Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup add new | history | archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification/English add new English request | history | archives Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for verification/CJK add new CJK request | history Requests for verification of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.	Requests for verification/Italic add new Italic request | history Requests for verification of Italic-language entries.	Requests for verification/Non-English add new non-English request | history | archives Requests for verification of any other non-English entries.	Requests for deletion/Others add new | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.
Requests for moves, mergers and splits add new | history | archives Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.	Requests for deletion/English add new English request | history | archives Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/CJK add new CJK request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.	Requests for deletion/Italic add new Italic request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of Italic-language entries.	Requests for deletion/Non-English add new non-English request | history | archives Requests for deletion and undeletion of any other non-English entries.	Requests for deletion/​Reconstruction add new reconstruction request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of reconstructed entries.
{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

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

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

Newest 10 tagged RFDs

• Philippines
  Vietnam People's Army
  language learning
  time stands still
  absquatulate
  make-work job
  consenting adult
  disem-
  whoreson
  malding
  

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 100 tagged RFDs

• 786
  nasal vowel
  fuck it up
  oral vowel
  adult material
  smackers
  not-to-scale
  Colon Street
  mathematical function program
  elder
  occasional furniture
  instance dungeon
  take its toll
  Kube
  stealth wealth
  stem mutation
  morel
  abstinence
  py chiminey
  renewable resource
  non-Arabic
  history book
  dynamics
  ex-senator
  ex-minister
  be at
  ex-serviceman
  ex-servicewoman
  lavalier microphone
  supply-side
  Hypatia
  in conclave
  leonine share
  stature in life
  stray dog
  square root of fuck all
  statically-typed language
  adoptive mother
  pro-Hamas
  anti-Hamas
  META
  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
  acquired characteristic
  from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free
  by what right
  anti-Hindu
  accessory before the fact
  accessory after the fact
  W rizz
  good boy
  good girl
  unspoken rule
  unwritten rule
  hadopelagic water
  Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
  subbranch
  Lulu
  -un-
  DKC2
  DKC3
  Nissia
  mean time
  zinc-bearing
  foregoing
  unrequited love
  L rizz
  El Camino Real
  marine toilet
  quarter-
  do want
  do not want
  because reasons
  twelve hundred
  December solstice
  ex-member
  tacit collusion
  Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
  apple turnover
  aluminium-27
  argon-36
  argon-38
  

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)
• Delete 1st, keep 2nd. First sense doesn't seem to be separable from see here. But second is legitimate. The second sense may have evolved from an imperative use of the verb see, but it's been semantically bleached, and is now just a discourse marker. If you try to read the "See" in the example sentence as a command, the sentence becomes an ungrammatical comma splice. Compare: Pay attention, in order to win the full prize... You also can't (naturally) read that sentence with the same prosody as the original. (Interestingly, even listen, and look, which are also discourse markers with the form of an imperative verb, can't be substituted with the same prosody. To my ear, they introduce a slightly longer pause, and have a falling pitch contour, whereas see has more of a flat or rising pitch, like now, so, or but.) Regarding part of speech, interjection seems fine as a diagnosis of exclusion. Colin M (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Deleted the imperative, kept the other. What to do about translations?? DAVilla 00:19, 8 May 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: [1], [2], [3].  --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)

This seems to be the government term, the name they give the thing, within the right context. Weak keep. DAVilla 00:55, 8 May 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”^[4]), 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.^[5] 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: [6], [7], [8]. 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)
• Convert to a Latin entry, per the above. bd2412 T 23:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Converted language or at least started, but I don't know Latin. Could use another look. DAVilla 01:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Delete, not convert, does not mean anything particular and is SOP as Latin. Fay Freak (talk) 21:03, 13 June 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 nickname is "Big Dog". Big whoop. Facts707 (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

As for the quote, it explains the meaning with "dogged determination". I think any use of Crouchy would probably explain why a given person would have such a nickname, "because he's a baseball catcher on summer weekends" or "because his last name is Crouch". The first three quotes at Crouchy explicitly mention the subject's last name. Facts707 (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I think a better comparison than the one by SGconlaw of words being used with the senses "an instance of <word>" is attributive nouns. Just like any noun can be transformed into a nickname, any noun can be used attributively, such as in paper cutter. Attributive nouns are an example of an open ended class that have been considered to not meet the criteria for inclusion and, as far as I can tell, are just considered a part of English grammar. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Leaning delete. I think that there may be a limited class of people for whom "Dog" is treated as a de facto "real" name (e.g., Dog the Bounty Hunter), but I can't find other instances on Wikipedia. bd2412 T 16:42, 2 June 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: [9], [10], [11]. 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)

Delete. A suffix is, by definition, a bound rather than a free morpheme. Clearly that doesn't apply to load. Not sure if I'm missing something more subtle here. Colin M (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete per sche. DAVilla 01:03, 8 May 2021 (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)

Keep and clean up. Quite certain it could be attested. And where else would it belong? Pig Latin isn't a language, which makes this English. DAVilla 19:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom and Facts707. Imetsia (talk) 21:04, 14 June 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 as a lemming. DAVilla 19:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete (correcting my previous entry), context dependent. We don't have deep roots, but we do have deep-rooted. Facts707 (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Rewrite. There's an idiomatic meaning here, but as others have noted, the current definition is way off. You can talk about a tree having roots that "go deep", meaning that they extend far underground. So something like "racism at the school {runs,goes} deep" is a figurative extension of that. It's saying there's a great deal of racism, and it extends further than one might readily perceive (for various possible conceptions of "further"). I do see an argument for it being SoP with the "extend" sense of go referred to above by -sche, but I think it's a fairly non-obvious turn of phrase, and the figurative use is sufficiently conventionalized (as opposed to, say, "go down to the bone") that it's worth an entry. Colin M (talk) 23:39, 28 April 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)

Delete both, SOP.--Tibidibi (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep the COVID sense with appropriate labels if attestable, delete the other generic one. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 13:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

As suggested by others, keep 2 senses: the proscribed one, and the literal one. Delete the rest. DAVilla 04:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

July 2020

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)
• Delete all excepting Major League Baseball possibly. DAVilla 04:44, 6 June 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 Google 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)

Delete. Camel case is informal and easily implies hyphenation. DAVilla 19:46, 14 June 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)

Keep corona party with both meanings, weak keep covid party, redirect coronavirus party and covid-19 party.

Keep pox party, redirect chickenpox party, chicken pox party, smallpox party.

Delete illness party assuming it can't be attested. Abstain on flu party, measles party. DAVilla 07:55, 24 June 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" [12] 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)

Keep per coalmine. DAVilla 04:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@DAVilla I am far from sure that this is a valid application of COALMINE. COALMINE pertains to alternative forms, so that a less common unspaced compound supports the inclusion of a more common spaced or hyphenated compound. But black man is not a compound, its a noun phrase with an attributive adjective that has undergone stress shift as a set phrase. I quote: "Terms that are not necessarily idiomatic but are the significantly more common forms of attestable single words.". ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

If there's a stress shift because it's a set phrase, that would be an even stronger rationale. I meant keep at least per coalmine, if for no other reason. DAVilla 19:56, 14 June 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)

@Kent Dominic: Loathsomeness is relative. The song "This Is America" features numerous repetitions of the phrase by a black artist in a context which suggests familiar use within his own culture. bd2412 T 05:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@BD2412: "Loathsomeness is relative;" true. Whether "This is America" uses a loathsome term, familiar as it may be, diminishes neither its loathsomeness nor my predilection to shun its use. Yet, given its use notwithstanding its loathsomeness, my vote was (and remains) to keep. --Kent Dominic (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

August 2020

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 Google 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)

Keep. DAVilla 04:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep, per above. Leasnam (talk) 06:49, 2 May 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)

• Keep. I added a second sense. It mostly applies to K-12 schools but occasionally higher ed. This never applies to stores, banks, government offices, stock markets, etc. although a stock analyst might say "school's out for the markets today too...":

School is not in session on a day generally expected to be a school day.

School's out on Thursday in Springfield; great time to catch up on homework.

Facts707 (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to the appropriate sense of out. I've added quotes showing out being used this way in reference to the United States Congress and college. The sense may be more common in the US, but I can find instances in many places, including the UK, using the GloWbe. In my view, the sense added by Facts707 is indistinct. The sense is non-specific on the time period for which the organization is out and the two sense just represent different example contexts. I think -sche's definition is well written. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

  That's really rare, tho. Certainly school being out predates this extended use by quite some time, as well. DAVilla 20:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  As to the rarity, Google reports 842,000 results for "Congress is out" and 1,270,000 for "college is out for", though, as always, consider those numbers with a fair amount of skepticism. I can't dispute your claims of one predating the other. What I can do is provide what I believe is a early quote involving the sense of out not in the context of school. I'm listing it here and not at the entry because I am not too confident in its relevance.

  1849, Henry Bibb, chapter XVII, in Narrative of the Life and Adventures of Henry Bibb, an American Slave‎^[13], third stereotype edition, New York: [self published], published 1850, →LCCN, page 181:

  But the people were generally poor, and in many places not able to give us a decent night's lodging. We most generally carried with us a few pounds of candles to light up the houses wherein we held our meetings after night; for in many places, they had neither candles or candlesticks. After meeting was out,^[sic] we have frequently gone from three to eight miles to get lodging, through the dark forest, where there was scarcely any road for a wagon to run on.

  Take care. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

  Move to out. DAVilla 08:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep. DAVilla 20:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

September 2020

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)

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)
    • OK added, but which sense? Presumably the first? DAVilla 02:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Yes. It's a bit roundabout, but Shylock, the character, is the etymology for Shylock, the spelling variation of shylock. Also, in retrospect, I am wondering if Shakespeare actually coined the name "Romeo", or if it was a name already in use that he merely applied to the character. bd2412 T 06:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Question answered. Romeo is a genuine given name. bd2412 T 06:57, 11 May 2021 (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)

"Connected via wires or nerves to" This is the literal meaning. Replace with {{&lit}}.

"Innately or instinctively a part of", "Included as an integral part of" all make sense if the object in each quotation is wired, e.g. brains wired with maternal instincts. Move and define there.

"Involved with" is a keeper in my opinion.

"Obsessed with", "Highly knowledgeable about" seem very similar to me. Merge and keep. DAVilla 20:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

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

@Facts707 It is generally considered poor form to edit other users' comments and you should take special care not to introduce grammatical errors into the comments signed by others (diff). For some strange reason, it also produced a formatting error. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2021 (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)

And why would anybody else bother looking if we're already voting to delete? Just because you and the nominator can't find any doesn't mean that I can't, but I'm not going to waste my time if it's just going to be tossed out anyway. How do I know you'll have time to circle back, to even have the chance of changing your vote? DAVilla 20:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Strong vote to move to RFV. DAVilla 20:34, 14 June 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)

• Delete along the same lines as Mihia. The phrase is a common collate, which generally deserve some sort of treatment (maybe akin to Appendix:Collocations of do, have, make, and take?), but it is still equal to the sum of its parts. The phrase switch sides seems to be the most natural synonym to me. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Delete. One dictionary does not a lemming make. DAVilla 08:23, 24 June 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 and clean up. DAVilla 08:26, 24 June 2021 (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”.^{[14].[15]→[16]} I think I see more than three book uses.  --Lambiam 14:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. That would make it an alternative form, then. DAVilla 08:29, 24 June 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)

  I'm not sure if you're making a case to delete or keep. DAVilla 20:41, 14 June 2021 (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)

• Delete the heroin sense, as it is trivial to find references to cooking heroin without "up"; send the other drug sense to RfV. bd2412 T 05:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  So if the verb is just "cook", what does "up" mean in the cases where "cook up" is used? DAVilla 20:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

November 2020

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)

Not sure about the first sense. It could be get + down with. Delete assuming so, but if not:

Replace the second with &lit: get down + with, unless there's an example outside of that.

Replace the third with &lit: get + down with.

DAVilla 21:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Imetsia (talk) 01:06, 15 June 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)

• Delete - no special meaning over the noun knack. He had a knack for business at an early age. She was a natural; after two lessions she had discovered the knack of it and was serving up aces. - I doubt having the phrase here will help, but knack is likely to be looked up. Facts707 (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest get the knack of it as a term, since "it" could be implied or refer to the action of a verb instead of some noun or gerund. Otherwise, delete this one. DAVilla 22:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Imetsia (talk) 01:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

December 2020

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)

• Delete or add to appendix. As Mihia says, it's about a spelling rule and highly unlikely to be looked up here by other than someone with an advanced knowledge of English. Facts707 (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

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)

Are we sure this means at birth? I would have assumed "female-assigned trans people" later assigned themselves to be female. This might be a good reason to keep. DAVilla 08:39, 24 June 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)

Delete. DAVilla 22:07, 14 June 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,^[17][18], imprudently,^[19] or heavily.^[20]  --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,^[21] and tread softly, found in a play published in 1633.^[22]  --Lambiam 01:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Delete tread carefully as SoP, although I'm surprised it's more common than lightly. DAVilla 02:09, 8 May 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)

Why wouldn't we be able to include a brand name? How is this not a noun? DAVilla 01:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. someone is playing politics. It's not hypothetical. DAVilla 22:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

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)

• Delete - unless someone can write a definition that isn't SoP. Looks like more of a writing guide phrase: There were many and lovely young women in the kingdom There were many and strange creatures in the lagoon. Facts707 (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. The significant attestation of many and diverse and many and various (also should be deleted if this is) in the COCA points to this not being lexicalized, even in contemporary English. In addition, many other compounds of the form "many and <adjective>" are attested. To Equinox's note, I think prim and proper is a common collocation (and could use its own nomination for deletion) and fish and chips has lexicalized. For many and varied, I think the order is fixed by the standards of adjective order in English. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 01:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  Delete. DAVilla 08:45, 24 June 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,^{[23][24][25][26]} or don’t know where, don’t know when.^[27] 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)

• Leaning to keep - I added "followed by a phrase" and "not followed by a phrase" to the two senses. This may help a bit for newer users of English. Can apply to other terms too, though: We'll always help a soldier in distress, no matter where. Just be done by Friday, no matter how. I'm still unsure whether it just means regardless with an explicit or implied following phrase. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 00:01, 14 May 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)

Delete or send to translation hub. "Getting" a state or other noun is just too obvious in English: "get a tan", "got sunburnt", "get high", "get clean", "get dirty", "get a headache", "get a job". Facts707 (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Delete... or the t-hub thing. DAVilla 08:48, 24 June 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)

Above: "Our entries for river names regularly do not include the word "river"." Here are the counterexamples: Yellow River, Pearl River, Mississippi River, Huai River, Yuan River, etc. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC) (modified)

• 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)
• Keep or remove diacritics - In Wikipedia:British English, River usually comes before (corrected) the river's name, e.g. Wikipedia:River Thames, although Thames River and just Thames redirect there in WP. I think if we're going to have these geographical features that we voted for, we should put them in their (native) English name or the most common English translation of the (non-English) name. Facts707 (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Literally look up some quotes The problem is solved immediately if no quotes can be found- deletion for lack of attestation. The problem is put under a more nuanced light if quotes can be found. The only answer is to make the attempt to find cites and then go from there. I have found three quotes for Bistrița River and I've added them on the Bistrița River page and the Bistrița page. Now we aren't making a decision in a vacuum.
  The idea that certain geographical terms "should be written without diacritics in English" is proscriptive, which is a fine rule but is not descriptive of the actual condition of the edge of 21st century English as it interacts with other languages. Not everyone has to know the name of the "little T-shaped dash thingie" for a word to be a legitimate part of expert-level English. This same type of issue came up a week back. I took a situation like this and literally blew it out of the water by finding relevant cites- see Jõgeva. You can scream "code-switching" til you're blue in the face, but English language sentences are talking about non-English speaking areas, and those authors are using some diacritics like we know what's going on. Here's Chișinău in English: [28]. The dictionary is descriptive not proscriptive, and the expert English users DO use the diacritics of other languages in English, journalists &c. left aside. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC) (modified)
• Hey @Einstein2, Facts707, J3133, Robbie SWE, Vox Sciurorum@Donnanz, Eirikr, Mahagaja: I have added three durably archived citations for the three 'River' entries above (see those pages). Now we know for sure that these concepts are used in English language documents, and the only question is whether Wiktionary will include them as entries. I'm invested in the topic because I like my citations on Yellow River, which extend to the early Modern English, and I'm afraid of a "SOP for all 'Name+River' entries" policy. (I guess I could move all my cites to the yellow page if needed, but it might be strange.) Anyway, I'm doing the mass reply to see if anyone's opinions are changed by any of this or my two comments above. If your opinions haven't changed, no need to respond. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC) (modified)

