself. Played all main series games (aside from "Let's Go, Pikachu!" and "Let's Go, Eevee!‎") from Generation I up through Sword & Shield. But "Jigglypuff" simply is not entry-worthy here on Wiktionary. I mean, people are bringing up WP:FICTION despite this being Wiktionary, even! Come now, let us cease this silliness. Tharthan (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Quite the contrary -- it seems to me that the people !voting "keep" are making arguments based on Wiktionary policy -- it meets WT:FICTION (for which "WP:FICTION" was a thinko). Conversely, most of the deletors are making arguments based on things extrinsic to Wiktionary policy (and, as I mentioned above, words like Jigglypuff and Pikachu refer to both individual characters and species, like naming your cat Cat). It's like the extremists among Wikipedia's deletionists who, deep down inside, really want to delete articles on as many pop culture topics as possible because they hold a grudging conceit that topics that aren't traditional encyclopedic sobjects don't belong in an encyclopedia (they would get them all deleted if they had their way, but Wikipedia has a "Wiktionary is not paper" point at WP:NOT, to which this attitude runs contrary). Similarly, would you find Pokémon-related words in a traditional dictionary? No, but Wiktionary isn't paper. We have neologisms (though not protologisms), hotwords, obscure slang, misspellings, proper names, place names (including minor villages), specialized jargon that wouldn't make the cut for Merriam-Webster unabridged or the OED because they're paper, transient slang, and even brand names and terms from fictional universes, and we have policies like "3 durably archived uses from 3 different sources spanning over a year", WT:FICTION, and WT:BRAND to guide this otherwise radical inclusionism. Khemehekis (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I see, so if someone wants to delete an entry that has your pet pop-culture character (which is naturally out of scope for Wiktionary) they are an "extremist". Good to know. Also, I notice that you keep confusing Wikipedia and Wiktionary in your comments. ("WP:FICTION, "Wiktionary is not paper") Need I remind you that these are separate projects? Something that might fly at Wikipedia might not fly here on Wiktionary, and vice versa. And something might be worthy of a Wikipedia article covering its subject, but not be worthy of a Wiktionary entry.

Hotwords, if I recall, get deleted if they don't end up eventually getting citations that extend beyond one year. Neologisms are something that most dictionaries these days have. I fail to see what is special about us having entries for... 'obscure slang', as you put it. The Misspelling entries are there to redirect people to the correct spellings. Place names are in no way comparable to arbitrary entries on this or that POKéMON. As with "obscure slang", specialised jargon doesn't seem particularly out of place. I'm not sure why you are mentioning it. Tharthan (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

As for I see, so if someone wants to delete an entry that has your pet pop-culture character (which is naturally out of scope for Wiktionary) they are an "extremist". Good to know., you misread my comment. I was stating there is an underlying similarity between Wiktionarians who argue for deleting Jigglypuff because it's "just out of scope" and the extremists among Wikipedia's deletionists (the people who want to delete pop culture articles from Wikipedia, not Wiktionary, BTW). Not everyone who wants to delete an article is an extremist; the extremists are the people at the extreme end of the deletionist spectrum who, if they had their way, would delete all articles that aren't traditional encyclopedia topics from Wikipedia, including Pikachu, Britney Spears, and Traci Lords. They are out there. Luckily for the rest of us, those attitudes will hold no sway in an AfD, because Wikipedia has notability guidelines in addition to other policies, including "Wikipedia is not paper".

As for "(which is naturally out of scope for Wiktionary)", we have the page Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion, which spells out what is in scope and what is out of scope. Tthe citations for Jigglypuff clearly confirm it as meeting CFI, specifically the Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Fictional_universes section, so what the "just out of scope" people are really saying is, "It seems weird to have this because it's not the kind of word someone would normally expect to find in a dictionary". WT:FICTION does state that characters in fiction should only be included if their names are used figuratively (like using "a Pippi Longstocking" to refer generically to any lass with red hair and freckles, or calling a real-life person who scales buildings a Spider-man), but, as I have mentioned before, the Pokémon species words refer to both species of Pokémon and individual characters belonging to that species. There's only one Mario, but Pikachu can mean either the electric rodent Pokémon #25 or Ash Ketchum's Pikachu. As a result, we have an A Dog Named Dog trope. The appropriate analogy here would be entries like Klingon, Dalek, and Wookiee. Ash Ketchum or Zippo (the individual Charmander in Pokémon) would not belong here unless people started speaking figuratively of "Ash Ketchums", but Pikachu, Jigglypuff, and Squirtle (the only three WT:FICTION-compliant Pokémon species I've found so far) do. And yes, there are only three (as of now, before someone starts a slippery-slope argument about "Do we really want to include all 800+ Pokémon species?") It's about Wiktionary policy, not about whether someone just must have their favorite pop-culture character in here. Personally, I think Omanyte is an awesome Pokémon species, but I wouldn't dream of creating an Omanyte entry today, because there just aren't any citations around that meet WT:FICTION.

The underlying similarity in question is that both the "just out of scope" deletors here and the extremist deletionists on Wikipedia is the "not traditional encyclopedic/lexicographic material -> doesn't belong in Wikipedia/Wiktionary" reasoning. Of course, the people who disagree with the inclusiveness of Wiktionary inclusion policy might dominate with their numbers, and then we could have a jury nullification, so to speak, and see "Jigglypuff" deleted.

Wiktionary includes lots of types of words that would never appear in your average paper dictionary: Twitler, Goracle, pedosaur, Poochie-fication, esquilax, Arianator, Belieberism, conperson, aatheist, Aspieness, Crohnie, /b/tard, lulzfag, Caturday, Schmucksville, chocogasm, Pippi Longstocking, carebear, ghost piece, FemShep, Eeveelution, Torygraph, purrfect, Boraga, Ceqli, wonderfool, or even Juventus. On the other hand, Wiktionary agreed to delete icup because it failed to meet the pillar of meaningful use, and even xesturgy, since it was a dictionary-only word. George W. Bush doesn't belong in Wiktionary either, since it's a firstname-lastname combo.

Yes, it's true that Wikipedia and Wiktionary have different policies. Usenet is considered a reliable source for Wiktionary attestation purposes, but not for Wikipedia purposes. On the other hand, everyone agrees that Angela Merkel deserves a Wikipedia entry, but she wouldn't be eligible for Wiktionary. Fictional species like Pikachu (which you have voted to keep before, BTW) are potentially eligible for both projects. And by the way, "Wiktionary is not paper" is an official Wiktionary policy: see Wiktionary:What Wiktionary is not.

Yes, hotwords get deleted if they don't last a year, but most dictionaries won't include hotwords at all, since those dictionaries are paper (although Merriam-Webster made an exception for COVID-19 and related words this year). The OED normally waits seven years after the first use of a word to include it. As for place names, I'm not saying they're comparable to Pokémon, I'm just mentioning the names of small towns as an example of something Wiktionary would have but paper dictionaries would not. As for obscure slang and jargon, Merriam-Webster has a policy requiring words to be used across many kinds of texts in order to be included. It has a "Words we're watching" feature, but even then it acknowledges that those words do not meet the Merriam-Webster criteria for inclusion -- yet. You won't find conworld, stim, nor oligosynthetic even in Merriam Webster's Unabridged. Even words as familiar as Nigerian scam and basement-dweller are missing. Khemehekis (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, it looks like the reference to WP:FICTION is an error for WT:FICTION: the "WP:" prefix only works at Wikipedia, and w:WP:FICTION is about notability, while the argument here is about fictional universes. That said, it's important to keep straight the difference between referring to the fictional universe without explicitly mentioning it vs. being independent of the fictional universe. If, hypothetically, a professional wrestler took the name Sauron because they claimed to be the "Lord of the Ring", that would be an in-universe reference- one wouldn't know that there was a connection between the terms "Sauron" and "Lord of the Ring" without knowledge of Middle Earth. On the other hand, calling someone Sauron to say that they're a master of evil might not be an in-universe reference at all. It all revolves around whether Jigglypuff in these quotes is an abstract epitome of certain characteristics or a Pokémon character being alluded to because it's known to have those characteristics. It's often hard to tell, but the distinction goes to the core of WT:FICTION. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 15:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. J3133 (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Ugh, 'weak keep, mainly per Dan and Khemehekis; though the citations of Jigglypuff are more "independent of reference to that universe" than could be said for Pichu, I agree that this becomes a blurry distinction here. I agree with Dan that a proper noun definition would be more appropriate. I must admit I'm somewhat swayed by the nontrivial translations, although the translation target criterion of course cannot apply here. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 10:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. (2015 quote with quotation marks and 2018 quote as "Jigglypuff from the Pokémon series" aren't good though.) --幽霊四 (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Well, with all the citations WordyAndNerdy has added, it looks as if we've got a completely universe-independent definition and ample evidence that Jigglypuff has entered cultural canon of the Anglophone world. Have a look at the citation page! I don't think anyone would want to delete it now. Khemehekis (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Weak keep - while I love the little guy, I'm not totally sure her/his name has entered the English language outside of the Pokemon community. I have to admit some of those citations are convincing, although others mention Pokemon or things from Pokemon such as Aprijuice. Cheers! Facts707 (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

stroke it

It's just stroke + the implied it meaning penis (or I guess clitoris maybe). I might add a subdefinition under def #1 at stroke, but I think it's adequately covered there. We also certainly don't need two definitions that mean the same thing, so it's a double-whammy. Twice the deletion for your buck. 76.100.241.89

I agree with you, but if we delete this, how would we handle the entry at Thesaurus:masturbate? Can we pipe the link to just stroke while it still appears as "stroke it"? I wouldnt want to leave a redlink in the thesaurus even if the meaning is redundant. —Soap— 17:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it can just list stroke as a synonym. It can be used that way without it, e.g. here. That means the same thing as "he masturbated himself". 76.100.241.89

Okay. What about jack it, then? The definition is identical to this one, but is it worth keeping because its meaning can't be easily pieced out just from knowing the meaning of jack? —Soap— 00:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm undecided about jack it. As a verb jack can have the same meaning (he jacked his cock) but it is much rarer IMHO, and is just a shortening of jack off, whereas stroke is a verb whose primary definition can be applied directly to masturbating. 76.100.241.89

Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Delete as above (and jack it too). -Mike (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep, per the lemming principle. Merriam-Webster's Unabridged lists this as a separate entry. Khemehekis (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 16:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. J3133 (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Keep per Khemehekis. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - SOP and meaning is context dependent. Whack it. Nail it. Stuff it in a catcher's mitt. What makes your cat purr? When I stroke it. Facts707 (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

bounce off

One of the senses just means bounce + off. 76.100.241.89

Delete or change to &lit as we sometimes do, if people really feel the need. Equinox ◑ 18:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Unchallenged sense 3 also seems like SoP, if bounce can mean to move or flounce in a certain manner, which I suppose it could. The off just implies motion away: you can storm off, wander off, ramble off. Equinox ◑ 18:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Equinox's idea for sense 2 is okayish, but I don't see much point in altering it. The usex should be kept at least. All the usexes are useful.

Sense 3 seems like a figurative sense - a bouncing motion without actually bouncing. DonnanZ (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Delete sense 2, "To come off something with a bounce", but retain the example "The ball bounced off the wall" under an "&lit" line. Per Equinox, Sense 3, "To move away with a bouncing movement: She bounced off out of the room", also seems suspiciously SoP under e.g. sense 5 of bounce: "To leap or spring suddenly or unceremoniously; to bound: She bounced happily into the room." Yes, maybe it is figurative, but figurative of "bounce" rather than specifically "bounce off", I would say. Mihia (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. We also have some more idiomatic uses, so the usual protocol would be to keep the idiomatic defs and turn the SOP definition into Other than as idiom: See bounce; off. Khemehekis (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Make sense "literally" bounce off as per Khemehekis, Equinox, et al - no one is disputing the idiomatic sense of "bouncing" ideas "off" someone. But once we do that we have to include all other, "literal" senses. "Traders expect the Dow to bounce off its lows by the end of the week." "The President's insults just bounced off her without much notice." I wouldn't want to second-guess all the senses so I would highly recommend bounce off. Facts707 (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Dog (2)

RFD sense:

A nickname for a person, especially a tough man

1994, Larry Woody, A Dixie Farewell: The Life and Death of Chucky Mullins

Brewer, whose coaching nickname is "Dog," recognized that same stubborn, dogged determination in Mullins.

Initially I listed this at RFV, but I have now moved it here as I can't think of a verification that would persuade me that this is a dictionary-worthy item. Nicknames for people are a totally open-ended class, where practically anything might be citable somewhere as a nickname given to someone due to some association. Mihia (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Verbs, nouns, adjectives, and manner adverbs are also open sets. You have not provided a rationale for deletion per CFI. DCDuring (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not concerned at this stage about whether a relevant rationale for deletion presently exists in the CFI. If people think that we should exclude these kinds of entries, we can try to formulate something for the CFI in due course. Mihia (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Is this an attempt at CFI override for this term? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

As for RFV, 'whose coaching nickname is "Dog,"' is a mention and does not contribute toward attestation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I think "override" is a misnomer. If there is no provision for such cases in the CFI, then there's nothing to override, is there? PUC – 08:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

This case is covered by CFI's general rule "This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of including a term if it is attested and, when that is met, if it is a single word or it is idiomatic". CFI further contains more specific rules that add exclusion beyond the general rule, but none seem to apply. Going by CFI alone (which does have a general rule covering basically everything), the nominated sense would be kept. A proposal to delete the sense anyway is therefore a CFI override. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, ok. Tells you how much I know about the CFI. PUC – 10:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The most recent keeper for a human nickname that I know of is at Talk:Zizou; Talk:J-Lo passed in 2016. A generic nickname is e.g. in entry Crouchy, "A nickname for somebody with the surname Crouch." We may delete some nicknames (contrary to CFI), but we need to get at least a vague idea by which criteria we pick them; maybe nicknames that are just capitalizations of common nouns would be more liable to deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

And even if we disregard CFI, how can "are a totally open-ended class" be anything like a rationale for deletion? Like DCDuring said, there are all manners of attested open-ended sets of terms. Like, any adjective can have -ness attached in principle, so the set of -ness nouns is open-ended, so let's drop -ness nouns? Any person surname can have -ian attached in principle, so let's drop -ian nouns? What kind of sense does that argument, so often repeated recently, make? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

In this particular case, I believe that "open-ended" certainly IS a good rationale. No doubt some people are nicknamed "Peanut" or "Spanner", or "Big Bo" or "Bog Roll" or almost anything you can think of. In my view it is not the job of a dictionary to list every possible example of a nickname that can be found attested. "Standard" nicknames, yes, I would support. For example, I would support keeping Lofty. Personally I think that Dog is insufficiently "standard", but I am not absolutely adamant about this point, and if the consensus is otherwise then I would accept that as a reason to keep. Mihia (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

A rationale cannot be good in a particular case; to the contrary, the validity or viability of a rationale as a working principle is tested by trying to apply it to as broad range of cases as possible and see where it breaks down. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't agree at all. A rationale can be valid in one case but not apply to another. Mihia (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

A rationale for a particular case C is a statement of principle P such that P applies to C. P may apply to case C but not apply to case D; so far we agree. But my point is that principle P can only be accepted as part of a valid rationale if its application to a large range of cases fails to produce problems, or falsifiers of principle P. The general validity of principle P cannot be tested on a single case; it has to be tested on the whole universe of cases to which it could be applied. The principle implied--and please provide a different principle that you have in mind--is that "Any term that is part of an open-ended set of terms should be excluded". That is an obviously untenable principle. Maybe you have a different principle in mind, but I do not know what that principle says. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not talking about a "general principle". I am talking about why we should not include every nickname that we can find attested, because it would get ridiculous. I am talking about the need to somehow narrow down the inclusions so that we can include only "standard" nicknames, however this can be best arranged. I honestly do not understand why this concept is so hard to grasp, even if someone should happen to disagree with it. Mihia (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Tentatively, perhaps what we are grasping at is the idea that if a potential sense of an entry could apply to a very large number, if not all, entries, then that may not be worth including. One example is "a mention of the word the" in the entry the, which we have discussed before (e.g., "There is one the in this sentence"). Another might be the matter under discussion now, as senses like "a name given to a pet" or "a nickname for a person" could apply to many, many nouns or adjectives, and perhaps are to be distinguished from more "name-like" names like Fido or Monty. Perhaps for this reason names need to be given special treatment. Just off the top of my head; please help to refine the thought. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

So if sense line "first name" applies to a very large number of terms, these terms should be excluded? Or if sense line "English surname" applies to a very large number of terms, these terms should be excluded? (The mention thing above does not seem to work anyway: a mention of a term does not invoke the semantics of the term, and therefore, e.g. the word "the" does not have any sense "the word 'the'".) --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Initially, I thought the comparison above (to defining any X as "an occurrence of the word X") was suspect because this seems like a much smaller class, but I concede that I can see how it's fairly open-ended; one could nickname a person who habitually wheezes Wheeze, nickname a (former) car mechanic Motor Oil, nickname someone with glasses Four-Eyes, nickname a proponent of hydroxychloroquine Hydroxychloroquine or Mr. Hydroxychloroquine, etc, etc, and at least in non-durable media I can find nearly all of these. And in cases (unlike Fido, but like wheeze, four-eyes, etc) where the lowercase term exists to explain the basic semantic meaning, it does not strike me as worthwhile or valuable for a dictionary to treat the capitalized form as a lexical item meaning "A nickname." in all cases. So I am weakly inclined to delete. But I would prefer if we could come up with a rule, about what nicknames we want to include and what we don't. - -sche (discuss) 20:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@-sche: would it be too broad to say that in general an ordinary adverb, adjective, common noun, or verb should not be defined as a nickname? If so, what exceptions (if any) to this rule are desirable? — SGconlaw (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Grace is a given name based on noun grace; there is Faith, Hope and Charity. Should given names be given a license different from nicknames? And, assuming for the sake of analysis that the dubious argument via open-endedness is accepted, how open-ended really are the WT:ATTEST-compliant nicknames created by capitalizing a noun? What are some ten attested examples of such nicknames, attested in sources that meet the WT:ATTEST requirements? And isn't there a generic rule creating open-ended set of nicknames like J-Lo, K-Stew, Scar-Jo, Sam-Cam, Li-Lo, Le-Le, Ri-Ri, Su-Bo, A-Rod, K-Rod, and R-Pattz? --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I think nicknames like J-Lo, etc., are not problematic because they are not ordinary adverbs, adjectives, common nouns, or verbs. But it's true that names like Grace create an issue. Your preference would be to allow any nickname that passes our general WT:ATTEST rule? — SGconlaw (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I guess that would be my preference unless someone presents a good rationale for doing otherwise and thus for overriding CFI. How large is the set of capitalized-noun nicknames meeting WT:ATTEST, approximately, and what are some ten examples, or at least five examples? --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Literally anything can be a nickname for someone. Ƿidsiþ 10:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Delete. My son's basketball coach's name is "Big Dog". Big whoop. Facts707 (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

June 2020

-load

I doubt that this is a genuine suffix. And Category:English words suffixed with -load has a small population. DonnanZ (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The paucity of entries in that category is explained by most potential entries being analyzed using {{compound}} rather than {{suffix}}, such as arkload, armload, assload, autoload, bagload, barrowload, bellyload, binload, boatload, bootload, boxload, busload, buttload, coachload, containerload, crateload, horseload, jetload, lorryload, muleload, planeload, raftload, sackload, shipload, sledload, tankerload, tonload, trailerload, trainload, tramload, trunkload, and vanload. Perhaps an argument can be made that -load is not a genuine suffix, but I think the size of the current population is not a strong one.  --Lambiam 12:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Derived terms for load are a bit of a mess at present, there are two sections for nouns, including Category:English words derived from: load (noun) which is somewhat non-standard (like this "suffix"). Some terms appear both as suffixes and normal derived terms. being listed twice. Not all terms are single-word compounds either, like axle load and unit load. We need some consistency. DonnanZ (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I have put the two noun sections under one heading, but there's still some work to do. DonnanZ (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

In axle load, the meaning is “load on the axle”; this is a standard compound noun, used in such contexts as “the axle load should not exceed 10,000 kgf”. In the cases where the first component is a container, the meaning is ”the amount that fits in such a container”, and the typical use is “a <container>load of ...”. In this use, -load is a synonym of -ful.  --Lambiam 15:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Your comparison of load compounds with those using the genuine suffix -ful fails to take into account that -ful can't be used on its own, unlike load; for example vanful - "a vanful of merchandise" can only be split as "a van full of merchandise". Whereas a word like carload is a load in a car, whether it is a motorcar or a railroad car. But there are other terms like shitload, which I know you edited, doesn't mean "a load of shit", but must still derive from shit +‎ load. DonnanZ (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Not all words ending on -load can be analyzed the same way, but there is a clear commonality among those in which the first component is a container. This appears to be somewhat productive. For example, although Wiktionary does not have an entry for barrelload, this term can, non-surprisingly, be attested: [16], [17], [18]. The meaning of such compounds is also predictable; if you know the meaning of urn, you know what is meant here by the term urnload. Productivity plus a fixed meaning are IMO enough to establish suffix status.  --Lambiam 11:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The only dictionary evidence I have found to support your theory is in Cambridge, which is not overwhelming support for a suffix, and hardly enough. No suffix is recognised by Oxford. In fact Oxford prefers to create two words: ‘Approximately 120 bags and 10 trailer loads of rubbish were collected and removed by Waterford Co Council.’, ‘The biotechnology company has, through a number of well-timed share placements, bucket loads of money.’ and more. So Cambridge's support for a suffix should probably be ignored. DonnanZ (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The Oxford usage examples appear at load, they also have bucketload and many more compounds of load, but no entry for trailerload. DonnanZ (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete: I see no evidence that this is a suffix rather than a compound element load, I see no books referring to a or the google books:"suffix -load" or to the use of google books:"load as a suffix". Whereas, the ability to split the compounds ("a car load", etc) suggests they are indeed compounds with load, not uses of a suffix. - -sche (discuss) 19:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep. Mark as colloquial. - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 16:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

-way

"Used in the game of Pig Latin. "please be quiet or I'll cry" becomes "ease-play e-bay iet-quay or-way I'll-way y-cray""

This is not a great entry. Firstly it doesn't explain how, why or where the suffix is used (it should explain that it attaches to certain vowels, or whatever). Secondly, this isn't an actual suffix, really, is it? It's just a sound or noise. It has no meaning and no connection to the grammar/part of speech of the thing it attaches to. Equinox ◑ 00:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Strangely enough, there is a suffix, but not for this. DonnanZ (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep. "doesn't explain": Is a matter for WT:RFC. "actual suffix": en.wt uses linguistic terms very loosely (e.g. "derived terms" not only for derivates but also for compounds, or suffix for terms others called neoklassisches Formativ n (rare)). --幽霊四 (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete. A game of Pig Latin does not an English suffix make. Hit-way the highway-way. Facts707 (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

be prepared

This is the second nomination, for the motto, and the first nomination for the euphemistic sense. Both senses should be deleted IMO.

Motto

The entry was apparently kept as a translation hub. I don't see how this is a good entry for that. This isn't a phrase that has lexical significance; it's just a motto. There are lots of other mottos in existence, even some that are quite well known, that probably don't literally match the equivalents in other languages. The same can be said for slogans. We don't want an entry for I'm lovin' it (McDonald's slogan in the US) for example, because I guarantee you advertisements for McDonald's in other places use a slogan that technically translates to something different. The motto wouldn't be any more lexically significant in any other language, just for being the Scout motto, than it is in English.

Popularity or historical significance is not equivalent to whether or not something is meant for a dictionary. This is why we don't have entries for Christopher Columbus, Nintendo Entertainment System, Windows XP, or similar. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Euphemism

Definition given: "(euphemistic) To be prepared for a sexual encounter by carrying or possessing condoms or other means for preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease."

It literally has the term itself in its own definition, which already isn't a good sign. Beyond just that quick observation, there are tons of euphemistic shortenings of sexual phrases that are this generic. One example is "let it out" in reference to ejaculation, but we don't see that sense at let out (since you might as well say "let out the cum"). You could just as easily say "let it out" and refer to something completely different, like "let the puke out of your mouth" or "let the dog (which the speaker omits the gender of previously with 'it') out of the house."

