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

• autokinetic illusion
  good deal
  complicity in genocide
  two-legged beast
  GSK
  preparation time
  out of
  two-way travel time
  araneomorph funnel-web spider
  health nut
  

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

• most
  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
  

September 2020

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)

Does wired in "just the way she's wired" really function as a past tense verb? A quick Google suggests that "he is wired" is more common than "he was wired", but if wired is truely a past tense verb here, shouldn't it always be was? It seems to me that the way one [is / was] wired may be closer to an idiomatic phrase. - excarnateSojourner (talk|contrib) 00:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Re "shouldn't it always be was?": no? Compare google books:"thirst is quenched", google books:"is demolished". - -sche (discuss) 20:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

"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)

Preposition is clearly not the right POS, but that's a secondary matter, to be cleaned up at RFC (or conceivably RFV, if one is being difficult) if not resolved here. "Connected via wires or nerves to" is obviously SOP, delete(/merge to wire), an electrician/etc wires in whatever is to be wired into the things that the citations then say are wired into. The two "part of" quotations likewise seem to be wire (into is not essential), so delete/merge to wire (or possibly wired), since as Davilla says, it can be used without "into": "doing so is wired into how you behave" (as one quote says) because that's just how you're wired. "Involved with", again, can be found without "into" and in other tenses of "wire" ("wiring him into all the right social networks", "his contacts wired him into [or, could wire him into] all the right social networks", etc, which is clearly a verb plus into, not a preposition). "Obsessed with" and "highly knowledgeable" don't seem distinct from each other, as Davilla says, so at a minimum merge them into each other, but they're also clearly not prepositions, so again I think this belongs at wire, or possibly wire into, but wired into is clearly just an inflected form of a verb, IMO. Consider:

• 1999, Teddi Chichester Bonca, Teddi Lynn Chichester, Shelley's Mirrors of Love: Narcissism, Sacrifice, and Sorority, SUNY Press (→ISBN), page 186:

  Like the fledgling scientist who tried to wire himself into the sisterly circle at Field Place, Prometheus joins the electric circuit formed by his "Fair sister nymphs," Panthea, Asia, ...

• 2000, Joan D'Arc, Phenomenal World: Remote Viewing, Astral Travel, Apparitions, Extraterrestrials, Lucid Dreams and Other Forms of Intelligent Contact in the Magical Kingdom of Mind-at-Large, Book Tree (→ISBN), page 154:

  ... and quite handy indeed that they also saw fit to wire themselves into the social problem that they had a major hand in creating in the first place. This almost blatant orchestration of social conflict is just a ladle in the soup of ...

• 2006, John F. Stacks, Scotty: James B. Reston and the Rise and Fall of American Journalism, U of Nebraska Press (→ISBN), page 102:

  RESTON MOVED QUICKLY to parlay his new prominence by wiring himself into high-level Washington sources, and not just Republicans like Vandenberg.

• 2007, Michael G. Santos, Inside: Life Behind Bars in America, St. Martin's Press (→ISBN), page 132:

  Working together with a highly-respected and well-connected gang leader like Lion reduces the risk of detection. Such men wire themselves into the happenings of the pen; they know who can pay how much, and they have finely tuned instincts for the rackets they control. The Nelsons work as a husband-and-wife team, which makes escaping detection easier.

• 2010, John Martin Somers, Pick Your Own Strawberries, Lulu.com (→ISBN), page 276:

  The remainder of the Inn Crowd started to wire themselves into the session. Frank, who was almost always the first to get pissed, was practically gone already, delighted with his career and with his life and determined to drink […]

• 2013, John Rentoul, Tony Blair: Prime Minister, Faber & Faber (→ISBN)

  Blair brought out the febrile intensity of Stanhope, wiring himself into his ever more circumscribed troglodyte world, speculating moodily on the worm that went down when it thought it was coming up. Robert Philp thought Blair's ...

• 2014, Helen Giltrow, The Distance: A Thriller, Anchor (→ISBN)

  A week, and most of it spent inside the compound, but already he's begun to wire himself into the environment, read its codes. The pecking order and the power struggles and the personalities. The fixers and the operators, ...

• 2018, Robin Brunet, Let's Get Frank, Douglas & McIntyre (→ISBN)

  He has always done this, having a good system for wiring himself in to the daily action and buzz of what's going on with clients and the business in general. He also has a pretty good nose for figuring out who the key influencers are,  […]

• 2019, Frank H Baker, Mason Miller, Stud Managers' Handbook, CRC Press (→ISBN)

  All that determines the amount that livestock producers receive is the degree to which they wire themselves into the various sources that are available. However, the primary source is still the land-grant-university system.