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)
• Keep combination of verb plus (what I thought is called a) participle which changes the meaning (tho we don't seem to have that definition). Instinctively, I would considered this incorrect English, and those entries are usually pretty solid candidates. DAVilla 01:45, 8 May 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. DAVilla 08:54, 24 June 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)

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)

Delete as overspecified, unless you can find a dictionary that makes this a subdefinition, where we would then need the others. DAVilla 09:00, 24 June 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”,^[29][30] 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)
• Keep. We don't say that's a pornography film, but we do say that's a porno film, meaning pornographic, not pornography as defined for the noun. DAVilla 22:51, 2 June 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)

Delete and define at relative. DAVilla 09:17, 24 June 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

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)

Tallying all the votes the results seem to shake out as follows, with votes tallied as Keep to Delete:

• biological weapon is RFD kept (6-0)
• biological-weapon is RFD deleted (1-6)
• chemical weapon is RFD kept (6-1)
• atomic weapon is RFD kept (6-0)
• nuclear weapon is RFD kept (6-0)
• thermonuclear weapon is RFD kept (4-1)
• radiological weapon is RFD kept (5-0)
• crew-served weapon is RFD kept as no consensus (3-5)

Feel free to challenge any of these and/or add more votes. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@The Editor's Apprentice: You listed biological weapon twice in your tally above. Is the second one supposed to be crew-served weapon? —Mahāgaja · talk 16:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: Yes, thanks for catching that. I guess that's what I get for not reviewing my edits. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 16:40, 6 May 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: [31]; [32]; [33]; [34]; [35].  --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)

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)

I'm kind of having a long-term conceptual problem on dealing with entries where there's "x geography location" + "County/City/Region/Islands", etc. For instance, why is Loving County or Madison County an entry? My way of dealing with this situation is just to ignore the Wiktionary policy and conceptual questions and just go ahead and attest whatever word is the title of the entry- like Diaoyutai Islands/Diaoyutai or Penghu Islands/Penghu for instance. For instance Xi has the river of China and not Xi River, but then we have Huai/Huai River- the opposite! We see Pearl River on the Pearl page, but don't even look for the Yellow River on the non-existent Yellow page, etc. I just embrace whatever the entry title is and attest that, but there's some kind of conceptual issue that I am missing. When there's a one syllable Mandarin derived English language location name, it's sometimes followed by or linked to "xian"/"hsien" or similar- same with islands- dao/tao yu/hsu-- like Lieyu and it's variants, which probably would be written Lie Yu if we were talking about the island rather than the township if Lie was more than one syllable. But because Lie is only one syllable, the island will be called Lieyu too. Not so for Hujing Yu- wouldn't be called Hujingyu except in a database somewhere. If it's two syllables, the hsien or tao part is dropped. Seems complex, and it seems like the issue was never dealt with in the past two-three hundred years of increased English language awareness of Mandarin-derived geography. My thought: attest first and ask questions later- attest them all and let God (or Wiktionary) sort it out. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC) (modified)

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)

April 2021

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)

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)

Taking into consideration that the term "black supremacy" is commonly used in numbers of publications and has been used by great number of black and white authors like Malcolm X, Marcus Garvey etc. I think it should stay Tashi (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete per Colin M. The phrase "white supremacy" also feels set, whereas "black supremacy" does not. If nothing else, recreating the entry without an undeletion request was improper, so the entry should be re-deleted by default. Imetsia (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

"Black supremacy" is not set? What? It's been set for at least 50-60 years and it's commonly found in literature. It's been used by prominent black activists like Malcolm X or Martin Luther King. It's been used numerous time and frequently by the prominent members of Nation of Islam which have had an enormous impact on the discourse in the US back in the 60-70s. Tashi (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

wheeze

sense: "2. Of birds, to make a vocalization that resembles the sound of human wheezing."

Sense 1 is not limited to humans, so this sense must be included in sense 1. I haven't found another dictionary that makes this distinction. Would we need another definition for a bellows, an asthmatic dog, etc? There is also only one cite. DCDuring (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to make a distinction between the primary meaning of wheezing as a symptom of partial obstruction of the respiratory airways, and that (by extension), if it can be attested, of making a sound similar to that of pathological wheezing. Is it common to refer to such sound production by birds as wheezing? It does not suggest making a visit to the vet with your Norwegian blue, unlike for your asthmatic dog.  --Lambiam 13:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that these senses are distinct. At the same time, I wonder if this definition is basically just figurative use. As such, that could still be worth including, I just don't know at what point. (The dividing line I would guess comes when the word starts to be used in a descriptive rather colorful way. The "black tuxedo and red shoes" and most prose is descriptive, "like a roadside undertaker" and most poetry is colorful. But less subjectively, the more common the figurative sense, the more likely this descriptive use has caught on, and the more likely someone will run across it as well.) DAVilla 22:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be changed to "to make a sound like" sense 1. I can imagine any number of inanimate objects being described as "wheezing"- a Google Books search on "wheezed its way" turns up a decent number of hits referring to various decrepit vehicles. Though, come to think of it, that may merit a separate sense of something like "figuratively: progress with difficulty, as if out of breath". Then there's the Tom-Swifty-style usage accompanying reported speech. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

As the creator of this def., I admit to being overly specific and surely a more generalised def is required. I shall fix it. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

no more

Rfd-sense "dead". "This parrot is no more!": see be, sense 1: "To exist; to have real existence; to be alive". 212.224.230.84 11:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Not necessarily a living thing that has died, it could be anything that no longer exists: see Lexico. DonnanZ (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. The verb form is in the dead-parrot usex is not a copula; this is simply the adverbial sense of no more; see the quote that is the last usex there.  --Lambiam 13:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • As I see it, it is neither adjective nor adverb, but a phrase. So that argument may be flawed. DonnanZ (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

    I do not understand your argument. In the saying, “when in doubt, abstain”, the words in doubt form a phrase, more specifically an adverbial phrase. We list adverbial phrases under the PoS heading Adverb. Likewise, when someone proclaims, “slavery exists no more”,^[36] the boldened part is indeed a phrase, an adverbial phrase, and it should be classified accordingly.  --Lambiam 11:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

    • I would rather call it a phrase than a bare adverb, which doesn't make much sense. In any case, the current PoS (adjective) is inaccurate. Keep and revise. DonnanZ (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I'm skeptical of this explanation. I can't think of any other cases where an adverb modifies "to be". You can say "Yet the problem stubbornly exists." but not "Yet the problem stubbornly is" and definitely not "Yet the problem is stubbornly." Colin M (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

    It seems to me that in the phrase “the Lord is with us in this place”,^[37][38][39] the adverbial clause “with us” modifies “to be”.  --Lambiam 11:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

    • I think he's talking about adverbs of manner (-ly adverbs), not adverbs of place ("They're here!", "I'll be back") or time ("My concert is tomorrow") or adverbial prepositional phrases like "with us" and "in this place". —Mahāgaja · talk 11:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

      "with us" is a prepositional phrase headed by "with". It is functioning as a predicative complement, not an adjunct. Colin M (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. What Lambiam said. Fay Freak (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the lemming. Also, the fact that the term acts somewhat as an adjective, can instead be interpreted as an adverb (as the above demonstrates), and is made up of two determiners (or maybe adverbs?) has to count for something. All the layers of confusion means no more is not clearly understood from the sum of its parts. Imetsia (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep because the parrot still exists. I didn't see another dictionary that defined be as live, and I'm having a hard time imagining it used that way. "What did the doctor say?" / "Grandpa is." / "Oh, that's wonderful news!" DAVilla 09:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@DAVilla: And did you see another dictionary that defined no more as "dead"? 212.224.230.114 10:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@DCDuring. 212.224.230.114 11:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

This should be moved to be no more - an unnecessary entry, but it will at least have the merit of not being ridiculous and nonsensical. 212.224.230.114 11:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

MWOnline has no more defined as an adverb meaning "dead, departed", but its only usage examples are with forms of be. This lemming would not be a great one to follow.

I think I agree with Lambiam that be ("exists") is not the copula and that the adverbial definition "no longer" accurately characterizes usage such as the "dead parrot" example. Thus we should not have the definition under challenge unless someone can show other usage showing true adjective usage, which seems to me unlikely. DCDuring (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

isekai

Sense 2: "Transcription of 異世界". I don't see how this is a sense of an English word. Equinox ◑ 22:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Transcriptions do not constitute terms in another language. Given the context of the quote in that entry, from a text by a Japanese author and with a Japanese character uttering that sentence, I'd be inclined to view that as code switching. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Move the transcription under a “Japanese” heading. (Compare arigatō (arigatō).) — SGconlaw (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  There is already a “Japanese” heading classifying this as a romanization; the question is to delete or not to delete.  --Lambiam 10:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Whether uses of the countable noun isekai in the sense of “alternate world” are instances of code-switching or indicate incorporation into the English lexicon cannot be decided by consulting a single source. Here is another book use: “An isekai is a dangerous world.”^[40] I think this also qualifies (if it is durably archived): “To his surprise, when he woke up, he was reincarnated as a baby in an isekai of swords and magic.”^[41]  --Lambiam 10:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Given the context of both works is anime / manga, the entry should clearly indicate that this term is specific to these speech communities. I'm not certain of the correct labeling, or I'd add that myself.

We appear to be missing any sense line that would fit the citations provided so far.

For the sense line at issue here, though, I think delete is the only clear approach -- transcription alone doesn't signify the creation of a lexical item, and the citations show more than just transcription. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete per above. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

isogonic line

SOP. This, that and the other (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 04:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Keep per lemming, MW has it. [42] The Collins page probably does not qualify as an entry. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete as transparently SOP. One less-than-high-quality lemming does not convince me, especially the M-W, which is a notoriously liberal/permissive dictionary. Imetsia (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Delete. One dictionary does not a lemming make. DAVilla 09:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

spiring

Really an adjective? Or just a participle? Meh, I have no preference. Yellow is the colour (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Looks OK to me - keep. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• Also meh, but FWIW, that parses to me as the present participle -- in that usex, no different from growing grass, i.e. grass that is growing. But then I see that growing also has an "Adjective" POS, which I similarly disagree with, but anyway. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Where is DCDuring? I'm sure the opinion would be that it's not a true adjective but just an attributive use of spiring. I also agree with Eiríkr Útlendi on growing. Could be applied to loads of participles, e.g. Darkness is good for sleeping children. Air is good for breathing children. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
• Just to note that the OED has an entry for the word as an adjective, so the lemmings principle may apply. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
• From the sole example, I would say it's just the present participle of to spire, but maybe there are other quotations where it looks more adjectival. Delete unless someone finds quotes that change my mind. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

it's a tough job, but somebody's got to do it

Sum of parts. 212.224.228.122 11:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The definition is really the opposite of what you'd expect ("The role or assignment is a particularly attractive or desirable one") but it is glossed as sarcastic. Equinox ◑ 12:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I would question whether the sarcastic use is especially conventionalized. Browsing google books, literal uses definitely outnumber sarcastic ones. Colin M (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I changed "sarcastic" to "ironic", but I agree that the phrase is also often used unironically. I also know it as the variant it's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it (and both can substitute "someone" for "somebody", of course). —Mahāgaja · talk 14:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I vaguely remember that we decided not to include ironic senses since almost any positive phrase can be used as an ironic snarl. (“A masterly move, Fred. Great, just what we needed. You deserve an award for this.”)  --Lambiam 00:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

There's a bit about this at WT:CFI#Sarcastic usage. Colin M (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a pompous cliché, like something out of an old public-service newsreel, and it's used to make ordinary things sound heroic. It's precisely those qualities that make it fun to play against. I don't know if those added connotations are enough to make it idiomatic for dictionary purposes, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I am seconding Entz here- there is something special about this phrase that deserves extra consideration. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep. The ironic use is, in my experience, the most common and it would really difficult for non-L1 speakers to make much sense of it. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Weak delete. This probably doesn’t qualify as a set phrase, and I think that it’s self‐explanatory, but it’s so iconic/cliché that I feel like we need to mention it somewhere. I would demote it to an example sentence in an entry like tough or job. —(((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 20:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep - also moved entry to ...someone... (most common in Google) and made a proverb. Facts707 (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

flounce post

Link: flounce post (“A melodramatic posting announcing one's departure from a group or forum.”)

Equivalent to flounce (“departing in a haughty, dramatic way”) + post (“electronically posted message post”) as far as I can tell. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, if for no other reason than the CFI golden rule of: A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means. If I encountered this term, I would need to look it up to understand what it meant. Looking up the individual words would not be enough to make me confident I understood what the term meant. And it's not like this is part of some wider productive pattern of verb+post. People don't talk about "leave posts" or "quit posts" or "complain posts" - at least not in the way that "flounce post" appears to be widely used as a fixed phrase with a particular meaning known to a specific linguistic community. Colin M (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  I didn't know what it meant either, but that's because I didn't know what flounce meant. I'm not sure if I would have assumed the person was leaving or not, based on the definition of that word. Maybe it could just be a flamboyant rant? But the way it's used is definitely rage quit. DAVilla 19:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, this is textbook SOP and the productivity of [base verb] + post, the question whether this really is [noun] + post aside, is a red herring. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The verb vs. noun question may not be important, but I think it is very relevant whether this is part of some wider productive pattern (and - closely related - whether it's open to substitution). The reason something like cell phone store is SoP is that it's part of a widely understood productive rule where "X store" means "a shop that sells X". Hence why it's also possible to talk about a "clothing store", or "antique store", or "candy store". Even if you've never heard someone talk about, say, a "fidget spinner store", if you encountered the term you would immediately know what it meant. To me, that is at the heart of what it means to be SoP. We don't have an entry for "cell phone store" because its meaning is predictable, and because it would lead us down the path of having entries for indefinitely many "X store" compounds. But neither of those issues applies here. Colin M (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

    @Colin M But it is part of a productive pattern. You can to a limited extent form transparent compounds in English using the lemma form of a verb followed by a noun; the contrasting pair file cabinet and filing cabinet is one example, without pairs there are drivetrain and cooktop, probably kill zone and skateboard. Compounds of this type may be regionally marked and there seem to be some restrictions (influence from a noun with a closely related meaning probably helps), but they are widely understood. That latter part, the parsability of productive combinations is everything needed for this to be SOP. There is no necessity for any analogies. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

    I'm not sure that those examples help your case, seeing as they all have entries. Unless you think file cabinet and so on should also be deleted as SoP? Again, I think for something to be SoP its meaning needs to be predictable from its formation. And a pattern as broadly defined as "verb followed by noun" doesn't have any corresponding uniform rule for determining its semantics. e.g. a search party is a party that searches, but a call girl isn't a girl that calls. Colin M (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

    "I'm not sure that those examples help your case, seeing as they all have entries." That is a non sequitur, I deliberately selected words that have entries as examples, it cannot be concluded from that that this pattern must be evidence of idiomaticity. They only serve to show that the verb+noun pattern is productive, also consider the ambiguous cases welcome post, spam post, troll post. No, those entries should not be deleted. "And a pattern as broadly defined as 'verb followed by noun' doesn't have any corresponding uniform rule for determining its semantics." That is irrelevant to question of whether something is SOP or not. In some cases a compound where the noun is the agent will be SOP, other cases where the noun is the patient will be SOP, and in some cases the compound will not be SOP. That must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A putative bite dog will be SOP both if it just means "dog that bites" and "dog that is (to be) bitten"; it would still be SOP even if it had both senses. As for your examples, call girl is rightly considered idiomatic, search party also has specific shades of meaning that makes it includible in my opinion; one does not form a search party to discover Atlantis or to find mineral deposits. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

    welcome post, spam post, and troll post are good analogies that do provide some evidence of possible SoP-ness. But I think there's a difference in that the meaning contributed by the first word is unambiguous in those cases (spam and troll may be polysemous, but they each have exactly one highly salient meaning in the context of internet forums), but not so for flounce. Hence the applicability of WT:CFI#General rule. Colin M (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

    @Colin M Considering that flounce posts will be found on social-media sites and forum boards, the meanings "to move in an exaggerated, bouncy manner", "to flounder; to make spastic motions", "to decorate with a flounce" in sewing or "a strip of decorative material, usually pleated, attached along one edge; a ruffle" in sewing do not sound very plausible, unless the supposed flouncer films xirself. And really, the ambiguity of a certain case of polysemy does not render a term idiomatic; consider talk:Orthodox Christian which can be notoriously ambiguous.