As for "be prepared" itself, you might be prepared for a sexual encounter also by boosting your confidence, exercising beforehand, making sure you were actually excited at the time, etc. There are a million things someone might do to prepare themselves for the act of sex, or literally for anything else, while I don't see this particular thing defined to be lexically significant over any of them. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Does it require "be" anyway? What about "he seemed prepared" etc.? Equinox ◑ 19:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Or “he came prepared” (no pun intended).  --Lambiam 18:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. Integrate into the phrasebook project. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 16:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete. PUC – 15:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. The motto certainly has a meaning that cannot be expressed with or substituted by its synonym, as it's a set phrase in this particular form. (If not in English, then in some of its translations, such as in Hungarian, which is why it's a translation hub.) Adam78 (talk) 12:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Motto: Translations look like SOP too, e.g. légy résen (“be on alert”). euphemism: Just being prepared in a certain context. Delete - or "phrasebook project". --幽霊四 (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete SOP and context dependent. "Be prepared" said the fire chief. "Be prepared" said the math teacher. "Be on the lookout" "Be aware" "Be safe" "Be kind to animals" Facts707 (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

go deep

"To be a remarkable characteristic of a person or thing. Our students' sense of pride in the school goes very deep." That is not at all my understanding of what go deep means. If the school is a fine, noble institution then there is nothing remarkable about the students being proud of it. The "depth" refers to how much they like it: it's something like saying their pride is genuine and ingrained — not shallow or superficial — i.e. just what deep normally means. (Note run deep may also need attention since it just links to this entry.) Equinox ◑ 21:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete per nom. DCDuring (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete; the def is wrong and it's just go + deep, per nom. Negative characteristics can also "go deep", like "racism at the school goes deep", google books:"racism goes deep", etc. - -sche (discuss) 19:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment. Which of our senses of go covers this? What other phrases of the form "go + adj." use "go" in the same way? Mihia (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

go unnoticed, go unreported? I can't think of any examples that aren't of the form go un- + past participle. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Is that really the same sense? To me, "go" in "go unnoticed/unreported" means something like "pass" (approximately), while in "go deep" it is more like "penetrate" (approximately). Mihia (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I suppose it is, or is something akin to, the "extend" sense (which has a quote "I don't know that this knowledge goes very deep for them", among others). On Google Books, I also see e.g. "goes down to the bone" ("beauty is skin-deep, but ugly goes down to the bone", "if you hate him, that kind of hatred goes down to the bone", "a sadness that [...] goes down to the bone", "your slick[ness] goes down to the bone", "this story goes deep, goes down to the bone"). I'm trying to think of other synonyms... - -sche (discuss) 16:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

This makes me think of go back a long way. PUC – 12:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. Sort out the definitions carefully and add examples. Add run deep as a synonym. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 16:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. The definition certainly needs rephrasing, but I can find it in several dictionaries (Cambridge, Collins, Macmillan) as a synonym of run deep (WT:LEMMING). Also, I don't think it is adequately covered by any of the more general senses of go so its meaning might not be transparent to language learners. – Einstein2 (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - my only "keep" today. It's slang in American and Canadian football for "Run very far down the field and then turn around and I'll throw you the football". Known outside of gridiron football too. Pick-up basketball: "Go deep!". Facts707 (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Chinese virus

The definition has been neutered to the extent that it is NiSoP. ("Any of various viruses originating, identified, or causing outbreaks in China") DCDuring (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. This phrase has been used to refer to a variety of viruses since 1895. The current (2020) political controversy about the phrase does not make it dictionary material. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

An older definition "COVID-19", removed out of process, was not SoP. I'm sure that we could get quite a few citations for this in this hot-word sense, with the definite determiner the. Whether it will live more than one year is an empirical question. DCDuring (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that 2020 uses of "the Chinese virus" to refer to COVID-19 are SOP, just as much as older uses referring to other viruses. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Accordingly, I have added an RFD tag to the other sense too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@DCDuring You've accused me of removing the COVID-19 sense out of process. I'm sorry if I gave that impression, which was not intended—as I indicated in my edit summary, I was trying to broaden the definition to more completely capture how the phrase is used. It seems to me that use of the Chinese virus to describe "COVID-19" is just an instance of the broader "virus originating in China" sense. Is there any reason to think it isn't? (You or I may approve or disapprove of the use of this phrase, but that doesn't make it idiomatic.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The generalization to the point of SoPitude led to my RfD which you support. It looks like a two-step deletion of an entry you don't like, that would have been under color of a legitimate process. But the COVID-19 sense is distinct, though obviously derived from the SoP term. If we can't handle politically controversial material we should get out of the business of providing definitions for novel terms in living languages. DCDuring (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that usage describing COVID-19 represents a distinct sense rather than the general sense? —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I have observed that I and people I talk to tend to say "[the] coronavirus" instead of the several other names. We all know which of the many coronaviruses is meant. "Chinese virus" works the same way in my opinion. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

As I pointed out in the coronavirus RFD discussion (now at Talk:coronavirus), there are uses of coronavirus that cannot be explained by the general sense, so the specific sense is needed. Do uses exist for Chinese virus that cannot be explained by the general sense? I don't think I've seen any. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Sense 2 says "(politics) COVID-19". What is that trying to say? That this word is specifically used, in a technical sense, among politicians generally, to refer to COVID-19? Yeah? I thought it was just Trump. Equinox ◑ 04:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

It certainly isn't just Trump. Users includes his minions and allies. DCDuring (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Users include conservatives. Does anybody really know what the man on the street says? (Or would say if he were allowed on the street?) Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete for now. Far more generic than Wuhan virus, which I would keep if it is still used next year. If kept, rewrite the definition of the COVID-19 sense and delete the Wikipedia link related to Donald Trump. Perhaps change the definition to Synonym of Wuhan virus because it has exactly the same meaning and essentially the same connotations. And while we're on the subject, what do people think about the recent addition of "derogatory" to Wuhan virus? Most people dislike the virus and any name could be derogatory. I think the usage note explains sufficiently the fact that use of the term may suggest a political affiliation (for better or worse) and I would delete the new label. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

What CFI rationale for deletion? Reasons for deletion do not include "inaccuracy", controversy, or use by unpopular political figures or their followers.

Usually {{synonym of}} directs a user to the most common term for the referent, which, in this case, is COVID-19.

Perhaps we should include a derogatory label on Spanish flu, French disease, Ebolavirus, Rocky Mountain fever, etc., too. DCDuring (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the PERSON on the street says COVID, half as many syllables as COVID-19, not readily mistaken for any other topic such person might discuss. DCDuring (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete as sum of parts. If kept because its meaning has narrowed, then what it's a synonym of depends on what you think the template means. Stripped of connotations, it does mean COVID-19 or SARS 2. (I drop -CoV- in speech.) In a discussion in the Beer Parlour (last of May, 2020) editors thought a synonym meant you could freely substitute one word for the other. Some people use choice of word as a means of signaling their tribal affiliation. You could almost swap Chinese virus and Wuhan virus, but you couldn't swap Chinese virus and COVID-19 because in certain circles one is offensive and the other is not. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Other reasons you can't swap Chinese virus and COVID-19: the phrase Chinese virus is also used to refer to other viruses/viral diseases, and COVID-19 is a proper noun (doesn't take a/the). As I said above, use of the Chinese virus to describe COVID-19 appears to be an instance of the SOP sense (roughly "any virus originating or identified in China"). If anyone can provide evidence to the contrary, that would be great. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

You can swap 'the Chinese virus' and 'COVID-19' as for semantics since 1) semantics and synonymy does not care about whether something is offensive, and 2) the definite article in the phrase lets the context help pick which of the multiple candidate viruses is meant. (I am not sure how much what I said is relevant to keeping or deleting; it is relevant to things said in this discussion.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I rewrote the COVID-19 sense and made it not so much about Trump, although the quotation I picked does have a headline about Trump. I also added a transitional form from an AP News story before "Chinese virus" disappeared from mainstream reporting outside of quotations. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete the "any virus from China" definition as SoP, keep the COVID-19 definition (not SoP because people use the phrase to mean specifically COVID-19 and are excluding, say, the 2003 SARS outbreak even though that was also a Chinese virus). Khemehekis (talk) 06:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

This phrase has been used for SARS, actually: "the dreaded new Chinese virus has gone desi with a vengeance", "SARS, too, had a dual genetic identity: it was a Chinese virus". Would you say we should add another sense for that usage? —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Interesting! My answer, though, is probably . . . unless you can find collocations of "the Chinese virus" for just about any notable virus that originated in China. Maybe an epidemiologist can give us more examples of viruses that originated in China, and we can use Internet search engines and see whether they were are referred to as the Chinese virus. Khemehekis (talk) 03:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Khemehekis The entry has five citations of the phrase being used to refer to other viruses. More can be found by searching online and limiting the publication dates to years before 2020. —Granger (talk· contribs) 10:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me in that direction. I really don't know what to think. It seems there may be some merit in pointing out the COVID-19 isage of this term, since it has its own political overtnoes, as Sonofcawdrey points out below. One thing I'm sure of is that we don't need to create SoP senses for every virus associated with China, even if we keep the COVID-19 meaning. That would be like creating a sense for every way it's physically possible to fry an egg at the entry fried egg. Khemehekis (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Regretably, keep the covid sense. RWNJs like Kaley Macanney have given this word life. Purplebackpack89 12:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete both senses, SOP. - -sche (discuss) 19:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete both senses. The second sense isn't properly attested. One of those quotes is actually a headline (which don't follow normal English rules) and the other two both use "the Chinese virus" which is arguably just a purely SOP adjective-noun formation. -Mike (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete the "any virus from China" definition as SoP, keep the COVID-19 definition - this is a politically charged sense that continues to be given life by Trump's dogged use of it, which, I imagine will continue for some time yet as the election year hots up. I think it should have a "deprecated" label and a clear usage note attached to explain the significance, as well as specific non-SOP sense, of the term. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I think if we keep the specific sense, we should also keep the generic sense (an if). --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

At least leave a {{&lit}} definition for the first sense if the second is kept. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that if the second sense is kept, the first sense must also be kept (at least as an &lit). —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. I hate the fact that the far-right FOX-loving scum in the US coined this but this is useful information to understand US political discourse in 2020. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 16:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. J3133 (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep the COVID-19 sense; render anything else an {{&lit}}. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is sum of parts so we should delete— This unsigned comment was added by BuyAthenaTroy (talk • contribs) at 23:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC).

(Moved from new section.) J3133 (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete both, per Mihia. This is much like the definition pair "Any brown leaf." and "A brown maple leaf." for an entry brown leaf. A SOP phrase that is something of a fixed phrase for a specific referent is still a SOP entry. I don't think this can be considered a vernacular name. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep but with a separate entry for Covid-19 and heavily qualified: US, colloquial, vulgar, 2020-2021... Facts707 (talk) 02:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

once an Eagle, always an Eagle

Definition given: "(Scouting) Once someone has attained the Eagle Scout rank, their possession of the rank should not be referred to in the past tense, regardless of age, and an Eagle Scout cannot ever be stripped of their rank." Really this is just a (rather specific) snowclone form of something that should ideally be at Appendix:Snowclones/once a(n) X, always a(n) X, if it should be on the dictionary at all (because even the snowclone itself seems to me to be SOP, but perhaps that can be a discussion after that entry is created).

For example purposes I'll use the usernames of Erutuon and Surjection; hopefully they don't mind. There's no particular reason for picking them. I just picked randomly off the top of my head...

If Erutuon, an active contributor to Wiktionary, had left Wiktionary starting today, Erutuon might one day by mere coincidence meet one of their former Wiktionary buddies, Surjection, IRL or on some other website, 21 years later in 2041. During the conversation with Surjection, Erutuon states "Ah, pfft, who are you kidding? I'm not a Wiktionarian anymore. I haven't been online there for over two decades!" Surjection might say "Hey, once a Wiktionarian, always a Wiktionarian." And this form is completely usable (although I doubt we could attest the "Wiktionarian" form, especially in durably archived sources). It means exactly the same thing, just in a different context; no matter how long Erutuon would be gone, they will always be considered a community member at Wiktionary. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: It looks like Appendix:Snowclones/once a X, always a X exists after all, which I didn't realize before. That's even more of a compelling reason to delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Surely it's "an X" not "a X". Asking the real questions. Equinox ◑ 20:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeaaah, delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 00:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Uisleach (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I find the Snowclone appendix rather impractical. Better represent each snowclone in the mainspace in its highest-frequency instantiation and redirect some other high-frequency instantiations to it. What are some very common instantiations of "once a X, always a X"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I would support either moving snowclones (back) into mainspace, or at least creating soft redirects in mainspace from high-frequency instantiations to the relevant appendix, to make the content more findable/searchable. It could be confusing for readers who input something like "night is the new day" to wind up on a very different entry like "orange is the new black", where the definition would presumably focus on those colours, and not night or day (perhaps some other X is the new Y phrase is in fact most common, but my point is that users will be redirected from values of X and Y very different from the ones the lemma entry defines, if we're picking an actual phrase instead of using placeholders) so it might be better to redirect users either to the existing "X is the new Y" appendix, or to a mainspace entry that used placeholders like that ("X is the new Y"). - -sche (discuss) 16:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

A mainspace entry X is the new Y to which high-freq instantiations hard-redirect seems quite palatable to me, as a proposal, and it would address the objection that hard redirect to the representing instantiation could be confusing. And having a soft redirect of the form, say "An instantiation of snowclone represented at night is the new day" should also be considered for instantiations with relatively high frequency; then we can also provide quotations in the instantiation entry. The hard or soft redirects should only be created for high-frequency instantiations; creating them for all attested instantiations would defy the objective of creating a compact representation of what is one thing, a snowclone pattern. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Keep once an Eagle, always an Eagle in some form, possibly as a soft redirect to Appendix:Snowclones/once a X, always a X. Other proposals are above. Are all the deletions of snowclone instances in keeping with WT:CFI? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Delete/move to the snowclones appendix. PUC – 13:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 16:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete, a use of a snowclone. J3133 (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The phrase "once a...always a" probably has potential Purplebackpack89 14:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete Once an editor, always an editor. Facts707 (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

go long

"To buy a financial product with the intention of holding it for sufficient time for it to increase in value and thus to be sold for a profit."

This is NISoP. go ("To come to (a certain condition or state)") + long ("(finance) Possessing or owning stocks, bonds, commodities or other financial instruments with the aim of benefiting of the expected rise in their value. ")

The other, football sense might be NISoP, too. DCDuring (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

In case it is kept, I'm not sure that the present definition is ideal. It is easy to read "long" as equating to "sufficient time", i.e. "going long" entails holding shares for a "long" time fsvo "long". AFAIK, "long" does not mean this, but merely means that your holding is positive, as opposed to negative in the case of going short. Mihia (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I have changed the definition to address this point (and btw also removed the link to take the long view which seems to betray the same misconception that "going long" necessarily means that you intend hold the shares for a long time). Also added go short. Vote Keep for go long, partly on the basis that I think we should have go short for the "not have enough" sense, and this entails mentioning the finance sense, and then we should not have that without "go long" as well. Mihia (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mihia: Regarding take the long view, does the hypothetical antonym take the short view exist? If yes, does it - or maybe short view (see Lexico) - merit an entry? PUC – 17:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess it does exist, though my instinct is that take a short view would be more common, and in fact Ngrams bears this out. Putting these at long view and short view would mean we wouldn't need to worry about the article. In any case, "long view" can be used in the same sense without the verb "take". The only issue might be, as we had somewhere else, that "take" can have so many meanings, but in this case I think it is not hard to see what "take a/the long/short view" must mean if one knows "long/short view". By the way, I see you added "with of" to "go short", but in fact an explicit "of" is not mandatory. E.g. you can say "My parents were very poor, and we often went short". You might say that there is an implied "of", i.e. "went short of the sorts of things that you can imagine, such as food, clothes, etc.". Mihia (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 16:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

play the victim

SOP: see play sense 4. You can play the fool (which I guess is protected by WT:THUB), play the innocent, play the big man, etc. PUC – 18:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Sense 4 of play is 'To act as the indicated role, especially in a performance.'. Based on that, I'd just like to notify that there is a difference between playing a victim in a theatrical performance (which becomes playing the victim when the victim is definite) and playing the victim as acting like a victim in order to gain real-world sympathy (and not sympathy as a fictional character). Less idiomatic (and thus more SOP) ways of saying play the victim would be act like a victim, act as a victim or something like that. (I wrote this comment up until the previous sentence before seeing the "you can play the fool" addition). Speaking of which, why does play the fool have an entry, why wouldn't play the victim be worthy of a translation hub as well? Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

In Dutch you could een slachtofferrol (uit)spelen, in een slachtofferrol plaatsen, in een slachtofferrol vervallen, een slachtofferrol aannemen, als een slachtoffer opstellen, gedragen als slachtoffer... Alexis Jazz (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. Bedankt voor de voorbeelden ;-) -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 16:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Ambivalent I'm going to play devil's advocate here. Not playing around. Facts707 (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

National Hockey League

• Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 16:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete: it's like a company name. Equinox ◑ 16:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

National Basketball Association

• Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 16:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete: it's like a company name. Equinox ◑ 16:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

National Football League

• Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 16:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete: it's like a company name. Equinox ◑ 16:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Major League Baseball

• Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 16:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

All except the last one were added by @EhSayer. These are not dictionary material; names of organizations belong on Wikipedia. If we include these, we have precedents for literally tens of thousands more, popular or not. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Brand names may be useful here. Personally, I've been linking to Wikipedia for the long definition of short form names, like CJNG links to the Wikipedia article for Jalisco New Generation Cartel. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Governed by WT:NSE. Names of organizations include United Nations, and some other items in Category:en:Organizations including Federal Intelligence Service, Greenpeace, Hamas, Hezbollah, International Court of Justice, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, World Trade Organization, and more. One property easing the deletion of the nominated names is that they consist of multiple capitalized nouns or adjectives, unlike e.g. Greenpeace. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Keep all - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 16:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

  Struck double vote. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 16:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete all. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• I feel like I've heard people use "Major League Baseball" to describe something that is a big deal, perhaps as an extension of major league and/or big league. No comment on the rest. bd2412 T 07:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• I have the exact same feeling as BD2412. I'm trying to find quotes/cites of that usage, but I'm coming up short. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete all. Not part of the English language. Definitely Wikipedia material - no one's going to look those up here. Facts707 (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Stanley Cup

Specific names of trophies given by one particular organization only I'd say don't belong on a dictionary. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

FA Cup would be under threat then, which refers to the competition, not the cup itself. DonnanZ (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Why not delete Champions League and Bundesliga too? I presume there should not be a difference in whether it is the name of a corporation (UEFA, not created apart from the acronym) or the “work-groups” it creates. A case could be made to delete Olympic Games, Olympic Winter Games, Paralympic Games, Commonwealth Games. The recurring ramblings of my local rambling clubs in the Westphalian province, albeit frequently mentioned in the local press, do not get entries either. This can go out of hand quickly if everybody covers his favourite sport. It is all not covered by WT:BRAND because of not representing commodities; the terms are rather under the CFI section “company names”. Fay Freak (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It has entered the lexicon, at least within the sports context. For example: "NBC Sports Chicago has been playing the Chicago White Sox 2005 World Series run and the Blackhawks' three Stanley Cup runs ..."[19]; "With 13 Nathan’s Famous Hot Dog-Eating Contest titles, he surpassed ... and Henri Richard’s 11 Stanley Cups."[20]; "Nobody would have thought you could equal the joy felt when the Blues finally won the Stanley Cup."[21] -Mike (talk) 05:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The definition is wrong, it is NOT the National Hockey League's trophy. It is awarded to the NHL champion, but the trophy itself is part of the Stanley Cup trustees purview, which is older than the league, and all the league's predecessors. It was a multi-league trophy until the mid-20th century, when the trustees decided that the NHL champion would be automatically awarded the cup. There was a chance a different league's champion would have been awarded the cup in the 21st century, when the NHL went on strike. -- 70.51.44.93 05:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Keep -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 16:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

  Struck per the previous Beer Parlor discussion. Imetsia (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Keep for reasons as mentioned by Fay Freak above. -Djsasso (talk) 11:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

RFD kept — Dentonius 09:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Reopened and delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia material. No one's going to look it up here. Facts707 (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

RFD-deleted. Imetsia (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

don't make no nevermind

Don't make no nevermind is a redirect to nevermind created by a now blocked user. While it's not in my working vocabulary, the phrase does not seem to be the same as nevermind according to definitions I found. It would be better to delete the redirect and turn it back into a red link in the requested/English page. (I also think it would be nice to have a definition for working vocabulary.) Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Specifically, created by an alt of you-know-who. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Is working vocabulary a synonym of active vocabulary (a blue link)? PUC – 21:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Apparently so. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

To me it's just gobbledygook. DonnanZ (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you speaking of working vocabulary, or don't make no nevermind? PUC – 23:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not much of a fan of automatic redirects at all. I think they can discombobulate users. I'm not familiar with this expression, but according to the quotations at nevermind, it seems to be just one of a number of possible phrasings that incorporate the broad meaning of "consequence" or "difference", e.g. also "[don't] mean no nevermind", "[don't] make any nevermind", "don't make a heap of nevermind", and presumably others ad lib. I don't know whether "don't make no nevermind" is sufficiently distinguished to desrve its own entry. Mihia (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't make no nevermind is the only phrase I know from my sleeping vocab that uses the word nevermind, with irregular non-third person agreement. I am very familiar with it as a type of hillbillyism. However, in OED they mention make/pay no nevermind, and have a citation for "ain't no nevermind", so perhaps our headword should be no nevermind. In any case, a simple redirect does not suffice. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Used to hear variations of this all the time on TV in previous times. "Don't give me none of your nevermind" (Don't give me shit). "What are you doing coming in here dressed like nevermind" (Why are you dressed like shit) Facts707 (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

antiRoman

Delete as a rare misspelling of anti-Roman. google books:antiRoman does not easily find any actual uses, non-scannos, unlike google books:anti-Roman. antiRoman, anti-Roman at the Google Books Ngram Viewer. does find surprisingly many hits, but from randomly checking Google Books, these would be scannos. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Keep. Not a misspelling. J3133 (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

It is a misspelling since 1) in English, it is very rare to have anti-X for X being a nation name spelled as antiX; 2) somewhat speculatively, there is likely a very unfavorable frequency ratio of antiRoman to anti-Roman in Google Books, despite what GNV shows; this is suggested by inspecting google books:"antiRoman" and by the fact that the attesting quotations from antiRoman are solely from Usenet; the spelling is hard to find (or impossible?) in copyedited Google Books. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

antiX being rare does not make it a misspelling; it is a rare alternative form. J3133 (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Is concieve a misspelling or a "rare alternative form" and why? (It has been my position that relative frequency helps detect misspellings; if anything can be labeled "rare alternative form" regardless of relative frequency, this detection criterion breaks down.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about "antiRoman" specifically, but I know for sure I've encountered similar things (e.g. unEnglish) in edited writing. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

unEnglish seems to be a misspelling as well, but that would be for a separate RFD. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

An important difference is that concieve changes the letters of the word, whereas antiX changes only the punctuation, which tends to be more variable. J3133 (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Even so, what makes concieve mis- (erroneous) rather than alternative even if rare given that you disregard relative frequency? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Infrequency may help detect misspellings but a word being infrequent does not assure that the word is a misspelling because not all infrequent words are misspellings. J3133 (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The heuristic I proposed is that if a form is very similar to another form with the same meaning but is vanishingly rarer, the rare form should be treated as a misspelling. This works only for forms that are very similar to other forms, e.g. antiRoman vs. anti-Roman and concieve vs. conceive. Thus, the frequency of a form is not considered on its own but rather in relation to frequency of another form. Thus is addressed the above objection that "not all infrequent words are misspellings". --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

That does not ensure that all of the detected words using that system would be misspellings, though. J3133 (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

himand was deleted as a misspelling; should it have been? himand differes from "him and" only by typesetting error, by lacking space rather than by change in letter sequence; and spaces can vary in general, such as appletree vs. apple tree. antiRoman differs from anti-Roman only by typesetting error, by lacking hyphen rather than by change in letter sequence. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no rule that would apply to all words equally; whether it is an “error” is someone’s opinion. J3133 (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Question unanswered. Let's try another: What is an example of a form that you think Wiktionary should track as misspelling and why? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Evidence from copyedited corpora suggests copyeditors consider antiRoman to be an erroneous spelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

(outdent) In 2014 and early 2015, we deleted a host of terms via RFV, as per Talk:antiZionism: antiChinese, antiArabism, antiBritish, antiDarwinist, antiMarkovnikov, antiRussian, antiZionistic. They may be attested in non-copyedited corpus such as Usenet; my position is that these are misspellings rather than rare alternative spellings. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Delete, rare misspelling. PUC – 09:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep (all words in all languages) and add a definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep — Dentonius 15:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Delete. What have the antiRomans ever done... ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Delete —Suzukaze-c (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete as a typo, trivially understandable as prefix anti- + Roman, only minus the hyphen. Outside of a very few words, camelCase is never used in any form of English that is not regarded broadly as mistaken somehow, so even if we were to keep the entry, it would merit labels qualifying it as proscribed. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 03:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't care. Context dependent SOP anyway. AntiRoman Catholic? AntiRoman Goths sacking Rome? AntiRoman Italian protesters demonstrating against the government? Facts707 (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

illness parties

(and illness party)

The fact that you can construct such terms for so many contact- or air- transmissible illnesses suggests that they are SOP. ("HIV party" and "AIDS party" may also exist.) The finer points, e.g. some of them being aimed at children, are potentially extralexical, like you wouldn't necessarily know just from looking up "engagement"+"party" that it's a party to celebrate a recently-concluded engagement and not a party to get engaged at, while a "frat party" is a party held by a frat rather than (inherently) one to celebrate someone recently joining a frat. But I dunno, these are created by various different users, including one veteran editor, and several were RFVed (rather than RFDed) by another, so maybe people feel they are idiomatic... - -sche (discuss) 22:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Keep pox party, which is the most opaque of these combinations. The rest can adequately be disposed of with a sense at party. bd2412 T 00:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Is one the original, upon which the rest were modeled? My impression is that "chickenpox party" or some variant thereof is the original term. If this is the case, I vote to keep the original term and delete the rest, replacing them by a corresponding sense at party. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Sheedy: Without question, the original term is "small-pox party". bd2412 T 16:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

If that is the case, I reaffirm my vote. Keep "small-pox party" (and its alternative forms) and add a new sense at party, with a note in the etymology about the origin of the sense in the practice of small-pox parties. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I created measles party, apparently; I don't particularly remember it. I take the point that this seems to be a common construction X party for a lot of diseases X; however, I don't think the meaning is very obvious from party, so perhaps (as BD2412 seems to be suggesting) we could add a new subsense at party under sense 6 (social gathering) explaining this type of "party" with some examples. Equinox ◑ 17:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Create small-pox party if there are three citations in the sense of the link above, as the oldest form and because the party uses variolation rather than passive infection. Add a new sense of party to handle the rest. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I would consider a "party" where people are vaccinated or variolated to be a sense very distinct from a "party" where people go to catch a disease by normal spread, particularly given the use of "parties" by antivaccinationists to avoid actual vaccination for a condition. bd2412 T 01:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Delete all. The detail that the illnesses in “pox party” and “flu party” stand for infectious diseases in general is just rhetorics and exaggerated by Wikipedia. We could otherwise under many common diseases add “senses” according to which the word can be used pars pro toto for an infectious diseases of barely defined kind. Similar to “anything harmful to morals or public order” at pestilence as this word was used in inciting speeches across centuries with vague meaning but less notorious. Fay Freak (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Per BD2412, pox party, especially, is hard to understand from its parts, given the present definitions at pox, which do not include the meaning of an "infectious disease in general, and not a skin lesion disease in particular". Mihia (talk) 09:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Keep chickenpox/pox/measles/mumps/flu parties - i.e. the ones arranged for children to catch common communicable diseases that are more harmless as children than adults. I honestly had no idea what a "chickenpox party" was until I read the def., nor that such things existed. Not at all comprehensible from sop. Also keep small pox party, but that is a little different, as from pre-vaccination days. As for "covid-19 party" and syns ... well, the def provided by us is a fake-news def and should be removed - but there does seem to be a genuine def. "A party which people attend deliberately in defiance of lockdown regulations concerning the spread of the coronavirus". This would be a hot-word, of course. Dunno if all the variants are valid and attested.- Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This Daily Kos article would agree with you. Khemehekis (talk) 07:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