So, delete the whole thing IMO (or remake it into a mere "past tense form of" wire into), after moving the citations to wire or wire into. - -sche (discuss) 20:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@Kiwima, DAVilla What do you think of the above citations, as far as showing that wired into is not a preposition meaning "involved with", but just an inflected form of the verb wire + into (or at least wire into), which is where that definition should be? I think the "obsessed with" and "highly knowledgeable of" senses also boil down to being wire+-ed +in to = involved or connected with the things in question: indeed, some of the cites [in the entry under those senses] come right out and say that, like "He is really wired into the world of hockey and connected to all facets of the sport") - -sche (discuss) 01:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that most of the senses are really just past participles of wire into -- except for the 2 and 3. (instinctively or innately part of, and included as an integral part of). I suppose if you are a theist, you could say that God wired maternal instinct into mothers, but that's rather a stretch. I would be happy to replace all the others by a past participle of wire into. Kiwima (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

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,^[1][2], imprudently,^[3] or heavily.^[4]  --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,^[5] and tread softly, found in a play published in 1633.^[6]  --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)

By the way, delete assuming it doesn't have a chance in RFV, unless there are objections to bypassing the process. DAVilla 09:53, 30 July 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)

• Keep per Mahagaja. --Fytcha (talk) 20:38, 5 December 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: [7]. 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)

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)

Mind flayer was specifically not released by Wizards of the Coast when they released most of base D&D under the Open Gaming License, so the implication is that it's not independent of D&D. Black pudding was released[8]; used under license is still not exactly independent, but at a certain point (possibly not reached) some of these creatures may start to be so universal the fact that it's freely licensed may be moot to us. Noteworthy to me is that Paizo, the largest single publisher of works under this license, has avoided using tiefling and other such words in its fiction, and have moved away from some terms in its rulebooks, apparently not to be entangled with the license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:50, 7 October 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)

  I'd say that all English fantasy written in the last 35-40 years that's set in a fantasy world is influenced by D&D.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:50, 7 October 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)

I believe woodelf is citable, so keep per coalmine. DAVilla 13:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Can this belief be borne out by some cites?  --Lambiam 11:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Having glanced at Google Books... I found cites in The Santa Claus Book (2000), Nis-o-was-sa: A Poem (1900), and the self-published A Fan's Guide to Neo-Sindarin (2017), as well as every copy ever of Anne of Green Gables has "wood-elf" mis-scanned as "woodelf", Woodelf being a common username/alias (including Woodelf, a Wikipedian author of material that made it into the POD Wikipedia dumps), a name of noteworthy English Springer Spaniels, a "Woodelf Rhododendrum" variety and a lot more mis-scans. Bleh. I'm not citing it, nor arguing against it if it is cited.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I tried to cite woodelf but failed. The first two are inaccessible to me and the occurrences in "A Fan's Guide to Neo-Sindarin" seem to be mentions rather than uses. If this cannot be cited, the RFD will result in deletion by discounting @Dentonius and @DAVilla. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 03:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I've found a few cites for woodelves do they count? General Vicinity (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 06:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• RFD-kept by WT:COALMINE (which is a voted upon criteria, FTM) and per the above votes. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 06:38, 11 January 2022 (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)

RFD-deleted. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 03:24, 11 January 2022 (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”,^[9][10] 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)
• Strong Keep In the talk page for porno it is demonstrated that ‘porno’ should be considered an adjective by the Lemming principle (Aus and NZ dictionaries) and also a noun by the same principle (U.S and Canadian dictionaries). Also Colin M has demonstrated in quotes from U.K, U.S, Irish and even German (Karl Lagerfeld) sources that ‘porno’ can be an adjective. Also in the entry for porno we have a quote from Martin Amis proving that it can be a noun in the U.K too. Clearly we should keep both noun and adjective senses and also remove the North American/Australasian distinction. Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:20, 6 July 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)

I've felt the same way as Mihia, that it's confusing to redirect a positive to a negative or vice versa; if a user fails to notice, they come away thinking the term they typed in (the negative form) means the opposite of what it actually means, because we supplied them with a definition of the positive form. I think this idea of some kind of "Negative of..." definition is good. Curiously, while ands or buts is more common than ands and buts, ifs and buts is more common than ifs or buts. The usage notes suggest the use of and vs or is influenced by polarity, so some more creative search/ngram terms may be needed to get an accurate comparison. Nonetheless... redirect the less common forms of all the synonymous constructions to the more common forms, but leave the negative forms defined as negative forms of the versions without "no". - -sche (discuss) 21:20, 5 December 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: [11]; [12]; [13]; [14]; [15].  --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)