    Anyway, I am not a fan of this novel reinterpretation of CFI in terms of patterns of substitutability (and I stress that policy pages are not intended for creative reinterpretations) and I still consider it a red herring. A good understanding of the productive parts of English grammar should suffice. A competent speaker is perfectly capable of analysing marginal coinages like BoJo Brexit (proper noun + proper noun, "type of Brexit advocated by Boris Johnson"), beggar-thy-neighbour beggar-my-neighbour trade policy (adjective phrase + noun phrase + compound noun, "protectionism regarding the trade of beggar-my-neighbour") and even Literary Sacerdotal-Orangutan French in the context of La Planète des singes (adjective + noun phrase + proper noun, "literary register of French spoken by orangutan priests"). ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

    To me, flouncing (in either sense 1 or 4) has a connotation of being fey or theatrical. I could therefore imagine a flounce post as being merely any silly, puffed-up post. But I can accept that maybe I'm just being unusually dense here. I'm curious to see what others think - i.e. whether they're able to automatically grasp what the term means without looking it up. Colin M (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

    Personally, I've never heard of a "flounce post", but I've read discussions about whether today's newbie who claimed they'll never be back will "stick the flounce". --Prosfilaes (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I created it. I believe it is the "set phrase" for this sort of thing, but I see zero hits in GBooks, so maybe it isn't that important... Equinox ◑ 22:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Tamil religion

Does not appear to be lexicalized.--Tibidibi (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Delete, the definition is also rather grandiose. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Don't Delete, the definition is correct and sources are : https://tamilreligion.org/home and https://books.google.com/books?id=JFRRl1vv0kwC&pg=PA393 . Rather than deleting we can do some corrections where it is needed. VelKadamban (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The first of those links isn't durably archived. The second doesn't seem to use the phrase "Tamil religion" anywhere, and where it does discuss the religion of the Tamils says it's Hinduism, so it's not referring to the pre-Hindu ancestor and nature worship. If anyone can find durably archived sources that do call the pre-Hindu relgion "Tamil religion" rather than using that phrase simply to mean "the religion(s) of the Tamils" (most of whom are Hindu, and most of the rest of whom are either Christian or Muslim), then keep. But otherwise delete. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Mahāgaja Dude, south African Tamils refer their religion as Tamil and Not Hindu... their religion is Tamil, also that first link is website of Tamil religion in Malaysia VelKadamban (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd say that a Tamil religion referring to a pre-Hindu religion would be equally SOP. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

It's either SoP or doesn't actually exist. Delete SemperBlotto (talk) 09:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

It actually Exist! sources are : https://tamilreligion.org/home and https://books.google.com/books?id=JFRRl1vv0kwC&pg=PA393 South African Tamils refer their religion as Tamil and Not Hindu... their religion is Tamil, also that first link is website of Tamil religion in Malaysia VelKadamban (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

It has already been pointed out to you that the destination of the first link is not durable, and worryingly it is also nakedly promotional, and the linked book discusses a Tamil form of Hinduism, so that does not support the definition. You should read the sources that you provide critically and adhere to the criteria laid out at WT:CFI when you offer evidence. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Sir, I'm Trying to say that Tamil Diaspora people Refer their Religion as Tamil. And also Hinduism is Full of Sanskrit, And it is totally wrong to make Tamil as a form of Hinduism, The worship of Tamils and Hindus differs a lot. The first like is not for any promotion, i shared that link because that link is official website of Tamil religion in Malaysia. Try to understand that Hindu Religion and Tamil Religion is Different and even i'm a Native Tamilian. So i Now about that! Still many Tamils follow Non-Hindu (Non-Sanskrit) religious Worship, which is Tamil worship as Tamil Religion. This Tamil religious worship is different from Hinduism and Many Tamil Diaspora people Follows Tamil Religion (Tamilism). So this phrase Tamil Religion should not be deleted from Wiktionary. Thank You! VelKadamban (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@VelKadamban I am not set on the view that all indigenous Tamil religion is Hindu, because it is a subject about which I have little knowledge. But the durable attestations of the phrase "Tamil religion" chiefly seem to refer to a specifically Tamil variety of Hinduism, regardless of the facts on the ground, or they are too vague to decide. At Wiktionary we are concerned with words and phrases as they are attested in durable (lastingly archived) use, not with an accurate reporting of cultural reality; that is something for journalistic reporting and encyclopaedias. Besides, even if Tamil religion were attestable as a term denoting a religious tradition distinct from Hinduism, unlike Tamilism it would be still unidiomatic. Also, while I appreciate that you are being polite and I don't give a rat's arse about pronouns, I would actually prefer not to be referred to as "sir". ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo Ok Dude! Thank You! I Understood! Do According to Our Wiktionary Policy. Can you clear me a Doubt, after i'm Giving proper source (Which says Tamil religion refers to Religion that differ from Hinduism) can i add the Phrase "Tamil Religion" to Wiktionary back later? Have a Good Day! VelKadamban (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Here at Wiktionary we do not go by what sources say about what a term means, but by the meaning a term appears to have as it is used – preferably in a context where the speaker does not feel a need to explain the term, but assumes their audience is familiar with it.  --Lambiam 11:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@SemperBlotto: could you please ascertain whether you're convinced this does exist, per below? If so, do you still feel it's sum of parts? DAVilla 14:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep. Looking through Google Books I see two kinds of usage. Half of it is talking about any religion from the region, especially in historical context, which would be sum of parts:

1. these cults have deep Dravidian roots and may be considered as an expression of and indigenious [sic] Tamil religion
2. [George Uglow Pope] boldly asserted that Saiva Siddhanta was an exclusively Tamil religion

But the other half appear to be talking about a very specific group of religious beliefs:

1. The ‘Tamil’ religion is a term and a reality which is peculiar to Mauritius and which has no counterpart in India, even in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Tamils have had a long religious history in the island.
2. An interesting aspect of the religious attitude of the Hindu Tamil diaspora in many countries is their attempt to distinguish their religion from Brahminical [sic] Hinduism. They are proud to call their religion ‘Tamil Religion’. This has been observed by many historians.
3. I have already mentioned the organizational ability of a community, contributes to a large extent to the maintenance of their language and culture. One can notice regular organization cultural functions among the Tamils: Valluvar day, Tamil New Year, Annual function of the Tamil Federation, Baradhivar centenary, etc. […] The religion, mentioned as “Tamil religion” by the Mauritian Tamils, seems to be one of the most important signs of Tamil identity. It is quite obvious that the Tamil language enjoys a privileged place in religious ceremonies.

Wikipeda notes that "Many emigrant Tamils retain elements of a cultural, linguistic, and religious tradition that predates the Christian era." This resonates with the analogous description of diaspora above. But the Wikipedia article then goes on to muddle this concept with the wide variety of religious beliefs held by those in Tamil Nadu today.

In short, the Tamil religion is a real, distinct identity noted by anthropologists but confused with the SoP definition many here wish to delete it for. It is not the religion of the people of Tamil Nadu, but one that originated there. DAVilla 20:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep Appears to be lexicalised. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sonofcawdrey In what way does this "appear to be lexicalised"? Have you found any lemmings for this phrase? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

From my reading of the cites on Google Books, etc., it seems that "Tamil religion" has a specific meaning that is not really deducible from its parts. Not sure what lemmings have to do with it. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Delete, does not appear to be lexicalised. PUC – 14:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Goldfish cracker

Move to Goldfish. DAVilla 09:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I have heard fishy cracker on several occasions of a mother to a young child, in reference to same. Facts707 (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Fishy cracker does seem attestable. I'm not sure if it's common enough to redefine Goldfish as a fishy cracker. DAVilla 21:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Two questions: does it meet WT:BRAND, and is the cracker ever attested as "Goldfish" without the "cracker"? bd2412 T 16:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure to be included as a brand name, it would have to be attested without "cracker", which rather gives away what it is, a cracker in the shape of a goldfish. Tho I guess you could hunt very thoroughly for something that requires an understanding that it's specifically a cheese cracker, without mentioning that fact. Most cites I see fall into one of two categories, either mentioning Pepperidge Farms when referring to Goldfish crackers, or just talking about goldfish crackers in lowercase. The inclusion of Goldfish I don't doubt would pass, if the term frequently in lowercase is almost genericized, except that it's very difficult to hunt that word alone. DAVilla 08:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Goldfish crackers are not necessarily cheese-flavored. The Pepperidge Farm Original Goldfish crackers are not cheese-flavored. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

This Fast Company article uses "Goldfish cracker" on the first instance and then "Goldfish" on subsequent references without mentioning Pepperidge Farms until the fifth graf. Pepperidge Farms styles them as Goldfish® crackers or Goldfish® baked snack crackers, but also as Goldfish® grahams for the sweet versions. It seems to me that "Goldfish" should meet WT:BRAND, if for nothing else the way the manufacturer distinguishes between the savory crackers and the sweet cookies. Move. Tcr25 (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't doubt your conclusion, but to be clear, references like that would not be counted. The idea behind WT:BRAND is that the reader would be expected to just know what a Goldfish is, without having to be told it's a cracker, or that it's a trademark, or that it's something produced by Pepperidge Farms, all of which would invalidate a citation for this purpose. DAVilla 09:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm a Jain

We can't possibly have entries for every religion. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps not, and what about I’m a pescetarian and so on, but is there an argument to single out Jainism? We also have I'm a Buddhist and I'm a Muslim.  --Lambiam 14:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• If we keep entries like I'm a Christian, I'm a Muslim, and I'm Jewish, but exclude this one, that strikes me as discriminatory. Obviously, per Lambiam, we can't include every sect or denomination, but Jainism is in the top 20 world religions by size. bd2412 T 17:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• @BD2412, yes, but I don't think it would really make sense to have these phrasebook entries for all twenty religions anyways. I think we should cap it at Judaism, excluding folk religions (so Christian, Muslim, atheist, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Jewish).--Tibidibi (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Taoism and Shinto are both larger than Judaism. Some other religions may be as well, given historical disputes over who counts as Jewish. bd2412 T 17:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Delete because it's a horrible entry. If someone walked up and said this to me, I wouldn't have the first clue what they were talking about. I'd probably think their name was Jane or something. And if the phrase isn't practical, and I mean immensely practical, then it shouldn't be in the phrasebook. You'd better tell me something like I practice the religion of Jainism for it to sink into my skull. DAVilla 10:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not horrible. An anomalous title like I practice the religion of Jainism for one would be worse. In some languages the translation will make it clear that the noun concerns the follower of a religion, doctrine or similar. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Well that example was a bit hyperbolic, but anyway translations don't have to be word for word. DAVilla 09:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. Though a reasonable request for deletion, I think this is relatively useful to have compared to some of the other entries in the phrase book. That said, it isn't "discriminatory" to exclude smaller religions at some arbitrary point, the idea that it would be is some pernicious American legal bollocks. The OP's statement is of course true. But this one having well upward of one million adherents according to neutral observers and not being easily shoehorned under another grouping is enough for me to keep it. Furthermore, against DAVilla's argumentation, English is an important language in India, that some speakers of English don't know about Jainism is not relevant. We could host many translations of "I'm a Jain" into a dozen Indian languages in the entry and that would be a worthy addition to the phrase book. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  What's the most common way this would be said in India, then? If it's as is, fine. DAVilla 09:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

About useful phrasebook entries: it is good to know that if you’re ever transported to the Rome of the 2nd century AD and get an Internet connection there, you can use Wiktionary in case of an emergency to tell the Romans in Latin to call the police. Except that the sense “Use a telephone to request the arrival of a police officer” may be lost in translation.  --Lambiam 16:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

It is actually meant for just in case you are in Vatican City. :3 Tharthan (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Top twenty is a low bar. It maybe makes sense to include the top four or five world religions, but no more than that. More generally, I'll reiterate the sentiment that many users have expressed in various discussions: We need phrasebook reform. Imetsia (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

x tree deadwood

I just stumbled on (maybe "stepped in" would be more appropriate) a whole bunch of redundant and SOP entries for trees created by an IP who bears all the marks of blocked user BrunoMed. They were blocked for ineptly creating huge blocks of cookie-cutter entries, apparently from lists. These are a prime illustration of the technique, and why it's a bad idea. They mostly consist of:

English

{{wikipedia}}

Noun

{{en-noun}}

1. A tree of the [taxonomic rank] [taxon name], [a rehash of the definition from the real entry, or a lame improvised one]

Usage notes

• [name of the entry] is less commonly used by far than [the real entry] in referring to such trees.

Synonyms

• {{l|en|[the real entry]}}

The summary on the edit that created the maple tree entry shows the cookie-cutter aspect fairly well.

apricot tree

This term is actually listed on WT:Idiom as an example of an idiomatic phrase. In fact the previous RFD was no consensus. Assuming it passes this time, we should probably solidify more clearly why it does, especially if not all of the entries here should. DAVilla 09:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

beech tree

Here the usage note starts out with "In some dialects," for some reason.

This can be kept per COALMINE: [43] [44] [45] ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

birch tree

Here again the usage note starts out with "In some dialects,".

crabapple tree

The definition "A tree of the genus Malus." refers to domestic apples as well as crabapples

London plane tree

I removed the usage note that said " London plane tree is less commonly used by far than London plane maple in referring to such trees", because the London plane is definitely not a maple, though the genus Platanus shares the common name sycamore with some maples

• I heard the term "London plane tree" mentioned on BBC Radio today, so it may be worth keeping it. DonnanZ (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

peach tree

Here they left out the second half of the definition, so it reads "A tree in the genus Prunus". A look at Category:en:Prunus genus plants shows just how bad a definition that is.

swamp oak tree

There have been more species added at swamp oak, but not here. That shows why this kind of an entry is a bad idea: it gives the false impression that swamp oak tree means something different from swamp oak

That's more a matter of where to place the lemma. If it were at swamp oak tree, then swamp oak could be defined something like: a swamp oak tree or its wood. The latter meaning seems to be missing here. DAVilla 10:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

willow tree

I could say more, but this will have to do for now. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• I would prefer to keep all the two-word entries. I have a fig tree which bears figs, which can fall on my head without warning in the summer, and a crabapple tree which bears crabapples. In both cases I tend to use the full name. DonnanZ (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe for the ones where the [X] of [X tree] is the name of the fruit the tree bears, but maple trees don't bear maples and beech trees don't bear beeches. —Mahāgaja · talk 23:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• If applies, keep per WT:COALMINE (e.g., appletree, oaktree, and elmtree (which is listed)). J3133 (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I have a love-hate relationship with WT:COALMINE, whether it applies or not.

Generally I find removal of any of the two-word terms would be rather unhelpful, but have no objection to removal of the three-word terms nominated.