One detail, though. Smallpox parties (so far as the term is attested) are not actually from pre-vaccination days, as the smallpox vaccine was invented in 1796. It was the only effective vaccine in existence for about a hundred years after that, and the only one in popular use for several additional decades, so virtually all references to vaccination or a vaccine prior to the 1920s will be for the smallpox vaccine. bd2412 T 16:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• At least keep pox party, measles party and similar entries for parties arranged for children. These are specifically for children and they are not parties to celebrate pox or measles, unlike a birthday party which is arguably more clearly SOP. As a side note: in Dutch, "coronafeestje" is generally used not as an event with the intent of spreading the coronavirus, but just a party as a "fuck you" to social distancing. See also w:nl:Coronaparty which is actually rather different from the English article. Alexis Jazz (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  Is there any easily explained difference between coronafeest, coronafeestje, and anti-coronafeest? Is it a situation like flammable and inflammable where they look like antonyms but are synonyms? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Vox Sciurorum coronafeestje is just the diminutive form of coronafeest. (see feest and feestje) As a rough guideline, if there are less than 10 guests, we'd probably call it a feestje. Coronafeest, coronafeestje, anti-coronafeest and schijt-aan-coronafeestje (schijt hebben aan) are all synonyms. Also, vlambaar (nl) and ontvlambaar. (nl) (not to be confused with Vlambeer which means flame bear) Alexis Jazz (talk) 04:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  Maybe Voc was thinking about Appendix:Dutch diminutives where a -je is sometimes a different thing from the root word. (You kinda suggested that yourself, Alexis, regarding the difference between c~feest and c~feestje; but I'm not sure how "official" your definition is; this virus stuff is still mostly recent news.) Equinox ◑ 04:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  Because I linked the diminutive instead of the root word? I guess a coronafeest(je) is usually small. If it gets too big, the police may invite themselves at which point it'll stop being a party. Likewise, verjaardagsfeestje seems to be slightly more common than verjaardagsfeest. (more red links? werk aan de winkel I guess, tomorrow) Alexis Jazz (talk) 04:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I have created the more generic illness party, and that should be kept, at least. Purplebackpack89 13:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89 Quite the opposite, I'm afraid your new entry is the only one that should be deleted. A quick search suggests "illness party" is unlikely to be attestable. Alexis Jazz (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep all citable. The exact meaning of these terms is not readily deducible by consulting the entries for their components. One would most likely come away with the idea they are parties to celebrate overcoming the illnesses in question. Most people aren't going to piece together that these are gatherings at which a group of people are deliberately exposed to a contagion in the belief this will help build immunity. It's a concept that needs to be explained. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 02:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Why not just add the relevant sense at party and be done with it? There seems to be way too many of these "illness parties" variants to suggest non-SoP. ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep all. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 17:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Keep those specified by Alexis Jazz and according to the criteria given by WordyAndNerdy, move to RFV if necessary. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep, as party doesn't seem to cover it (yet). Also covid party might have two senses: 1. party to spread corona as en.wt has it. 2. party during corona-times (with the intention of parting and not of spreading corona). --幽霊四 (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

State of Japan

Wiktionary is the only result on Google when you search "State of Japan". I believe this comes from a semi-literal translation of 日本国 (Nihon-koku), the name for Japan in Japanese, but does not exist as a phrase in English. There is this redirect page at The Free Dictionary, but I suspect that it was derived from Wiktionary. Goszei (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. I have added three citations. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 06:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there a reason to believe that "State of Japan" is more than just a sum-of-parts combination that could be applied to any country? For example, "State of Belgium", "State of Mexico" and "State of Angola" -- just the first three that I tried at random -- all seem readily citable. Also, the present definition reads "De facto official name of Japan under the Constitution of Japan", but shouldn't there be some mention that it is an "English-language name"? Wouldn't the "normal" official constitutional name be the Japanese name? Mihia (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

By the way, the official UN English-language list of member country names [22] contains a small number of "State of ~" examples, but Japan is not one of them. Mihia (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Delete sum of parts. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 11:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

  This “sum of parts” argument is absurd. There are several counties whose official name is “State”, such as the State of Israel and the State of Qatar. The name State of Japan has been sporadically used by the Japanese government. See the citations there, and check the use of official names of other countries carefully:

  • the Kingdom of Belgium and the State of Japan
  • the Islamic Republic of Iran and the State of Japan

  They never say “State of Belgium” in official documents. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The sum-of-parts argument is hardly "absurd". In fact, it is very plausible, and is only disputable with specialist knowledge of the exact status of the phrase. Mihia (talk) 10:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

We don't include full names. We don't have entries for Donald Trump or Joe Biden, for example. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

On one hand, countries/nations can have many such designations and it seems obvious many, if not all, would be SOP, e.g. "the Japanese Nation", "the Nation of Japan", "the Country of Japan" etc also exist and seem SOP. OTOH, Talk:State of Israel was kept in 2012, and Talk:Republic of Iceland in 2013, on the grounds that official names have some claim to being fixed phrases and maybe passing some tests of idiomaticity... but the fact that official documents use multiple names might suggest this one is SOP... meh... - -sche (discuss) 16:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 17:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• If it were without "rare" and "De facto", rather keep because of other officialese terms like Federal Republic of Germany, or delete of much more terms. For now, undecided. --幽霊四 (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - "Nippon-koku" (State of Japan), "Nippon" (Japan). Need to distinguish former Empire of Japan "Dai Nippon Teikoku". Facts707 (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

token

RFD-sense "a minor attempt for appearance sake, or to minimally comply with a requirement". Defined as a noun, but actually the second adjective sense, which seems indistinguishable from the first adjective sense. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 08:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Senses could perhaps be mixed. From Oxford:

ADJECTIVE

attributive

1 Done for the sake of appearances or as a symbolic gesture.

‘cases like these often bring just token fines from magistrates’

1.1 Denoting a member of a minority group included in an otherwise homogeneous set of people in order to give the appearance of diversity.

‘the patronizing treatment of the token Middle Eastern character’

DonnanZ (talk) 09:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Move to the Noun section, which presently seems lacking this sense (usexes will need adjusting too). Mihia (talk) 10:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
• Keep both the adjective and the noun senses -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 17:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep it. This sense is still used and conveys meaning. Token hiring still happens. The NASDAQ, for example, is currently proposing companies be forced to do token hiring on boards. I've also seen the word "tokenism" to refer to this practice. Given that this is still relevant today, a word is needed to convey its meaning. — This unsigned comment was added by 98.21.68.80 (talk) at 12:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC).

(Moved from new section.) J3133 (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• I think that some voters may be misunderstanding this. There are presently TWO adjective definitions:

1. Done as an indication or a pledge; perfunctory, minimal or merely symbolic.
2. (Should we delete⁽⁺⁾ this sense?) a minor attempt for appearance's sake, or to minimally comply with a requirement

Definition #2 is not the definition of an adjective. It is the definition of a noun. Apparently, if definition #2 was converted to a definition of an adjective, it would be not be distinguishable from #1 (albeit #1 could possibly be split?). Additionally, there is apparently no existing noun sense exactly corresponding to #2. Therefore I reiterate my previous comment. Mihia (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• I have tried to fix up all the relevant definitions. Please make any further changes as you see fit, and then let's close this. Mihia (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep both. Thanks Mihia et al. Facts707 (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Aesop-like

SOP, delete per Wiktionary:Votes/2019-10/Application of idiomaticity rules to hyphenated compounds. PUC – 16:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Keep as there is an alternative form, Aesoplike, which has been used by some writers. Aesop-like is the form preferred by most people however. DonnanZ (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 17:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• If the definition of "X-like" contains no more information than "like X" then it should be deleted on sight, per the vote: there is absolutely no need or reason to have a trillion individual definitions telling people that "X-like" means "like X". Although the present definition, "Resembling an Aesop's fable or moral", is framed as if it might provide more information than this, probably it ultimately doesn't in any important way, so Delete. Mihia (talk)

Further to this, I might mention also that it is extremely common for "X-like" not to mean strictly literally "like X", but rather to mean "like something created by, said by, or otherwise associated with X". Just to give one example, a "Bush-like gaffe" does not mean that the gaffe is literally like Bush, since that is comparing two incommensurable things. Instead, it means that the gaffe is like something that Bush would have uttered. In my view this is again a ubiquitous feature of language that cannot be explained in a dictionary separately for every instance. Mihia (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep, if Aesoplike exists. --幽霊四 (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh great, let's hope that someone can find some instances of Aesoplike, while I go and kick the cat (again). Mihia (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mihia: Cited. J3133 (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Hilarious. Mihia (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep per above. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

black man

RFD-sense for both "A male member of an ethnic group having dark pigmentation of the skin, typically of sub-Saharan African descent." and "Black people collectively; black culture." Both of these are SOP; both could have analogous definitions at white man, but they do not. For the 2014 RFD discussion on this topic, see Talk:white man. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Delete as covered by black + man entries. Oddly Talk:black_man suggests that this was RFDed before but nobody commented at all (?). Equinox ◑ 18:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

We do have analogous definitions at white man. Both entries were kept in the previous RFD here. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you; I somehow missed that because those definitions are subsenses; I have struck certain parts of my comment above. I'm not sure how to incorporate white man into this RFD, considering that subsenses are usually not RFDed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Meanwhile, black person was deleted as SoP and white person redirects to Thesaurus:white person! Equinox ◑ 19:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Why we don't have Thesaurus:black person is a mystery to me. As for redirection, it seems like a bad idea when the thesaurus is mostly terms that are at least potentially offensive... —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: I suspect that any thesaurus entry on an ethnic group would quickly amount to a catalog of slurs. It would be nice to divide those out so that we could have at least one such entry containing only the scientific, technical, and other non-slur variations. bd2412 T 23:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

We do have Thesaurus:white person, Thesaurus:Jew, Thesaurus:Asian. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

All of those are problematic, and for differing reasons. It is interesting that Thesaurus:Jew is basically a list of slurs, while Thesaurus:Asian is bereft of even the mild ones. bd2412 T 00:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Certainly. I don't know where else to put that information, though: I created Thesaurus:Jew specifically to move the slurs out of the entry, following a request on Talk:Jew#List_of_slurs? and on the model of Thesaurus:Muslim. AFAICT we either list the slurs in the Thesaurus, list them in mainspace (which seems like a more prominent / worse place to put slurs), or don't list them at all (which I would not expect to go over successfully). (Edited to add: perhaps you are suggesting putting all the other slurs as synonyms of one of the slurs, and then perhaps only that slur could be linked from the main entry, which could otherwise list only non-slur synonyms... that could work...) - -sche (discuss) 03:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Better yet, we create a single appendix for all the slurs for all peoples, and make that the target for anyone specifically searching for those terms. I was thinking that we could even just point to Category:English ethnic slurs, but that doesn't give any information on how they are used (most would have no idea from looking at the list what ginzo or yarpie are direct towards). bd2412 T 18:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Keep (but merge those two definitions)…to me (like white man) it's a set term. Often stressed on the first syllable, like a compound word. Probably also qualifies under COALMINE. Ƿidsiþ 04:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course it's stressed on the first syllable! If you say "a black man" then you are distinguishing from a black mongoose, or a black queen in chess. But if you are making the second syllable a schwa then maybe you are talking about an English actress. Equinox ◑ 04:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

If you don't believe me about stress, try saying aloud: "the poor man asked for alms"; "is she a rich woman?". Equinox ◑ 04:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree. Normally you would expect a more even stress. Consider the difference in normal speech between "a black bird" and "a blackbird". Ƿidsiþ 04:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Additional point: are white woman and black woman less worthy of notice than the man and person? What about the child and daughter and son? Even a black cousin, or white aunt? If we start including these SoPisms where do we draw the line? Equinox ◑ 04:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Delete as covered by the {{&lit}} sense 1, retaining the quotations at the present sense 3. BTW, I think it is best to avoid using male member in definitions.  --Lambiam 07:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Admin nerds may view the old entry for "male rod" [23] which I think is still, ten years later, the creepiest thing I have seen on Wiktionary apart from my stalker. Equinox ◑ 08:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

(You have a stalker!? It's not Wonderfool is it?) Ƿidsiþ 06:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• FYI I created blackman, which is actually pretty common, at least in certain times/contexts. Ƿidsiþ 06:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to point out that COALMINE would have us keep this, although I think that's somewhat absurd (and the phrase is clearly SOP), since as Equinox says one can just as well speak of a "black woman", "a black daughter", "a black actress"... - -sche (discuss) 06:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure I've heard black men describing themselves as a "black man" (on the radio, where you can't see what colour they are). DonnanZ (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. There's a nuance that is being missed. See, e.g., Ralph Cheyney and Jack Conroy, eds., Unrest, The Rebel Poets' Anthology (1929), p. 40: "Listen, black man, listen, you have a cot at night; What more do you need, blackbird, than sleep and appetite?"; Clifton E. Marsh, From Black Muslims to Muslims (1996), p. 144: "As I passed the lines of black women they shouted, “Go black man, Go black man, We believe in you, brother”...". It ceases to be a descriptor and becomes almost an honorific. bd2412 T 05:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. White man is kept, let black man also stay. Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 17:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

RFD kept — Dentonius 19:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Reopened and delete; also delete white man and the redirect at white person. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete the racial senses, currently 2 and 3. Sense 4 may justify keeping the page. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep, as there's blackman. --幽霊四 (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. PUC – 23:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete blatant SoP, and, per Equinox, we may as well have "black" + any person type whatsoever. Mihia (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep and also white man. I would have preferred to delete both, but both have senses not SOP as mentioned in quotations, e.g. ...since the arrival of the black man in sports.... I do note that the spelling can also be Black man when referring to a (male) black person. Facts707 (talk) 04:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Talking about "the something", e.g. "the black man in sports", is not a separate sense of the word. If we say "the kangaroo was first discovered in year X" it's just the same: we don't mean one specific kangaroo, but the entire race. The separate sense is silly and should not support keep votes. Equinox ◑ 07:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, debatable as to whether it can mean "black people in general" or "black culture in general", but we still have sense #4 "(now rare) An evil spirit, a demon." Facts707 (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep as a loathsome, quaint term that I shun using and cringe upon hearing (or reading) but has its own separate sense that can't be inferred from its SOP. --Kent Dominic (talk) 11:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

August 2020

KJV-onlyer

The new relevant entry is at onlyer; Usenet evidence suggests there are many other couplings one could use with onlyer, such as "weekend-onlyer" meaning someone who does not do things on weekdays, "movie-onlyer" meaning someone who only watches movies as opposed to books or TV shows(?), and even "Quran onlyer" which is also a religious context. While "KJV-onlyer" seems to be the most common out of all of them, I still think we shouldn't keep it because it's SOP according to the new entry. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. Given the definition of onlyer it is sum of parts. At onlyer the sole definition begins (by extension) which suggests something before it has been deleted. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Question. Is the suffix -onlyer attestably applied to other entities than the KJV?  --Lambiam 09:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

  Looks like KJV onlyer is the most frequent use of -onlyer, but I also found quran onlyers, analog onlyers, RVR-onlyers (in comparsion to KJV), pogo onlyers, anime-onlyers and others. Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

  Note that none of these uses meet our requirements for attestation.  --Lambiam 21:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)}

• Keep. An attestable word, may well be the only word where the usage of -onlyer is attestable. Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Much as I hate to break up this party, I think everyone has the analysis wrong: -er may be attached to "only", but it's modifying the entire phrase. This can theoretically be done with any phrase, but in practice it would generally only work for phrases where [x] is the phrase and it can be plausibly substituted in the formula: "There are two kinds of people in the world, those who say '[x]' and those who don't." In other words, it has to be recognizable as a phrase associated with a known group or class of people. As an example, among RFDers one could say we have the SOPers squared off against the COALMINErs and set-phrasers.

I think the term onlyer should probably be deleted, because it's just a coincidence that some phrases with -er tacked on happen to end with "only". Yes, -er is part of the spelling of the last word in the phrase, but that's also true of -'s in "Fred and Doris' 29th anniversary". We're dealing with a clitic here, and dictionaries don't handle clitics very well. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: see also firster, which also suffers from the same mis-analysis. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

How does the "(KJV-only)-er" analysis, in your opinion, relate to the deletion request under discussion?  --Lambiam 21:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The "onlyer" analysis was a convenient shortcut to proving this as SOP, but it's not the only way. Basically the clitic modifies the entire phrase, but it doesn't keep the phrase it modifies from being SOP. All the phrase has to do to be used in such a construction is summarize a particular viewpoint or school of thought in a memorable way, or be associated with the same by some accident of history- it's all very random and non-lexical. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

You make a thought-provoking point. Poking around, I also see a few hits for "faith-aloners", and for "second-amendmenters", "first amendmenters" and "fifth-amendmenters". OTOH, my initial feeling is that we should cover such things at "word" entries (i.e. not just at the suffix entry -er but at either onlyer or KJV-onlyer, and either "amendmenter" or "second-amendmenter", etc, depending on how many kinds of "onlyer", "amendmenter", etc there are), because... well, is there any other situation—aside from possessives, which are broken into recognizable parts by apostrophes (though see the BP re obsolete ones)—where we don't include an attested solidspelled (unspaced, unhyphenated) English word and instead expect readers to figure out to break it into parts on their own? - -sche (discuss) 07:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

If we analyze it as ending with -er then we keep it because not all the components have spaces or hyphens between them. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Weak delete if there are other attested kinds of "onlyer", which there seem to be (I see one citation on Citations:onlyer for bare "onlyer"), whereas if this is the only attested kind of onlyer, then weak keep. - -sche (discuss) 07:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

It appears that you are an on the fencer.  --Lambiam 12:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Keep, the other onlyers seem rare as hen's teeth and this may well be includible per the jiffy test. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. An aside: Unless there's "ye" and "thou" in it, how can they even call it a bible? ;-) -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 17:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Due to User:Chuck Entz's points above, I'm changing my vote to keep (even though he used the same reasoning to want the entry deleted). As it modifies the entire phrase, and onlyer cannot be separated as a lexical entity in this situation, you can't deduce the meaning of it unless you know of the suffix. KJV only is SOP, but KJV only + -er is not. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

One concern I have, which I'm not sure what to do about ( I'm not sure if this is an argument to delete these entries, or to keep them, or is immaterial), is that not only this but other suffixes function decently broadly, e.g. you can take a multi-word phrase and add "-ist" or "-ism" and form e.g. Donald Trumpist (but maybe that's an entry we want to consider idiomatic; we do have Donald Trumpian), google:"America Firstists" (compare America Firster, whereas Talk:Israel firster is no more), google:"Green New Dealism", etc, besides the examples I pointed to above of "faith-aloners", and for "second-amendmenters", "first amendmenters" and "fifth-amendmenters". Maybe all these are idiomatic and fine. I am, as I said above, more inclined to cover them on some word entry than to expect people to figure out to strip off -er. - -sche (discuss) 21:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

befraud

Befraud appears to be an uncommon mistake for defraud. I checked a couple dictionaries and didn't see it. I did not check OED. Most of the search results are scan errors. It does appear 3 times in durable places so this is not an RFV. I propose to delete as an uncommon error. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

"not in dictionaries" is what distinguishes Wiktionary from most other dictionaries ! We represent actual usage. We also cannot make arbitrary judgements. Pairs such as defile and befile, dehead and behead, etc. can equally be viewed as parallel developments, and are not that uncommon. Would you consider dehead to be a mistake for behead ? Leasnam (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

CFI explicitly contemplate looking at other dictionaries for guidance. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't inherently exclude entries that aren't though, right? Tharthan (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• "It does appear 3 times in durable places", so keep. Even if it is, prescriptively speaking, a "mistake", people might encounter it and what to know what it means. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  According to CFI we don't keep rare misspellings. I don't see evidence that this is anything other than a very rare misspelling of defraud. Be- is described as rare or no longer productive. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the label rare or no longer productive requires review. If you're absolutely convinced there's a monster in Loch Ness, you're likely to see one. Leasnam (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not a misspelling, it's a word with a completely different prefix. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, the 2000 cite also uses "defrauded" and so the instance of "befraud" could arguably be a typo or misspelling (i.e. unintentional), especially if the authors are not native speakers. And (via Googling) I spot a copy of the 1991 book on b-ok.cc where their OCRed text, at least, has "defraud" in the place where the books.google.com version has "befraud"; the book does not use "defraud" anywhere else, nor does the 1987 book. This complicates things. But if valid citations exist, I would say keep this since, as Mahagaja says, it'd be a different word with a different (semantically intelligible/valid, if nonstandard/unusual) prefix. I recently created a similar entry, ensiege. At worst one might label such things misconstructions. (Certainly, befraud needs some {{label}}s: rare? and/or nonstandard?) - -sche (discuss) 19:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Following your advice, I've labelled befraud as rare and also directed the entry as a synonym of defraud. Leasnam (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete as a rare misspelling per WT:CFI#Spellings. (befraud*10000),defraud at the Google Books Ngram Viewer.. One could argue whether this is a misspelling or a misconstruction, though. Deleting a vanishingly rare misconstruction would be a CFI override, I guess, but much in the spirit of deleting rare misspellings. The notion that this cannot be a misspelling since it uses a different prefix seems refuted by the 2000 cite mentioned by -sche for the reasoning supplied by -sche. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. Not a misspelling, per others. J3133 (talk) 08:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Just want to note that I'm concerned about Leasnam still creating these Anglo-Saxonish entries based on typos and rare mistakes by Indians. Equinox ◑ 19:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

fraud isn't Germanic, though, Equinox. Though perhaps that is why you said "Anglo-Saxonish". Tharthan (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Keep per others. Definitely nonstandard, but I'm hesitant to rule this a misspelling or a misconstruction. The cites seem to include several native speakers as well. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

school's out

This sense of out can also apply to other organizations, such as workplaces, colleges, etc. I've added the relevant sense to out: "(of an organization, etc.) Temporarily not in operation, or not being attended as usual. when school gets out for today, when college is out for the summer" PseudoSkull (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• As a Brit, I always found the phrase "school's out" very confusing as a child when I heard it in movies etc and wasn't sure how to parse it. I've never heard it used of a workplace, but if it was, I would assume it was an extension of the school sense. The OED includes "school is out" as a separate subsense, marked "chiefly US". So I don't think this is as simple as you think it is. Ƿidsiþ 06:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with out being used of organizations other than schools and, possibly, institutions of "higher learning". DCDuring (talk) 08:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

There are some "random website" hits for uses such as "the factory / power station / plant was out for a few days / hours / for some time", and so on and so forth. This can merge towards sense #13 "(of certain services, devices, or facilities) Not available; out of service". Mihia (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

To me, a school being out ("not holding sessions for attendance; not attended") feels like a different sense of out from a power station being out ("out of commission, e.g. due to a fire"). - -sche (discuss) 15:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I can see how the sense (which I would word more along the lines of "not holding sessions for attendance; not attended" to better distinguish it from the examples of something being "not in operation" due to being "out of commission") could be applied to other organizations. The component parts of "school's out" are also not tightly bound; for one thing you can say schools (plural) are (or were) out for summer, and for another you can separate the parts and say "school is not out yet", "school will not be out for another three months". I am inclined to redirect school's out to the relevant sense of out. - -sche (discuss) 15:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• Keep and add to the prasebook project. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 17:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete and teach Dentonius what a phrasebook is. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, @Metaknowledge. Could you explain to me what the phrasebook is, please? — Dentonius 10:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dentonius: It's a small, usually pocket-sized book of phrases useful for a traveller with low or no competency in the language of interest. Ours should be similar in focus, and we can calibrate it by checking whether general-use published phrasebooks contain a given phrase — if they don't, we probably shouldn't either. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

let's get the party started

Err no, I don't think so. --Java Beauty (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

This could be deleted on the ground of being SOP for the first sense, but not for the second sense (“let's get this done”), unless we add a figurative sense to the noun party as meaning something like “(intense) action”, “where it’s at”. This sense is seen e.g. here where it refers to military action in the Korean War, and also in the idiom “the party is somewhere else” (meaning that “the place to be” – wherever that may be – is not “here”), of which I found several uses (e.g. here), but not durably archived ones.  --Lambiam 06:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• Keep sense 2: I think there’s enough of a figurative sense. — SGconlaw (talk) 06:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Keep sense 2: fig. use - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
• Keep as it is an idiom, and not related to parties! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. Well done! Add this to the phrasebook project, please. - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 17:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

RFD kept — Dentonius 19:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Reopened and delete sense 1. There was in my opinion no basis for deciding to keep sense 1. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Montague

Sense: "A member of Romeo's family in William Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet." Ultimateria (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Desdemona

Sense: "A character in Shakespeare's play The Tragedy of Othello, the Moor of Venice, the wife of Othello." Ultimateria (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Romeo

Sense: "One of the main characters of Romeo and Juliet made famous by William Shakespeare: the ardent lover of Juliet." Ultimateria (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Shylock

Sense: "A fictional character who was a moneylender (Jewish stereotype) in Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice." Ultimateria (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Titania

Sense: "Character in Shakespeare's play A Midsummer-Night's Dream, the queen of the fairies." Ultimateria (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Keep all in RFD, send to RFV to see if they meet WT:FICTION. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Delete all proper nouns. If they have generic noun senses ("oh he's such a Titania!") then fine. But we should not have senses for characters in fiction. Equinox ◑ 10:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

We ought not to have senses for characters in fiction? Doesn't that conflict with what you were saying about Scheherazade? Or are we distinguishing (which would be fair enough if we were, but I want to know for the record) between folkloric characters, and characters merely from literature alone? Tharthan (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tharthan: I am distinguishing. I chose not to nominate Oberon for this reason. Ultimateria (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Tharthan, IMO we should have extremely stringent inclusion standards for entries for fictional-char-as-fictional-char. Personally I think Shezzy should scrape through as she serves a well-known narrative role (that of the doomed storyteller) in a way that again IMO Titania probably doesn't. Of course YMMV. Equinox ◑ 21:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Romeo and Shylock, although I would not object to converting the Proper noun "sense" for Romeo into an etymology for the common noun, and equally would not object to converting the Proper noun "sense" for Shylock into an etymology for a missing common noun sense that needs to be written. bd2412 T 19:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Note: we do have shylock, but I believe it is also used in the same sense with capitalization. bd2412 T 20:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• Keep all ;-) -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 18:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Keep all in RfD and send to RfV, as per Mx. Granger. Khemehekis (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Romeo and Shylock per bd2412, and delete or keep the others per Equinox's instructions. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

wired into

A supposed polysemic preposition.