@DCDuring, Mihia, Lambian I'm not too concerned, I think sense 2 is just emphasizing the negative and giving negative synonyms. But yes, they could be combined as suggested. Facts707 (talk) 10:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Facts707 It seems strange to me to have definitions listed under give the time of day if that phrase is not actually used verbatim at all (but only with a noun inserted in the middle). Is this conventional? - excarnateSojourner (talk|contrib) 16:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@excarnateSojourner I don't think the order of the object, etc. is particularly important; I modified one example and added a quotation in the form "give the time of day [to someone]". Facts707 (talk) 10:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

RFD-redirected almost a year ago Special:Diff/61981774/62145274. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 03:31, 11 January 2022 (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)

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)

Note the sense has since been expanded with (e.g.) an example of a wheezing accordion. Equinox ◑ 22:23, 16 December 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”,^[16] 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”,^[17][18][19] 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)

Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep per lemming, because not existing and not being alive are obviously different, and because sense 1 of be is labelled "now usually literary" which does not apply to no more as far as I can tell. Fytcha (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

RFD-no consensus. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 03:41, 11 January 2022 (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)

Delete and replace with a verb form entry, unless adjectival cites are forthcoming. ("very spiring" seems to net only scannos of "very"+"in-spiring" across various column breaks, etc.) - -sche (discuss) 21:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

RFD-deleted and recreated as a present participle. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 03:46, 11 January 2022 (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)

Delete sense 2, since this falls pretty clearly under Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Sarcastic usage. For sense 1, I have no opinion. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Weak keep because of sense 2. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 03:51, 11 January 2022 (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)

Delete. As flounce exists now the fourth sense explains this word pairing. It's much more transparent (even if flounce is uncommon) than shitpost. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:05, 13 October 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)

Delete, ’tis not dictionary stuff. Keeping this would set a precedence for creating thousands of entries for [ETHNICITY] religion. (On a different note, ‘Hinduism’ is a concept created by European colonialists who failed to understand that there are multiple folk/ethnic religions—all pre-Aryan—throughout the Subcontinent, and many of these being influenced by the Vedic religion to varying degrees. And I guess the Tamil religion may have different variations, caste-wise I suppose.) ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 18:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep. AG202 (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Delete. I have no argument about the existence of the thing denoted by the phrase "Tamil religion". Rather, from all I have seen, this is SOP as "Tamil" + "religion", i.e. "that religion which is of the Tamil variety". Easily understandable from its constituent nouns. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:41, 27 October 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: [20] [21] [22] ←₰-→ 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)

Delete. Chop them all down and burn them. Feed them into a woodchipper and use them for mulch. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep all. AG202 (talk) 22:05, 23 October 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)

Very late update: (i) defining X as "a member of the Xs" is obviously circular and stupid; (ii) having spoken to Lingo (and this was ages ago too!) apparently this religious group is quite a new modern one, whereas I had assumed it had got some history behind it. Still, RFV is king. Equinox ◑ 06:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep per what Equinox said. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 04:00, 11 January 2022 (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)

Keep per DAVilla. Mihia (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Delete all. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 13:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete. As written the definitions are sums of parts. Without Christian you still have to know what rock and metal in context refer to a particular type of noise. But not the music genre known as noise. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep per DAVilla. AG202 (talk) 01:56, 29 October 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)

Delete Jewish Bolshevism; as LBD says, Judeobolshevism and forms thereof can house any translations. Regarding the noses, the two entries' definitions are inconsistent with each other and need to be cleaned up, but once that's done, looking at the specific shape the Wikipedia article is about, are people other than Jews often said to have "Jewish noses" or "Jew noses" if they have that specific shape of nose? One of the issues with nigger cock is that the examples were just referring to the cocks of black men or people the same books described as having "black blood", etc, and of course greedy as a Jew is SOP, whereas the shape of nose seems less intelligible from "Jewish" + "nose", so if people other than Jews and Romans are often said to have Jewish noses vs Roman noses, it seems more idiomatic. - -sche (discuss) 21:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

In what world are these not idiomatic? Jew nose does not mean "nose of a Jew" and the word "Jew" can't even be used as a word to mean "someone who has stereotypical traits of a Jew, whether or not they actually are Jewish". Keep all and it concerns me that these would even be nominated at all. (And if nigger cock does in fact mean "large penis (of someone of any race)", then that is indeed idiomatic as well and deletion of that is another ridiculous RFD outcome.) PseudoSkull (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