As an aside, could London plane be misconstrued as an aircraft flying to London? DonnanZ (talk) 09:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

In the right context, sure. Does "We boarded the London plane" mean we got onto a fixed-wing aircraft bound for London, or does it mean we cut a tree trunk into boards? —Mahāgaja · talk 11:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, context does indeed matter. DonnanZ (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Your relationship is not relevant; it meets CFI as we voted for “unidiomatic multi-word phrases to meet CFI when the more common spelling of a single word”. J3133 (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's see, in place names we have Pear Tree; Plumtree; Birch Tree, Missouri; Willow Tree, New South Wales; Oak Tree, County Durham; Beechtree, Pennsylvania; Figtree, New South Wales; Orangetree, Florida; Lemontree, Queensland; Limetree, U.S. Virgin Islands; Tea Tree, Tasmania. Something of a mixed bag. DonnanZ (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

If you do not like the CFI create a discussion at the Beer parlour because I came to RFD not the Beer parlour. J3133 (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

?? If you read between the lines of the above examples you should be able to see that I accept that WT:COALMINE can apply in many cases. DonnanZ (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - As we keep oak / oaktree / oak-tree / oak tree, I hold that we should keep both eucalyptus and eucalyptus tree, so long as there is one entry with a def and the other entries are cross-references to it. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Keep and redefine each. E.g. maple - 1.1 a maple tree (that entry to have details) - 1.2 wood from the trunk of a maple tree, e.g. maple flooring; six cords of maple - 1.3 a product derived from the sap of a maple tree, e.g. maple syrup, maple sugar - 1.4 the flavor of the above; maple flavor, e.g. maple candy, maple milkshake; - 1.5 a leaf from a maple tree; a maple leaf. This would probably also help resolve apricot and London plane. Facts707 (talk) 09:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  Keep most if not all. DAVilla 09:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per J3133 and, if applicable, per Facts707. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep those entries for which WT:COALMINE applies, per J3133, but delete the rest. Imetsia (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

un-Mario-like

Is this not clearly SOP? — surjection ⟨??⟩ 19:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I would wager it's just hyphenated, and has decent citations backing it up, but I made the page so we should get more advice on this. StuckInLagToad (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

What is the meaning of “just hyphenated”?  --Lambiam 12:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Commonly, when a word is formed by adding an affix to a capitalized word (such as a proper noun), the parts are orthographically separated by a hyphen, as in un-American and Aesop-like. A word formed by adding an affix to a stem, rather than combining several stems, is traditionally not considered a compound, so this is not a “hyphenated compound” – unlike the undesirables listed at the end of the section WT:SOP (although I think wine-lovers can be found in coalmines). So, as a word, it is (IMO) not essentially different from unladylike. Perhaps we need to re-open the discussion (there are also “un-Biden-like”,^[46] and so on), but this is not covered by the letter of the existing hyphenated-compound clause.  --Lambiam 12:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't a coal-mine populated by wine-lovers be a wine-cave? ;) But yes, this is not a compound word. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Delete or find reference outside of the W:Mario franchise. Mario and Marioesque have transcended the Nintendo world into the English language, but I'm not convinced un-Mario-like has done the same. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 09:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  addendum: Googling "un-Mario-like" -Bros -Super doesn't give much of anything, and I like Colin M's rationale, e.g. who needs un-Biden-like? Facts707 (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  It may legitimately be questioned whether the term meets WT:FICTION, but that is a question for RfV.  --Lambiam 23:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  FICTION does not apply, as this term, like Marioesque, did not originate in the fictional universe, in contrast to Mario himself. DAVilla 22:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep as not a compound. Regarding Facts707's rationale, send it to RFV if you want to (I neither endorse nor oppose that), but don't use RFD to bypass WT:Fiction. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. SOP would mean not like Mario the person/character. This is in reference to the style of game. DAVilla 22:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  However, lemma should be at Mariolike, with Mario-like as alt. DAVilla 10:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Lambian, Lingo Bindo Dingo: Properly speaking it's indeed not a compound and hence also no hyphenated compound. However, Wiktiony has it's own terminology. It's using "Derived terms" for both derived terms (derivatives, derivates, formed by derivation) and compound terms (compounds, compound words, formed by composition). And it's using "hyphenated compound" (WT:CFI, WT:vote) for non-compounds as well, as can be seen in the example ex-teacher which is ex- +‎ teacher. Tetris-like was already deleted, though before the "hyphenated compound" rule. --2003:DE:3728:BF54:79BA:FF5A:8C6E:321A 12:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, a compound is a type of derived term so that is not very peculiar. Using "hyphenated compound" for a derived word that is not a compound word is just an error, nobody is bound by that kind of terminological mistake. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Imetsia (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a policy-based reason I can vote delete, but if this ends up being kept, I hope it will prompt a reckoning about tightening up CFI. Something like un-Mario-like is clearly not lexicalized. It's just an ad-hoc coinage with a meaning which is predictable based on the sum of its parts. Why does it matter whether those parts are separated by spaces, dashes, or the empty string? Making entries for every combination of bases and affixes ever used is a waste of time, and a drag on the project. We don't need this, or Mario-like, or un-Biden-like, or Marioesque, or anti-Mario, or pseudo-Mario... the frictional coefficient of this slope is close to 0. Colin M (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Red-Letter Christian

Not SOP and as a common noun not really covered by WT:NSE, but the most precise definition would be "a member of the Red-Letter Christians" which was the name of a specific activist group, so this is getting rather close to a proper noun. My instinct would be to delete this as marginal content for a dictionary. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

It is a useful definition that could not be guessed. If we insist on "Red-Letter Christians" as the lemma, then fine, make it a plural entry, and use "singular of..." at the singular, but that approach always look backwards to me. Equinox ◑ 18:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

"It is a useful definition that could not be guessed." That is a relatively common trait for common nouns denoting members of organisations with opaque names, some of which should be kept and some of which should not. Not a fan of the good old lemma switcheroo either. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Would you want to delete Seventh-day Adventist too? Equinox ◑ 18:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

No, but that one isn't really in the same ballpark. Red-Letter Christian is quite rare with use mostly restricted to a few years around 2010 when the movement was a bit of a thing. Seventh-day Adventist Church would presumably pass NSE, but a proper noun Red-Letter Christians wouldn't really stand a chance, would it? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Christian rock

Christian metal

Arguably SOP. Even though the artists involved tend to specifically be conservative Christians, I think that is more a matter of practical realities than denotation. If kept, "theme" should perhaps be changed to "message" or "lyrics". ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Imetsia (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep. These are the specific labels we give to those genres of music, SOP or not. And if you don't know what it is, you'd be forgiven for not guessing music, among the many definitions. DAVilla 22:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Jewish nose

Jewish Bolshevism

SOP, these are just stereotypes where the heads are commonly misattributed to Jews by anti-Semites. Compare Talk:greedy as a Jew, Talk:nigger cock for similar analyses of stereotypes. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Is Roman nose different? Equinox ◑ 18:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. Is it called that because it was a Roman beauty ideal or because it was considered typical for Romans? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Each one had a different creator. How can you tell who's an anti-Semite? I have a roamin' nose myself - it was broken many years ago. DonnanZ (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see much merit to randomly speculating about the biases or ideologies of editors; I really see no basis to allege anything in these cases. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. But as a stereotype, I think it is comparatively mild compared to some other racial slurs, of which there are many: Yank, Frog, Eyetie, Chink, Jap, nigger, wog, Russki, Polack, Paki. Therefore I don't think there is much reason for deletion for Jewish nose. DonnanZ (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep Jewish nose and Jew nose.--Tibidibi (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Delete all per nom. Imetsia (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep Jew nose as syntactically irregular in addition. Delete Jewish nose. Unless we want to start cataloging strings of stereotypes (there is certainly utility in that, but not for the majority), these cultural knowledge tests have a limit. DAVilla 21:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not convinced "Jew nose" has to be syntactically irregular; just read "Jew" as a noun. It's a granny annexe, not "a granny's annexe". Equinox ◑ 21:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@DAVilla, Equinox is right, there is nothing irregular about the syntax of Jew nose. It's just a straight-forward compound like garden tool and magnolia leaf. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete Jew nose as well. DAVilla 14:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep Jewish Bolshevism can be left in the Wiktionary. The Russian language knows the word жѝдобольшеви́зм (žìdobolʹševízm). At least you can add that this is a historical term. Now this word is perceived with laughter, and the prefix жидо- (žido-, “Jew”) is specially extended to nouns and personal names, even to verbs and pronouns, to discredit the right wing. Regarding the rest, unfortunately, I do not have a definition of "Jewishness", so I cannot evaluate the noses. Gnosandes (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

That might be the germ of a valid THUB argument, but I think that the THUB should then be placed at Jud(a)eo-Bolshevism because the hyphenless single-word variants seem to be citable (COALMINE). ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

worlds

Adverb sense. This is just sense 11 of world: "A great amount". You can replace "it is worlds funnier" by "it is a world funnier" or "it is a great deal funnier" or (I think) "it is a great amount funnier". See, for instance, [47]. This, that and the other (talk) 05:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom, but perhaps there should also be a ux with a comparative at world, sense 11. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Good suggestion; I added a somewhat silly one. This, that and the other (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Does one imply the other? Something can be "a (good/great) deal funnier" but not "deals funnier". Equinox ◑ 00:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I feel like deal is special because it no longer has that sense outside the set phrase. This, that and the other (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

We have a definition for loads, tho "a load" would suffice. DAVilla 21:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Interesting point. The second comedian was a lot funnier sounds fine but The second comedian was lots funnier sounds like a mistake a child would make. Turning it around, a load funnier and a heap funnier sound strange to me. I guess what we're asking here is, is a world/worlds different to these? This, that and the other (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

electrolytic capacitor

SOP. Imetsia (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The German and Dutch translations could in my view support a thub argument for keeping, but by themselves they are surely not enough. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, for whoever cares there is also a soft redirect in Collins online dictionary, though I would not regard that as a valid lemming. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

young

(Moved from RfV.) --RichardW57 (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC) The sense "people who are young", with example usage "The young of today are well-educated", is a use of the adjective 'young', not of the noun. The current entry may also have led @SodhakSH to assert, "'Young' can also mean '[a] young person'". --RichardW57 (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

It’s a use of an adjective in an absolute form, isn’t it? A large number of adjectives can be used in this way: “the poor”, “the intelligent”, “the young-at-heart”, and they generally (exclusively?) refer to people with that attribute as a class. For young in particular, one cannot say “She is a young”, but “many animals care for their young” is OK. I note that the OED is inconsistent when it comes to labelling such entries. Some are marked as absolute uses of adjectives, while others are treated as nouns. I suppose we should have a policy discussion at some stage on how such terms should be treated here. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

If this were an RFD I would say "delete". I think we generally remove these. I do. Equinox ◑ 02:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@RichardW57: perhaps this discussion should be moved to either RFD or the Beer Parlour. I don't think it will be a problem verifying such uses of young; it's a question of how uses of this sort should be treated in the Wiktionary. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, moving to RFD. It would be good if there were more documentation of {{rfd-sense}}, analogous to that in the RFV family. --RichardW57 (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Delete for the reason I expressed earlier. (Is there a suitable place such as an appendix for explaining how adjectives can be used in an absolute sense? If not, there should be.) — SGconlaw (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  I suggest that Appendix:English grammar is the appropriate place, but I don't know how you get people to read it. A link from WT:English_entry_guidelines#Parts_of_Speech for difficult cases might help. I suppose the documentation of English is complete enough that we no longer need to explain the difference between prepositions and adverbs, which would also belong with this explanation. --RichardW57 (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  @RichardW57: well, if it were documented in an appendix, we could refer readers and editors to it if the issue comes up again. — SGconlaw (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• I came across a similar case today: "man labours to rebuild the mediaeval whilst he ruthlessly scraps the modern". I decided "mediaeval" was an adjective, and added the quote there, even though there is a PoS for the noun. DonnanZ (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Delete 🔥ಶಬ್ದಶೋಧಕ🔥 02:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Keep if we define "absolute adjective" and agree to have a separate subsection for it like nouns, adjectives, etc. do. But Delete based on precedent if we aren't going to do the foregoing. Alas, I'm neither the leader of the wise nor the great unwashed. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

FYI: It's a different POS (and hence a conversion, a new derived term), and if you would translate it into German you would also notice a different spelling, like die reichen Leute = the rich people and die Reichen = the rich. --22:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:3728:BF73:C88E:495A:7F18:2825 (talk).

Being an absolute adjective is a property of an instance of an adjective, not a lexical matter. Any prototypical adjective can be used as an absolute adjective, so it is not something that a lexicon should record, but rather a language's grammar. --RichardW57 (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we may be talking apples and oranges here. englishgrammar.org says, "In grammars these adjectives are called non-gradable or absolute adjectives. Non-gradable adjectives do not have comparative or superlative forms. There are very few non-gradable adjectives, so you can learn them by heart if you really want. Here is a list of common non-gradable adjectives in English. Note that this is not a comprehensive list. 'Absolute, impossible, principal, adequate, inevitable, sufficient, complete, main, unanimous, unavoidable, entire, minor, fatal, unique, final, universal, ideal, whole, preferable, dead etc.'" Anyway, aren't we using a noun form here and "young" is not an absolute adjective? It seems to me to be an "implied noun", e.g. www.chicagomanualofstyle.org: "... not negate the fact that the adjectival phrases are in the position of being before the implied noun and therefore should be hyphenated." Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Should be deleted per the general RFD at Talk:sick#RFD_discussion:_September–December_2020, I suppose. - -sche (discuss) 03:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete. DAVilla 15:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Imetsia (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

RFD-deleted. Imetsia (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

jihad

Is there a need to specify this set of campaigns over the (many) other wars that have been called jihads?--Tibidibi (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Delete. If the term was attested in a capitalized form referring to that specific war/campaign/time period (parallel to how we have Crusade and crusade), then it might make sense to add it to Jihad, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Tcr25 (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

That would make sense in that case, but I couldn't find use of it that way, either. Delete. DAVilla 21:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

(ec) When used in this specific sense, I’d expect a capitalized use, Jihad, similar to Crusade. I also wonder, which of the three 12th-century crusades is “the” Crusade in the 12th century. The question is, really, is the term used in this specific sense, where it is not immediately clear from the context this is a campaign in response to a Crusade? One might consider the crusades a very belated response to the 7th-century Muslim conquest of the Levant (and in particular the conquest of Jerusalem) on the Byzantine Empire, which was sold by the PR department of the Rashidun Caliphate as a jihad.  --Lambiam 13:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Delete, not a lexicalised distinct sense. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Delete, agree with above. A WP topic and unlikely to be helpful here. Facts707 (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Imetsia (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

RFD-deleted. Imetsia (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Mars rover

Sum of parts: Mars (“the fourth planet in the solar system”) +‎ rover (“a vehicle for exploring extraterrestrial bodies”).  --Lambiam 20:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment, in the interest of transparency, I've created Marsverkenner and copied the translation table from Mars rover there. --Azertus (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  We don’t put translation tables in non-English entries, though. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, as per WT:THUB. It seems a common enough term in English and "rover" as in "rover (space exploration)" is not particularly common. Facts707 (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• Keep translation hub. DAVilla 20:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per THUB. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep because it's an actual entity unlike "Jupiter rover" or "Neptune rover." Also THUB, however much I dislike the policy. Imetsia (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

RFD-kept. Imetsia (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

town council

county council

SOP and without the qualities of a set phrase (as might instead be the case with city council or student council). Imetsia (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Keep both - I don't think "the qualities of a set phrase" matter here. I have added usage notes to town council, and also note that where the British government have abolished county councils and replaced them with unitary authorities, the term "county council" has often been dropped and replaced by just "council". DonnanZ (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

It is true that parts of the UK have these things, but they are still just the council of a county or town. I would delete it. We may also have a "town mayor" etc. Also, seriously, Donnanz, your support has become a very strong sign for something that should be deleted. You may want to consider that. Equinox ◑ 09:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I already have. A town council is a parish council that has declared itself to be a town council, and also can have a mayor, unlike a parish council. Yet both parish and town councils serve/represent a civil parish (or community in Wales). What's in a name? DonnanZ (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• Keep both, but I would recommend the defns. be simplified to something like "a city council for a town". County council says "This term has slightly different meanings in different countries." Also Equinox, I think you're being a bit hard on Donnanz. Yes it appears Donnanz appears to vote "Keep" more often than most, but his vote still counts and not for the opposite. Facts707 (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  Equinox isn't saying at all that Donnanz's vote should be discounted or reversed, just that his keep votes serve as indicators of entries or senses that ought to be deleted. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

  Oh, sorry I didn't mean to imply that Equinox was implying that. Just that a Donnanz "keep" vote shouldn't really be an indicator for an editor to vote "delete". I'm sure there was some tongue in cheek in some of these comments. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep both per lemmings [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55], though I agree they are SOP. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

RFD-kept. Imetsia (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

rebacchisaurid

Definition (note spelling):

1. Any sauropod dinosaur of the family Rebbachisauridae

There are just barely enough cites on Google Books for this to pass rfv if it weren't an obvious typo. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

But this is a question for RFV tho, shouldn't it be? DAVilla 20:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, obvious typo and uncommon misspelling (the correct form is rebbachisaurid with two b's and one c). —Mahāgaja · talk 20:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  Ah, thank you! DAVilla 14:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Move to RFV. Facts707 (talk) 02:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  We generally only keep common misspellings. I believe that's still somewhat subjective, but this case clearly is not. DAVilla 14:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per Mahagaja. - -sche (discuss) 17:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per Mahagaja. Fay Freak (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per above. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete this misspelling per nom and Mahāgaja "(the correct form is rebbachisaurid with two b's and one c) Facts707 (talk) 04:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Imetsia (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

RFD-deleted. Imetsia (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Twitch.tv

A Web site. Equinox ◑ 07:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Imetsia (talk) 23:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, there is no way this meets WT:BRAND. Note that we have a proper noun entry for Twitch, defined as "Short for Twitch.tv", which should also go. bd2412 T 00:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• Move to Twitch which looks like it might have a chance to pass RFV (since it's used as a verb, for instance). DAVilla 20:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Move per DAVilla. DCDuring (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete and have Twitch say what it actually is and if it can pass RFV. "Twitch is the world`s leading video platform and community for gamers." Facts707 (talk) 01:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  I'm good with that, minus the advertised "leading". DAVilla 15:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

  OK, I updated Twitch as discussed and RFV'd it - I'm neutral on outcome there. Facts707 (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. @Facts707, you've voted twice now. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

  Oops, you're right! Sorry I missed that - removed older vote. Thanks, Facts707 (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Tharthan (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete 🔥ಶಬ್ದಶೋಧಕ🔥 12:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Gone. DAVilla 10:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

girly boy

SOP? --22:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:3728:BF73:C88E:495A:7F18:2825 (talk).