The definitions given correspond to various definitions of wire#Verb. I don't know whether they are clearly included in the existing wording there. DCDuring (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

When I look at the verb wire#Verb, the only corresponding definition I find is the first one. If we delete this definition, then we need to add a lot of meanings to wire. How many of them actually exist without the "into"? Kiwima (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Just for info, I did add a new definition to "wire", which I thought anyway was missing:

(figuratively, usually passive) To fix or predetermine (someone's personality or behaviour) in a particular way.

There's no use trying to get Sarah to be less excitable. That's just the way she's wired.

Possibly this could cover, or be extended to cover, one or two of the examples presently at "wired into". Mihia (talk)

Chewie

Fails WT:FICTION as far as I can tell, because the citations all mention Wookiees and thus do not show usage independent of reference to the Star Wars universe. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 18:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Delete or move to RFV. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Question: Is the diminutive "Chewie" ever actually spoken in the Star Wars movies? (I've only seen Star Wars I, so I wouldn't know.) If not, Chewie qualifies due to its originating outside the fictional universe (like Doomguy, Eeveelution, pedosaur, etc.) Khemehekis (talk) 02:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Khemehekis: Yes, the other characters often call him Chewie. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Then we need to find some cites that are more WT:FICTION-compliant. Khemehekis (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment various dogs with this name on google books. Troll Control (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete,

least for the Star Wars character. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  18:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete, fictional character. Star Wars has been around for over 40 years now but I can't find any reference to "Chewie" meaning Chewbacca and not a chewy snack or roast or dog name or Chewie Inc. And it was mostly Han Solo (Harrison Ford) calling him Chewie in the first film. Not likely to be looked up here, but I really don't mind if he's in - adorable guy. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

October 2020

change sides

No assertion of an idiomatic definition is provided. DTLHS (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 18:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

  Struck per our previous discussion. Imetsia (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete unless it proves useful as a translation hub. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. No more than "change" + "sides"; cf. swap sides, switch sides, shift sides. I do support somehow accommodating lists of common or natural phrases/collocations even when these are SoP, but I do not support giving these individual full articles. Mihia (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. It's in the OED as "begin to support a different side in a war or dispute". We will need to include a definition along those lines. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• After reading what Tooironic said, I say keep as per the lemming principle. Khemehekis (talk) 03:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. No particular meaning without context. "At 3-2 they smiled at each other as they changed sides." "After they changed sides the sun came out and was right in their eyes" "Italy changed sides as the Allies penetrated deeper into Europe." "The other team was short players so Chris and Sam graciously changed sides." Facts707 (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Weak keep. Imetsia (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

ass

"Used after an adjective to indicate extremes or excessiveness." Duplicates -ass, and is not a noun anyway. Glades12 (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The current examples are hyphenated and thus -ass, but this can also be found with a space rather than a hyphen, liike "a whole ass (whatever)", "a big ass fish", etc. Hence, we need some kind of entry here, even if just "synonym of -ass". (And one could argue that because hyphenating or compound nouns that can also exist spaced is common and cromulent, but using suffixes as separate words set apart by spaces is not [in English], a situation where all of "Xass", "X-ass" and "X ass" are attested suggests the lemma is "ass", not "-ass"...) - -sche (discuss) 17:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I would consider "a big ass X" to be a misspelling. If included, I think one would have to analyze it as a postpositive adverb, since it modifies adjectives. Unlike as hell, as fuck, which I think can only be used predicatively (the building was tall as hell, not *a tall as hell building), this one I think can only be used attributively (a tall-ass building, not the building was tall-ass).
I've encountered the same phenomenon of affix-sundering with prefixes, e.g. herre-/herre and pisse-/pisse -- in this case ordering is consistent with ordinary (prepositive) adverb placement.__Gamren (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep some sense here, per my comment above, although which form is the lemma and which is an alternative form is a separate matter. - -sche (discuss) 11:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep — Dentonius 07:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Delete, this is best analysed as a suffix and -ass suffices for that. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

syncraticism

As defined, "A mix of theologies or ideologies", syncraticism appears to be a rare error for syncretism. Normally the related word syncratic would stand or fall with this one, but it may have an independent life as syn- + cratic as in "syncratic decision making". Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The term may, conceivably, also have been derived by etymology-conscientious authors from the Ancient Greek adjective συγκρᾱτικός (sunkrātikós), meaning “forming a mixture”.^{[24].[25]→[26]} I think I see more than three book uses.  --Lambiam 14:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Old Bill

"A cartoon character created by Bruce Bairnsfather in 1914." This is purely encyclopaedic information, not a dictionary definition. Equinox ◑ 21:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. Donald Duck is here, so why not? Are we low on disk space? SemperBlotto @Cnilep, would you like to keep the entry you created? -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 19:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  Struck per our previous discussion. Imetsia (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, not even close to meeting WT:FICTION. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 16:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Weak delete. This would probably be better to mention in the etymology section, as a likely origin of the slang noun senses. Glades12 (talk) 06:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with Glades12. Khemehekis (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete as per Mahāgaja below and Glades12 above - better idea. (Was: The sense is referenced under sense 3 of the noun: "British slang, dated) A soldier, especially one who resembles the cartoon character.")Facts707 (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC) Facts707 (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete as a Proper noun entry, but add info on the cartoon character in the Etymology section, as suggested by Glades12. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

RFD-deleted. Imetsia (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

cook up

2 senses: "To prepare a heroin dose by heating."

"To manufacture a significant amount of illegal drugs (LSD, meth, etc.)"

Both seem like just particularizations of the main sense "to prepare by cooking or heating". Chemists "cook up" some or batches of lots of things. The two stages of levels of cooking are also omnipresent. Sukhis's cooks up vats of chicken tikka masala and I cook up what they sell in my microwave. DCDuring (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. I never use cook as a synonym of heat; there is always a chemical or structural change even if it is as simple as denaturing proteins. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• Keep the heroin one, that strikes me as a real idiomatic use. I'm going to cook up always means preparing a bit for personal use, probably one dose. That's enough for me. 76.100.241.89
• Noting that these senses are presently defined as intransitive, but it is unclear to me how far that was a conscious intention. As far as transitive use is concerned, the two challenged senses are IMO too specific, but I would like to see a mention of chemical preparation generally, either in the one "prepare by cooking or heating" sense, or as a main sense separate from the "food" one. I don't know about any intransitive uses, e.g. 76.100.241.89's example of "I'm going to cook up". Mihia (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

FYI, I have changed the label of sense #2 from "especially of food" to "of food or chemical substances", especially given that two of the three usexes relate to the latter. Mihia (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Darn, but does "cooking up" chemicals always involve "cooking or heating", or can it just involve mixing together? Mihia (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Keep and merge (probably) the RFD's senses. It's a pretty clear, though euphemisitc. separate meaning. Darren X. Thorsson (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

get carried away

Superfluous; cf. carried away. Benwing2 (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete according to the principle that words/phrases allowing multiple "copular verb + X" possibilities should be listed once under X. Mihia (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 10:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

  Any specific lexicographic reasons? DCDuring (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

  Vote is stricken. Imetsia (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Benwing2, Mihia Can you demonstrate that this can be used with other words? The most used copula is be, but searching for "I was carried away" mostly gives examples where it means "I was physically transported away".__Gamren (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

With "be", you may more commonly find the relevant sense with an explicit agent, so try looking for "I was carried away by ~", e.g. "I guess I was carried away by all the hype surrounding the movie" would be a typical example that comes up in Google results. It merges into a figurative sense of a true passive (which is of course the origin of "get carried away" too). "I was completely carried away" also yields many relevant hits. Mihia (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gamren Many copulative verbs can be used where be and get can be used:

If I sound carried away by this record, I am, and I rejoice in it.

The present generation, indeed, seems carried away with these things.

I felt carried away with joy and compassion.

She looked carried away with his sudden appearance.

Mr Besant appeared carried away by the enormous throng and his own popularity.

There may be more. DCDuring (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Great. I've added three cites to carried away. Delete.__Gamren (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Imetsia (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

As a non-native speaker and far from being fluent I'd appreciate to Keep it. There are referencesː Oxford: be/get carried away, Cambridge: be/get carried away, Merriam-Webster: be/get carried away. At least, if you prefer deletion, you should redirect be carried away and get carried away to carried away and fill it with more examples of use (like above from DCDuring). Have a nice day. --Jeuwre (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Delete as per DCDuring et al. At the risk of being too bold here, I have copied the translations and synonyms to carried away and made this into a redirect like be carried away. Facts707 (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not really dead against a hard redirect either, but it is not a very logical solution because get carried away does not obviously dominate attestations of carried away. But be carried away should be treated in the same way. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

RFD-deleted. Imetsia (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

get down with

Redundant to down with. Benwing2 (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

To "get down with" apparently can imply mutual acceptance (sense #1).__Gamren (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Delete #2, unless someone can provide citations. The cite there is clearly inaccurate, it's using get down sense #8 and an ordinary use of with. I'm unsure about 1 or 3. 76.100.241.89

• Delete. No special meaning, depends on context. "She loves to go clubbing and get down with the latest tunes." "He was really down with Josh right away; they became best friends." "Get down with that big hat! They're going to see you and spoil the surprise!" "The Miami office needs help. Get down with Gonzales and help sort them out please!" Facts707 (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

get the knack

Redundant to knack. Benwing2 (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Weak keep or turn it into a hard redirect. I think the contrast between get the knack (of X) vs get a knack for X is somewhat interesting and makes this more lexical. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  The only contrast I know of is not lexical; it's syntactical. Perhaps you could be less cryptic. DCDuring (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

get to the point

Redundant to to the point. Benwing2 (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep this one, as a set phrase. I can't even think of the comparable substitute verb, but something like "proceed to the point" would seem wrong. bd2412 T 01:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. Why are we trying to make our dictionary pitiful? How is this even a candidate for deletion? -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 10:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

  Vote is stricken, though it doesn't change the end result of the vote. Imetsia (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hard-redirect to to the point; unless get to the point is older than to the point, then it should be kept per the jiffy criterion. However, this appears to predate most idiomatic results for get to the point by about 40 to 50 years. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Changed to keep. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Lemmings say keep. See “get to the point”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. DCDuring (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, if only for the perfect synonyms and antonyms at get to the point. Facts707 (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

RFD-kept. Imetsia (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

get back to

Redundant to get back. Benwing2 (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. Used in a manner completely different from the senses of get back. bd2412 T 01:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 10:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

  Vote is stricken. Imetsia (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Still a sense "to reply" is needed for get back; if that cannot be attested, only delete sense 1. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Changed to keep. There are three lemmings, by the way. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Lemmings say keep. See “get back to”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. DCDuring (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Delete but merge reply sense into get back. "I'll get back with you when I have the files." Most other senses are variants of "return to a previous state". "John wants to get back with Karen." "We should get back to Paris before dinner." "Let's get back in time for the party." Facts707 (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep. Imetsia (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

RFD-kept. Imetsia (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

lackadasical

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English § lackadasical.

This probably fails our arbitrary misspelling test Darren X. Thorsson (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I would say make into redirect Rauisuchian (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Delete, as an extremely rare misspelling. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete as per above. Gets caught by search engines before even getting here: 'Including results for lackadaisical Search only for "lackadasical"? Lackadaisical | Definition of Lackadaisical by Merriam-Webster' Facts707 (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

December 2020

air resistance

See also: Requests_for_deletion/Non-English

SoP. Delete. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. I see some value in retaining it, it is being used as a translations hub, and appears in at least one other dictionary. Apart from that, voting for deletion of the French word is not 100% in favour of that. DonnanZ (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Donnanz: This is not a translation hub term, since all (SoP) translations will literally mean the same thing. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep — Dentonius 09:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

  Vote is stricken. Imetsia (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, SOP: compare water resistance. PUC – 19:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

We can't compare with a non-existent entry. Wikipedia mentions fluid resistance. DonnanZ (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep, beside the Lexico lemming mentioned by Donnanz there's another one at MacMillan. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep, helpful for learners.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Karaeng Matoaya: How is this helpful for learners? Is the combination of these two words somehow unusual? Or is it helpful to learn the concept (which is encyclopedia material)? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    • @Atitarev: it's an extremely common collocation, and I'm not convinced that we would still think it's SOP without a prior knowledge of physics. Just to add to the lemming argument, the Oxford English Dictionary also has an entry for it under "air" ("air resistance n. the resistance of air to a moving body; cf. wind resistance").--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
      • @Karaeng Matoaya: I understand what you're trying to say, it's an important concept, like Korean 공기저항 (空氣抵抗, gonggijeohang) (I wouldn't create entries but someone will) but I don't think it's a lexical unit or a word. A chemical formula may be very different from a physical formula, mathematical formula or programmatical formula but they are just different types of formulas, understood by the qualifiers. — This unsigned comment was added by Atitarev (talk • contribs) at 04:57, 15 December 2020‎ (UTC).
      • The only limitation to collocations is the number of media that someone or something moves through. It's not just air, it's wind, water, waves, mud, soil (while plowing), snow (while skiing) and probably one or two others. There's also the resistance of a substance to being moved through something (in discussing of piping and pumps), and resistance of a barrier to penetration by a substance, which might not be the same sense. Any time you have something moving relative to something else it's in contact with you can talk about [x] resistance. Which kind of resistance you're talking about is specified by the context. If, hypothetically, I was talking about swimming through pudding, "pudding resistance", would make perfect sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
        • I think you are correct that in theory there are many collocations, but in practice a small few seem to greatly predominate, and in other cases I think it can be more natural to use another phrasing. For example, if I was talking about the resistance of wood to, let's say, having a nail hammered through it, I can't imagine that I would refer to "wood resistance". I would say e.g. "the resistance of the wood". Leaning Keep. Mihia (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Karaeng Matoaya It doesn't detract from your reason, but note that a double lemming applies, too. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. Imetsia (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not actually sure whether this is an argument for keeping or deleting, or neither, but just noting that there is another type of "resistance" that can be meant in such compounds, i.e. "ability to withstand". water resistance could mean either, while e.g. oil resistance is more often used in the "withstand" sense, and air resistance could hardly or very rarely be used in the "withstand" sense. Mihia (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep by the same rationale as on the French discussion. I don't think sense 2 on resistance, which is rather vaguely worded ("force that tends to oppose motion"), covers this usage. Usually this refers to "resistance to being moved", e.g. of a valve being turned or a donkey being pulled by the reins, not "resistance to being traversed", and I'm not even sure that sense is needed -- isn't this just one application of sense 1? Act of resisting {being killed}("no signs of resistance")/{being moved}/{being governed} ("resistance movement")/etc.. In any case, that entry should be disambiguated if this term is deleted. I'd also like to reiterate my opinion that we shouldn't deliberately make our site less useful out of a desire to follow rules.__Gamren (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not convinced that this kind of combination is productive, collocations like "soil resistance" or "treacle resistance" sound weird to me. I'll buy water resistance and fluid resistance but not others. gas resistance seems to come in ohms. — This unsigned comment was added by Troll Control (talk • contribs) at 19:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC). Well OK I found "sand resistance" in use so maybe others can be formed. Troll Control (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep, even though WT:THUB does not in fact apply here. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep, I've decided, an unusual structure, pretty much non-productive. Troll Control (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. Apparently covered, particularly for the purpose of translations, by the sense “(physics) A force that tends to oppose motion”, and additional danger of clutter has been proven by showing the multitude of combinations. Fay Freak (talk) 11:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete as SOP, regardless of how many or how few terms can replace "air" here. Ultimateria (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep - common set phrase. "air drag", "atmospheric friction", etc. just not common layman's terms. Facts707 (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

RFD-kept by no consensus. Imetsia (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

idle threat

SOP; delete per Talk:empty promise. 212.224.230.198 12:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep >SOP — Dentonius 12:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  Vote is stricken. Imetsia (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I thought this was worth an entry, which is why I created it. It is a common enough term, and I feel we should be recording those rather than denying they exist on SoP grounds. The SoP excuse can be Wiktionary's worst enemy. This anonymous IP should take note. DonnanZ (talk) 12:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

That's a keep, right? — Dentonius 12:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I have come out and confessed that I created it. Yes, of course I would like to keep it, but perhaps I shouldn't vote. Although I noted Donald Trump (my namesake unfortunately) voted for himself. DonnanZ (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep of course. It is a set phrase or common collocation at worst, and should be kept. I see the destroyers are crawling out of the woodwork again. Why don't "they" build? There are endless red links and unregistered words and phrases to be added. Petty-mindedness at work. I call it as I see it. -- ALGRIF talk 17:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Donnanz How do you feel about idle story, idle talk, idle speculation, idle rumour? All of these have competed with idle threat for most common collocation, see [27]. Delete for now.
Also, no, the fact that you made it doesn't invalidate your opinion on it.__Gamren (talk) 10:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I think they would fit in with idle, sense 5, but I'm not sure idle threat does. The entry was prompted by the quotation, found in a magazine I was reading - usually quotes come later - and finding those lemmings clinched it for me, convincing me it was entry-worthy. DonnanZ (talk) 10:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

You have to look at it from the threat angle as well, what adjective+threat is worth recording? I can only think of idle threat, I wouldn't consider entering great threat, serious threat and so on. DonnanZ (talk) 11:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Donnanz How about empty threat? Does the perceived worthiness have something to do with the fact that these aren't the primary senses of idle, empty?__Gamren (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gamren: Merriam-Webster uses the same definition, more or less, for empty threat as it does for idle threat, so it obviously regards the two as synonyms. As for empty in this sense, it seems to fit in with our sense 5, lacking sincerity. Lexico regards an idle threat as being without foundation, a definition we don't seem to have at idle. DonnanZ (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep, there's a lemming at M-W. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• There seems to be a good case being made above for creating idle story, idle talk, idle speculation, idle rumour. Common set phrases should be included in a decent dictionary IMHO -- ALGRIF talk 23:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete, we can have it at idle and threat if you really want to mention the phrase somewhere. Certainly it is SOP. And as below, only a single lemming doesn't really seem like a convincing argument. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

There's TWO lemmings, you obviously didn't even check the entry. DonnanZ (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I also managed to save rehearsal dinner from RFD (by me) by finding a reference. DonnanZ (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

You're right, I overlooked the second lemming. I change my vote to keep, I think two good lemmings is enough. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 21:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Imetsia (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep' - a set phrase with a unique meaning more than SOP. Definitely something a learner of English or first-time encounterer would look up. Facts707 (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

RFD-kept. Imetsia (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

poo

Suffix: "alternative spelling of -poo"

Hunh? DCDuring (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Like "-ass" vs "ass" (discussed above), this must be intended to cover examples like the "Inky poo, your nose is blue" cite currently in the entry -poo, where "poo" occurs without any hyphen, set off by spaces. I think we need to have something at poo to cover that, since someone who reads "inky poo", "Pammy poo" (etc) in a book and doesn't know what it means can be expected to look up poo, not -poo, since poo is what actually occurs in the book. - -sche (discuss) 01:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep — Dentonius 09:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

  Vote is stricken. Imetsia (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. --Robbie SWE (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete, not how we include suffixes. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Imetsia (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

RFD-deleted. Imetsia (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

bar

Suffix: (grammar, X-bar theory) Pronunciation of ¯, a symbol indicating an X-bar.

Why does this usage require bar in X-bar to be a suffix, rather than bar "a solid line over a symbol, with various technical meanings". DCDuring (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

-i-

Alternative form of -y (“having the quality of”)

Tagged by DCDuring on 21 December, not listed. J3133 (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The prefix with this orthography is tagged, not the interfix. Maybe all that has to change is the PoS header and the headword line. It is supposed to have a different etymology that the interfix immediately above it. DCDuring (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I think you mean suffix, not prefix? Seems similar to -k-. To me, these kinds of spelling rules do not seem like material for dictionary entries. Delete. Mihia (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Strangely, there is a lemming, although not for the sense intended here. DonnanZ (talk) 11:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

January 2021

pole dancing

Noun, defined as "alternative form of pole dance"

There is now a verb PoS section, which naturally includes the gerund form. DCDuring (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep, the definition is wrong. As Lexico describes it: "Erotic dancing which involves swinging around a fixed pole.". An uncountable noun, like dancing can be distinguished from a dance. DonnanZ (talk) 09:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The definition has been changed. If anyone disagrees it can be reverted. DonnanZ (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Delete the noun (but keep the verb form). It doesn't make sense to have different definitions of the noun pole dancing (as opposed to the verb form) and the noun pole dance. They're the same thing, so we should have just one definition at one entry and point the other entry to it. The definition at pole dance, "A form of dancing and acrobatics centred on a pole" is more accurate, since pole dancing is not necessarily erotic and involves more than merely "swinging around a fixed pole". —Mahāgaja · talk 11:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, but fix the definition to be in line with pole dance – e.g., “the activity of performing a pole dance”; see also Wiktionary:Tea room#pole dancing. IMO, this is not merely a verb form but also a noun referring to an activity, just like ballroom dancing, barn dancing, belly dancing, break dancing, country dancing, dirty dancing, disco dancing, folk dancing, ice dancing, Irish step dancing, line dancing, morris dancing, slam dancing, square dancing, swing dancing, and table dancing.  --Lambiam 12:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Also Highland dancing, which I can remember seeing in NZ. You illustrate the point very well. DonnanZ (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, but I agree that the meaning should be changed so it's more in line with pole dance. It's a term I've heard countless times and deserves its own entry. --Robbie SWE (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep — Dentonius 08:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  Vote is stricken. Imetsia (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, and pole dance should be made an alternative form of the more common pole dancing. Ultimateria (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete the noun but keep the verb. Imetsia (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

RFD-kept. Imetsia (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

epic poetry

SOP like also epic poem would be? --—⁠This unsigned comment was added by 2003:de:373f:4059:31cb:91d9:41ad:3044 (talk). 12:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to keep this. It doesn't really seem SoP. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, our definition of epic already covers it. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Agree with Semper, inclined to keep. DonnanZ (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, unlike epic poem which is correctly listed in the usage example at epic, this is more like an art form and therefore deserves a separate entry. --Robbie SWE (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. PUC – 22:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep — Dentonius 08:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  Vote is stricken. Imetsia (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Imetsia (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

male-assigned, female-assigned

I created these nearly a decade ago (see talk page); at the time I felt the grammar if not also the semantics was unintuitive. But I've come to wonder if they are SOP. I think "X-assigned" would typically(?) mean "assigned by X", like "state-assigned minders", "school-assigned reading", but compare e.g. google books:"terrorist-designated groups", google books:"terrorist-designated charity", etc, which seem to be ones designated as terrorist. You can also switch the word order ("assigned male", and in that order you can use other words, like "designated male" or in certain crowds "observed male", though I haven't found cites of the form *"male-designated" or *"male-observed"), but I'm not sure whether that part is relevant to the un/idiomaticity of this or not. So I'm bringing here to see what anyone else thinks. - -sche (discuss) 02:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• I would keep all hyphenated terms. They look like words to me, and our aim is to include all of those. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• What about the predicative, non-hyphenated versions (usually occurring in the longer combination (fe)male assigned at birth)?  --Lambiam 13:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that these two terms are often written without hyphens, but hyphenated usage is also found, so like Semper, I say keep and have no objection. But I would say that words prefixed much- are considered taboo here - I had one deleted and have left those alone since then. So not all hyphenated words are acceptable, seemingly. DonnanZ (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Inserting a hyphen after much is a much-decried practice.  --Lambiam 10:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

WT:CFI#Idiomaticity says: “Idiomaticity rules apply to hyphenated compounds in the same way as to spaced phrases.”  --Lambiam 10:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It depends how much is used. "He was much maligned", being predicative, no hyphen. "A much-travelled man", being attributive, can use a hyphen. DonnanZ (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

And “he was very angry” → “a very-angry man”? Or “a hopelessly-botched job”, “an often-overlooked aspect”, and “a rarely-seen disorder” ?  --Lambiam 13:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

All of those except "very-angry" are quite common, although most style guides recommend against putting a hyphen after an adverb ending in -ly, so "hopelessly-botched" and "rarely-seen" are common enough in real life, but careful writers who follow such style guides will write "hopelessly botched" and "rarely seen". —Mahāgaja · talk 15:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Mahagaja for those examples. I will add that the adverb well can be used attributively like much with a hyphen - e.g. well-used and well-upholstered. DonnanZ (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep — Dentonius 08:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Weak keep. Imetsia (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

nice weather for ducks

fine weather for ducks

See also: Tea_room/2021/January

Redirect to Appendix:Snowclones/X weather for ducks, seeing as many different adjectives can be used. Per Chuck Entz: "Basically you can take Thesaurus:good, weed out everything that can't be used to describe good weather or-over-the-top superlatives, and just about anything else will work." PUC – 19:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose move to appendix. Well, we should have an entry for one of them (I suggest "nice", because it's the only one I've actually heard, and probably the most common). And we can redirect the others to that entry. We shouldn't move an entire legitimate phrase to the appendix when there is an overwhelming dominant form of it. Also, all these forms mean the same thing (rain!): usually a snowclone can change meaning depending on what you put into it. Equinox ◑ 02:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Equinox. A mainspace entry is probably more intuitive and easier to search for (compare discussion of once an Eagle, always an Eagle above), and is also how we usually handle situations where terms are synonyms, isn't it? We have go down the toilet and then entries like go down the khazi point to it, rather than to *Appendix:Snowclones/go down the X. Isn't the reason we have Appendix:Snowclones/X is the new Y that "pink is the new black" (pink is the new fashionable colour) is not synonymous with "fake is the new real" and neither of those is synonymous with "$20 an hour is the new $15 an hour", so we couldn't just redirect them all to pink is the new black (or whatever), we would have to define them all and we decided (for better or worse) not to? Here, we could hard- or soft-redirect them to one mainspace entry. - -sche (discuss) 05:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

All right, but I'd prefer that entry to be weather for ducks (which, I think, we could put in Category:English non-constituents: @DCDuring?) than nice weather for ducks, because I don't think it's a good idea to redirect any of those to an entry sporting an entirely different adjective. PUC – 09:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Grammatically it is a complete noun phrase and, therefore, a constituent. It just so happens that many incomplete idioms are not constituents. If we would want to track those (which seems like a good idea), we should create a different category and start to populate it by looking at members of Category:English non-constituents. DCDuring (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep as is. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@PUC, Equinox, -sche, DCDuring, SemperBlotto According to Google Ngrams "fine" seems to be the oldest, just before 2000 "lovely" was clearly in the lead but now "nice" and "good" are trading places. Alexis Jazz (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

"lovely" going up in 1953 is probably due to w:The Stars Are Singing which includes a song with that title. The rise before 2000 may partially be caused by some dictionaries. (several entries of NTC's Dictionary) Alexis Jazz (talk) 08:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep all, have nice weather for ducks as the lemma. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep all — Dentonius 08:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep nice weather for ducks and redirect the others. 19:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

for

(by extension of definition 5 above) – wanting

Who's for ice-cream?