In the real world. Anti-Semites have legion stereotypes about Jews, some of which will end in collocations that are opaque to people without borderline encyclopaedic knowledge, that does not mean they are all idiomatic. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo I have yet to see other very commonly used examples of these sorts of collocations in this discussion. Is there in fact a plethora of them? PseudoSkull (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep the entries for Jewish nose and Jew nose. These seem reasonably idiomatic, given that not everyone with a prominent and/or aquiline nose is Jewish, nor do all people of Jewish descent have noses that fit either description. The anti-Semitic connotations do not strike me as an argument against inclusion. Our mission, as a dictionary, is to document language, including its uglier manifestations. The negative connotations are currently indicated by the "offensive" and "ethnic slur" glosses. Although perhaps they could be explained in greater detail in a usage note. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2022 (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, [23]. 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)

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

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)

Delete memes and customs of Reddit that have not escaped or acquired secondary meaning. If r/ becomes general Internet shorthand like @ then it's as worthy as Translingual sense 4 of @ ("Prepended to the name of the user to whom a remark is addressed."). It is customary to @ somebody on many platforms, some of which will have special handling for the character and others of which will leave it up to humans to parse. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:37, 20 October 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)

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)

RFD-no consensus. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 04:07, 11 January 2022 (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)

Fixed. DAVilla 12:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep If the media held power, that would be a media state or something, not a democracy in the sense of the people holding power. DAVilla 12:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

It could be argued that the fact that ‘democracy’ is used sarcastically in this phrase isn’t enough to make it idiomatic. Weak keep though (I’m a member of the ‘if in doubt, keep it’ school of thought.). Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

RFD-kept. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 04:07, 11 January 2022 (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)

• Redirect. 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)

Redirect to Rio Grande with note under Etymology section explaining that "the Rio Grande River" may be seen occasionally. OK, I added said note to wt:Rio Grande - this should be one of the very few rivers that need such an explanation. Cheers, 12:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the added note and the rationale, and would recommend that any redirect be a section-redirect to the Etymology section. bd2412 T 00:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Delete or redirect. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

quenouille

Rfd-redundant There is already an entry for "quenouille training". I found that it simply consists in modifying the tree's growth so that the tree takes a conical or a distaff's shape. There is no distaffs used in this technique, as it was written in the previous version of the entry. — This unsigned comment was added by 2A01:CB11:58D:2E00:A9AB:1EF4:656E:6305 (talk) at 11:05, 12 July 2021.

(I have added a different sense, FYI, whereby quenouille refers to the tree itself which is so trained.) - -sche (discuss) 16:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

unconditional surrender

SOP. PUC – 18:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, the "except as provided by international law" saves it from SOP. Facts707 (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. The exception should not have been part of the definition, for two reasons. To start, in many uses international law does not play a role, as when Killigrew demanded the unconditional surrender of the castle of Edinburgh.^[24] Moreover, the role of modern international law is not one of imposing conditions, but of providing guarantees; unconditional simply means that the party whose surrender is demanded is not allowed to negotiate conditions. This meaning has not been changed by any modern legal provisions.  --Lambiam 09:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• Leaning towards keep. It also seems to be used by extension in non-military contexts. DonnanZ (talk) 11:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• I see this as similar to e.g. change sides, i.e. a set phrase that nevertheless can be explained as SoP. It would be good for us to develop a firm policy on these. Mihia (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Ernesto, Katrina, names of hurricanes

...and any others we have. Do we want them? I noticed we had these two but not e.g. Debbie, Frances, Maria, Sandy or Vince. My inclination is to delete hurricane names (keeping the {{given name}}s). If kept, they merit their own category apart from ":en:Weather" which Ernesto is in now. - -sche (discuss) 05:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Strong keep for Katrina, since it's used much much more even in idiomatic usages. On the fence about Ernesto, but would be inclined to keep notable hurricanes in general. AG202 (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

For me the deciding factor is literary use, as in "insurance companies are concerned about another Katrina" or "the Katrina of the 1800s was called Sauve's Crevasse". So that's a definite keep for the Katrina of 2005.