• Delete - As far as I know and as defined, yes. DAVilla 20:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - SOP. We don't have boyish girl either, but we have tomboy and tomgirl. Facts707 (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, even if the etymological statement is true, there is still no valid reason for preserving this entry. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete 🔥ಶಬ್ದಶೋಧಕ🔥 12:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Imetsia (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

RFD-deleted. Imetsia (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

lincolnensis

Perhaps better making a Translingual entry out of Streptomyces lincolnensis instead of having one just for the specific name. Maybe the author meant that lincolnensis as itself is used in English to refer to this species of bacteria, but this is not clear from the definition. Kritixilithos (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Streptomyces#Hyponyms has lots of species listed, some of which point to Wiktionary (e.g. Streptomyces fradiae) and some to Wikispecies (e.g. Wikispecies:Streptomyces lavendulae). Wikispecies:Streptomyces has entries for maybe 5-10% of the species it lists. I don't see anything in WT:CFI about bacteria or any other forms of life for that matter, although it does mention chemical formulas. I don't see any great advantage to reinventing the wheel that Wikipedia does well and Wikispecies aspires to. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Alternatively, make lincolnensis Translingual instead of English, which might seem to require a PoS Specific epithet – although we might stick with Adjective. Issues about the bi of binomial nomenclature keep arising; perhaps we should formulate some guidelines. See also User talk:Jyril § Binomial species names. @DCDuring.  --Lambiam 09:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I have added a Translingual L2 section. Also, I removed the "definition", moving portions to the Etymology. I assume that the intended English definition is "a bacterium of the species Streptomyces lincolnensis". For now I have added {{rfd|en}} in place of a definition.

The cleaned-up English L2 section would warrant an RfV, which it would likely fail, no matter what the definition.

The question of inclusion of taxonomic names is a matter for, first, the Beer Parlor, then a vote. DCDuring (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

FA Cup

Specific names of trophies given by one particular organization only; thus is not dictionary material. c.f. Talk:Stanley Cup deleted April 2021 with this rationale. Also this particular trophy is a WT:SOP being just FA+cup, the cup of the FA. Other trophies will be forthcoming. -- 67.70.27.180 01:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• I will also note that World Cup does not define the FIFA cup as a defintion. -- 67.70.27.180 02:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Semper Blotto reverted the RFD, as well as a lot of stuff added to the page by that user. DonnanZ (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Probably because the template was subst:ituted. Fixed. DAVilla 20:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• I don't agree with the deletion of Stanley Cup because there's plenty of use in, what would it be called, metaphorical construction (like "the Mann Cup is the Stanley Cup of Canadian lacrosse"). However, I can't really find anything for this one. DAVilla 21:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm saying keep anyway, as the FA cup is probably the best known trophy in England and Wales, let alone in football cup competitions. DonnanZ (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Is there something special to it being England and Wales? The Stanley Cup is the best known trophy in Canada, so, FA Cup has not special place under such a valuation. Unlike the Stanley Cup, you can determine that the FA Cup is for the FA, while the Stanley Cup is not for some Stanley sport. -- 67.70.27.180 02:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Also, in ice hockey, the best known trophy is the Stanley Cup, unlike in football, where it is the World Cup. -- 67.70.27.180 03:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - very unlikely to be searched in a dictionary as spelling is pretty obvious. WP handles it well at w:FA Cup. Facts707 (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Bearing in mind Lexico/Oxford has it, that could be a fallacy. A link to the WP article has been included for the inquisitive. This little page is a pretty harmless reference, to be honest. DonnanZ (talk) 09:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

There could be some British bias, considering that Oxford is located in Britain -- 67.70.27.180 03:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Imetsia (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep, it's bizarre but it turns out that there are multiple lemmings. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep. DAVilla 14:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete. PUC – 16:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@PUC, Imetsia, Facts707 What do you think of these four lemmings? [56] [57] [58] [59] ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I think they're cute, but unnecessary in a dictionary and it opens the door to many others. Do we really want a slew of "... Cup" listings, like the W:Egypt Cup, W:Rugby World Cup, etc.? Besides, who goes to the Cambridge Dictionary to look up FA Cup? Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 12:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Facts707 That slippery-slope argument is not relevant to anything that has been said. Show me the copious lemmings for "Egypt Cup" and "Rugby World Cup" and then we'll talk. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

This is why I voted against the lemming proposal; I don't want us to be bound by the decisions of other dictionaries. Let them have an entry if they want to, but I don't think we should. 212.224.225.102 13:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, there are many other entries that I dislike, but I put up with them - one man's meat is another man's poison. DonnanZ (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

And we don't have C cup but we do have C-cupper for some reason. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@PUC Not being bound by the editorial decision of one dictionary is one thing, but removing something that is included by four seems like a willful destruction of value. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

We should always judge an entry on its merits first. Lemmings can be a secondary consideration but are not an "inexorable command." To me, the argument made above and our strong precedent in Talk:Stanley Cup are too convincing. So the lemmings argument doesn't really persuade me so much. Imetsia (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

RFD-kept by no consensus. Imetsia (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

pâté de foie gras

SOP. PUC – 10:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Imetsia (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

??? Which meaning of de is applicable here?  --Lambiam 00:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

...good point. Makes me think of Talk:made in Italy. It's arguably code-switching, borrowing the (SOP) French phrase wholesale into English, but iff we accept it as English, it's not SOP in English...unless someone wants to argue that the use of de for "of" has become English the way le (“the”) has ... - -sche (discuss) 00:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Weak delete as borderline code-switching that is nearly SOP, I'm not eager to allow the non-Englishness of the preposition de to become the linchpin for inclusion as English. Convince me that pâté de foie gras is older than pâté and foie gras in English and I'll revert my vote. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I can believe that foie gras occurred earlier in English texts, but were such instances then not an instance of code-switching? And is it reasonable to think that English speakers were about to say pâté of foie gras, but then for some reason swapped the English preposition for French?  --Lambiam 14:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

When WF was growing up, this stuff was called "fat liver paste" in the home, and since he's had his own family he hasn't ever bought the stuff. When the kids grow up and learn French, though, they'll be getting some with the calqued name to put them off it. Indian subcontinent (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep as a fixed expression. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep common phrase in English. I'm sure many readers will not know that pâté is a paste. The mousse and parfait forms are rarer in English. (Gross anyway: Ducks are force-fed twice a day for 12.5 days and geese three times a day for around 17 days.) Facts707 (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

crawl

Verb sense #8 "To visit while becoming inebriated." The example given is "They crawled the downtown bars." which may include becoming inebriated, but the act is the same as sense #2 "To move forward slowly, with frequent stops." with the possible difference being that a bar crawl might not always proceed in a single direction ("forward"). The "while becoming inebriated" qualifier does not seem to be intrinsic to the definition. The only entry in the translation box for this sense is to the Finnish kontata, which doesn't mention anything about inebriation. Tcr25 (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• delete: Ibid what you said. Moreover, the example given for #8 is transitive while the sense given is intransitive. Such mix-matching deserves the boot as a lexicographical matter of principle. --Kent Dominic (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Is there any connection with a bar crawl or pub crawl? DonnanZ (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but pub crawl still fits with sense #2 (move forward with frequent stops). It's possible to engage in a pub crawl without "becoming inebriated," which is part of the sense nominated for deletion. Tcr25 (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Having commuted on Los Angeles freeways half of my adult life, I'm quite familiar with sense #2, and that doesn't apply here. It refers to having your progress slowed down to the point that sometimes you don't move at all. The "stop" referred to here is a cessation of movement, not an intermediate destination during a trip.

The sense in question uses crawl instead of walk as a humorous allusion to inebriation rather than as a statement that becoming inebriated is a necessary condition- it belongs in the etymology rather than the definition. It would probably be more accurate to say "visit multiple places where one might become inebriated", since the idea is that one might become inebriated enough to have to crawl between locations. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Living in the DMV and having driven along I-95 and the Beltway almost daily, I understand what you're saying about LA freeways. That said, the sense here is broader than bar crawl/pub crawl. It's the same meaning that is connected to dungeon crawl or hex crawl in RPGs, as well as other events like book crawls, dessert crawls, or coffee crawls. It's about moving forward in a methodical manner with stops. The traffic sense to me seems to be a difference of degree (although you're right that one "stop" is cessation of movement and the other is "destination" or "location"). Is that a distinction that can be clearly stated in a definition? The current one under consideration here doesn't fit. Tcr25 (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete as per above. Good conversation! Facts707 (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

speed chess

blitz chess

SOP. Imetsia (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep speed chess and its hyponym blitz chess. It's a different game. DAVilla 14:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

How so? It's still chess but with a shorter time control than classical chess. But for the time, every single rule of the game is the same. Imetsia (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The time makes a significant difference. The game plays differently. While the board rules are the same, there are different rules with regard to tournaments. In particular, moves are not recorded by the players. And it didn't used to be that the board rules were the same. It used to be possible to capture the king, ending the game. I wouldn't doubt it's still played this way outside of tournaments. DAVilla 04:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep. Fay Freak (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete 🔥ಶಬ್ದಶೋಧಕ🔥 12:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Weak keep. Lemmings for speed chess: [60] [61]. Lemming for blitz chess: [62]. Not great lemmings, I admit, but probably better to have than not. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Security Intelligence Review Committee

Do we want this? PUC – 20:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Imetsia (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete, the thing is even defunct and it's not even a security agency, just an oversight committee. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete, WP material, no English languange significance, very unlikely to be looked up in a dictionary. Facts707 (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete 🔥ಶಬ್ದಶೋಧಕ🔥 12:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete specific entity with no linguistic merit. DAVilla 10:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete. - -sche (discuss) 17:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 02:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

hold aloft

SOP. Imetsia (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete - I concur. Facts707 (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete 🔥ಶಬ್ದಶೋಧಕ🔥 12:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete SOP. DAVilla 10:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

feel in one's bones

know in one's bones

SOP, feel/know + in one's bones. Imetsia (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. I marked in one's bones as idiomatic, since I'm pretty sure bones don't have a lot of neurons. Stomachs have lots of them though, so a gut feel is not really idiomatic. We can always create a redirect if any form is very common. Facts707 (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete or redirect these, but keep in one's bones and gut feeling. DAVilla 10:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete or redirect, but don't keep them as full entries. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Europe's last dictatorship

Not sure whether this meets CFI. It may be too political - although I agree with the sentiment, who knows what other dictatorships may spring up in Europe? DonnanZ (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete as SOP. This seems very much along the lines of, say, "London's first mayor" or "world's latest democracy". Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, the definition isn't right. Anyway, compare World's Fastest Man and world's oldest profession Indian subcontinent (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete.--Tibidibi (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete; could even be speedied I think. Imetsia (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete. PUC – 16:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete, second Imetsia. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

No, it is idiomatic, it refers to a specific country even though there are others considered dictatorships in Europe, such as Azerbaijan and Russia, as noted here[63] and here. Try a quick Google search and you can see that it refers to a specific country, not the general concept, and therefore not a SOP. Buidhe (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

IMO, a better place for the quotation is at dictatorship. The quote is all this page is based on. As a matter of policy, I do not make RFD nominations purely on SoP grounds. DonnanZ (talk) 09:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete 🔥ಶಬ್ದಶೋಧಕ🔥 12:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete - not notable in a dictionary of English and highly unlikely to be looked up here. Well covered at Wikipedia which is first Google hit. Facts707 (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete, weird content as an cutesy epithet and mostly SOP, it's in Europe and it's a dictatorship, whether it's really the last one is not really worth the bother. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete per Andrew. Furthermore, as with his example of "world's latest democracy", I don't think the speaker being mistaken in their description (some other dictatorship existing, some other democracy existing or the referred-to one not being truly democratic, etc) makes it not SOP. - -sche (discuss) 17:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 23:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

World's Fastest Man

Not lexicalized and the Usage notes is insanely pedantic.--Tibidibi (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Imetsia (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete. PUC – 16:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete. DCDuring (talk) 04:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete. There is no end of record bearer names to be included otherwise. Having a particular form or capitalization consistently is not sufficient for idiomaticity. Fay Freak (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete per all. Facts707 (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete, terrible stuff per above. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete. - -sche (discuss) 17:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 23:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

big-dicked

Passed RFD in 2014, when we were all a little less mature. Still majorly SOPpy. Indian subcontinent (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Imetsia (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete as redundant to dicked. Equinox ◑ 16:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• As I said before: "I'm not really worried about this - it's a bit vulgar anyway - but I think it's worth pointing out that a word like dicked is usually qualified by another adjective, such as big, small or tiny. It is not usually used on its own. Donnanz (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)". DonnanZ (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, that's why our dicked entry says "in combination". The accompanying adjective can be anything, so we can't create entries for every possible combination. Equinox ◑ 15:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, the entry for dicked is, dare I say it, half-baked. It needs some examples of its usage (big-dicked, etc.) added to justify the deletion of big-dicked. DonnanZ (talk) 09:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Indian subcontinent (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

What's more, this page now has audio pronunciation, and enough quotations to satisfy RFV. DonnanZ (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete 🔥ಶಬ್ದಶೋಧಕ🔥 12:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm..., my only pause is hung, well-hung, etc. for synonyms but there is Thesaurus:macrophallic at those entries so redirecting to dicked and adding the thesaurus there would work. And there are a gazillion derived terms at dick (who would have guessed?) which itself could be linked to as well. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete, per above, dicked covers everything and we're all misandrists now anyway. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete. - -sche (discuss) 17:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

see someone's point

get someone's point

SOP, see (sense 2.1)/get (sense 15) + someone's + point (sense 1.4 or 1.5). Imetsia (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete both. DCDuring (talk) 04:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete both as above. Also other uses, e.g. I see your point is on the scoreboard. The other team gets your point because you broke rule 5(c). Facts707 (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete 🔥ಶಬ್ದಶೋಧಕ🔥 12:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete both per nom. I don't get the point of these entries. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

ZIP Code

Not the obvious common noun, but a proper noun: "(US) A service mark of the US Postal Service for postal codes." This doesn't seem like dictionary material; we are not a trademark registry. Equinox ◑ 16:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, search engine will offer zip code. (Updated) Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

ZIP CODE

The proper noun, per ZIP Code above. Equinox ◑ 16:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, search engine will offer zip code. Facts707 (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

World's Greatest Athlete

Per above. PUC – 17:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Imetsia (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete. DCDuring (talk) 04:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Facts707 (talk) 05:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete 🔥ಶಬ್ದಶೋಧಕ🔥 12:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete, what a strange usage note, too. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete. - -sche (discuss) 17:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 23:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

r/

"Indicating the following string of characters is a subreddit." So it's just part of a URL, and part of a URL on one specific site only. Equinox ◑ 18:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

With that definition of course. But maybe he thought it should be included because one uses it jokingly with non-existing subreddits, or outside of Reddit. Like it should be glossed something like “indicates that the following topic is a meme”. KnowYourMeme has a lot of entries with /r/aught. If a sufficient number counts as language, should this tell us that “r/” too is something? Why a determiner though? Fay Freak (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, if you can cite it outside of Reddit...! Equinox ◑ 21:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

You're also completely right that it's ridiculous this has been given the grammatical part of speech of "determiner"! That is very, very wrong. I missed it. Equinox ◑ 21:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Are there easy ways to search for things like this? It seems like every search engine ignores "/", so you'd be searching for... "R". There's definitely citations out there, they are just hard to find. Any tips? AntisocialRyan (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

backlit keyboard

SoP. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 22:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Imetsia (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 09:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Facts707 (talk) 05:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete 🔥ಶಬ್ದಶೋಧಕ🔥 12:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 17:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Maoism

Sense "The act or state of living in accord with the philosophy of Chairman Mao Zedong." Can anyone find cites that clearly distinguish this from the philosophy itself? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge I looked at the history of the user who added this definition, and they also added an uncited definition on Epicureanism [64] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete, if this were citable I'd still rather that it would be merged with the main definition. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 23:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

worry oneself sick

SOP. Per Equinox, this is just a "just a general resultative construction" with a high degree of substitutability. Imetsia (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I do think it's SOP but it is also a very common collocation. I've never heard "worry oneself ill", or "worry oneself unwell", or "fret oneself sick". That isn't necessarily a rationale for keeping, but worth a mention... Equinox ◑ 21:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The much more common collocation worried sick redirects to worry oneself sick. I don’t think that’s right. It is not a verb form (past participle) but an adjective, and the disappearance of the reflexive pronoun is inexplicable.  --Lambiam 15:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Lambiam: It comes from the non-reflexive version worry someone sick, which it's originally the past participle of: "Frankly, it worries me sick to even think about it." PUC – 15:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete as basically SOP. Although no one says "worry oneself ill" or "worry oneself unwell", people do say "worry oneself to death", "worry oneself silly", "worry oneself into a tizzy", etc. And similar constructions with other verbs are common: "work oneself sick", "work oneself to death", etc. Nosferattus (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete 🔥ಶಬ್ದಶೋಧಕ🔥 12:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Move to worry someone sick (done), then I would keep this: it's no different from drive someone crazy, the French translations are non-trivial (WT:THUB, though I'll admit we can put these at tie oneself in knots), and it's found in other dictionaries (WT:Lemming principle, though I don't think it's a good argument per se). PUC – 15:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Imetsia: Any thoughts about this? 2A02:2788:A4:205:3CC8:9F5F:53CB:FDCF 19:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Not really. I still think the term is SOP and an example of a "general resultative construction." drive someone crazy somehow sounds more entryworthy simply because it's a more common expression. Imetsia (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. 2A02:2788:A4:205:3CC8:9F5F:53CB:FDCF 19:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we are done, now that it's a redirect to the new worry someone sick. Facts707 (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

down

(comparable) At a lower or further place or position along a set path.