I'm for going by train

Definition 5 is in favor of.

I don't see that "wanting" fits the usage examples better than "in favor of".

As the most frequent senses of wanting are "lacking" (adj.) and "without" and "less' (prep.), this sense is misleading, especially since its existence implies something somehow distinct from the "in favor of" definition given in def. 5. DCDuring (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Cf. up for. Equinox ◑ 17:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that "wanting" is supposed to be augmenting or re-expressing the "supporting, in favour of" definitions, rather than expressing a distinct sense. Mihia (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom, the definition is indeed wanting. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Jar'Edo Wens

Err, this was a hoax entry on Wikipedia, and all the quotations on the page are mentions, despite what the RFV debate on the talk page may say. So I have no choice but to call PseudoSkull's bluff. Alexfromiowa (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The mighty Ĵar’Edo Wenṣ will smite you for your arrogance.  --Lambiam

Keep, if attested. Possibly label it as rare or something. Move to WT:RFV, if the existence is questioned. named *, called * sound like mentionings, "*" could indicate a mentioning as well... --幽霊四 (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Delete. This doesn't really come across as dictionary material to me. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 21:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete. I concur that this really doesn't look like dictionary material. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep — Dentonius 08:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Dentonius, I'm curious -- why "keep"? What value do you see in having this entry? And what about this makes it a lexical item that would belong in a dictionary? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Vote is stricken. Imetsia (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete per Surjection. Ultimateria (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: First of all, we shouldn't delete entries just because they seem like a weird thing to have as a dictionary entry. We have entries like Twitler, Goracle, pedosaur, Poochie-fication, esquilax, Arianator, Belieberism, conperson, aatheist, Aspieness, Crohnie, /b/tard, lulzfag, Caturday, Schmucksville, chocogasm, Pippi Longstocking, carebear, ghost piece, FemShep, Eeveelution, Torygraph, purrfect, Boraga, Ceqli, wonderfool, and Juventus, none of which you'd ever find in a conventional paper dictionary. That being said, I'm more concerned about the use/mention criterion, which actually is a Wiktionary policy. The 2012 cite from Usenet is clearly a use, the April 2015 article is arguably a use, and the other three cites seem like mentions. Khemehekis (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

My concern is not that this is "a weird thing to have as a dictionary entry". My concern is that I see no evidence of this used as a word, rather than a nonce name, and our entry currently is basically just a Wikipedia stub, describing the thing itself.

By contrast, the citations at Jigglypuff show that the term is lexicalized, used to talk about more than just the thing itself. "Jigglypuff thighs", for instance.

As such, I don't see Jar'Edo Wens as dictionary material -- this does not appear to be a lexical item that would belong in a dictionary.

If we can discover evidence of this being used more broadly, perhaps in usage like "he totally Jar'Edo Wensed them with that bogus story", then that would demonstrate lexicalization and provide grounds for a Wiktionary entry. But as it is, this seems more something for Wikipedia than Wiktionary. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Another thing that just came into my mind: Do you see this more as a modern fictional character (which would have to show metaphorical use to meet WT:FICTION) rather than a traditional mythological character (those pretty much all get in)? I hadn't thought of it that way, but that might be the case? Since Jar'Edo Wens is not genuine ancient mythology, but a hoax invented by a Westerner in the twenty-first century, perhaps WT:FICTION, as it deals with character and place names in fiction, should be applied to it. Khemehekis (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I hadn't consciously considered it that way, but yes, I realize now that was also part of my underlying reaction to this entry -- this is a fiction, albeit not a manga or novel or film or television show. Thank you for elucidating that point. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome! Khemehekis (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Leaning delete. This does not appear to be of any lexical value. A dictionary should provide definitions of terms people might come across in text and want defined. However, the content offered here is not really explaining meaning. Rather, it primarily saying what the origin of the term is. bd2412 T 00:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete, maybe one or two of the quotations involve uses, but the majority of them are indeed just mentions. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Imetsia (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

RFD-deleted. Imetsia (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It's too late for me to say anything now, but I'm disappointed that both I and @Kiwima, an individual who defended this entry in the RFV, were never pinged. I'm not going to call for a reopening of the discussion though, since I kind of agree honestly with the proposition that this entry is useless to a dictionary. The argument that WT:FICTION applies is honestly a good point. I would have voted delete here if I came over in time, but it was still an interesting and funny entry while it lasted. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

tread carefully

While I think its synonym tread lightly may be (weakly) entryworthy, this strikes me as being too SOP; compare tread gently, tread warily, tread cautiously. I've added a sense (sense 3) to tread. Delete or redirect. PUC – 13:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

IMO, idiomaticity is evident so long as it's used to denote precaution in general, not only that exercised while literally walking. However, it would be reasonable to only include the top frequent variants and maybe redirect the rest. I can see here that tread carefully is the most frequent, followed by tread lightly, tread softly, and then tread warily, with all having quotations for the figurative sense of their own. Assem Khidhr (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The figurative sense of tread is idiomatic, but is this not adequately handled by tread, sense 3: “(figuratively, with certain adverbs of manner) To proceed, to behave (in a certain manner)”? The adverb can also be carelessly,^[28][29], imprudently,^[30] or heavily.^[31]  --Lambiam 14:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lambiam: In this case I'd say tread lightly and tread softly (which also happens to be a plant name) in particular are worthy of standalone entries, since their adverbs are a continuation of the walking metaphor. And for the sake of satisfying most queries, other forms with literal adverbs should be redirected to tread, ideally with a senseid. I can proceed in this if you're good with it. Assem Khidhr (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, tread softly is even a common name for three species: Cnidoscolus aconitifolius, Cnidoscolus stimulosus, and Solanum carolinense. I have no strong opinion, but I hold it for possible that the figurative sense “to proceed, to behave (in a certain manner)” for tread is a generalization of an older figurative uses of tread lightly, which dates from 1798 or before,^[32] and tread softly, found in a play published in 1633.^[33]  --Lambiam 01:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

tread lightly

SOP as above; see tread sense 3. Delete or redirect. PUC – 19:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep both — Dentonius 08:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete tread carefully, keep tread lightly because there are two lemmings. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete tread carefully and keep tread lightly, as it is much easier to extrapolate the meaning of the first expression from its parts. bd2412 T 23:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hard redirect both to tread. Imetsia (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

why don't you pick on someone your own size

Mh, completely SOP? PUC – 13:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Per Lambiam below, I support moving this to someone one's own size. PUC – 18:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's always physical size. It might be somebody in a position of less power? Equinox ◑ 21:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Similarly used to punch above one's weight, then? PUC – 10:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Move to pick on someone your own size. bd2412 T 05:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Move to pick on someone your own size. I don't think it's completely SOP, but I don't think "why don't you" is a necessary part of the phrase (and if/when it was, it was probably SOP at that point, so the entry need not be kept using the jiffy criterion). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Andrew Sheedy: But what about fight someone one's (own) size ("Can't he fight someone his size?"; "He felt only the satisfaction that he'd shown that man what it was like to fight someone his own size.")? Or challenge someone one's (own) size ("He only used violence with his children because Don Ira would never challenge someone his size."; "He won't have the courage to come around here and challenge someone his own size. ")? Or stand up to someone one's own size ("He lacked the nads to stand up to someone his own size.")? PUC – 10:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not opposed to moving to "someone one's own size" or whatever variant is most essential to the phrase. "Someone one's size" (without "own") feels weird to me and seems to be missing something. I'd be hesitant to make it the lemma. Perhaps "someone one's size" could be an alt-form entry, with the main entry at "someone one's own size". Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• What about

someone one's own size (plural people one's own size)

1. A putative victim of a bully, one that is not much weaker.

(to be illustrated with suitably chosen quotations or other examples)? The plural can be attested.^[34][35][36] The most common collocations using the idiom should then redirect there.  --Lambiam 14:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

One point of interest is that the plural uses the singular "size" ("they should pick on somebody their own size"), which suggests that the phrase is starting to become an indivisible unit. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't buy it. That only implies that all the people share a size (and we're not talking about real measurable sizes in centimetres or inches, so it could be anything). Equinox ◑ 16:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice the qualifiers. Yes, it's possible, which is why I said "suggests". Try searching for "pick on someone their own sizes"- it's vanishingly rare. The mere fact of a heterogeneous group conceptually sharing a size suggests that there's simplification going on. I'm not saying it's there yet, but it seems to be heading in that direction. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I’d happily write, “applicants may obtain a marriage licence for partners of their own gender”, which I think does not suggest that the heterogeneous group seeking permission to marry conceptually share a gender.  --Lambiam 15:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Move to someone one's own size. Imetsia (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• If this must be changed from a question, I would prefer pick on someone your own size to keep it as an idiom. Any further truncation would render it non-idiomatic. But I must say I prefer it as it is now; it's a phrase I used to hear in my youth. DonnanZ (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  The oldest uses I can find are “touch someone your own size”, “hit someone your own size”, “take someone your own size”, and “fight with someone your own size”. Obviously, these are not meant literally in the sense that one should grab a measuring tape to size one’s intended victims. The idiomacity is most apparent in the second cited use, where a baby is mock-scolded by turning the meaning upside-down. The literal sense does not make sense there.  --Lambiam 15:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep or move to pick on someone your own size — Dentonius 08:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  Vote is stricken. Imetsia (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Move to pick on someone your own size. Definitely a common set phrase, often to refer to companies or countries as well. Often used as a command, e.g. Go pick on someone your own size. Someone your own size by itself doesn't relay the harassment and lack of chivalry expressed by pick on and can have any number of other uses, e.g. Everybody put on your boxing gloves and find someone your own size. Also fight someone your size is too literal and SOP for me. Facts707 (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

covaxin

"(India) a hypothetical vaccine against COVID-19." It looks like this is only used as a brand name, so this would not be includible and the part of speech is also incorrect. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

trench periscope

SOP. It's just a periscope used in trenches. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete, created by me because I initially thought it was the word for "scissor binoculars". Usage is chiefly in relation to trenches, so even if you could use the periscope to look past a wall the word is not often used for that. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep — Dentonius 08:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Vote is stricken. Imetsia (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  That seems a bit over the top. I don't think he intended to retroactively renounce his right to participate in RFDs, but with a clear consensus to delete it's not even necessary in this case. (Even if it were kept, I'd be willing to use {{d}} for this afterwards.) ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete, --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC).

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

RFD-deleted. Imetsia (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

popper

RFD sense:

1. (used attributively as a modifier) Relating to poppers, a recreational drug used during sex.

While it is true that this word can be "used attributively as a modifier", the same could be said of virtually any noun, and AFAIK we do not list these as separate senses unless there is clearly a distinct meaning, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Mihia (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: I think at one stage this attributive sense was the only "drug" sense listed, because the plain (non-attributive) "drug" sense was thought not to exist in the singular. However, the latter has now been added, making the attributive sense apparently redundant. See also Wiktionary:Tea_room#popper. Mihia (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete; just gloss the normal singular sense appropriately with "now more common in plural" or similar. Equinox ◑ 18:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete, --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

RFD-deleted. Imetsia (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

many and varied

Is this SOP? Examples on Google Books look like they mean "many (numerous), and also varied (various, different)", e.g. "The Many and Varied Adventures of Afro-Puff Girl", "our many and varied senses", "the root causes of juvenile delinquency are many and varied and [...] the factors contributing to it are as many and varied". - -sche (discuss) 22:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I feel like it's special because many isn't usually followed by and plus another adjective. There are many good students in this class not *There are many and good students in this class, even if what you're saying is that there are many students and all of them are good. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

But if someone says, there are many and varied explanations, they do not mean to say that there are many explanations all of which are varied. If someone wanted to express say this (somewhat unlikely) sense, they should actually say, there are many varied explanations. Here a bride is said to have received ”many and acceptable” gifts. Here we learn that Father Christmas brings “many and nice” presents every Christmas. Here the returns of the day are wished to be “many and happy” ones. And here reference is made to India’s “many and colourful” festivals. The uses of "many and adj“ are many and varied.  --Lambiam 15:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe they were once, but of the four cites you give, one is from the 1880s, two are from the first decade of the 20th century, and the fourth is in Indian English, which is famous for being more old-fashioned than British or American English. I'd definitely call the "many and adj" construction dated, except in many and varied, which survives as a set phrase. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I would imagine that "many and varied" is much the most common example of this pattern nowadays, tending towards a set phrase, and I agree that arbitrary combinations are likely to sound odd or dated to modern speakers, but for me "many and varied" is not the only combination possible in normal modern Englsh. Just flicking through Google results, I found e.g. "many and widespread", "many and complex", "many and diverse" and "many and painful", all of which I would read without noticing anything particularly unusual. Abstain on the RFD. Mihia (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Like "prim and proper" and "fish and chips", you can't reverse the order. Equinox ◑ 21:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep — Dentonius 08:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

flat tyre

SoP. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

If it's kept as a translation target, should be converted as such. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep sense 1 as a translation target (e.g. German, which has several terms, of which only one corresponds directly to the English) and sense 2 as an obviously non-SOP idiom. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Sense 2 at flat tyre is not SoP, so it seems this should have been an rfd-sense for sense 1. Equinox ◑ 18:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

1. flat tire

SoP as above. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Obvious keep both. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep per Mahagaja. A fair number of these translate as "puncture", something that clearly is not analogous to "flat tyre", and some others translate as "popped/leaky tyre" (e.g. French, Dutch). ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep both. A flat tyre is the result of a puncture or someone letting the air out of the valve, so-called because the bottom of the tyre resting on the road looks flat. Take the wheel off, lay it flat, and it doesn't look flat any more. But it's still a flat tyre until it's fixed. DonnanZ (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep as is. Not SOP. This, that and the other (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

For the purpose of being a translation hub, one should make a distinction according to the presumed cause of the flatness. A tyre can be flat because of a puncture, which needs to be fixed before reflation. Or its condition is no problem; it simply has not been brought up to pressure in a long time, or the pressure has intentionally been relieved through the valve. Some of the translations imply a puncture, such as German Reifenpanne, Hungarian defekt, and Swedish punktering.  --Lambiam 10:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep. SOP, in my view, but THUB. Imetsia (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep both — Dentonius 08:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Vote is stricken. Imetsia (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Keep, agree with Imetsia, unfortunately THUB. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Strong keep, not SOP. Were it simply flat according to the definitions at flat, it would probably look like a rectangle or a carpet. Khemehekis (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

RFD-kept. Imetsia (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

powerful shot

Defined as "very strong shot to the opposite goal". I don't think this is an idiomatic set phrase in English; the entry may be an attempt at a translation hub. I would imagine that any shot with power is a powerful shot (e.g. in tennis, a sport that does not have goals). I may be wrong because I don't know much about sports. Equinox ◑ 01:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Incorrect "definition" SemperBlotto (talk) 07:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. However, Shooting (association football) mentions the terms power shot / driven shot: maybe these are entryworthy, and if yes, maybe the translations can be moved there? PUC – 15:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete - Never heard of this as an idiomatic phrase. Languageseeker (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Not an idiomatic set phrase + odd or oddly specific definition. Mihia (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, but keep the translations somewhere, perhaps power shot. 2001:8000:1588:B800:79A0:FE19:2C48:624C 22:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per above, the translations can be deleted as well. Just as easily attested for the munition type, the launching of a projectile, the measure of spirits and a snapshot. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Imetsia (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete, --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

[37] 1915 --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Does not support the specific challenged sense. Equinox ◑ 02:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

RFD-deleted. Imetsia (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

no matter what

There has been a discussion at the tea room about this, with a general consensus that sense 1 ("whatever") is SOP (no matter +‎ what).

I think sense 2 ("regardless of anything") is also SOP, since you can just as easily do this with other wh-words (This late in the day I'm almost ready to stop and set up camp no matter where = "regardless of location"; We repair all pianos, no matter how old = "regardless of age").

The problem of translations was mentioned at TR - should the entry be kept as a THUB? This, that and the other (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

So we would need translation hubs for each no matter + wh-word? DCDuring (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• To me, "no matter what" in the sense "regardless of anything/everything" seems idiomatic enough for an entry. The only slightly annoying thing is, as has been mentioned, that the same could be said of all "no matter + wh-word" combinations. These are all listed as redlinks at no matter what, as if someone thought they were entry-worthy, but no one's yet actually added them. Mihia (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. I now think that by itself it is no matter +‎ where, with the same use of stand-alone where as in I don’t care where,^{[38][39][40][41]} or don’t know where, don’t know when.^[42] Also in other combinations, you can replace no matter by I don’t care and suchlike.  --Lambiam 13:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep per Mihia. Imetsia (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Imetsia: Mihia only passed judgment on sense 2 (in my reading of it). Do you have an opinion on the SOP-ness of sense 1? This, that and the other (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Sense 1 is weakly SOP. So I'd support deleting it. Imetsia (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep — Dentonius 08:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete, per Lambiam. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

get drunk

Both meanings; the first is simply get (5) + drunk, while the other is get (6) + drunk. Both could also be "get intoxicated", "get wasted", "get hammered", etc. etc. (Since there are idiomatic translations, they should probably be converted into THUBs.) — surjection ⟨??⟩ 09:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

(Earlier kept in 2008; see Talk:get drunk) — surjection ⟨??⟩ 09:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Imetsia (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep — Dentonius 08:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete, --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Convert to translation hub. Ultimateria (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Prahova River

Bistrița River

Sum-of-parts entries. – Einstein2 (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. And English Dâmbovița is probably a misspelling of Dambovita. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  @Vox Sciurorum: I added cites; why “probably a misspelling”? J3133 (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  When I searched the version with native English characters seemed dominant, though I didn't try to quantify. I don't believe English words with diacritics should be added unless they are common enough not to be considered a rare misspelling. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  I do not consider rare forms misspellings (i.e., spelled incorrectly), as frequency is obviously not the only factor. Although diacritics (which are correct here) are generally less common now, they are a part of English and should not be discarded as “misspellings” due to the learnèd being outnumbered (and, evidently, losing the “battle”, if their spellings become labelled as incorrect). J3133 (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  To emphasize how ridiculous your claim is, I do not expect you would write that the Wikipedia article should be renamed because it is “incorrect”. J3133 (talk) 06:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Definitely delete the three river entries. Our entries for river names regularly do not include the word "river". The county entry is more complicated, because our entries for U.S. counties (rather foolishly, in my opinion) do include the word "County". So if, say, Travis County isn't SOP, then Prahova County isn't either. Personally I think Travis County is SOP and should be deleted, but apparently at some point there was a consensus that it isn't. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

US counties are usually named after something or somebody, so adding the affix makes sense. The only English county with this treatment is County Durham, but in Ireland County Wexford is included in Wexford for some reason, the same with the other Irish and Northern Irish counties. Red River would look silly as just "Red". It's difficult to decide how to treat northern UK rivers affixed "water" or "burn", and Welsh rivers can use "afon", "river" or both. DonnanZ (talk) 10:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Here are the counterexamples: Yellow River, Pearl River, Mississippi River --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• As a term, and something that would go in a dictionary, this is SOP, and refers to a river called Bistrița. For that matter, this is oddly spelled at that -- English writers use diacritics exceedingly sparingly, not least as diacritics are not a native feature of English orthography. I don't even know what to call that little T-shaped dash thingie under the second T in Bistrița.

As terms, we should ostensibly have entries for English Bistrita and English river. I notice we have an English entry for Bistrița; googling around just now, I see that the version without diacritics is roughly four times more common, so we would probably be better served to have our English lemma entry at Bistrita instead.

As a thing, there should be a Wikipedia article for w:Bistrita River.

If we are to have any Wiktionary entry for English Bistrita River, I see on Wikipedia that there are several geographic locations with this name, so presumably any entry here should also mention this. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete all, in addition, they should be written without diacritics in English. We should also consider deleting the English entry for Chișinău too. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

act up to

"To equal in action; to fulfill in practice."

Not in any OneLook reference (besides us). NISoP: act + up + to. DCDuring (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep — Dentonius 08:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, I do not see a valid reason for keeping; it does not seem that this was actually intended as a lemma in Webster. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

age up

"To get older; to advance in age"

This seems NISoP: age ("to become old") + up ("to a higher level of some quantity"). Not in any other OneLook reference. Also a pleonasm.

Perhaps someone could find some usage for which an idiomatic definition is required. DCDuring (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• There are, I believe, video games and other media where it is possible to "age up" a character (i.e., to cause them to rapidly advance from infancy to adulthood). See, e.g., Mina Smith, "The Sims 4: How to Age Up Toddler", GameRant (January 28, 2021). bd2412 T 16:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep — Dentonius 08:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep on the gaming sense of transitioning from one level to the next rather than an actual age (note that it can also be intransitive), ambivalent on the other. BigDom 20:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per BigDom; I also won't miss the first sense, so I abstain on that one. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

skip a generation

SOP per Talk:skip a generation. PUC – 23:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 02:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Imetsia (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• I would keep this one anyway. It's not all that clear how you would get the meaning from skip and generation. bd2412 T 07:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep — Dentonius 08:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Vote is stricken. Imetsia (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Noting the existence also, in the same sense, of jump a generation and miss a generation. Mihia (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "Skip" is orders of magnitude more common. bd2412 T 07:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• Origin as mid-19th century phraseology indicates to me that it wasn't natural to say 'skip a generation' before then. Begins in the year 1842 on Google Books/archive.org --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps the informal verb "skip" just wasn't used like that before then. Equinox ◑ 02:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete; I'd say the meaning can be parsed quite easily. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

RFD-deleted. Imetsia (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Cavendish banana

There's no reason to have "banana" in the entry name. If you look at Category:en:Apple cultivars, Category:en:Cherry cultivars, and Category:en:Pear cultivars, you won't see "apple", "cherry" or "pear" in the names except in a few lowercase descriptive ones. For instance, an eating apple isn't an apple named "eating". For this cultivar, though, it really is just a banana named "Cavendish". Chuck Entz (talk) 06:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't the definition and etymology be merged into Cavendish, if this is being deleted ? -- 65.93.183.33 14:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep — Dentonius 08:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  What is the argument? Would it also apply to entries such as Braeburn apple, Bartlett pear and Bintje potato?  --Lambiam 14:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  I assume that Cavendish banana would be the precursor to Cavendish. It's an empirical question whether a bare cultivar epithet is used and in what usage context(s). Because of the well-publicized vulnerability of the Cavendish to fast-spreading disease, Cavendish may be demonstrably part of general discourse, at least well-informed discourse. I'd expect Bartlett to be similar. I don't recognize the other two as common in the US. DCDuring (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Obviously delete, thank you Chuck Entz for beating me to the punch. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Tentative keep. Attestations of Musa cavendishii (Lamb. ex Paxton) as a taxonomical name for this variety (see here) appear to precede any of Cavendish banana (like seen here), which in turn appear to precede uses of Cavendish in the sense of a banana variety, other than after a use in the same text of Cavendish banana (like here). This leads me to surmise that the designation Cavendish banana is essentially a calque of earlier Musa cavendishii (or, as its coiner Paxton spelled it, Mùsa Cavendíshii ) and as such originally non-transparent. Just Cavendish would then be short for Cavendish banana, much in the same sense that Bunsen is (also) short for Bunsen burner.  --Lambiam 14:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per Lambiam & DCDuring. The first attestation for Cavendish banana that I can find is from 1857, that is considerably earlier than the earliest attestations of bare Cavendish for the banana variety. Curiously, Herman Melville used Cavendish in the 1850s for a variety of tobacco and Cavendish tobacco is not difficult to attest for that period; possibly association of bare Cavendish with the tobacco prevented it from being used for the banana for a while. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. @Chuck Entz supported this entry adding info in 2017, what has caused the about-turn since then? DonnanZ (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  We all make masses of minor edits without stopping to analyze every aspect. Can you vouch for every entry which you've edited to switch out etyl tags? I've added or changed categories on literally tens of thousands of entries for English organism names, and I change what I notice, when I have time- but I usually don't make a rigorous analysis of every aspect. The idea is to make the entries easier to find, so that those who have the time and background to fix them see them listed in one place. In this case, I only started to consider the SOP nature of this when dealing with another, more obviously SOP term modeled after it.