I would think most major hurricanes would be referenced by a single name in the communities they impacted, at the very least. That said, I'm not having any luck finding as much for Ernesto, despite being the costliest storm of 2006. Also, there was a second hurricane with that name in 2012. After all, it's not in this list. DAVilla 05:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

It did occur to me that names of hurricanes could pop up in quotations. DonnanZ (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Delete all storm names, these being encyclopædia stuff, and what’s more, a name could refer to manifold storms. Just show them as derived terms (diff). ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 16:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The name Napoleon can refer to manifold individuals, but that is IMO not an argument to delete our entry Napoleon.  --Lambiam 10:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Napoleon and Katrina are not the same thing. Napoleon has been attested in literature to refer to Napoleon Bonaparte since the 19th century I guess, and hence is a longstanding term. What about Katrina? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 12:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

None of our criteria have requirements for more than a 3 year span because of the way language changes. You will find more recent names than Napoleon in our pages. DAVilla 11:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• Definitely keep Katrina per DAVilla. Neutral leaning to delete on the others unless cites can be found where the bare name is used and where it isn't blatantly obvious from the context that the name is referring to a hurricane. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Katrina. Maybe throw the other names in a category. – Jberkel 11:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Delete Ernesto but not all hurricanes. Katrina should be kept if any. DAVilla 11:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete hurricane senses. Common metaphorical uses, which may be limited to Katrina, can have entries of the metaphorical sense. See Faustian, Kafkaesque. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

about

Adjective: "Near; in the vicinity or neighbourhood."

The usage examples are for adverbial use. I have not yet found a dictionary that has such a definition under the adjective PoS. DCDuring (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Relevant adjectival definitions of "about" found in other dictionaries:

• AROUND sense 2: There is a scarcity of jobs about. (M-W)
• Being in evidence or existence: Rumors are about concerning his resignation. (AH)
• (predicative) in existence, current, or in circulation: there aren't many about nowadays (Collins)

Although these definitions are written from a slightly different angle, which we could perhaps usefully reflect in ours, all seem essentially of the same nature as our examples "Watch out, there's a thief about" and "I had my keys just a minute ago, so they must be about somewhere". Mihia (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I somehow failed to notice that we do in fact have "In existence; being in evidence; apparent" as a separate sense. I would not oppose merging the two. Mihia (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

As I see it, there is no adjective for about, so I think all three "senses" can be deleted and the usage examples reallocated to the adverb and preposition. DonnanZ (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The entire concept of adverbs being complements of the "be" verb, as in "a thief is about", is highly problematic and unsatisfactory in my opinion, and risks undermining the whole basis on which we distinguish predicate adjectives, albeit it may sometimes be a necessary evil in the absence of any better explanation. In this case, why would "about" in "a thief is about" be an adverb, while "present" in "a thief is present" be an adjective? Preposition would be arguable if, IMO, we are sure that an object is implied, as in e.g. "a thief is about the place" or "my keys are about the house somewhere", though there may be other schools that would wish to widen the scope of "preposition". I would say, however, unless we want to go wholesale down the route of widening the scope, which would presumably involve substantial changes to many articles, that it would be easier practically to have a fixed rule "no object, no preposition" to fall back on in these cases. Mihia (talk) 10:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

nature-lover, nature lover

SOP. PUC – 10:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

nature-lover (hyphenated)

The same user who slapped the RFD notice on it added the translation section. Where is the logic there? DonnanZ (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Imetsia (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep. I can find no reason for deletion. And there is a loophole... DonnanZ (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Rare misspelling of nature lover, which is a SOP (just like wine lover, boating lover, ...).  --Lambiam 16:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The hyphenated form is either very rare or unattested (so it can be deleted), but nature lover is a well-established and very common word, and must be kept. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 19:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

“A person who has an intense interest in the natural world” – as opposed to the supernatural world?  --Lambiam 13:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

One who loves nature. “What Man has made of Man”— William Wordsworth ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 14:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, the natural environment. Equinox ◑ 14:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