His place is farther down the road.

The company was well down the path to bankruptcy.

• Template:RQ:SWymn ChpngBrgh

  It was April 22, 1831, and a young man was walking down Whitehall in the direction of Parliament Street. He wore shepherd's plaid trousers and the swallow-tail coat of the day, with a figured muslin cravat wound about his wide-spread collar.

Dylanvt removed this sense (adverb; Special:Diff/62754912) and moved the usage examples and the quotation to “From one end to another of (in any direction); along.” (preposition; Special:Diff/62754915). J3133 (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be fine as a preposition only in this sense, although sometimes one of the nouns is implied: The coffee shop? That's further down [the street from here]. (possibly with a gesture). Facts707 (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the above examples are prepositional, but there is a "static" prepositional usage, e.g. "He lives down the road" and a "kinetic" prepositional usage, e.g. "He is walking down the road". It may be possible either to combine these into one sense, with suitable wording possibly involving "or", or to split them, but the existing presentation, where e.g. "His place is farther down the road" is under the definition "From one end to another of", doesn't seem ideal to me. Cases such as "He lives further down" and "His place is further down", as raised by Facts, are tricky to handle. Mihia (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't eat fish

🔥ಶಬ್ದಶೋಧಕ🔥 12:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Imetsia (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Consolidate with I don't eat pork, beef, etc. at "I don't eat X" or similar and redirect there. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep, this is rather typical content for any phrase book and actually a useful phrase in a restaurant or hotel if you're a 'strict' vegetarian rather than a pescetarian. I have no idea what you want to turn the phrase book into. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't eat pork can redirect to I don't eat... and then list the common nouns there: pork, beef, wheat, gluten, shellfish, strawberries, peanut butter and various other potentially life-threatening allergens or disagreeable culinary delights without asking our editors to translate every "I don't eat something". Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 13:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

That is a complete non-solution, there is neither an agreed layout nor a precedent for that kind of entry and editors would still have to translate every "I don't eat X" individually. If there is any kind of agreement or assimilation involving the word for the food item in question that setup would only create an even bigger mess. Normal phrase books evade the problem by only allowing one or a few languages. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep. I tend to think that common major dietary restrictions are one of the more important things for which a phrasebook entry can exist. bd2412 T 02:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

all-English

I think this is sum of parts. All-American has multiple senses but all-English seems quite literal. John Cross (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete SoP as above and context-dependent. "The signs in that box are all-English and these ones are in Spanish and English." "It was an all-English squad this year as McFerrin, O'Malley and Llewllyn were unfortunately down with the flu." Cheers, Facts707 (talk)
• Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

war of independence

A SOP fixed phrase. Compare war of extermination, war of revenge, war of religion, war of hegemony. Apart from online M-W I could find no lemmings. A THUB-based defence may conceivably be possible, but there are no translations yet and most will no doubt be of the form "war of independence" or "independence war". ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Norwegian Bokmål uavhengighetskrig. DonnanZ (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Donnanz Not relevant insofar WT:THUB is concerned. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

It should be, that's a poor rule. DonnanZ (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the given definition could be improved. DonnanZ (talk) 08:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I've added a few translations, but these are trivial (the Russian one simply means "war for independence"), and as LBD, I find it rather unlikely any will be found that would support THUB. Still, I think it's a rather useful entry (a good deal more than FA Cup, dare I say!). Abstain for now. Also, war of religion sounds somewhat entry-worthy to me. 2A02:2788:A4:205:3CC8:9F5F:53CB:FDCF 19:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, both the nominated entry and war of religion are fixed phrases (though I guess FA Cup is a fixed phrase as well in some sense of the term). War of religion may also appear to be more lexicalised and more entry-worthy because Wars of Religion is a specific historical term and somewhat similar to a proper noun. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep, ’tis a significant word, not comparable to the other examples stated above. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 18:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

muffin

Proposal to delete (or merge) the sense "A type of individual bread such as corn, bran, banana or zucchini bread often sliced and spread with butter, etc before being eaten." from muffin as I believe it to be intended to describe the same thing as the sense "A cupcake-shaped baked good, without frosting but sometimes glazed." See Special:Diff/30328528 and Special:Diff/2136502 for a brief history of these two senses. Pinging @-sche who recently worked on the entry. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 02:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I've just merged them per the Tea Room discussion. (If someone feels this is wrong, by all means let's discuss.) - -sche (discuss) 02:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

come to power

SOP. 2A02:2788:A4:205:EC01:FB23:BEB8:84A3 13:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep. See come to#Derived terms. (By the way, not sure if IP votes count.) ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 18:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

What am I supposed to see there? PUC – 15:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

be had

Redundant to passive use of senses at have. Mihia (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom, though if someone would rather have this as a redirect I wouldn't mind. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom. PUC ~ 2A02:2788:A4:205:89AA:4796:B90E:5ECB 12:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Redirect. - -sche (discuss) 03:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

had

RFD supposed adjective senses:

1. (Should we delete⁽⁺⁾ this sense?) (informal) Duped.

   We've been had.

2. (obsolete) Available.
   • 1485, William Caxton, The Preface to Le Morte d'Arthur:

     Which be not had in our maternal tongue.

(1) is not an adjective but the passive form of "To trick, to deceive" at have. To my eye, (2) looks like the passive form of the sense "To obtain" at have, but I stand to be corrected if there is some different kind of usage going on here. Mihia (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete 1 per proponent, abstain on 2. PUC ~ 2A02:2788:A4:205:3CC8:9F5F:53CB:FDCF 19:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

What does ‘PUC’ mean? Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Overlordnat1: A living legend. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I assume it's User:PUC not logged in.

If this is deleted, the quote should be moved somewhere. DonnanZ (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete both, the quote should be moved to an appropriate Middle English definition. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

media democracy

Horrid entry, but any accurate definition is going to be SOP along the lines of "a democracy in which media are influential/hold a lot of power". No lemmings, no coalmine, no THUB. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I would understand what "media democracy" meant from its parts, so keep, assuming that the term genuinely exists (which it seems it does). However, the existing definition is largely unintelligible, and needs rewriting by someone who understands this concept. Mihia (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

been, sense #4

The word, "been," is a past participle, as correctly identified in sense #1. It's already identified as dialectal in sense #3. Identifying it as an infinitive as attempted via sense #4, is at first glance meaningless and frightfully redundant. It's an inconclusive stretch that the related quotes are dialectal (as maintained) or merely cited from poorly edited sources. If Wiktionary included a reputedly dialectal sense and charitable but misguided linguistic analysis for every nonstandard syntax ever uttered, then ... you get the point. Comments? --Kent Dominic (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Merge with sense 3, send to RFV if those cites look too much like typos. Troll Control (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Move to rfv. I think both sides in this dispute are off base: the DARE quote looks real, so it's not just someone's imagination, but the other two quotes look more like random errors than intentional use as an infinitive. I especially doubt that any professional content in the LA Times would ever use rare dialectal forms on purpose except in sentences intended to be viewed as dialectal. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not challenging the validity of the quotes. I'm simply dealing with a contributor who seems to think the #4 sense of "been" should be labeled as "a (sic) infinitive" given the "to been" verbiage in the quotes. Instead of deleting the entire sense, deleting the label (or at least changing it from infinitive to nonfinite for anyone who cares to know) might work, but ... let's just say some editors are more familiar with linguistic matters than others. --Kent Dominic (talk) 04:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The concept of a "random error" is vague. It can either refer to typos, which I don't think are particularly likely in this situation (they'd necessitate the addition of two whole letters!), or a non-standard form slipping past the editing process, which would make for a perfectly valid example. Non-standard forms have slipped past editors working at reputable publishing firms before:

• 1997 January 5, M. Y. S. Lee, P. Spencer, “Crown Clades and Taxonomic Stability”, in Stuart Sumida, Karen L.M. Martin, editors, Amniote Origins: Completing the Transition to Land‎^[65], Elsevier, →ISBN, page 70:

  The amniote egg is most likely to have arose along the portion of the phylogeny denoted by the solid shading, and is less likely to have arose along the portion denoted by the cross-hatched shading.

• 2006 February 10, Karl F. Hoffman, Jennifer M. Fitzpatrick, “The Application of DNA Microarrays in the Functional Study of Schisostome/Host Biology”, in W. Evan Secor, Daniel G. Colley, editors, Schistosomiasis, Springer Science & Business Media, →ISBN, page 101:

  The end of the 20th century and the start of the new millennium have bore witness to a remarkable revolution in the way parasite/host biological interactions can be conceptually designed and experimentally studied.

• 2010, Andrew Noble Koss, World War I and the Remaking of Jewish Vilna‎^[66], Stanford University Press, page x:

  Since this work is about Vilna's Jewish community, I have chose the familiar spelling Vilna, which closely approximates Jews' preferred name for their city.

These are all simple past forms being used as past participles, but that is a limitation of the data I'm working with; there's no reason to think the phenomenon is limited to that.

Additionally, I don't get why people are limiting themselves to the three existing quotes; searching used to been, need(ed) to been, could been, etc. yields plenty of other examples of this construction (mainly in informal use, as you'd expect). For instance:

• 2018 December 20, Reuters staff, quoting Dwight Howard, “Wizards' Howard says he's pain-free after surgery”, in Reuters‎^[67]:

  I know if I would have been around the team after the surgery, I would have wanted to been out there and play.

Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 06:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Chuck Entz that the present examples are a mixture of typos and at least one probably genuine, or deliberate, use of "to been". I note the omission of "have" in the perfect infinitive as a possible explanation for "to been", as in e.g. "I'd like to been there" (for "I'd like to have been there"); in fact there is a whole chapter of a book about this "have-less past participle" around [68]. However, I'm not sure how likely this is as an explanation of the DARE quote. Mihia (talk) 09:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure in identifying it as a past participle; none of the three quotes seem to have the perfect semantics that one would expect from elided "have". Additionally, the OED analyses the DARE quote as containing a infinitive. However, I'm not totally against the past participial analysis; maybe there's a way to somehow incorporate both? Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 06:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Depending on the exact wording that the OED uses, which I don't have access to, remember that "to been" would still be an infinitive (a perfect infinitive) even if it meant "to have been". However, I do somewhat agree with you that "one time it use' to have been so cold" doesn't seem quite right -- although since it is not standard English anyway, it is hard to be absolutely certain. Mihia (talk) 08:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The context of the OED's mention indicates that they consider it to be a infinitive form, not just part of a infinitival construction:

• 2013 March, “be, v.”, in OED Online ‎^[69], Oxford, Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press:

  Forms: (The following notation is used to denote the principal form groups: α = am; β = is; γ = sind; δ = sīe; ε = art, ζ = are; η = be; θ = was; ι = were.) 1. Infinitive. a. (i). […] Middle English–1500s (1900s– U.S. regional (southern)) been […]

Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 10:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Mihia (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep, there is little reason to doubt that an infinitive sense is going to be citable and, on a procedural note, attestation is not a matter for RFD anyway. Merging all possible uses into a single nonfinite is a bad idea; if you can attest an imperative, add that definition, if you can attest an irreal form, add that, and if you can attest a habitual, add that. Those marginal nonstandard forms are best kept separate, whether as definitions or subdefinitions. I agree with Mihia that a lot of attestations look like perfect infinitives, though, often with irreal aspect. But I agree with Hazarasp that true typos are not a very plausible explanation either, interference from a more colloquial register and thinkos are. I think errors of the former type should be admitted as evidence, but those of the latter type should not. [70] [71] [72] [73] ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

"how ya wur 'tossicatit whan ya owt to been duing yur larful business" looks like a past tense form, not a present tense infinitive to be; compare "when ya ought to done it during your lawful business". Whether this stems from omitting the "have" from "have been" (and "have done") or just from some dialects allowing the past tense form been to be used bare, it's a past tense form not a present tense to be, in my view. "I would have wanted to been out there and play", spoken(?) by an African American athlete from Georgia and not written in Reuters' editorial voice, looks like the same thing; the similarities between African American English and Southern US English are well known (and the athlete is from the South), and sense 3 needs to be expanded to say "AA(V)E" alongside "Southern US" anyway, since "they been here" is cromulent in varieties of AA(V)E too, along with e.g. "we been knew" (we have known for some time). - -sche (discuss) 17:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not even convinced the DARE quote has to be a present infinitive rather than a past tense, but if DARE / other dictionaries do think there's an infinitive here, that supports the idea that ambiguous cites like that represent infinitives. (OTOH, compare the recent TR discussion of high "distant in the past", which other dictionaries have but which may still be wrong.) Btw, I frequently find myself typoing (thinkoing?) verb forms in -ed as -ing and vice versa even though I use the right one in speech, so I wouldn't rule out added letters as typos. - -sche (discuss) 17:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to run around deeming forms that seem odd to us "thinkos". Even if we take your anecdote as evidence that "thinkos" are theoretically possible, there's no solid way to actually determine what' a "thinko" and what's a legitimate dialectal form using the resources we have at hand. Additionally, the concept of a "thinko" is uncomfortably close that of a marginal form; all that's needed to make it one is the actuation of the vocal cords. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 18:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, strike "thinko" from my comment and it stands regarding typos. (Another typo I make: I've edited wikis and referred to templates for so long that any time I try to type temple it comes out template thanks to muscle memory and I have to go back and remove the extra letters. This is, I admit, much less likely to happen with such a common word as be.) If works consistently use been in infinitive-like ways that'd confirm it as now a typo, and if they only use it once and otherwise use be or have been, it'd suggest the exception is an error (the same principle as when trying to determine if a spelling is a typo, e.g. rare dialectal use of they for the). - -sche (discuss) 21:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Typos are not the only possible explanation here; a particular work might only have infinitival been once because it's a marginal form in the writer's idiolect. To distinguish between marginal forms and errors, a close look at the work may be needed; we don't have the time or resources to check every work which has a one-off form. Note that while Shakespeare only uses shotten in "nook-shotten isle of Albion", but nobody claims (as far as I know) that it's some sort of error for shot. IAnyways, I think this discussion is kind of irrelevant, given that there appears to be a solid core of examples in amongst all the ambiguity. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 08:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Acknowledging the possibility of typos or idiolect lends support to Chuck Entz's suggestion of RFV re. 2 of the 3 examples. Mihia and I agree, so there's a 3:1 consensus for removing all but the DARE example from the main line of the sense. So, either delete those two other examples (which, if indeed they are dialectal rather than idiolectal, they are still superfluous to the point made evident by the DARE example), or move them to a Further reading section so readers can make up their own minds about the whole hot mess. --Kent Dominic (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The two quotes that you and Mihia were discussing have been replaced; check been. If you still aren't happy with the quotes that I've chose, find better ones (as I pointed out, it isn't terribly hard to do so). It isn't superfluous to have more than one quote for a sense so speakers can get an idea of the breadth of a sense's use. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 13:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I feel like I've been punk'd: happy to hear the quotes were "replaced" only to see they've been restored, which is old news. No thanks about my doing your homework in finding different quotes. If it's so easy, do it yourself or relocate them as indicated above. As for superfluity, I was being kind. The quotes in question only serve to sabotage your rallying cry. --Kent Dominic (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

My mentality is that you're the one who has the problem with the quotes, so it's incumbent on you to find them. I also don't believe the quotes "sabotage my rallying cry" unless you take me as possessing a kind of dogmatism that I don't actually have. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 17:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

English infinitival constructions can have past meaning, as in but one time they used to be cold, so checking whether the semantics are past or present isn't a reliable test here. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 18:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that sense 4 seems to be associated AAVE and the South, just like sense 3 (two of the three examples of sense 4 are AAVE). The other is the English of Northern England, which also has sense 3 constructions, IIRC (though these are somewhat more limited than in AAVE). There's definitely a close relation between senses 3 and 4. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 18:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

You've not yet persuaded me that what seems to you as dialectal syntax is anything beyond dialectal prosody as erroneously transcribed and as subsequently misinterpreted from a conclusionary linguistic standpoint. I.e. a speaker intends to say, "I would have wanted to have been;" it gets pronounced as, "I would of wanted to of been" or further abbreviated to "I woulda wanted to a been;" a listener transcribes it as "I would [ø] wanted to [ø] been." Feel free to take the quotes at face value as they were found in the sources. I, on the other hand, don't unquestioningly trust that the speech as reported is a reliable representation of the speech as it was uttered.