  As for this rfd: I may be right, I may be wrong- but my category edits are totally irrelevant. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, I have created entries I have forgotten about - until another editor edits them. It's nice to know they are noticed by somebody. DonnanZ (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

dead against

NISoP, from User:Doremitzwr. DCDuring (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Does dead against mean “no longer living” + “in opposition to”? Then it is indeed a sum of parts. Otherwise, Keep.  --Lambiam 14:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

So, your general argument would be that any attestable combination of polysemic words is entryworthy? Almost all combinations of words are semantically restricted. DCDuring (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Our dead adverb gives probably too many examples: "dead wrong; dead set; dead serious; dead drunk; dead broke; dead earnest; dead certain; dead slow; dead sure; dead simple; dead honest; dead accurate; dead easy; dead scared; dead solid; dead black; dead white; dead empty". They don't seem too different from this one. Equinox ◑ 16:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

and a dead pigeon. – Jberkel 16:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean? That's no adverb, nor the same sense. Although what I am seeing in this discussion is a dead horse getting a thorough thrashing. Equinox ◑ 22:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Or perhaps a deceased parrot? Mihia (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Weak keep on the basis that phrases of the form "dead + preposition" (in the relevant sense of "dead") seem relatively uncommon, and e.g. we do not commonly say the likes of "I'm dead for legalising cannabis" or "I'm dead with the others on this issue". Mihia (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It looks to me like this is an ellipsis of dead set against, which is really SOP as dead set + against. As for the lack of "dead for", I think that comes from a semantic property of dead: it tends to accompany negative or unpleasant things, with the few positive ones being unpleasant or negative on the surface, but good in an underlying sense. Compare stark/starkly. If you look at "dead set in opposition and "dead set in favor" it becomes a bit clearer. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't personally have any perception that "dead against" is specifically an ellipsis of "dead set against". On the other point, people say "You're dead right", "I'm dead happy" (or "dead chuffed"), "It was dead good", "He was dead nice", "He was dead friendly", and so forth, all of which are positive. (Some of these expressions with "dead" may BrE-flavoured or BrE-only -- I'm not sure.) Mihia (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The ngram data is sort of the opposite of what I would expect to see if this were the case, in that "dead against" has a much stronger showing out of the gate, and gradually loses popularity while "dead set against" becomes more popular. Moreover, if you look at early quotes for "dead set against", most of them involve noun phrases headed by "set". e.g. "we cannot shake off the apprehension that there is , in various quarters , what may be called a dead set against the lawful power of the Conference". The "to be dead set against X" construction doesn't seem to appear until after "to be dead against X" is already well-established. Colin M (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete. After re-examination, I now think that “to be dead against something” should be bracketed as “to be dead [against something]”, and not “to be [dead against] something”, so this juxtaposition of an adverb and a preposition is accidental, not unlike those seen in “totally against”^[43] and “one hundred percent against”,^[44] or, for that matter, “fully in favour of”.^[45]  --Lambiam 13:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't agree with that at all. Mihia (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

"Opinions on the proposal please."
– "For."
– "Against."
– "Undecided."
– "Dead against."
Mihia (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, these are impossible: "In what way/manner are you against it?" / "Dead."; "How much/strongly are you against it?" "Dead." Mihia (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I analyze the reply "For" as elliptic for "[I am] for [the proposal]", so "for" is a preposition with a null object. Likewise, the reply "dead against" is "dead [against ∅]".  --Lambiam 10:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Leaning keep, given that if you lean Bob's corpse on a dresser you can correctly say that Bob is dead against that dresser. bd2412 T 19:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep. Too hard to figure out its meaning from analyzing its parts. Imetsia (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep one sense, delete the other. Despite there only being one gloss, the current quotations have two completely different meanings. I think we should keep the figurative sense (= "opposed to") as seen in the second quotation but lose the literal sense (= "in the opposite direction") which is pretty clearly SOP. BigDom 20:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. According to a few sources (e.g. A, B, as well as OED), this was originally a nautical term to describe a wind blowing directly opposite a ship's course (cf. dead wind), which later acquired its figurative meaning. The fact that some very smart people in this very thread have analysed the term incorrectly is clear evidence that it cannot be easily understood as SoP. Colin M (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per Colin M. Khemehekis (talk) 10:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep — Dentonius 18:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Vote is stricken. Imetsia (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Keep. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

RFD-kept. Imetsia (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

hair transplant

A transplant of hair. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 09:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, SoP - you can basically add any <organ> + transplant. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete unless we want spleen transplant. Khemehekis (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• There's something a little unusual here in that most "X transplant" expressions denote an X taken from one body (the donor) and given to another (the recipient). But, AFAICT, hair transplants always involve tissue taken from one part of the body and implanted in another. But it may be a stretch to say that satisfies WT:FRIED. In any case, I'll note that we probably should have an entry for the related term hair plugs. Colin M (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, I think the distinction described by Colin M is primarily a biological constraint of land mammals, not something that passes the fried-egg test. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep if Colin M is right that the term applies exclusively to "tissue taken from one part of the body implanted in another." Imetsia (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete per Mihia below. Imetsia (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep — Dentonius 18:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Vote is stricken. Imetsia (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. The self-donor distinction doesn't seem to fully hold up, since, while the term "graft" may often be used instead, I can fairly quickly find references to e.g. "muscle transplant" from one part of the body to another [46], and also "vein transplant" [47]. Apparently, "Hair can also be transplanted between identical twins who have the same genetic makeup" [48]. Noting also that our medical sense of noun transplant refers to the verb, which in turn says "To transfer (tissue or an organ) from one body to another, or from one part of a body to another" (my emphasis). Finally, I would say that the present definition "a surgical procedure used to treat baldness or hair loss" betrays the term's SoPness with its apparent assumption that the reader already knows, or can discover, what a "hair transplant" actually is from the individual words. Mihia (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

RFD-deleted. Imetsia (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

tech worker

SOP — surjection ⟨??⟩ 17:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Imetsia (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep. A similar example includes sex worker, which is broader than other specific terms. Do you have advice on what would make this a better entry? Shushugah (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Mainly because we've kept sex worker. But I won't lose any sleep if it ends up getting deleted. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• If the point of this is that e.g. "tech worker" =/= "technical worker (in any industry)" then I would keep as non-obvious from parts, but the definition is very poor, and the word "tech" links only to an entry with multiple senses. Mihia (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm having second thoughts about this, as it would seem to open the door to e.g. tech world, tech stocks, tech news, tech company etc. etc. Perhaps the answer is to improve at tech. Mihia (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Unlike the performance of a sex worker, this tech isn’t anything specific, and if there is a specific concept then this is not conspicuous from the definition yet so this must be deleted for the uselessness of such a definition – we delete entries as sum of parts because they do not provide information additional to the parts. Fay Freak (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Replying here, since the delete responses are similar. In the case of sex worker, it exists not as a trivial compound of sex and worker, but a term that was created as an alternative to very specific and derogative term prostitute. More mundane examples include health worker, careworker, and of course doctor, nurse, ancillary staff still exist. In the case of tech worker, I think it's sufficient to say it's someone who works in tech, but the entry can also expand on distinction/inclusion/exclusion of say programmer, systems analyst but also other job descriptions often not included in those, such as uber driver, gig worker and other workers in the tech industry. Per Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion, here is a Google scholar showing abundant usage of the word across multiple countries/contexts. [49] — This unsigned comment was added by Shushugah (talk • contribs).

I agree that "sex worker" is not completely obvious from "sex" + "worker", but it is less obvious to me that "tech worker" is anything more than "tech" + "worker", with "tech" used in a general sense that could modify many nouns, and that should be covered better at "tech", with examples given there such as "tech company", "tech industry", "tech worker" etc. Mihia (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, I have tried to beef up the entry at tech. Mihia (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

So delete. Mihia (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete since it's anyone who works (a worker) in tech. Reminds me of the recently deleted "gay man", any man who is gay. It's a common collocation, that's all. Equinox ◑ 14:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete per above. The comment above about BGC results is not germane, attestation is not in question. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep — Dentonius 18:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Vote is stricken. Imetsia (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Seems SoP. No OneLook reference has it. It doesn't have any citations, let alone some that support the definition. I expect this term to be attestable in different senses, reflecting the ambiguity of the word tech, which could be related to skills; industries or groups thereof; IT only, possibly in any industry; etc. DCDuring (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

RFD-deleted. Imetsia (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

foreskin envy

SOP, from the same contributor as hair transplant above who seems to be creating quite a few low-quality entries. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 09:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I can see some uses in Google Books, all relating to circumcision (so not purely SoP, since it doesn't refer to e.g. a woman, who never had a foreskin). We also have penis envy, breast envy, womb envy, vagina envy. Equinox ◑ 09:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete, psychoanalysts have a lot to answer for. :P ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep — Dentonius 18:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. You could have anything envy, and someone could say it is a psychological condition. Mihia (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, per Mihia. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, per Equinox.--Tibidibi (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, per Mihia. DCDuring (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep- foreskin envy could mean envy between people who have foreskins of another's foreskin- 'That person has a nice foreskin, I wish my foreskin was that nice' hence I am recommending keeping this. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

When you say "could mean", I assume you mean "could be thought to mean, but in fact usually doesn't". I think there are many cases where "envy" is likely to be comparing having with not having, rather than comparing degrees, just depending on the nature of the thing mentioned. You can find e.g. "freckle envy", "blue eye envy", "long hair envy" etc., also cases that presumably usually refer to the have / not have comparison. Mihia (talk) 02:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

wood-elf

"An elf which inhabits woodland." In other words, SOP, whether with a hyphen or a space. Of course, if you compare distinct works of fantasy wood elves often have several coinciding characteristics, but those are all accidental features and part of the world building of a specific setting, not part of the definition. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Obviously not meant to refer to a wooden elf. DonnanZ (talk) 09:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

  @Donnanz Of course not, the relevant sense of wood is “forest, forested area”. It is SOP if you consider that sense. I did not find any lemmings, by the way. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: A lack of lemmings is not surprising, but judging by the attached quotes, a lot more could be found for wood-elves... not that I've met any. DonnanZ (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep (Note: If kept, we must move to wood elf since we have a policy about these hyphenated terms where a space works too.) — Dentonius

  @Dentonius May I ask for your rationale for keeping this in some form? Do you disagree with the claim that it is SOP? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

May I also ask you or anyone where that policy is stated? I don't think I have ever heard of it before. Mihia (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Dentonius has agreed to stop participating in RFD (see the Dentonius thread at the March Beer parlour), so it's best not to continue this. My best guess is that he was working backward from the idea that hyphens are irrelevant for SOP. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's not a thing. WT:ALTER even gives tea cup and tea-cup as examples of alternative forms that are properly assigned separate pages. Colin M (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The definition as it stands is SOP, but it doesn’t accurately describe the term. In universes I’m familiar with, wood elves are a distinct race of elves, not just any elf that lives in or comes from the woods. It is as idiomatic as polar bear or red deer, that encompass polar bears born in a tropical zoo and albino red deer. Whether it passes WT:FICTION is a different question, but I’ve seen the term often enough in unrelated universes that I assume does. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this position. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV Even then, the improved definition would basically amount to "a member of a grouping of elves that tend to live in woodland"; whether wood elves are a race or subrace or merely form a specific polity depends on the universe. Of course, wood elves tend to be more proficient in archery and maybe melee combat than magic relative to other elves, tend to have light skin tones and blond hair, tend to be less technologically advanced, etc. but that may differ in some universes (e.g. some settings have wood elves as advanced as other elves; some online artists have wood elves with brown skin, not sure if that is in anything durably published yet). ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I don’t disagree, but I still think that doesn’t necessarly exclude it from being a concept distinct from a mere elf of the woods and worthy of a definition. I’m not voting anything yet (since I’m a fan of Tolkienesque fantasy and want to see more arguments to avoid my own bias) but I feel like there is a Catch 22 going on: we either analyse wood elves from distinct universes as distinct concepts (and thus each individually fails FICTION) or we take them as a single concept and since every author implements the concept uniquely, it fails SOP because the only truly universal feature is the association with woods.

If we take this approach, many names of established fantasy tropes that, like wood elves, always or almost always indicate a distinct concept in the works where they occur, will be excluded from Wiktionary. Perhaps that is for the best -- god knows how much gibberish from works of fiction we’ve had to deal with -- but I also don’t see a problem in taking a middle ground approach and defining these terms with the properties that are common even if they are not universal. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Re your second paragraph: I'd be curious to hear of any examples you can think of of any similar terms that would be at risk for deletion if wood elf falls, and which you think would be a shame to lose. Colin M (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Some that come to mind: light elf, high elf, dark elf, half-elf, mind flayer, hill giant, rock troll, fairy/faerie dragon, black pudding, dire wolf, hoop snake, possibly smoke monster. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

There are entries for light elf, dark elf, half-elf, dire wolf, hoop snake and black pudding (which I do not recognise as a fantasy term and there is no definition like that in the entry). I wouldn't nominate any of those for deletion, usually because of a mythological or taxonomic sense that seems wholly idiomatic to me, and I would not suggest to delete high elf or mind flayer either (if the latter is independently verifiable). However, I do not understand why you'd want to apply the reasoning about taxonomic vernacular names to fictional creatures. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, as it stands. Unless we can find a secret meaning somewhere. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. There seem to be numerous "X elf" combinations (with or without hyphens, which I will ignore for these purposes) such as snow elf, ice elf, field elf, water elf, sea elf, sand elf, etc., all apparently characterised by living in the stated type of habitat. I don't know how many of these are cross-universe, however, and I haven't bothered to research it. Is there any reason why we would have wood-elf and not numerous others? Mihia (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

  The question is whether these combinations refer to an independent meaning in the language as a whole rather than either to a part of a fictional universe or to a transparent combination of meanings. I have a hunch that the Tolkien legendarium's influence on the creation of so many other fictional universes has resulted in some terms from that universe seeming more universal and established. If we're asserting that there is something called a wood-elf that's more than just an elf associated with woods, we need to explain how to tell a "real" wood-elf from an elf that happens to live in the woods. In Middle Earth you have the Quenya and the Sindar, which have different histories, different characteristics and different languages. What is there outside of Middle Earth (or any other given fictional universe) that makes a wood-elf a wood-elf? Chuck Entz (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

  This is an interesting point. As Chuck alluded to, there's a lot of incestuous borrowing that goes on in fantasy. e.g. you have lots of modern ("roguelike") fantasy games which borrow monsters, races, items etc. from the 1980 video game Rogue, which borrowed tropes from Dungeons & Dragons, which borrowed from Tolkien, who borrowed from all kinds of folklore. Stepping away from just elves, I can think of lots of other compound names for fictional species that are liable to recur, e.g. hill giant, deep dwarf, cave goblin, high elf, shadow orc. There's enough shared genetic material being passed around that it's not surprising that you have multiple fictional fantasy universes that use these terms, nor that they use them with similar meanings. Colin M (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Mihia I believe the main distinction is commonness, so one could in theory maintain that wood elf is a set phrase compared to the other [insert biome] elves. Of course, that is not my view. I think that the most common collocations other than wood elf are high elf, dark elf and half elf (all of these are not coincidentally used by Tolkien, though not quite in the way most modern fantasy settings use these labels). Then there is silvan elf/sylvan elf, which I believe is usually a synonym for wood elf but there might be arcane distinctions in some settings. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. I applaud Geographyinitiative for adding a quote going back to 1893, and indeed Google Books shows a fair number of pre-1900 uses. But, looking at those uses, alongside the more modern ones, I'm not seeing much consistency. In some cases, the term is used to refer to a little trickster creature akin to a brownie or a gnome. Sometimes it refers to a dryad. And sometimes it refers to a noble Tolkienesque creature. The only properties that unite them seems to be that they're some sort of elf that lives in the woods, i.e. SoP. But if someone wants to do the legwork of looking more deeply into uses of the term and manages to identify a more specific meaning that is used across multiple independent works, I would happily reconsider. (But I would be reluctant to consider modern fictional works that share a common descent from e.g. Dungeons and Dragons to be truly independent in this context.) Colin M (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Colin M I am afraid that for the purposes of CFI, the Tolkien Legendarium, Dungeons and Dragons, Warhammer, Warcraft, The Elder Scrolls and all the others are to be considered independent from each other. I would argue for each of these franchises being internally dependent to avoid wrangling between alternative universes, expanded universes and different settings, but I don't think that has been established as policy. In any case, all works written in e.g. the same D&D setting cannot be considered independent. Also, thank you for your observation that some of the uses of wood elf relate to brownies, dryads, etc. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep and send to RFV, if necessary to determine distinctness. My impression is that "wood elf" is far more common across different universes than, say, "dark elf" or "mountain elf". There are definitely non-SOP meanings of the term that exist; the question is whether or not they can be adequately cited, or are too universe-specific. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Andrew Sheedy I am not sure whether it is true that "wood elf" is far more common than "dark elf" in different franchises, although you are correct about its commonness in comparison to "mountain elf". As said above, I would not nominate dark elf for deletion. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, you're probably right. I would also vote to keep dark elf if it was RFD'd. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

stand by

Rfd-redundant

• (intransitive) to be ready to provide assistance if required

redundant to

• (idiomatic, intransitive) To wait in expectation of some event; to make ready.

84.228.239.108 21:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, I think. As I read them, they are distinctly different. The usex "The tug stood by in case it was needed." is a good one. DonnanZ (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

In fact it was me who added this sense. diff DonnanZ (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep — Dentonius 18:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. "to make ready" is not intransitive in normal English, and presumably it should say "to be ready"? Anyway, I changed it, but please delete it or do something else with it if you prefer. Mihia (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mihia: I see you altered sense 1, but you don't say whether sense 1 or sense 5 should deleted. If, say, a riot squad stands by in expectation of a riot, they wouldn't be providing assistance if one occurred, it would be more like a battle. If a fire brigade stood by, it could be because a fire may flare up again. An airport fire tender can stand by to assist in any potential accident at a moment's notice. DonnanZ (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, my comment may have been unclear. By "delete it or do something else with it" I was referring only to the part sense "to make/be ready", not to either sense in full. I feel unsure at the moment about the distinctness of the two senses overall. Mihia (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete "To be ready to provide assistance if required" is an overspecialization of "To wait in expectation of some event". Make/get/be ready is a sometime accompaniment, not a part of the general definition "To wait in expectation of an event". DCDuring (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Imetsia (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Combine the two into one line: * (idiomatic, intransitive) To wait in expectation of some event; to make ready to provide assistance if required. bd2412 T 03:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

as in

There is but one sense supposed to be idiomatic ("inclusion-worthy"): "(idiomatic, conjunctive) In the sense of." Usage example: "bow," as in the weapon, not the front of a ship

To me it seems like as ("Considered to be, in relation to something else; in the relation (specified)") + in ("a member of"). DCDuring (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete sense #2 unless it's appropriately re-labeled under something other than adverb. --Kent Dominic (talk) 10:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep both senses (sense 2 is appropriately {{&lit}}, but both senses are prepositions, not adverbs. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: Maybe I should change my vote after reading your comment. Maybe you should change your vote after reading my comments here. In relevant , part: "Rather than defining sense #2 (which , if done for every collocation, would go on endlessly) I think a usage note about it would be better than simply deleting it. That’s what I plan to do if the deletion goes forward, since sense #2 is definitely encountered a regular basis in the vernaculars worldwide."

• For sense 2, “like” is not a synonym. You cannot change “a change in attitude of any portion of the earth's surface whether temporary or undulatory (as in some earthquakes) or permanent (as in areas of block faulting)”^[50] into “a change in attitude of any portion of the earth's surface whether temporary or undulatory (like some earthquakes) or permanent (like areas of block faulting)”. And, of course, the combination of as followed by in can occur in many other ways (such as in “such as in areas that ...”, in which “such as” belongs together, as well as in “as well as in areas where ...”, in which “as well as” belongs together).  --Lambiam 22:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Lambiam: Maybe you can't. Other do. "Like" (i.e. as; as though, as if, etc.) has been used as a conjunction, albeit regularly proscribed, since Hector was a lad. (See Webster Dictionary: "like" and Webster Thesaurus: "like".) Sadly, both "like" and "as in" are also used synonymously for "such as," e.g. "Do you think I'm funny? Do I make you laugh, as in, a clown?" Consider how synonymous meanings (i.e. semantics) often have disparate punctuation re. syntax. --Kent Dominic (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. Imetsia (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep — Dentonius 18:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep the "In the sense of" sense as idiomatic enough, and, as a consequence, keep the &lit sense. Delete "like" as a synonym of the latter (certainly not universal for &lit uses). Not sure about the PoS of the first sense. The supposed synonyms, i.e. and namely, are both listed as adverbs. Mihia (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mihia: I'm mystified why you and @Lambiam object to "like" as a synonym for sense #2 of "as in." That second sense clearly indicates literal use. Consider how the example, "In Sweden, as (conjunction) in (preposition) most countries ..." equates to "In Sweden, like most countries ..."

Bear in mind that "as in" landed here under RFD consideration after I alerted @DCDuring about the labeling discrepancy between "as in" as an adverb versus a phrasal preposition (used adjectivally as parenthetically applied to "bow"" and "Sweden" in the examples for sense #1 and sense #2, respectively). In my own lexicon, two separate instances of "as in" are labeled as phrasal prepositions:

1. “I’m Brazilian – as in Portuguese heritage, not Spanish,” Lucy remarked.

2. "I really wish you had told me beforehand about how you intended to soften up Miss Camille," said Delora. "'Soften her up?'” Riley objected. “As in, ‘tenderize?’”

In both instances, "like" or "i.e." can be substituted for "as in" with no semantic change in meaning. Obviously, the syntax differs: in example #1, like could be construed as a conjunction and would require a comma. (Same goes for substituting i.e.). In example #2, "like" could be deemed a conjunction or an interjection but in either case would also require a comma.

Let's keep this mantra in mind: "synonym" ≠ "exactly equal in semantic meaning, linguistic form, and punctuation" but rather "virtually equal." (If you really want to hear me rant, ask about my peeve with all of the verbs that are labeled here and elsewhere as "transitive" but offer "intransitive" synonyms - and vice versa - as well as mismatched examples. I acknowledge the practicality of the status quo, but a bit more caution would obviate the discrepancies.) With all that said, I'd appreciate your further thoughts re. why you think the synonyms for "as in" need remedy. Cheers. --Kent Dominic (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The substitution of like for as in happens to work in the example of "In Sweden, as in most countries ..." because of the initial In. You can substitute like for just as: "In Sweden, like in most countries, ...". You can now delete the second in, although this suggests somewhat of a rebracketing, from "In Sweden (like in most countries) ..." to a syntactically debatable "In (Sweden, like most countries) ...". Consider the transformation of "For the Swedes, as for most Europeans, ..." to "For the Swedes, like most Europeans, ...". Is like also a synonym of as for, as of, as to, ...?  --Lambiam 07:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Lambiam: Thanks for the comment. Didn't see it until after my reply to Mihia. Please see below as the same applies to your observations. Cheers. --Kent Dominic (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

What Lambiam says. If you substitute "like" for "as in" in the "Sweden" sentence, the resulting meaning is coincidentally roughly the same, but this is not because "like" itself really means "as in". In arbitrary other &lit cases, such as "it is as much in the mind as in the body", just to pull out a random example, "like" cannot be substituted at all. Mihia (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mihia: I'm with you on all that. Just wanted to point out that the "as in" > "like" nexus is valid while the "like" > "as" versus "as in" nexus is a matter of contextual style and semantic intent. For clarity, one might say, "In Sweden, as is true in (or for/concerning/regarding etc.) most countries..." Who knows what the original example was supposed to mean? Beats me. But now the discussion has turned far from my original contention, namely, that the Adverb label for as in is troublesome. I mean, "bow" (adverb) the weapon, not the front of a ship" or "In Sweden, (adverb) most countries, ..."? Wiktionary, please spare me. --Kent Dominic (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that in the various {{&lit}} senses, as in is an accidental juxtaposition of a conjunction and a preposition without a fixed meaning, and not an adverb, in the same way that a bit can be an adverb (“a bit too large“), but is not an adverb in the phrase “to put a bit in a horse’s mouth”. For the first sense, “‘free’ as in ‘free beer’”, I cannot figure out what POS this is. I am inclined to think this is short for “the same sense of ‘free’ as used in ‘free beer’”.  --Lambiam 00:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lambiam: From the get go, I've maintained that using a traditional POS is an inadequate tack to take regarding the label for any entry that comprises more than one word. @DCDuring fundamentally disagrees, which landed "as in" here for discussion. If I had my way regarding the first "as in" sense, it would look like this:

Prepositional phrase
as: adverb + in: preposition (not comparable) 
1. Namely regarding; specifically concerning.
"Bow," as in the weapon, not the front of a ship
Synonyms: i.e.; in other words; meaning (present participle)

Usage note
* Used parenthetically. 
* "Like" (conjunction or interjection) may be used synonymously without change in semantic meaning albeit with change in syntax, e.g.  "Bow - like, the weapon, not the front of a ship."

The current entry's example mistakenly (due to an encoding error?) omitted the comma after "bow," which threw off the entire correlation with the definition given.

To anyone who's still listening: There's nothing "conjunctive" about this particular sense of "as in" except by extension, as described in the above Usage note.

There. I've shouted my peace. --Kent Dominic (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding part-of-speech assignment, we are currently constrained by WT:POS, which can function somewhat as a straitjacket, but without such constraint, we’d see an uncontrollable growth of inventive non-standard categories. Perhaps we could do with an escape category, monicker to be decided but comparable in function with the taxonomic incertae sedis. But any addition will require a vote.  --Lambiam 15:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lambiam:

Lambiam: Regarding part-of-speech assignment, we are currently constrained by WT:POS, which can function somewhat as a straitjacket.

Kent: Don't I know it. (*Sigh.*) Do a spot-check on some of my contributions on the various Talk pages here and you'll see a mostly-one-sided despair in the discussion between @DCDuring and me. And, for precision's sake, WT:POS ≠ lexical category. POS is an antiquated (albeit marginally useful) set within lexical category. I.e. Prepositional phrase is a lexical category, not a POS; Preposition is a (traditional) POS within the set of lexical category. Quote me on this: No phrase, including hyphenated compounds from the same lexical category (e.g. "ticky-tacky") should rightfully be labeled under any traditional POS. It instead belongs under a lexical category comprised of a term that entails two words, at minimum. In my own lexicon, three words is the max. (Not an arbitrary max, I might add, without elaborating here.) So, "as in" falls into two POS lexical categories as I indicated in the text boxes above. That's in the ideal world. I know, I know - this is Wiktionary.