It is an example of a definition that is only comprehensible to someone who already knows the meaning of the term being defined.  --Lambiam 09:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Strong Keep. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 20:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep The blithe and glib contention that "The hyphenated form is either very rare or unattested" was utterly, unmistakably and irreversibly blown out by five durably archived cites from five authors with English Wikipedia articles. (see below for details) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative Whether or not that's true is irrelevant. The term is still SOP, hyphenated or not. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Argument from Bat Guano
Under Wiktionary's seven definitions for nature, a nature-lover must love polio and its effects on the body as well as the odor and taste of bat guano. I would contend that no definition (1 through to 7) of "nature" that Wiktionary current contains is the one used in nature-lover. "someone who likes plants, birds and other natural phenomena" [25] well that excludes (1) terminal cancer, (2) rancid dog turds, and (3) smallpox all of which are encompassed by definitions 1 and 3 of nature. Here again, we see "A person who enjoys spending time in the countryside and observing wild animals and plants." [26] Such a person might be disinclined to visit a desert island with no trees and birds (Baker Island, etc) and hence does not love any nature under Wiktionary's understanding of nature. In conclusion, nature-lovers are differentiated from those who are bat-sh*t crazy. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Not convincing. One would not expect a "food lover" to enjoy rotten food, even though rotten food is a subset of food. Equinox ◑ 21:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative As someone who went to the Boy Scouts throughout my youth, I can with experience tell you that "nature" is most certainly used outside the context of this phrase with the same definition. For example, one might say "I'm a nature person." as in they love nature (and yes, that is something I've heard before, many times). "You've gotta love the beautiful nature of this park." (in that context meaning the scenery of the outdoor environment) "You shouldn't spend so much time indoors, you should see more of nature." All essentially the same definition. "Nature lover" is just a convenient combination of this sense and "lover" that happens to be used a lot, nothing more, nothing less. If the current entry at nature indeed doesn't cover this definition, it should. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I must be peculiar because actually I would probably hyphenate "nature-lover". To me, hyphenation seems logical. It is annoying for us that Google search seems unable to properly discriminate hyphenated terms. When I search for "nature-lover", I get mostly hits for "nature lover". Assuming that Google is serving "nature lover" and "nature-lover" in their true proportions, it does seem that the hyphenated form is unusual. I only found two so far: [27] and [28]. Ngrams shows "nature-lover" a goodly fraction of "nature lover", but we suspect that Ngrams may too be unreliable with hyphens (though specific issues that apparently afflict the "heatresistant" results seem not to apply here). To me, "nature lover" and "nature-lover" are either both SoP or both not SoP, so if we keep "nature lover" but not "nature-lover" this can only be because the latter is very rare. I do question that. I feel unsure whether there is enough non-SoP meaning in either. Again, the question is: Does "nature lover"/"nature-lover" mean anything more than "lover of nature"?, and also, if the answer to that question is "no", Is the sense in which "nature" is meant in this phrase likely to be unclear? Mihia (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The date of the attached quotation could be relevant. Use of a hyphen may have been more prevalent in 1938 than it is now. DonnanZ (talk) 08:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete, per Lambiam or if kept, redirect. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Redirect to...? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 14:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete--4SnavaA (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• OK guys, who knew, but the way to find hyphenated examples in Google Books is to search for "naturelover" (well, it worked with "heatresistant"!). As many examples as you like -- many but by no means all at end-of-line. I must say I was very disbelieving that the hyphenated form was as rare as the "nature-lover" search suggested, and I think the new evidence proves that of course it is not. I would even go so far as to say that Ngrams may be correct, though it must still be open to doubt. Anyway, on the basis that the hyphenated form is not rare, and that IMO there is just enough non-SoP (or non-obvious-SoP) meaning, I vote keep. Those who voted delete on the understanding that the hyphenated form is very rare and/or a misspelling may wish to reconsider. Certainly, there is no way IMO that it can be considered a misspelling. Mihia (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  Oh, good to know about the Google search hack. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Our SoP theory seems to be seriously flawed. How can we delete words that are well-attested, well-established in literature, and have non-English translations? In this case, nature(-)lover is a compound word and it indeed passes as a valid dictionary entry. Remember, “all words in all languages”? It just seems like some people personally do not like a word, and therefore are flocking together to get it deleted. Please do not delete this word, or else Wiktionary would lose its legitimacy! ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 19:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

We agreed in a vote that hyphenated terms are to be treated in the same way as spaced terms in respect of the SoP criterion, so, as I mentioned somewhere, "nature lover" and "nature-lover" are either both SoP or both not. The hyphen doesn't matter. Whether they are SoP is a fine judgement IMO. In my opinion they are just about not, because of the restricted or special meaning of "nature" in those phrases. Others may disagree. If a term voted SoP has worthwhile non-part-by-part translations, it can nevertheless be kept as a "translation hub". Mihia (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete both. @Inqilābī My feelings for the word itself are neutral. For an analogy, while I may be a cat lover (which I very much am), that doesn't necessitate in my mind that cat lover should be an entry at Wiktionary. While nature lover only uses the word "nature" in a specific sense (i.e. the environment of the outdoor wilderness), the term is still SOP. You might say someone is a nature person too, meaning that they like the environment of the outdoors. While nature lover is more common than that, it is still SOP and should not be an entry for this reason. Please read WT:SOP for reasons and justifications as to why we don't want SOP entries to be kept. I point out that I don't have some undue bias against the entry for a reason—that is because as I look at your comment here, it seems that perhaps you are in fact the one with somewhat of a bias for the word and against Wiktionary consensus. You want the word to be kept because you like the word, due to its popularity and use. This becomes more apparent by the fact that your comment seems to be a begging plea not to delete the word, which is on its own at least somewhat an appeal to emotional bias. I don't want to assign intent to some definite extent, but it certainly seems that way. If you have an issue with our SOP policy you can bring it up formally, however I encourage not to vote based on a preconceived opinion against our consensus on the issue. By the way, hyphenation does not eliminate SOPness, because cat-lover or nature-person could also exist in the same way. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