Did Dwight Howard in fact say, "I know if I would [have] been around the team after the surgery, I would [have] wanted to['ve] been out there and play" but the reporter simply interpolated his or her own understanding of "have" in the first two instances but didn't catch the phonetic elision in the third instance? I'm quite familiar with Dwight Howard, and I've never once heard him pronounce "have" as an auxiliary verb although he routinely articulates "has." Idiolect? Yes. Is Howard trying to make a linguistic statement of some kind that we should chronicle here? Ha!

I'll say it again: I'm not challenging the validity of the quotes per se: I don't contend they're faked or doctored. Instead, skeptic that I am, I'm challenging the naïve assumption that the quotes accurately represent 100% listening fidelity on the part of the reporter and 0% bias on the reporter's effort to transcribe what he or she (mis)heard. Lastly, I'm highlighting the shortsightedness in applying a specious linguistic analysis that fails to account for prosody, reporting error, and typographical error. I'm also pointing out the simplistic notion that the syntax in the quotes are factually, rather than merely pedantically, relevant to what sense #4 purports. --Kent Dominic (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

For reasons that both me and other users have discussed (the lack of perfect semantics, the testimony of reputable sources) I tend to favour interpreting this as a infinitive. Additionally, interpreting this as the elision of have seems to be shoehorning dialects into the mold of standard English rather than analysing them on their own terms; this is the same kind of mentality which led to the Scots "apologetic apostrophe".

However, I'm not dead set against it the "elided have" interpretation (as I've also discussed), but I'd like to solid proof for it rather than what amounts to vague impressionistic handwaving. Even if you interpret this construction as the elision of "have", it still warrants inclusion. It's clearly different in distribution from sense 3 (in that it's quite a bit less common). As for your theory that there was a "reporting error" with Howard's speech, it has no basis other than your anecdotal evidence. I'm not requiring "100% fidelity" or "unquestioning trust"; I just believe that you should have a reasonable level of faith in the evidence rather than questioning everything that doesn't line up with your preconceptions. Something more solid is needed before I can conclude that "what I'm seeing is not what's happening". Additionally, it's not worth getting worked up over one quote; if you're right, another quote can simply be substituted.

As for your claims about typos, they are unevidenced. The belief in typos ultimately comes down to a disbelief that the sources really could say what they do; as I have pointed out, it is unlikely that two whole letters could be postpended to "be" accidentally. The idea of a more cognitive mistake (a "thinko") is certainly possible, but as I have pointed out, it is uncomfortably close to a actual attestation on multiple levels.

Overall, I think it's more than a bit rash to assume that I haven't accounted for differences of analysis, "prosody, reporting error, and typographical error". I have accounted for all these things, but still believe there's a reasonable case to be made here. I'm not asking that you take the quotes at face value; I'm merely requesting that you should be willing to adjust your preconceptions in face of the data.

For anyone who's keeping score, I've raised the possibility of typos without concluding anything one way or the other Chuck Entz suggested RFV, Mihia and I agreed it's a worthwhile avenue. Nothing anyone can say here is dispositive of exactly what syntax the original sources intended or actually uttered. That's the meat of why calling "to been" a dialectal infinitive is not FOREVER wrong; it's simply is a conclusioanary statement about an inconclusive linguistic dynamic. It's unripe as an infinitive, per se, absent the RFV analysis.

Meanwhile, Hazarasp, watch this video clip of Dwight Howard, starting from minute 1:45. (Be especially alert at 2:23, 2:50, and 3:28 for syntax that is idiolectal in a way that is wholly uncharacteristic of the idiolect ascribed to him in one of your sources.) Listen and judge for yourself the linguistic dynamics at work. Turn the volume WAY up or you're likely to miss some nuances that typically don't show up (as they're often homogenized for a generalized readership) upon transcription for publication. --Kent Dominic (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the implied notion that linguistic judgements must been be absolutely certain to be incorporated in entries. There's several cases where we discuss different possible senses, etymologies, or inflections of a term, and we have fairly fleshed-out reconstruction sections which aren't afraid to get into the weeds of speculation. We even have a dedicated template for terms of uncertain meaning (ᚷᚫᚷᚩᚷᚫ (ġæġóġæ) is a good example). Compared to all of that, the inconclusiveness of been is pretty titchy.

Secondly, your discussion about Howard's idiolect is based on two flawed premisses: Firstly, that it's totally homogenous (idiolects almost never are), and secondly that it's some kind of linchpin for the sense rather than a easily disposable quote that took all of five minutes to find.

Thirdly, it's not like we're going to convince each other at this point. We're also continually moving further away from the discussion's starting point, meaning that the dispute gets less and less relevant to bystanders with each response. In short, I don't think this conversation is particularly productive anymore; I know you like to talk, but talking has its limits. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 17:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree that factoring the degree of idiolectal homogeneity depends on the complexity and precision of one's ability to apply a linguistic algorithm. "S'why I said judge for yourself. A reminder: I RFD'd the sense #4 in its entirety, so the sufficiency of the quotes is topically relevant. Accordingly, Chuck Entz and Mihia suggested RFV of the quotes. I've done some due diligence in that regard. It's turned up nothing beyond what my gut told me at the outset: All but the DARE quote are not clear-cut, prima facie instances of anything dialectal. I want sources that inarguably demonstrate a dialectal pattern, not a compendium of errant syntax that coincidentally fits the pattern. I beg, you please: If you find some cite quoting me to have said, "It had to been (blah, blah)," don't think for one second that I was quoted correctly. Yes, now I can hear you thinking, "If someone misquoted you that way, that's evidence in itself how the reporter used 'been' as an infinitive." Spare me. --Kent Dominic (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

To begin with, let me reiterate that this conversation just isn't productive. I know you want to win the argument, but it is unwise to been enslaved to our baser instincts.

There are many linguistic features that can be written off as errors; what's at stake is whether they should be written off as errors. Demanding that we should be totally certain that they aren't errors is unreasonable and ridiculous; if we adopted that standard, we'd have to delete everything in Category:Reconstructed terms by language. I don't see you using any methodology beyond gut feeling ("my gut") to determine what is or isn't a error. Gut feeling isn't sufficient here, as the burden of proof lies on you, because you're the one wanting to make a change. What's especially absurd about what you're doing

Additionally, the reliability of you gut feeling is compromised, as you seem to have worked off of a faulty essentialist attitude that posits a unbridgeable gap between "dialect", which is replete with non-standard forms, and "standard English", which is entirely free of such. This seems to have led you to assume that every instance of infinitive been in texts without other non-standard features must be a error. This is fallacious; occasional non-standard forms can and do appear in otherwise standard works. For instance, note the use of prevocalic a in what is otherwise (mostly) standard English. Are you going to claim that that must be a error? As for the hypothetical you posited, individuals are never fully aware of their own usage. You may well have said it had to been […] or similar at some stage of your life; it would be imprudent to dismiss a record of you having said that based only on your say-so.

I'll wrap up with another random example I found in some crappy poetry. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 06:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

My dear friend Hazarasp, I haven't been so bold as to tell you what (not) to presume, but I see you've ignored my request that you not post you presumptions about my motivations. To be clear, my purpose isn't to win an argument; it's to gain comments (and personal insights) on the prospect of deleting sense #4 as you worded it. The comments here are aligned with keeping the foundational premise that been has a dialectal usage in the manner ID'd in the DARE quote. The consensus remains 4:1 to delete the other two quotes in favor of something more tenable. I hadn't noticed until recently that Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo provided a list of substantially better quotes.

Unfortunately, unless I missed it, no other editors have commented here on the labeling issue concerning sense #4. You've subsequently reworded it. It's marginally better than the original, but it still has a linguistic thorn that I'd hoped you'd eventually see on your own. (Our separate discussion on your talk page tells me you're so, so close to seeing what I've intended all along.) I'll come clean on my argumentative style: For a counterpart who wants to win a debate with me, I want nothing less than to see that happen after they come to reason. --Kent Dominic (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

With the quotes, you haven't took into account my replacement of them; many users posted before this occurred, so their opinions reflect the old set of quotes. I should've probably gave you a heads-up when I did that. It's also worth noting that I used one of Lingo's quotes as part of the replacement process. Finally, if you find the Howard quote to be objectionable, then it can maybe be replaced with another of Lingo's. (It'd be nice to have a quote from after 2000, though; I don't think any of Lingo's are.)

As for the labelling issue, I reworded the label to compromise with you; the wording was something that you assented to in your earlier discussions. As for the "thorn", I think we have irreconcilable differences there. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 14:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, Ulrich Miethaner, I Can Look Through Muddy Water: Analyzing Earlier African English in Blues Lyics (2005), page 176, does report that "Additional nonstandard uses of copula be [in African American English] include the absence of -ing from the gerund [...and] the use of been as an infinitive". So, there's evidence (or, a claim) that AA uses could be infinitives (separate from whether we accept the Howard example as one). In fact, if someone could get ahold of that book, they might find the texts Miethaner is citing as containing infinitive been. - -sche (discuss) 21:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

While looking for more info about infinitive been, I found an example of the phenomenon discussed above, of errors slipping past even lofty publications: a book about grammar by an English teacher (Mary Hall Leonard's 1907 Grammar and Its Reasons, by a publisher of books for teachers) includes on page 294 the mix-up "With others the use [of a split infinitive] seems to been have confined to certain stereotyped phrases, as, “To far exceed” used by Burke." - -sche (discuss) 03:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep per my comments above. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 13:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• What I would say about the three quotations presently given (permalink) is that, to my eye, "to been" clearly means "to have been" in #1, and quite possibly means "to have been" in #3. I think we should try to choose examples where this interpretation doesn't apply. Mihia (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Mihia, I'm not as convinced as you are about example #1. I'd say "Yur a boald 'un to tell the missus [blah, blah] whan ya owt to [be] duing yur larful business" is a tenable interpretation, with "to tell" and "to be" in parallel. Still, I wouldn't stake my life on your interpretation or this one. Meanwhile, I'd appreciate your input whether "been is an {{alt form|en|be|nocap=1|pos=infinitive}}" passes definitional muster. I think it's marginally better than the "been is an {{inflection of|en|be||infinitive}}" wording it replaced, but I know there's an alternative - reasonable wording in identical instances of defining dialectal syntax - that's gained boilerplate consensus at Wiktionary. If a certain editor can't find that template, or if he can't reinvent the wheel to satisfy his ego begging to "win" something or other, perhaps you'll assist. If that editor had simply drafted the sense sensibly from day one, I wouldn't have been punked (i.e. by my reading the sense literally and without an inkling that its wording had been botched) into RFD'ing this essentially cut-and-dried concept he's been flailing endeavoring to articulate precisely in sense #4. --Kent Dominic (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

It's more than a bit rich having you talk about "my ego begging to win something" given your attitude. My position has stayed fairly constant throughout this whole palaver, while yours has flopped around depending on what you thought could gain support at any given point. All I'd like to do is put a end to this, but you keep stoking the flames.

As for your claim that the wording of been is "botched" and therfore needs to be replaced with "reasonable wording"; you have failed to actually state what you believe is wrong with the current wording, much less put anything forwards to replace it. It's hardly difficult for you to create a mockup entry with what you'd like to happen. As I have stated, I don't care that much about the exact wording as long as it acknowledges the linguistic reality of sense 4. The wording I used was simply a restoration of the old wording of sense 3 rather than something consciously designed. You are the one who is obsessed with "articulating [stuff] precisely" here; don't try and make it so I'm supposed to be responsible for finding the exact wording that satisfies your capricious desires. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 01:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Hazarasp, your position in favor of acknowledging the semantic usage of "to been" as been more than fairly constant. It's been 100% rock solid. I commend you for that. Your position concerning the linguistic sense of sense #4 has been a comedy of errors. Consequently, I concede that my arguments have tracked yours, which have been rapidly moving targets on full display here and at the been talk page.

You might be right that I haven't stated what I know to be wrong with the current wording. Perhaps I was mistaken that you'd be able to read between the lines. Let me spell out: It's the same problem as the first iteration; to quote myself from the top of this thread: "Identifying [been] as an infinitive as attempted via sense #4, is at first glance meaningless and frightfully redundant." To expound, "be" is already ID'd as an infinitive, as linked from the been page. Interpolating "infinitive" into sense #4, as I said from the outset, muddies the linguist waters. Readers then wonder, "Is 'been' an infinitive?"

I didn't trick you into asserting how you think "been" qualifies as an alternative infinitive. In your theory of things, it's possible for English to have two infinitive forms relating to "be." Please spare me. No, I didn't trick you, but I admit goading you to take your arguments to their logically farcical conclusion.

FWIW, I'm neither trying to humiliate you nor am I suggesting that no language can have multiple infinitives where one (or both) also function participially. Although been as an infinitive is on solid theoretical ground ripe for discussion at Wikipedia, that dog don't hunt here. Really, if you poll reasonable people about whether "been" is fundamentally a participle (albeit rarely and dialectally used in a syntax that complements a particle normally associated with an infinitive) or whether "been" is an infinitive, I think you can reasonably predict the outcome.

And you're absolutely right that I haven't put anything forward to replace it. I apologize if you said at some previous point that you don't much care about the wording. Your insistence that "been is an infinitive" suggested otherwise.

Why you'd use the old wording of sense #3 (which I myself edited in August of last year for precisely the reason that your sense #4 fails) tells me that you either (a) you didn't think through the linguistic failing of the old sense #3, or (b) you didn't think through the static you'd re-create by resurrecting whatever led to the old sense #3. You said about me, "You are the one who is obsessed with "articulating [stuff] precisely" here. True dat. You continued, "[D]on't try and make it so I'm supposed to be responsible for finding the exact wording that satisfies your capricious desires." Indeed I won't, but I do insist that editors find the exact wording that satisfies their own intent in a way that accords with peer approved lexicology.

Your first kick at the sense #4 can, without quotes, resulted in utter nonsense. It seemed little more than vandalism to me. You posted the quotes in the instant before I reverted the sense for what have been a third time, That's when it became slightly more apparent what you had in mind.

For whatever reason, you seem to equate RFD'ing the sense (i.e. one of the entries for a word in a dictionary) with wanting to disparage the usage of "to been." Dude, get a grip. Indeed I think the original wording, together with the 2 of the 3 original quotes, are candidates for the Linguistic Razzies awards. Slap me for not being a mind reader, but it wasn't until Chuck Entz commented that I had a clear idea of what you had apparently intended with your botched attempt out of the gates.

Hazarasp, I urge you to re-read (or read, as the case may be) my reply to Chuck. The reply establishes the basis of my complaint with sense #4 under any iteration or draft. For the record, the dynamic at work in the "to been" utterance should be chronicled here. Nonetheless, drafting a sense for the dynamic is your brainchild. You do your own work so that the end product suits you, and I'll edit as need be. My suggestion for the sense is stupidly simple: Have a look at the template for beed and substitute "be" for "was/were" in sense #4. Case closed. --Kent Dominic (talk) 10:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Your position concerning the linguistic sense of sense #4 has been a comedy of errors. Consequently, I concede that my arguments have tracked yours, which have been rapidly moving targets on full display here and at the been talk page.