Lambiam: But without such constraint, we’d see an uncontrollable growth of inventive non-standard categories.

Kent: The Catch-22 favors WT:POS on that point despite all my weeping and wailing and kvetching. Incidentally, I credit the WT:POS inclusion of "Prepositional phrase" and exclusion "Idiom," but I can't fathom the exclusion of "Phrasal preposition" and inclusion of "Phrase."

Lambiam: Perhaps we could do with an escape category, monicker to be decided but comparable in function with the taxonomic incertae sedis.

Kent: That's a scary thought. I'd rather continue my weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth over the antiquated "9-sizes fits-all" approach toward labeling (i.e. as inadequate to phrases) than open up the linguistic can of worms Pandora's box you suggest. On that score, my complaints here are nothing compared to my rants on the Talk pages re. articles that ridiculously try to explain the inexplicable anomalies and contradictions relating to traditional concepts like relative pronoun or modernsitic terminology like relativizer. (See "Relativer: A Linguistic Fable" for an unbridled rant).

Lambiam: But any addition will require a vote.

Kent: Here's my dilemma: Do I owe it to target Wiktionary users to argue for for consensus on my own copyrighted definitions for 30 lexical categories (most are familiar; some are neologisms) and 600 sub-categories while throwing my yet-unpublished work into the public domain, or do I let myself squirm at the idea of target readers who encounter - to pick a random example - a "talk out of one's ass" phrase labeled here as a Verb when it should minimally be labeled a Verb phrase and ideally labeled as an Intransitive verb phrase? For now, I'm content to squirm. We'll see what happens after I publish later this year, if all goes well. --Kent Dominic (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The "missing" comma was not an error. It's reflective of how the construction is typically punctuated by most speakers. "bow" as in the weapon is also a better reflection of the prosody of the phrase when spoken aloud, compared to "bow", as in the weapon. (A speaker might pause after "bow", but only if the idea of disambiguating came to them as an afterthought.) Colin M (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@ Colin M:

Colin M: The "missing" comma was not an error. It's reflective of how the construction is typically punctuated by most speakers.

Kent: Where are those speakers? I have some spare commas at hand. I’m willing to share.

Colin M: "Bow" as in the weapon is also a better reflection of the prosody of the phrase when spoken aloud, compared to "bow", as in the weapon.

Kent: Click on the link to the audio version of Wiktionary and upload your assertion there. While you’re at it, try explaining how “The bow which you sold me yesterday was defective” entails, sans comma, a non-restrictive relative clause.

Colin M: (A speaker might pause after "bow,” but only if the idea of disambiguating came to them as an afterthought.)

Kent: (I won’t lecture you on punctuation. It suffices that prosody is irrelevant to punctuation, but not vice versa. And I won’t mention how an affinity (if not, minimal accuracy) regarding the latter helps to inform the former.) --Kent Dominic (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Try searching Google Books for "free as in" (and sort by most recent), or "gay as in", and observe how authors punctuate it. I'm going to decline your request to upload audio, because it sounds like a lot of hassle and it seems very unlikely that it would change your mind. Your question about the the bow which you sold me yesterday example seems to me like a non sequitur - perhaps you can elaborate on how you think it relates to as in? As for your last point, it's strange to me to think that relevance would not be a symmetric relation. Colin M (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I won't lecture you on correct comma usage, and it's too late to offer freelance editing services to the Free Software Foundation. Re. the other things: (1) "The bow, which you sold me yesterday, was defective" makes sense when correctly punctuated. (2) "A bow, as in the weapon, not the front of a ship" makes sense when correctly punctuated. The former example contains a parenthetical clause; the latter has a parenthetical phrase used adjectivally. And, BTW, there is no audio version of Wiktionary. I made the corresponding comment tongue-in-cheek. --Kent Dominic (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, Keep, a thousand times Keep. I just added some quotes, and I think you'll find they can't be explained by the proposed SoP interpretation. As in spend the nights side by side. = [in relation to] [a member of] spend the nights side by side? It also produces a backwards interpretation applied to the other example, a mummy (as in King Tut) – a mummy is not an example of King Tut. Though, funnily enough, the inverted version would also be felicitous: King Tut (as in the mummy). It's neat that the construction can introduce something above (a parent category, "mummies"), below (an example, "King Tut"), or to the side (a metonym, "mummy as in bandages"). Another point in its favour is that it has a very distinctive prosody that sets it apart from vanilla In Sweden, as in most countries uses. Finally, though it's far from a determinative factor, I will note that OED has an entry for as in. Colin M (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep sense 1, abstain on sense 2; if someone can think of a better way to explain the use covered by the &lit, that is to be welcomed. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I think there is not just one &lit use -- the words "as" and "in" can be put together "non-idiomatically" with different results, depending on context. Presently we have an example of one of these. Mihia (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: Try this:

Phrasal preposition
as: conjunction + in: preposition (not comparable) 
1. like it is true regarding, concerning, or within.
"In Sweden, as in other countries, ...
Synonyms: like

Usage note
* Used parenthetically.
* This sense of "as in" is a pleonasm wherein "in"  may be omitted without change in semantic meaning albeit with change in syntax from phrasal conjunction to a mere conjunction, e.g.  "In Sweden, as (or like) other countries...
*In any case, "as in" is used adverbially.

It seems the majority of contributors here haven't fully considered how a prepositional phrase differs from a phrasal preposition (as lexical categories relating to phrases) differs from an adverb (relating to POS) for labeling purposes versus usage. Unlike @Robbie SWE, count me as (the) one who cares. As such, I hardly rely on ANY dictionary as bearing demonstrably consistent expertise. No disrespect to lexicographers. Historically speaking, their job is to catalog speech, not to linguistically analyze and assess its components. I give Wiktionary credit for trying to transcend that but, as far as lexical categories for the labeling of phrases goes, this place is still in its infancy. --Kent Dominic (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

IMO there is no reason why, for our purposes, multi-word phrases should not be labelled just as the PoS that they behave as. It is, after all, essentially arbitrary whether, for example, a noun or verb is written as two words or one. There could be a one-word synonym of a two-word noun or verb phrase, or vice versa. "prepositional phrase" is different because a "prepositional phrase" is actually not (the way we use it) grammatically a preposition. Mihia (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mihia: In reply, see the discussion here. (Skip to the "red flag" part.) For a good laugh, also look at my Multi-word expression comments in the thread thereafter. Seriously, though, it seems to me that you - like Wiktionary in general as far as MWEs go - are conflating POS and usage. With the exception of multi-word interjections, no MWE constitutes a POS. There's no "Christmas tree" Noun; no "give up the ghost" Verb. There's no flipped my ex-brother-in-law Vinnie from Manhattan the bird Verb despite what Wiktionary asserts to the contrary. Labeling it instead as a Verb phrase alerts everyone (in my circles, anyway) to the set, immutable, idiomatic structure. Thankfully, the "flip the bird" page here gave the corresponding alerts via the headword line and as a Usage note. If not, some bumblebutt would try a substitution like, "He summersaulted me the bird" or "He flipped me the chicken." If you're unfamiliar with how the "verb phrase" and "noun phrase" (inter alia) lexical categories differ from POS, you might try reading those corresponding articles at Wikipedia. Also, don't bother trying to search on "lexical category," which redirects to POS. Instead go to Syntactic category. --Kent Dominic (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mihia: P.S. Call me slow, but it's only just now occurred to me: Wiktionary is trying to shoehorn Dependency Grammar POS wholesale atop real-world phrase structures. The two concepts just don't jive, at least not the way Wiktionary is attempting it. That's why we've got folks here trying to put the same dependency shade of lipstick on the "as in" and "inasmuch as" and "give me a break" structural hogs. I look at it from a Grammatical set theory perspective, which is more along the lines of phrase structures, but further broken down into its paradigmatic POS dependencies. E.g. "Give me a break" is NOT a Verb; it's a fully-formed sentence albeit with "you" (either singular or plural) as a null subject + a verb phrase comprised of "give" (transitive verb) + "me" (transitive object, traditionally called an indirect object) + "a break" (noun phrase) = a transitive object complement (traditionally called a direct object ) comprised of "a" (determiner) + "break" (noun). Is Wiktionary ready for those unfamiliar lexical categories, shown here in red? I'm not holding my breath. --Kent Dominic (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I can't really see Wiktionary moving away from the traditional PoS categories any time soon. On the point about phrases, it can seem a bit strange to see multi-word phrases, that may themselves be composed of multiple PoS, labelled as just e.g. "noun" or "verb", and I found it that way too at first, but logically it has come to make sense, to me anyway, by looking at the phrase meaning overall. If "Christmastree" was written as one word, then it would be a noun. The fact that happens to be written as two words doesn't logically change that. "Give me a break" would or could be a sentence, but our definition is for "(to) give someone a break". "(to) give a break" is logically as much a "verb" as, say, "(to) relieve", in the sense that the two things mean exactly the same (enough for these purposes). The awkwardness with the lemma is what to do with the generic object "someone", or whether or how to mention it, and presently I don't believe that we are consistent with this, or fully logical in all cases. Mihia (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mihia: Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying the WT:POS makes no sense; I’m saying it’s convoluted sense that is pretty much arbitrary both fundamentally and in practice. E.g. “by the way” gets a proper Prepositional phrase label (i.e. as a lexical category, not a POS). It’s rightly labeled neither as an Interjection nor as an Adverb despite how the phrase is used interjectionally and adverbially. I’d be mortified if “by the way” were labeled as a Noun. By contrast, “not in the slightest” is labeled as an Adverb. Makes sense? Well, let’s put semantic, syntactic, and overall linguistic check boxes next to that phrase to see how it shakes out. The Mr. Intrepid Student in me asks, “where’s the adverb in ‘not in the least’? Shouldn’t it be an adjective, because of ‘least’? Plus, I’ve only heard it used as an interjection. And, wait – how the heck can the adjective, ‘least,’ follow the preposition, ‘in’? Is it a case of nominalization? It's a noun phrase under Phrase Structure Grammar, right?” No, Mihia, you won’t find me seeking a consensus to accordingly change the label here, or to rabidly edit the Wiktionary entries that entail a misguided consensus that prefers usage primacy to syntactic accuracy re. labeling MWEs. @DCDuring has disabused me of any notion that Wiktionary might move toward becoming a one-stop-shop for users – like the average students in my English classes – who truly do ask the types of linguistic questions posed above (i.e. in their bona fide interest in learning the language and in their attempts to catch out an ill-prepared instructor). I've chastised DCDuring often enough for condescendingly underestimating the knowledge and interest that ordinary students express on these matters, so I won't delve into that here and now. Instead, I’m content to occasionally kill time on rants like these, and to waste the time of anyone who’s caught reading them. --Kent Dominic (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

A way to understand why it makes sense to label not in the slightest as an adverb (given the Wiktionary convention of not having different PoS labels for multi-words) is again to envisage a single word, maybe even a made-up one, let's say "notremotely" because I can't right now think of a real one, that means the same. I think it was before my time, so someone may correct me, but my understanding from somewhere is that at least part of the reason for "prepositional phrase" is because of the constant issue otherwise of whether these are adjectival, adverbial, or both, and the potential necessity of duplication if one PoS isn't used to cover all. The present state of the specific entry by the way may be debatable in certain respects and/or need some attention, I think. Mihia (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• No OneLook reference apart from Wiktionary has this. I don't see how these words together are even a constituent. DCDuring (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that grammatically they may not be, hence the difficulty of assigning a PoS. OTOH, I think that the common use such as in the example given, "'bow' as in the weapon, not the front of a ship", is hard to understand from the parts, and can really count as idiomatic. Mihia (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mihia: The problem is entirely due to the polysemy of the component words. The entry for in is very long. The definitions of as are a bit abstract. I usually consider such a situation as warranting some additional usage examples, which also serve to attract a search as for "as in". These high-use collocations of function words are definitely problematic. DCDuring (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@DCDuring:Something I've failed to say up to now: In my own lexicon, each mention among any of the 500,000 words or phrases has a screen tip with (a) the relevant lexical category and (b) a customized definition that links to the exact sense given within the glossary's 20,000 entries. I.e., even if you click on a word like "the," it's linked to the contextually relevant one among the nine senses defined. No one has to look up anything. The encoding effort has been monumental, but not counterproductive, since I'm the only one doing the work. I can't imagine the nightmare of trying to initiate something similar here, given the exponentially larger corpus and God knows how many contributors, not to mention cross-purposes, differing opinions, dead links, human error, etc. --Kent Dominic (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's disqualifying. We already have a whole category for those: Category:English non-constituents. (Though, incidentally, I disagree about it not being a constituent. I'm thinking it's best understood as a preposition with metalinguistic function. But it's a tricky case for sure.) Colin M (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Colin M: I created Category:English non-constituents to allow us to have some snowclones in principal namespace, instead of consigning them to appendices etc, which eventually fall into neglect. DCDuring (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Abstain on both senses. It's neither here nor there for me on this one. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• (*Ahem*) So far, the consensus seems to be "keep."

rear window

It could be a window in anything, there could be no confusion over what it refers to. The wiki reference links to the Hitchcock film. I cwould leave car glass for someone else to refer to, but I'm prtetty sure that rear window is SoP. — Saltmarsh. 18:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• A synonym is back window. It's the usual anomalous situation where windscreen and windshield are allowable, no questions asked, but when someone creates a two-word term like this one, it gets the RFD treatment eventually. DonnanZ (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Donnanz: Well — if I come across windscreen or windshield in a piece of text about a car, how do I know that they refer to the "front window", they could shield the engine for example. Whereas "rear window" is just that, no further explanation necessary ie SoP! What am I missing? — Saltmarsh. 20:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep — Dentonius 18:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Just "rear" + "window", and needn't be in a car anyway, or even a vehicle. However, is there any "translation hub" argument here? Mihia (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• I agree that it seems SoP. Compare rear seat, rear lights, rear license plate etc. One of our usexes at rear is even sit in the rear seats of a car, so a reader should have no problem figuring this out. Colin M (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, pointless and transparent. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 13:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

horseshoe curve

NISoP: horseshoe ("The U shape of a horseshoe") + curve.

DCDuring (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep — Dentonius 18:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. I can't see any sense in deleting this, nor any for deleting hairpin bend. DonnanZ (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• For reference, ngram data for {horseshoe, hairpin} × {curve, bend, turn}. Anyways, looking at the term, I never would have guessed it had a meaning specific to railways and roads (which google books seems to confirm). And there isn't a sense at curve that can recover this meaning (I don't count "A gentle bend, such as in a road." since it gives roads as an example rather than a requirement). Colin M (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

  The meaning is not specific to railroads and other roads; it can also refer to the course of a river^[51][52] or the shape of a coastline.^[53] And a curve in a road does not have to be gentle.^[54][55][56]  --Lambiam 19:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  Interesting - but are you sure those aren't just authors expressing the concept of a curve shaped like a horseshoe in a SoP way? In the way that one might talk about an "S curve", or a "hockey-stick curve", or whatever? In any case, the fact that over 90% of the gbooks results for that term relate to railways or roads still suggests there's a surprising degree of affinity with that semantic niche. Colin M (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  I am sure these uses are instances of authors expressing the concept of a curve shaped like a horseshoe in a totally SoP way. The issue here is whether our entry isn't likewise an SoP. I can find uses of blue expanse meaning, specifically, “a large body of water”, such as a sea. Such specific meanings do not make this collocation any less soppy, and an entry for blue expanse, defining it as “An expanse having a blue colour, often a large body of water”, would be misplaced. A pretzel shape is a shape formed like that of a pretzel, and a horseshoe curve is a curve in the shape of a horseshoe. The facts that yoga practitioners may be found twisted in a pretzel shape, or that such horseshoe-shaped curves occur on roads, do not justify entries.  --Lambiam 11:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  Ah, I see. Well I can agree that many uses of "blue expanse" to describe a large body of water would be consistent with SoP use, because, well, bodies of water comprise a large proportion of the things we're likely to encounter which are blue and expansive. But I would put it that, counterfactually, if >90% of uses of "blue expanse" were describing, say, regions of the United States that voted for the Democratic Party, then that would indicate an idiomatic usage. And I think the case here is closer to that. After all, if I'm just searching for an SoP description of something that is curved like a horsehoe, "U curve" would be equally appropriate, but if you search for that term on Google Books, only a tiny fraction are related to roads or railways. This is not consistent with the hypothesis that "horseshoe curve" is strongly associated with roads and railways because they simply represent a large fraction of entities that have such a shape. Colin M (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  Ah, I see, we were actually arguing the same point but in alternate realities. When above you wrote, “I never would have guessed it had a meaning specific to railways and roads”, I interpreted this as if you meant to imply that the term has a non-transparent meaning (one that one would not deduce from its parts) specific to railways and roads, thereby arguing that this is more than a sum of parts. But now I understand that you meant to say that in your opinion the term does not have a meaning specific to railways and roads, so your point is that the clause “often on a railway, where hairpin bends can't be used” in the present definition is not justified – a clause whose removal will definitely expose the essential SOP nature of the term.  --Lambiam 13:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  No, your first guess was right (or close). I'm saying that 1) the evidence suggests there is a strong association between this term and the domain of roads and railways, 2) this association is surprising, and therefore 3) we should probably have an entry for this, since its meaning is more specific than just the SoP "any curve shaped like a horseshoe". As for the quoted part of the definition, the "often on a railway" text does seem justified (based on what I've seen in searches of Google Books etc.) I lack the domain knowledge to opine on the "where hairpin bends can't be used" portion. Colin M (talk) 03:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

A hairpin bend, like a hairpin, has a much sharper bend than a horseshoe curve, or a horseshoe bend in a river. Believe you me, driving uphill round a hairpin bend on a corrugated gravel surface isn't funny. You can't use a hairpin bend on a railway, but switchbacks and zigzags were used, where a train reverses. DonnanZ (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• I think there might just be enough in the "especially railways/roads where a very tight turn cannot be used" aspect to keep this, and I would also say that, while our definition presently reads "A curve in the shape of a horseshoe", in fact there seems to be more to it than that, since a "horseshoe curve" in the railways/roads context has inflections, while a horseshoe does not, or not typically. Mihia (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  But use of a term like horseshoe is always impressionistic. DCDuring (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

It's a proper noun too, so there's even less reason for deletion: Horseshoe Curve (Pennsylvania) on Wikipedia.Wikipedia . DonnanZ (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Purplebackpack89 14:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

horseshoe moustache

NISoP, as above. DCDuring (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep — Dentonius 18:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• I'm no fan of face fungus, but I like the image of Hulk Hogan, if not the mo... so keep. DonnanZ (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• I would keep this, assuming that it is distinctly as described. I don't think it is totally obvious what it means from "horseshoe" + "moustache". I mean, it could be a moustache curled up like an upright "U" or something. Mihia (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• According to the moustache guide, it's enough just to say horseshoe, handlebar or walrus just to mention a few. Therefore, horseshoe moustache is indeed SoP and should be deleted. But I don't mind a nice mention (maybe with the image of Hulk Hogan) at horseshoe though. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Surely "horseshoe" is unusual in the sense of "horseshoe moustache" outside of contexts where moustaches have already been established as the topic? If it was said unannounced that "He had/wore a horseshoe", I would personally have no idea that this was referring to a moustache. Mihia (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep the name of the thing, what it's called. DAVilla 14:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Kept Yellow is the colour (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

porno

RFD sense: adjective. Clear use of the noun attributively. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you. I did a bit of fishing on Google Books just for fun, and did find the following:

• "Babe! You look so porno!"
• It could be called The Joy Suck Club . No , that sounded a little too porno.
• "Not too porno for you?" Lagerfeld had asked his older assistants at the studio.
• Your novel isn't too porno, I hope?
• ...thumbed through his collection of magazines. Nothing there. Too dull or too porno.

(There are actually a handful more "too porno" results, but I'll stop here.)

I'm still inclined to see these as nonce formations, in the same way that other nouns can be "adjectivalized" on the fly, e.g. "That sweater is so 80s", or "Their drama is very high school". But I'm afraid I've opened Pandora's box by finding these quotes, since they do seem to satisfy WT:CFI, which (unfortunately) has no provisions regarding ad-hoc/nonce forms. And even if it did, I don't know if I can muster a good quantitative argument for why it shouldn't be counted. If the number of uses modified by adverbs of degree (a proxy for number of adjectival uses) as a fraction of all uses of the word is very small compared to 'real' adjectives, that would be a good argument that the adjective form should be ignored as nonce. But (using just a few arbitrarily chosen adverbs), the ratios for porno and high school are not that far below orange which is clearly a bona fide adjective+noun (though not particularly gradable as an adjective - more gradable adjectives like hungry, lovely, or hot blow the others out of the water). So, yeah. What a mess. Colin M (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Right, this has come up before. Many nouns can in a certain style be "graded" like this with "so", "too", "very" etc., as a regular feature of English, without apparently thereby qualifying for a separate adjective entry. Some genuine adjectives are not, or rarely, gradable, however, so I'm not sure that counting frequency will always work. I'm not sure whether we have objective criteria other than "feel" or "common sense" to distinguish. Mihia (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, if we were considering something like inverted that isn't really gradable, I think the other two tests to look at would be whether it can be used predicatively ("the bottle ended up inverted"), and whether it can be modified by adverbs ("a concerningly inverted minivan"). Regarding porno, the examples above are mostly predicative, and it's possible to find some stray examples of interesting adverbial modifiers like "deliciously porno", or "suspiciously porno", but those clearly aren't representative of standard usage. Colin M (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

There are a few uses of “more porno than graphic”,^[57][58] which a superficial analysis could view as attesting a sense as an adjective. However, I take this to be a playful decomposition of pornographic as porno- + graphic instead of pornography + -ic.  --Lambiam 18:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, to be clear, my !vote (do people say that here?) is Delete. Colin M (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Over here, using the wikipedianism “!vote” is !done.  --Lambiam 18:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

At the very least delete the current adjective sense that adds nothing. It's been there since 2010, as an adjective section since 2012, and it has always been placed above the noun. Talk about an embarrassment. I think the quotes found by Colin M are mostly "reminiscent of pornography". ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep porno -> (pornography, pornographic) — Dentonius 13:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete adjective sense since it's the noun used attributively. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete in the absence of convincing true adjectival uses. Mihia (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

relative future tense

SOP; it's just the relative form of the future tense. (And incidentally, it's only in Scottish Gaelic, not in other Celtic languages; the equivalent form in Irish is the relative form of the present tense.) —Mahāgaja · talk 08:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

You may analyse it as a tense in its own right (my preference) or as a mere form of the future tense, but if you choose the latter you need to add a sense to relative, because "(grammar) That relates to an antecedent." with antecedent defined as "(grammar) A word, phrase or clause referred to by a pronoun." certainly doesn't cover cases like "ma thogras tu / if you want (to)". --Droigheann (talk) 10:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It's true that relative forms in Goidelic languages are used in certain subordinate clauses without relative semantics, such as "if" clauses and "when" clauses, but that's true of all relative forms, not just this one. But calling it a tense in its own right is simply absurd. The tense is future; the form is the form traditionally called "relative" though "subordinate" might have been clearer. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Well I'm no linguist, so I found it no more 'simply absurd' than calling the conditional mood the conditional tense, claiming that because (I drink because I'm thirsty) is a conjunction but therefore (I'm thirsty, therefore I drink) is an adverb, or calling sharp end of one's tongue a noun rather than a noun phrase, but have it your way. All I'm saying is that if this entry is deleted, the reader will no longer find information about the concept here. --Droigheann (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep — Dentonius 13:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. There are also several conjugations in Coptic that are called "relative tenses", we should not want to have separate entries for each of those either. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• RFV - Relative future tense Wikipedia doesn't have this term (maybe it should?). Anyway if there is a Scottish Gaelic or other language translation that isn't SOP, then sure. Facts707 (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Facts707 Why would you bother sending this to RFV? The collocation is obviously attested, the problem is that it is SOP. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Lingo Bingo Dingo I mean if there's a Scottish Gaelic or other language translation that is not SOP from terms in that language. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 11:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021

francais

Not really an English word. Should be analyzed as code-switching into French.--Tibidibi (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Not an English word. Mihia (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Well what language is it then? The French word is français. DAVilla 03:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@DAVilla It would be the English pronunciation of a French word, in contexts where foreign words (not loanwords, still foreign words) are used for effect.--Tibidibi (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I would call it a misspelling of the French word caused by incompetent code-switching. If you asked the people who use this what language it is, I'm sure they would say "French". When Ronald Reagan famously said "mee cassa ess soo cassa", did the fact that the pronunciation was unrecognizable as Spanish make it English? Chuck Entz (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

If you ask people what language tour de force or tete-a-tete is, I'm sure they would say French, mispronounced or not. DAVilla 06:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

In the sense we're talking about here, I would call it Franglais. To me, allowing this kind of jokey or facetious French, such as "I don't parlez-vous francais" (the present example), spelled correctly or not, as English, would seem to open the door to e.g. "Where's Philippe? I think he's dans his chambre" or "Ma tante left me this bureau", etc. etc. Mihia (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I should say, this is assuming that English speakers who say e.g. "I don't speak francais" always say it jokily or facetiously, knowing that "francais" is not actually an English word. If there are any English speakers who genuinely do think that "francais" is an English word, and that e.g. "I don't speak francais" is a normal English sentence, not an intentional mash-up of English and French, then I guess that would be a different bouilloire de poisson. Mihia (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I feel like there's a joke to be made here about getting rich making soup and becoming a bouillon-aire, but I can't quite get there. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

A hilarious joke from the originator of Let's Parler Franglais, Miles Kington, that I think many people will already know, but is worth repeating anyway, is the supposed motto of the French Navy: A l'eau! C'est l'heure! Mihia (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

My delete vote notwithstanding, I don't think failure to reproduce a diacritic not generally present on Anglophone keyboards is much of an argument for the word being English. (nor, incidentally, do I think that the diacritical variation constitutes an English pronunciation, since the difference in pronunciation between français and "francais" isn't a matter of /s/ vs /k/) -Coreydragon (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

In that case, "mee cassa ess soo cassa" isn't mispronounced either. It's not the spelling difference that makes it mispronounced (as a French word) or not, it's the accent of the speaker. Presumably, the /ɹ/ vs. /ʁ/ would be the greatest difference here... that is, assuming the speaker knows the s at the end is silent. DAVilla 04:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• @DAVilla Hey- back in literally 2009 you seem to have said that francais is an English language word- [59]. Do you have any examples from Google Books, archive.org or etc that would show this is true? Thanks for any help. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

That didn't seem necessary. I mean, look at the related terms. Clearly, clearly it's used in English. For quick cites, look up "speak francais". DAVilla 03:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@DAVilla, "speak Espanol" has about seven times more g-hits than "speak francais", "speak Nihongo" also has 14,000 g-hits, etc. The expressions in the related terms list are idiomatic ones.--Tibidibi (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

You make a strong case for Espanol, which everyone in my region understands, and Nihongo, which I had to look up. On the one hand, how is it that we suddenly identify English-only speakers as being so multicultural? On the other, what is a dictionary for if not for looking up words? DAVilla 07:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so at least we've established this is pretty common. Then by no means would I want to dictate exactly how, but I'm pretty sure some-how we need to handle it. Imagine someone reads "speak Francais" in a book, no italics or anything and even capitalized, and they think, oh how exotic, I've never heard of that language. Maybe not a Brit or Canadian but an American, say, and pretty believable thus far. So they look it up where? On Wiktionary, of course! Just take that as a given. And for sake of argument let's presume it's not an English word. Because, there's a definite line in the sand between loanwords officially part of the language and borrowed words which are very, very evil.