cat(-)lover aint the same thing as nature(-)lover: the ’cat’ in the former word can be substituted with millions of creatures— which would make any such words blatant SoPs; however nature(-)lover is clearly not SoP. My judgement is not any emotional appeal as you claim. Likewise, wine-lover (as mentioned above) is SoP as well, and I have never heard any term like nature guy before. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 20:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe you when you say that you never heard a term like nature guy, but it is hardly uncommon: [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69].  --Lambiam 13:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī The fact that "nature" is a broader concept which could encompass a few different interpretations doesn't make it automatically an idiom—when people talk about "nature" (in general) in this sense, they're talking about the broader environment of the outdoors. You could say "I love nature", "You've gotta love the nature at this mountain range", "I'm a nature person and not an indoors person", etc. These are all the same definition being used, and "nature lover" just happens to be a very convenient collocation of two words that is very often used; popularity and it being a vague concept doesn't make it any less SoP, though. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

A wine lover is, in one word, an œnophile in French. And a cat lover is not necessarily into non-domesticated felid species, such as the bobcat. Moreover, cat lover is one word (Katzenliebhaber(in)) in German. In short, these are invalid arguments; the polysemy of components, or the existence of one-word translations, doth not an idiomatic expression make.  --Lambiam 10:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

If nature lover indeed be SoP, then how do we find the term as an entry in other online dictionaries? How do we get this term as an well-established idiom in Google Books? If our SoP criterion is this strict, then we are doing an excellent job making this project substandard. What about the existence of the entry book lover? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 11:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

book lover is spared by the existence of booklover, and WT:COALMINE. DonnanZ (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, some editors are determined to create a substandard project, they see that allowing one through is the thin edge of the wedge, and would prompt a flood of others less worthy of inclusion. They are not prepared to consider the merits for inclusion of each one. I would not recommend bizarre examples such as fried banana lover and battered sausage lover, but the example under consideration here, yes. DonnanZ (talk) 12:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

If someone presents the merits for inclusion of nature lover, I’m prepared to consider them – but if the arguments, upon consideration, are found to be so generic that they also apply to nature guy and cat lover, do not expect me to accept them.  --Lambiam 13:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

In cases such as this, your view of "worthy of inclusion" often seems to rest on whether a term is common and/or familiar to you. AFAIK, and someone correct me if I am wrong, we have no existing inclusion policy applicable to such cases that makes any reference to a term being common and familiar, provided only that it meets the minimum attestation standards. If you would like, for example, "nature lover" to be included, and "banana lover" to be excluded, on the basis that the former is "more common", may I suggest that you make a general policy-change suggestion e.g. at the Beer Parlour, assuming you haven't already. Mihia (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

In no way are we bound by the decisions of other lexicographers (which are often mutually incompatible). I see no convincing argument that nature lover is any more idiomatic than nature person^[70][71][72] or science-fiction lover^[73][74][75].  --Lambiam 13:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

So you don't want to be bound by what other lexicographers print, but at the same time you can use what they publish as a guide for inclusion. And "lover" terms are generally lacking, even nigger lover, which OneLook says appears nowhere other than Wiktionary. That's not really a surprise, but does it fulfil the criteria for inclusion, according to your rules, if there was no entry for niggerlover? Naturelover does get a few Google hits, probably not enough to justify an entry, and I don't want to abuse WT:COALMINE. DonnanZ (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The context-providing meaning of nigger lover, in particular the fact (not properly reflected in our definition) that the term was historically specifically used as slur for an opponent of slavery (practically synonymous in the American context with abolitionist, while identifying the speaker as a bigotted anti-abolitionist) and now by white supremacists for someone opposing racism, makes this more than a sum of parts.  --Lambiam 15:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I can accept that, can you accept nature-lover? DonnanZ (talk) 09:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