While the suggestions I have offered have been far from homogenous, it isn't because I have created "rapidly moving targets". It is because I have remained open to exploring different ideas with regards to what the wording should look like; note that I called them suggestions rather than arguments. Your dogmatism is unnerving to me.

Interpolating "infinitive" into sense #4, as I said from the outset, muddies the linguist waters. Readers then wonder, "Is 'been' an infinitive?"

Perhaps my original wording would've been confusing to those who are uneducated in grammatical terminology. However, users with reasonable linguistic knowledge will be able to infer that been is an alternative to the normal infinitive "been". More importantly, none of the alternative wordings that have been proposed are much better.

I didn't trick you into asserting how you think "been" qualifies as an alternative infinitive.

Good. I never said that you did; that was my position from the start. To believe otherwise is a gross absurdity which is only possible if my arguments are distorted beyond all recognition.'

Your insistence that "been is an infinitive" suggested otherwise

It is perfectly possible to believe that "been is a infinitive" but possess uncertainty about the best way to word that in sense 4.

Really, if you poll reasonable people about whether "been" is fundamentally a participle (albeit rarely and dialectally used in a syntax that complements a particle normally associated with an infinitive) or whether "been" is an infinitive, I think you can reasonably predict the outcome

This argument is fundamentally flawed. To begin with, a good portion of "reasonable people" don't know their infinitives from participles. More importantly, the truth of a proposition is not linked to how many people believe in it. Thirdly, a linguistic form occupy two or more morphological categories without being "fundamentally" any of them. One could argue that the infinitival usage is rather peripheral to the "fundamental" participial usage (a premiss I wouldn't necessarily disagree with), but a hypothetical straw poll is a ridiculous grounds for make such a assertion (one might as well provide no evidence at all).

Why you'd use the old wording of sense #3 (which I myself edited in August of last year for precisely the reason that your sense #4 fails) tells me that you either (a) you didn't think through the linguistic failing of the old sense #3, or (b) you didn't think through the static you'd re-create by resurrecting whatever led to the old sense #3.

My grounds for doing so were that the old wording of sense 3 was inappropriate for sense 3, but were appropriate for a new sense (which became sense 4). Your response implies that whatever criticisms hold for sense 3 must self-evidently hold for sense 4. I reject this.

I do insist that editors find the exact wording that satisfies their own intent in a way that accords with peer approved lexicology.

In my mind, I had did this. You obviously disagreed, but your opinion is no more than a opinion held by one person with no special authority. By the way, I find it telling that you haven't touched upon the most important aspect of wording Wiktionary senses. A sense should be, if possible, easily comprehensible by the (often linguistically ignorant) readership of Wiktionary. This is has been at the forefront of my mind for the many, many senses I have wrote up during my time here. Most controversially, I would aver that it's worth losing a bit of precision if the sense becomes substantially easier to understand.

you seem to equate RFD'ing the sense (i.e. one of the entries for a word in a dictionary) with wanting to disparage the usage of "to been."

Disputations over the usage occupied a good portions of the attentions of the participants in this debate. For instance, wanting to delete two of the three quotes is closer to being a matter of usage than one of sense. Therefore it was only natural that I directed my energies there.

The reply establishes the basis of my complaint with sense #4 under any iteration or draft.

Said reply was unsubstantiated. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, but I'll do it anyway. If I am reading between the lines correctly here, you seem to have trouble with the idea that been can be the {{inflected form of|en|be||infinitive}} when be is already a infinitive; for you, there is no such thing as a infinitive of a infinitive. However, I would argue that this is looking at things in the wrong way. Crucially, be is not properly a entry for the infinitive in the same way as been is. Instead, it functions as a overarching entry for all inflected forms of be. It only happens to have the form of the infinitive since the infinitive is designated as the headword form for English verbs.

You may have objections to this logic; for instance, it could be argued that it's confusing enough to do readers a disservice. I am not going to mount a spirited defence of it; I myself think it is somewhat obtuse. However, let's compare it to the alternatives you suggested:

• {{alt form|en|be|pos=infinitive}}: been is (in my opinion) etymologically separate from be, so it cannot be reasonably called a alternative form of be. However, one could argue that they have came to be seen as two forms of the same word. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 14:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• {{synonym of|en|be|pos=infinitive}}: been This seems to be your preferred solution. However, it is yet to be demonstrated that the two are close enough semantically to be called "synonyms". Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 14:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kent Dominic: In answer to your question above, unfortunately I am not expert enough to have a useful opinion on whether "been", as an infinitive, should be considered an "alternative form" of the same word "be", or a different word used in the same way. I do note that the verb "be" is itself said to come from Middle English "been", and also the etymology note at be: "Now-dialectal use of been as an infinitive of be is either from Middle English been (“to be”) or an extension of the past participle." Mihia (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Mihia, I trust those who say "be" came from "been" rather than vice versa. That's a salient point for the etymology of both entries, as well as for textbooks. But aren't we talking about a primary sense offered in the context of Modern English, not Middle English and earlier eras? --Kent Dominic (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I would say that the labelling or explanation of the Modern English dialect sense probably depends on whether it is a true preservation of usage from an earlier era, or is in fact a reinvention, essentially an erroneous or ignorant use of the past participle (or a shortening of "to have been", e.g. via "toa been", in which cases it is not properly an infinitive anyway, IMO). Again, I am sadly unqualified to judge on this. Mihia (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

For once, Kent is right. Your attitude is a instance of the etymological fallacy at work; the only thing that matters is how been is used. Where it comes from is scarcely more important than what font it's printed with in determining how it should be classified. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 14:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

For the definition, yes, that just should explain what the word is used to mean. For the explanation/labelling, no. That depends on what I said. Mihia (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC) .... OK, I see I should clarify that when I said "explanation" I did not mean "explanation of what the word is used to mean" but "explanation" in the sense of additional information such as would would be put in a label or note ... Mihia (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

... and just to be a bit more explicit about what I mean, if "be" and "been" were originally alternative forms of the base form of the verb, and Modern English dialect "to been" is a continuation of this, then "alternative form of 'be'" seems right to me, whereas if "to been" is a reinvented modern non-standard use of the past participle then IMO it is not appropriate to call it an "alternative form of 'be'", since it is a different word used for the same meaning. Mihia (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, just one more thing, in case it has slipped through the net. I don't know whether we are or aren't meaning to cover the usage "to been" = "to have been" anywhere, but just to note that if we are then it cannot live under the definition "been = be", since "to have been" obviously does not mean "to be". Mihia (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Kent doesn't seem to have noticed that the etymology note is based on the highly mistaken premiss that sense 3 is infinitival, is since it's a carryover from when sense 3 was described as an infinitive. This means it shouldn't be trusted to be accurate. In fact, I think that Middle English infinitive been and Modern English infinitive been are probably unconnected, given the large gap in attestation between them. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 14:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I guess I may as well continue commenting on the usage examples here ... To me, the present usex "I couldn't play yesterday because of my surgery, but I wanted to been out there with my team" seems non-optimal because everything else is ordinary standard English, so "been" tends to just look like a typo. I think it would be better to use an example that incorporates other non-standard dialect usages. Mihia (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but Kent seems to've went a bit ballistic right now (well, more ballistic than he normally is) because I reverted one of his edits (the way he worded things at been is horribly unclear to the uninitiated and against WT convention). I'll wait until the issue is sorted out before replacing the usex. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 17:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Re. "ballistic," see the second sentence in Wiktionary Help: Interacting with others as my non-response response. Re. the "because" clause, see the first sentence in Wiktionary Help: Interacting with others. Have a nice day. --Kent Dominic (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

It was probably somewhat rash of me to respond in the way I did. However, you should be able to see what drove me to this point; your behaviour towards me has been far from unimpeachable. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 19:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Mihia, your point is well taken. I'm totally open to the example's revision or replacement. You've expressed some of the same dissatisfaction I have with the original quote, as attributed to Dwight Howard, "I know if I would have been around the team after the surgery, I would have wanted to been out there and play." The entire quote is uncharacteristic of his idiolect. The first part is too standard and sounds like the reporter's homogenization. Howard routinely omits "have" (but not "has") in present perfects. I'd accept that he'd said, "I know if I['d] would have been around the team after the surgery, I['d] would have wanted to been out there and play." That's how he talks. But that iteration, as well as the original, is problematic for sense #4 as it entails two entirely different syntactical uses of "been": the former as a perfective participle and the latter in a to-infinitive phrase - further obfuscating the point Hazarasp wants to make. I shudder each time I think of a reader indiscriminately applying the #4 sense of "been" to each mention of "been" in the quotes. Suggestions for alternatives? --Kent Dominic (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I've went ahead and changed it. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 19:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Provisional IRA

Old IRA

Do we want these entries? They're all encyclopedic and not dictionary material. Imetsia (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

There's also Soviet Armed Forces and probably many other similar terms. The decision for these should be for all others too, if anyone can find them. AntisocialRyan (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

ADJ as sin

All entries are redundant with as sin. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 02:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

guilty as sin

Keep ugly as sin per WT:JIFFY: see Wiktionary:Tea room/2019/November § original as sin, ugly as sin, guilty as sin, miserable as sin. Delete fugly as sin. Abstain on the rest for now. 2A02:2788:A4:205:9587:CF85:4CF2:9DA4 10:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep original as sin, as it’s of historical significance, being a coinage of the famous poet Landor (perhaps we should change the source of the first citation to reflect that, see comment on the talk page), Keep ugly as sin as the (probably) original form, probably Keep guilty as sin or create miserable as sin as (probably) the most common form and Reject the rest Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep ugly as sin per jiffy and original as sin as intended as a pun rather than truly SOP. Delete fugly as sin. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

queening square

SOP, simply the square on which queening/promotion occurs. The fact that it happens on the eighth rank is dictated by the rules of chess, and not lexicalized. Imetsia (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems to be called a queening square even if the pawn that reaches it gets made a bishop, etc, which is weakly suggestive of idiomaticity. - -sche (discuss) 15:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Rio Grande River

SoP for a river name; see Rio Grande for the river. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 18:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Redirect or delete like Talk:Jordan River, Talk:Thames River. - -sche (discuss) 02:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

In this case "rio" means "river", so adding "River" is superfluous. I won't object to its removal. Rio Grande Valley is different, that can remain. DonnanZ (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Donnanz: If "Rio Grande River" is attestable, doesn't that make it something of a pleonasm, like ATM machine? bd2412 T 06:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@BD2412: TBH, I don't know. If someone can come up with some durable quotations, maybe... DonnanZ (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Quotations are readily found:

• National Reclamation Association, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (1948), p. 129: Depletion of normal stream flow of the Rio Grande River has been on the increase for the past three years and during 1948 had reached an all time low.
• Cynthia Westcott, The Gardener's Bug Book (1964), p. 120: R. praetexus is found inland from Canada to the Rio Grande River and is probably the common species in northern Florida.
• Paul T. Kostecki, ‎Edward J. Calabrese, ‎Christopher P. L. Barkan, Principles and Practices for Diesel Contaminated Soils (1994), p. 115: The yard lies within the 100 year flood plain of the Rio Grande River and is underlain by more than 100 feet of alluvium.
• L. L. Foster, ‎Barbara J. Rozek, Forgotten Texas Census: First Annual Report of the Agricultural Bureau of the Department of Agriculture, Insurance, Statistics, and History, 1887-88, (2001), p. 65: The city of El Paso is situated on the Rio Grande River, and is 712 miles from Austin.
• Jim Maccracken, Rio Grande County Colorado Fishing & Floating Guide Book (2016), p. 526: The South Fork of the Rio Grande River is a fairly large tributary of the Rio Grande River and is located in eastern Mineral and Western Rio Grande Counties at an southwest of Southfork.

There could be a typo in "at an southwest of Southfork". DonnanZ (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I have double-checked, and the error is in the original. bd2412 T 16:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, it was obviously overlooked by the proofreader... DonnanZ (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I tend to think of this almost as a common misspelling, and would be inclined to redirect to Rio Grande with a usage note to the effect that sometimes people errantly refer to the river as the Rio Grande River despite the name already meaning "Grand River". bd2412 T 02:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@BD2412: I'm not always in favour of redirects without explanation; where would the usage note go? Would it create a precedent to change the definition to "A [[pleonasm]] of Rio Grande" ? (although users may not realise what a pleonasm is, it is a redirect in effect). Then you could, if you want, add quotes (to Rio Grande River) to your heart's content. DonnanZ (talk) 08:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I think either would be acceptable. If a usage note is included in Rio Grande, it would go after the "Proper noun" header and say that the river is sometimes incorrectly referred to as "Rio Grande River", a pleonasm. bd2412 T 16:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Imetsia (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Check out Yellow River. That entry is likely to withstand the process here if ever applied to it since we never call that river "the Yellow". We would say "the Jordan" or "the Thames" or "the Yangtze". Unfamiliar rivers like Prahova River, Dâmbovița River, and Bistrița River (see above) are in uncertain waters- can you say "the Prahova"? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Generally we can get away with omitting river, bearing in mind that the Irish and Brits tend to say "River X" and other nationalities say "X River". Yes, Yellow River makes sense, as does Red River (which needs expansion) and White River, which includes communities with the name, similarly with Salmon River. Communities with "River" in their name can be a deciding factor for river entries - I feel it is better to include the full name for all rivers and communities with that particular name. DonnanZ (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

From the above it can be deduced that any river name that employs an adjective is better entered in full, another example is Sandy River. A quirk here is that it is less likely for anyone to say "River Yellow" or "River Sandy". Rio Grande, being from Spanish, is an exception of course! DonnanZ (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Weak delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

UK

Adjective:

British; related to the United Kingdom.

Removed by DanTrent yesterday; added on 30 September 2011 by Mglovesfun (“adjective, perhaps a questionable one”). J3133 (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep Deleted. Occurrences as seen in “UK towns and cities”^[74] are simply attributive uses of the proper noun.  --Lambiam 18:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Lambiam; DanTrent may have been unaware of RFD procedure. DonnanZ (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep deleted per above. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Pikmin-like

Adj. sense. SOP. -like can be added to virtually any noun to mean "like the thing mentioned (in some relevant way)". We should include these only where there is additional unexpected or unpredictable meaning, or perhaps where the meaning has conventionally become fixed on one particular non-blindingly-obvious aspect of the thing mentioned. Yes, the existing definition does also say that a Pikmin player "controls a large group of entities in real time", but as far as I can tell this is just one potential way in which something "Pikmin-like" can be "like Pikmin", not a meaning that has become specialised to the point of justifying a dictionary entry. Mihia (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Move to RFV. I strongly disagree with the above rationale. All the cites on the citation page seem like undurable rubbish, however. The definition does surprise me somewhat, I'd sooner expect a meaning akin to "resembling a carrot critter". ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

RFV of what? That the term "Pikmin-like" exists? I don't think that is in doubt. Or RFV that it means something other than "Pikmin" + "-like", and if so what? Even if we could find an instance where "Pikmin-like" referred to "controlling a large group of entities in real time", that still would not in itself save this entry, IMO. Going down that road would lead to potential entries of "X-like" for every possible attribute and property of every possible noun or proper noun X. I guess RFV of a conventional special sense would work if we think one exists, but do we even know what that might be? Is it "controlling a large group of entities in real time"? "resembling a carrot critter"? Something else? (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

RFV to determine whether it is actually attested in durable media. Having "entries of "X-like" for every possible attribute and property of every possible noun or proper noun X" is not a nightmare scenario for me, iff the definitions in those entries are attested in accordance with CFI. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Hyphenated compounds are subject to the same sum of parts rule as spaced compounds. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

They shouldn't be. DonnanZ (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

They actually aren't. WT:SOP: "Idiomaticity rules apply to hyphenated compounds in the same way as to spaced phrases." You are extrapolating from hyphenated compounds to hyphenated affixed derivations, but that is not policy. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

hack writer

Sum of parts.

hack (sense 7) + writer

The fact that there is a Wikipedia article with that title is irrelevant, given that the sense in question is already present at hack. Tharthan (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom, as SOP as hack pundit(ry). ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam

Not dictionary material, just like, e.g., Russian Provisional Government, which we rightly don't have. To the extent a proper noun can be SOP, this one is as provisional + revolutionary + government + of + the + Republic of South Vietnam. Imetsia (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)