Assuming Francais had been deleted — after all, its only definition is in English for a non-English word — search would redirect the capitalization to francais, which is already kind of a bad sign, but let's keep going. What would this person see? A word in Malay. Hopefully they'd be smart enough to realize no one on Wiktionary was kind enough to help them out, and not foolish enough to think that's what it means. So in the typical scenario, they'd wind up somewhere else, probably Google which does actually try to help from time to time.

But if we're not so pessimistic, maybe they'd see Français at the top of the page and wonder if that was it. A Frenchman? Strike two. By some stroke of luck, in the marginally related language of Norman, Français does mean the French language. Coupled with the fact that it's a French word, that might incite more investigation. And for sake of argument, maybe they do figure it out next, either by looking up the French translation of French or more likely by clicking on the other tiny text at the top and realizing as much. But damn that was exhaustive. They nearly struck out, and we nearly failed our mission. That's cutting it too close.

If a word not uncommonly appears by itself in an English context with nothing to indicate it isn't English, and everything to indicate that it is, viz. anglicization of the characters and in my example capitalization, then it's not just an English word for all intents and purposes, it literally is a word in the English lexicon. At least, that's my take. DAVilla 06:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep but move lemma to Francais following the rule of capitalization for language names. DAVilla 06:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Leasnam (talk) 05:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Coreydragon (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Deleted as 3+ to 1. My bad, I thought this was a discussion. I'll try to remember next time. DAVilla 04:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@DAVilla: Why was Francais kept? RFDs usually include forms. J3133 (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh really? I thought it was specific. Maybe wishful thinking. OK deleted. DAVilla 19:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

no ifs and buts

Redundant to ifs and buts. No ifs or buts is more common anyway. Existing definition seems odd, since the obvious interpretation is in relation to the expression ifs and buts, not the rarer ifs, ands, or buts as presently stated. Mihia (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to ifs and buts, just as no ifs, ands or buts is a redirect to ifs, ands or buts. Colin M (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I have to say that I really do dislike automatically redirecting, without any explanation at all, and maybe even unnoticed e.g. by learners, from one entry to something that means the exact opposite. I would rather delete it and let people figure out that "no ifs and buts" = "no" + "ifs and buts". Or, if we do want to keep it, I would prefer an actual entry that says "negative of ifs and buts", or whatever the proper phrasing would be. Mihia (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Create no ifs or buts  with the definition “Negative form of  ifs and buts”, and redefine no ifs and buts as “Alternative form of no ifs or buts”.  --Lambiam 12:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

biological weapon

Link: biological weapon

As far as I can tell, this entry and all of the others listed afterwards seem to be equivalent to the sum of their parts. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

biological-weapon

• Delete, just attributive like "once-daily" medication. Facts707 (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

crew-served weapon

• ?? crew-served weapon, just a weapon served by a crew? Facts707 (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

In general

• Delete biological-weapon as an unnecessary attributive form; keep all the rest, none of which is readily understandable just from knowing what each of the adjectives means in isolation. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• In ancient Egypt and Greece, snakes were supposedly sometimes used to execute criminals. Is a snake a biological weapon? If I sic my dog on you, have I attacked you with a biological weapon? That one is certainly more than SoP. Colin M (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Good point, you've convinced me on biological weapon. Following similar reasoning I think "chemical weapon" and "radiological weapon" should be kept. I guess my criticism for the nuke terms is that our definitions aren't specific to any type of weapon that harnesses nuclear reactions. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
    • FWIW, the first line of wiki's article on Nuclear weapon uses a more specific definition than what we have currently ("A nuclear weapon (also called an atom bomb, nuke, atomic bomb, nuclear warhead, A-bomb, or nuclear bomb) is an explosive device that derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions,"). Though the distinction may be moot given the non-existence of any other sorts of weapons which are nuclear. Maybe nuclear submarines could count, though I don't know if it's conventional to call a military submarine a weapon. Colin M (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
      • We have radiological weapon which is not a nuclear weapon (does not depend on nuclear reactions for explosive force), but does depend on nuclear reactions (nuclear decay) for its deadliness. So, is Wiktionary's "nuclear weapon" (fission/fusion weapon) not distinguished from nuclear decay weapons (radiological)? -- 65.93.183.33 00:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• I would probably keep all. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete "crew-served weapon" and create "crew-served" instead (e.g. "In the context of the artillery forces, a gun is a weapon that (a) is crew-served, (b) has a mechanism to control recoil"). It need not occur in the fixed phrase. Equinox ◑ 20:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep all, except the attributive form biological-weapon. DonnanZ (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, generally. "Weapon" does not inherently imply "mass destruction" as opposed to, say, something used in hand-to-hand combat. bd2412 T 00:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep biological weapon, chemical weapon, atomic weapon and nuclear weapon; delete biological-weapon and crew-served weapon. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  Agree with this per arguments by Mahagaja and Equinox. DAVilla 19:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  @DAVilla I thought I'd alert you that this means you have not voted on thermonuclear weapon and radiological weapon; I'm not going to vote on those myself. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks. Keep radiological weapon per the argument for keeping nuclear weapon. Thermonuclear weapon might be the only unhyphenated one that's actually sum of parts, but we might have to raise that again once the dust settles, so to speak. This is going to be a crazy one to tally. DAVilla 13:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• biological-weapon has already been approved for deletion as the result of a policy vote on attributive forms. Tag it for speedy deletion if you want it gone. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete chemical weapon and crew-served weapon. The definition of the first is wrong (underinclusive). See Bond v. United States for the broad, sum of parts sense. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  I don't see any discussion of the definition of chemical weapon in the opinions for that case. The word chemical only appears 3 times, all in the following passage:

Section 229 forbids knowing possession or use of any chemical that “can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals” where not intended for a “peaceful purpose.” §229(a); 229F(1); (7); (8). The statute was en­acted as part of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–856, 22 U.S. C. §6701 et seq.; 18 U.S. C. §229 et seq. The Act implements provisions of the Convention on the Prohibi­tion of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, a treaty the United States ratified in 1997.

Note that the any chemical that “can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals” criteria is part of the statute which was "enacted as part of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act". But that is not described as defining a chemical weapon, and the defendant is never described as having made/used/possessed a "chemical weapon".

In any case, a legal finding about the definition of a word is less important than how the word is used in practice. Nix v. Hedden found that the tomato is a vegetable, but this should not bind our hands when we write our definition. Colin M (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment "atomic weapon" does not mean a weapon concerned with atoms or built from atoms (all non-software weapons are built from atoms, and concerned with atoms, since they are built from atoms). A weapon built from an atomic particle beam would not be a nuclear explosive. Reagan's SDI proposed to use such atom beam weaponry. -- 65.93.183.33 00:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment a uranium bomb is an atomic weapon but not a chemical weapon, even though it requires a specific chemical, uranium. It is also not a radiological weapon, even though some radiological weapon designs use uranium. Similarly with plutonium bomb. (both missing entries as of this moment) They are specifically fission bombs, even though fusion bombs use these as the fusion igniter. -- 65.93.183.33 01:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep all unhyphenated ones. An H-bomb was a common synonym for hydrogen bomb a few decades ago. U-bomb also exists but is less common. Facts707 (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Official Hostess

A title, but informal? And also capitalised? I'm not convinced by what I see on BGC. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 08:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. There are plenty of non-capitalized uses: [60], [61], [62]. The sense of official here is in most cases that of “pertaining to an office” – the office hosting an event. The official host or hostess is then simply the personal embodiment of the social (co-)hosting role for an official banquet, or whatever the event may be. It can be seen used, though (I guess by extension) for all kinds of events, such as conventions or red-carpet events, in which the hostess is appointed to her role by the organizing body. In either case, official hostess = official +‎ hostess. I don’t think the uses as a title qualify for being an honorific; the capitalization is conventional in general for job titles, as seen in Goodwill Ambassador, Press Secretary, Club Manager, and so on; but of course we do not have a page Press Secretary next to press secretary.  --Lambiam 12:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete as per Lambiam. We have chief executive officer but not Chief Executive Officer. We don't even have chief steward. Facts707 (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

not give someone the time of day

Reduced to its current form by @Mihia after a discussion at RFM. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd go the other way: give someone the time of day is NISoP; not give someone the time of day is a negative polatity item with a non-SoP meaning because of its discourse function.

In the past I'd thought that we'd want to make it clear that not is not an essential element of the collocation. Now I think the not is an essential indication of the nature of the idiom that is visible in links, category listing etc. I believe that, for almost all negative polarity items, typing the item without not into the search box will still lead to the term with not. DCDuring (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It does seem to hinge on whether the positive expression viably exists. Presently there is a positive example, "If you're lucky, she might give you the time of day". If we accept examples such as these as valid then I think we would need an entry for the positive version. Mihia (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Here are some positively positive examples: [63]; [64]; [65]; [66]; [67].  --Lambiam 10:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete as per DCDuring et al. At the risk of being too bold here, I made this into a redirect and added a negative sense "snub" at target. We don't have not give a damn, not tip one's hat, etc. Facts707 (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

However, we now have both a positive and a negative idiomatic sense at give the time of day, implying that the negative sense is not merely the negative of the positive sense -- so, if we're saying that it is, then the problem is just transferred to another place. In that case, we should label the positive sense "often in the negative", and put the negative examples there too, rather than list the negative sense separately. Mihia (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

IMO the negative sense is merely the negative of the positive sense; not to give someone the time of day is to not acknowledge them, to not give them respect or attention. The idiom see eye to eye is labelled (chiefly in the negative); we can do the same here.  --Lambiam 09:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

narrative link

All quotations are understandable as sum-of-parts narrative + link. Colin M (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - Yes, just SOP. Belongs in a game makers guide maybe, but not here. Facts707 (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 07:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

skazka

This is not an English word. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Move to RFV. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete or Move to RFV - only found a couple English language refs to this and they were both deep in the context of Russian poetry. I wouldn't mind having skazka in the language but I don't think it's there yet. Facts707 (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Move to RFV. Equinox ◑ 14:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/English#skazka. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

underreplacements

• Delete Can't find any citations for this plural despite looking hard. Changed underreplacement to "plural not attested". Facts707 (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• This should be a WT:RFV listing, not one at WT:RFD. There is no question that this would be included as a word if attested. bd2412 T 19:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Moved to RFV as per BD2412. Facts707 (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

aber-

@DanielJamesCollier, Mahagaja Appearing in English place names does not make this an English prefix. All the examples given were borrowed from Celtic languages with the prefix already included. The fact that the etymology still has the language codes from a Welsh entry just reinforces my point. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• I agree; delete. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• I don't think I have ever used this (I couldn't have, it's a new entry!). I was aware of the entry for Welsh aber, which I have used for place-name etymology, but I hadn't really noticed the Proto-Brythonic ancestry before. There is no corresponding Scottish Gaelic entry; Scots aber has a totally different meaning. I am undecided about this, we need to consider English Inver- too, if that is satisfactory maybe a move to English Aber- is the way to go. DonnanZ (talk) 09:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

tittytainment

This entry has no source. I have done my research and discussed it on the French Wikipedia community portal (here).
To put it bluntly: the only reliable source which has the word "Tittytainment" in the sense described currently at this entry (i.e. "A form of lowest common denominator entertainment designed to appeal to the masses and refrain people from thinking.") is the 1996 book w:The Global Trap by two journalists. Those journalists claim that this term was coined in with this meaning by w:Zbigniew Brzeziński. Hans-Peter Martin claims he is one of the three journalists to have been able to have access to the place where Brzeziński coined the term.
Tom Dalzell, Terry Victor, The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. Routledge, 2015, (→ISBN) as well as David Rowan, A Glossary for the 90s. Prion Books, 1998, (→ISBN) have another definition of this word. The New Partridge has: "tittytainment noun television programming that exploits sex US Used in the German media. • 'Tittytainment', lamented Die Woche, 'keeps the masses quiet[.]' — David Rowan, A Glossary for the 90s, p. 128, 1998". A Glossary for the 90s has: "Tittytainment n. Television that exploits sex to gain ratings. The term originated in the States, but has now arrived in Germany, where a glut of programmes concerned with such issues as Swedish massage techniques has aroused more than the obvious. 'Tittytainment', lamented the weekly newspaper Die Woche, 'keeps the masses quiet by feeding them the sweet milk of low-grade entertainment as though from an enormous breast'."
I propose that this entry be deleted, because this word is not used in English nowadays in any of the two meanings (throught Google search of "Tittytainment", I cannot find any webpage using), and because there is no reliable sources supporting the current definition of the entry. This is my first RfD on Wiktionary, so I am sorry if I got something wrong. Veverve (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• Googling gives lots of hits. Seems reasonable to keep it. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• Move to RfV. This is the wrong forum to raise this issue. bd2412 T 06:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

live in poverty

SOP. Imetsia (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• My first inclination would be to move to in poverty and revise accordingly, since this seems to be a set propositional phrase comparable to others that we have, such as in prison, in bed, or at home. bd2412 T 05:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Move to in poverty per bd2412. BigDom 06:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to poverty and explain it there. Troll Control (talk) 07:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. This is (IMO) obviously SOP, similar to live in squalor ^[68][69][70] and live in opulence.^[71][72][73] People who are poor can also remain in poverty.^[74][75][76] But do not create in poverty; expressions such as in poverty, in squalor, in blissful ignorance, in rapture, etc., obviously mean in a condition of poverty, etc., and are also SOP. The present definitions involving a notion of “poverty level” as a threshold are essentially circular, since the latter is an attempt by statisticians or governments to provide a quantitative criterion for “living in proverty”, and is a relatively recent invention, originally developed in the sixties.^[77] The expression live in poverty is much older.^[78][79][80]  --Lambiam 12:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 09:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

SoP delete SemperBlotto (talk) 09:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete per Lambiam. DAVilla 14:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Clear sum of parts. Glades12 (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Just SOP. No learner of English or anyone else will look it up. Facts707 (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Pu'er City

SoP. We don't usually include "City" in names of cities in China. @Geographyinitiative has recently requested for its deletion at Wiktionary talk:Requests for deletion (by accident) but has withdrawn it. However, I think the reasons for withdrawing aren't that strong; they are speculative and not really substantiated by evidence. Also, two of the three quotes in the entry show its use in contexts where it's specifying the administrative level of Pu'er with respect to other administrative divisions. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Either way is fine with me- see also Penglai City. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but we should probably indicate in a usage note that this isn't uncommon. I mean, you don't really see Beijing City or Miami City at all, certainly not like you do New York City. DAVilla 14:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Penglai City

@Geographyinitiative Thanks for letting me know that this entry exists. IMO it should also be deleted. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

web television page

Considering that the Wikipedia:Web television page was merged into Wikipedia:streaming television page on Wikipedia itself, after unanimous consensus for change reached on Wikipedia:Talk:Web television#Merger_proposal, I think it would be bad form and promote misinformation to keep this page. So, I am requesting it be deleted. If that is not possible, then the secondary solution would be to change the name of the page to web series. With that, I hope to hear from you all. --Historyday01 (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Historyday01 That's not how it works. See WT:CFI. We're a non-censored, descriptive dictionary, so as long as we have evidence that meets our requirements that it is- or ever has been- used in speech or writing to convey meaning, we will have an entry for it. It may be right, it may be wrong- it may even be offensive and evil- but we will have coverage. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, that is a good point. Maybe the term could be changed then, to something like streaming television instead? --Historyday01 (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

No, both are in use, so we can't change one to the other. Remember that Wikipedia is about things and concepts, while Wiktionary is about words, phrases and symbols. There's a difference between web television and "web television". The first is a topic that one writes an encyclopedia article about (under one name or another), the other is a phrase made up of two words that has one or more definitions, etymology, pronunciation(s) and grammatical information. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

every five minutes

Imetsia (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. For fun I tallied occurrences in news articles of someone reporting that their phone has been ringing every <time period>. These are the results, sorted by duration: two seconds (2×); five to ten seconds (1×); 10 seconds (1×); 30 seconds (2×); two minutes (4×); ten minutes (1×); half an hour (1×); (single) day (5×); other day (1×). In French one says likewise le téléphone sonnait toutes les ...,^[81][82][83] and in German Das Telefon klingelte alle ...,^[84] with likewise variable time periods.  --Lambiam 13:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Need not be five of course. Equinox ◑ 13:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete. SOP as above. Facts707 (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 16:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

class act

The sarcastic definition. Oh, and the first definition sounds a bit crappy to my ears too Yellow is the colour (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Deleted. And yes, the first definition needs attention. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Something has been lost in the replacement of the original wording, IMO. The notion of "excellence" alone doesn't completely capture the meaning of the term - there's definitely a sense in which it's used to denote grace/dignity/refinement. e.g. in the following quotes from the New York Times:

Still, the management shift was widely viewed as positive, driving Intel’s shares up about 8 percent. On Twitter on Wednesday, Mr. Loeb of Third Point called Mr. Swan “a class act” who “did the right thing for all stakeholders stepping aside” for Mr. Gelsinger.

“I will assert that we should stand up for those we are certain are genuinely class-act, selfless individuals,” Charles Welte, a junior on the team, wrote on Twitter. “It’s discouraging to see people removed from their dedicated positions despite rehearsing admirable principles that were instilled among countless student athletes.”

Warren is giving the right answer to Klobuchar forgetting the Mexican president’s name and looks like a class act doing it. This dynamic between the two women is great: Warren hits Klobuchar as hard as any other candidate, but stands up for her when she’s being treated unfairly.

These all carry a clear sense of decency and moral propriety. Colin M (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

These examples show that in many cases the excellence has an aspect of grace/dignity/refinement, and this may originally have been an important connotation. But in more than a few other uses this aspect is not so clear. In sports reports, it can be used for an excellent but not specifically graceful performance leading to a resounding victory.^[85][86] In the world of pop music, it can simply mean putting up an act that is a smash.^[87] It has even been used for excelling in performance on the market.^[88] None of these uses has a moral dimension.  --Lambiam 23:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think these should be separate senses. e.g. Macmillan splits it this way. Also, I think the direction of change over time is probably the opposite. i.e. it began with a meaning like "an act that's best in its class", and later drifted toward the other meaning from speakers inferring an association with class ("admirable behaviour; elegance"). Colin M (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• sense Deleted by SemperBlotto (talk • contribs) and cleaned up by Lambiam (talk • contribs) Yellow is the colour (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

bastard

@Sonofcawdrey added a sense to bastard of "(Of a language) imperfect; not spoken or written well or in the classical style; broken." with a cite of "Their language was a bastard Arabic, and yet they were not Arabs; I was quite sure of that." I don't see much distinction between it and adjective sense 4: "Of abnormal, irregular or otherwise inferior qualities (size, shape etc)"; certainly sense 4 would fit quite well with the quote. The only distinction I see is "not ... in the classical style", but bastard has pretty negative connotations; I'd be surprised to find a quote where I could clearly tell it was "not in the classical style" instead of "abnormal, irregular or otherwise inferior" (with the classical style obviously being considered superior.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, fair cop. I suppose it could be moved to a subdef of sense 4 ??? - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

In this sense, applied to a language, bastardized is far more common. The connotation seems to be specifically “mangled”, rather than a general one of inferiority.  --Lambiam 16:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

pay for

SOP. Imetsia (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 15:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as a translation hub. Other languages express this differently than as "pay" + "for" (e.g. German bezahlen). —Mahāgaja · talk 09:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• There is one lemming, Collins, with separate senses for the British and American sections. The sense is already covered at pay, the translations could go there, and I don't think a lemming argument should apply. The information should not be reduplicated, but I am not really sure what is the best place for it. Uses like you stepped on my toe, you will pay no doubt occur, but how common are they relative to the phrasal verb to pay for? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

in silhouette

Looks SOP to me. I could be wrong. Yellow is the colour (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks SOP to me too, both in silhouette and lit from the front.  --Lambiam 13:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Keep as creator. Lemming and set phrase. We also do have many other "in + [noun]" prepositional phrases. Imetsia (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Each such prepositional phrase should be considered on its own merits; “we have many other [suchlike]” would obviously not do as an argument for keeping in abundance, in bad company, in camaraderie, ... Here, I think the use of in is the same as seen in in frontal view, in full glory, in profile, and more generally in in black and white, in colour, in costume, and in makeup, qualifying how something is seen or shown. Of those in this list having an entry, in black and white can be justified as also having another meaning, “written down, undeniably recorded”. The other sense is just in +‎ black and white.  --Lambiam 12:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per above, this may be regarded as another lemming for those who care about such things, although it is not quite a lemma. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

black supremacy

Previously deleted in RFD (log here, discussion here) but created again without an undeletion request. This is still SOP, and I did not see any lemmings for this, contrasting with white supremacy. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The previous RfD did not have def 1 {{&lit|en|black|supremacy}} or def. 3. The three definitions seem quite distinct. I think that black supremacy is a term more commonly used by black authors. Accordingly, it is not as widely used generally as white supremacy. I don't see which meanings of supremacy make def. 3, in particular, SoP. DCDuring (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

You're correct about the definitions being different, and they're also better phrased. That said, I think definition 3 could still be understood from definition 1 and 2 of supremacy, even if the latter entry is overdue for an update. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems a bit unsatisfying that the only argument for keeping white supremacy but not black supremacy would be that the former passes the lemming test. A stronger argument might be that white supremacy passes WT:JIFFY, if, as seems plausible, white supremacy was the first instance of "X supremacy" acquiring the meaning of "the ideology that X is superior or ought to be in power". If this entry does get deleted, I hope the citations can at least be copied over to supremacy. Colin M (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Colin M The citations are already at Citations:black supremacy (where they will stay if the entry is deleted), anybody is free to also place them at supremacy. I think you're probably right about white supremacy being the jiffy of "X supremacy", although that may be an annoying thing to prove in view of the age of supremacy. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

McCain Republican

Long encyclopedic definition is a hint that this kind of term doesn't belong in a dictionary. DCDuring (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, just a Republican with views similar to John McCain's. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Imetsia (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Are there three cites for this [89]--Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

in college

SOP. Might as well have in second grade, in high school, etc. Imetsia (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, a Wonderfolly. Well, school's out. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with Imetsia. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 13:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. bd2412 T 22:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

first-line manager

SOP as first-line + manager. Imetsia (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete, it's also too specific. [90] ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

leaf

(Internet slang, 4chan) (derogatory) A Canadian person.

Removed out of process by Esszet (Special:Diff/62312925): “does 4chan slang really need to be here?” J3133 (talk) 07:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. The fact that it's 4chan slang is certainly not grounds for deletion. See Category:English 4chan slang. (I'm assuming it's attestable, but if there are questions about that, then RFV would be the place to resolve that.) Colin M (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Gui Hsien

Map including 貴縣 KUEI-HSIEN (AMS, 1954)

@LlywelynII Gui Hsien and Gui-hsien do not seem to exist on Internet Archive, Google Books, Google Scholar & Google. Probably would not exist as a Hanyu Pinyin-Wade-Giles combination. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC) (transferred from [91])

The only evidence I found anywhere that either word exists is the title of an article I can't find by James Marshall Plumer entitled "What is Gui-Hsien?", published in the Far East Ceramic Bulletin, Vol. 6, No. 1 1954, page 1 (University of Michigan Bibliography, p.84). Plumer's other articles are not about geography, and 'Gui-Hsien' may be the name of Guigang used to refer to a type of ceramic from the area, or it may be something else, maybe a ceramic pattern. Titles of his other works do use Wade-Giles and Wade-Giles adjacent transliterations, so his usage could very well be related to Mandarin. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC) (modified)

intersexualization

I'm not active here, so sorry if I'm going about this wrong. However I've stumbled upon this entry, and as far as I can tell it isn't an actual word in English. I'm not finding it in any reputable dictionary. Would like some input, perhaps I'm missing something. Thanks. --Gordonrox24 (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems like the word clearly exists- see Google Books and Internet Archive. There seem to be multiple definitions. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

It appears a handful of authors have used it, however I'm not sure if that actually makes it a word. As an author you've got some license to write whatever you want, I'd figure a dictionary would be a little more strict on inclusion. If I'm wrong, happy to learn. Thanks. --Gordonrox24 (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Our criteria for inclusion require that an English word be “use[d] in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year”. — SGconlaw (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be clarified that these attesting uses should convey essentially the same meaning. When authors independently make up their own term for something, then, even if they choose the same string of letters, the uses are likely to have disparate meanings.  --Lambiam 12:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)