What I might accept is an argument for keeping the term. I presented my an argument; where is yours? All I see is “I can find no reason for deletion”, but that is not an argument. As a counsel for the defence, would you plead “Your Honour, I can find no reason to convict my client” and expect this to have an effect? And there is the alleged existence of an unspecified loophole, which IMO does also not qualify as an argument.  --Lambiam 22:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Google Books is irrelevant: "buy a car" gets "about 738,000 results", and "car-buying" gets "about 71,500 results". By the way: if someone says "I just bought a car", I immediately think of something one drives, not something pulled by a locomotive. That's not evidence of idiomaticy, it's just the way things work in the real world. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep or Convert into a translation hub. Do you really think no English speaker would ever want to know what nature-lover means in a different language? Translating the parts and trying to combine them often yields wrong or unidiomatic translations. --Fytcha (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't entirely disagree about the translation hub (I mentioned it myself also), but it worries me a bit that translation hubs can get out of hand. I mean, you can say about very large numbers of SoP English phrases that combining translations of the parts on a dumb look-up basis, with no actual knowledge of the target language, can produce unidiomatic results or even nonsense. Mihia (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and that's why I find Fytcha's argument, which has been brought up by various people over the years, incredibly irritating. I've no idea what they're trying to turn the dictionary into. You can't expect to find absolutely everything there is to know about translation from one language into another in a dictionary. PUC – 11:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Why not? We are not paper, nor are we bound by any law or limitation prohibiting us from providing sufficient information for an English speaker to get a grasp of any other given language. In fact, we already have numerous appendices that give guidance on the structural elements of other languages. Presumably, other-language Wiktionaries can do the same thing. Our mission should be expansive. We are here to help. bd2412 T 01:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

We are not bound by law or limitation from providing recipes or music downloads or weather forecasts either. It doesn't mean that we should. IMO you cannot expect a dictionary to give you a translation of arbitrary phrases such as "first man on the Moon" or "fairy at the bottom of my garden", which is where "translation hub" would ultimately lead if taken too far. Well, certainly if we wanted to do that, it would be a separate translation feature, not individual entries for every phrase. Mihia (talk) 08:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Because not every translation issue has to do with lexicology, which is what a dictionary, i.e. a collection of lexical items, is supposed to deal with. There are other considerations at play in translation, which are not within our remit. If people want to create appendices to touch upon these, I've got no problem with that, but we should not be mindlessly creating entries every time a translation from one language to the other is not straightforward; as I said, the issue may not be lexical at all, but be part of a larger pattern. PUC – 13:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

When I see a garbled Google translate effort because the algorithm doesn't know the meaning of phrases, that strikes me as a lexicological issue. I would point out to Mihia that the phrase "fairy at the bottom of my garden" is meaningless in American English, and would therefore be interpreted by most English-speaking people in the world to mean something different than what it means in the UK. bd2412 T 22:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I would have thought that any confused fellow countryman of yours would look up ‘garden’ rather than the whole phrase and would end up seeing the synonym ‘yard’, making such a phrasal entry redundant. Back to the matter at hand, I say delete the hyphenated form (nature-lover) and weak keep on the unhyphenated. Overlordnat1 (talk) 02:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

We have gardens, but they don't have "bottoms". What does it mean for something to be "at the bottom" of a garden? Which kind of "fairy" is relevant to that "bottom"? bd2412 T 05:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

It’s a long-standing insulting joke in the U.K that if someone considers themselves to be mystic/spiritual, or if they’re just plain nuts, they ‘think there are fairies (or ‘is a fairy’) at the bottom of their garden’. It’s because of the alleged Cottingley fairies (as in the mythical creatures, not homosexuals!) which had Arthur Conan Doyle fooled [76]. As far as ‘top’ and ‘bottom’ are concerned, ‘top of the garden’ is equivalent to ‘front of the yard’ (U.S) and ‘bottom of the garden’ is equivalent to ‘back of the yard’ (U.S). Now that I’ve checked I’ve realised that, incredibly, we don’t have definitions at top and bottom consistent with this. I can’t think of any other context than gardens where top and bottom are used this way though, so we should probably just create entries top of the garden and bottom of the garden and list them under derived terms in top and bottom, rather than adding new senses or sub senses to the main entries for top and bottom. Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we actually refer to a "front of the yard" or "back of the yard" at all in the U.S.; we have a front yard (between the house and the street) and a backyard (behind the house). bd2412 T 20:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I could have been a bit clearer, ‘the bottom of the garden’ specifically refers to the far end of the back garden/yard (which is to say the end furthest from the house which forms part of the same property; in the vast majority of instances, the garden is joined directly to the house in question) and never the far end of the front garden/yard. Is there an American idiom with this precise meaning or would you have to say ‘the back of the back yard’ or ‘the far end of the back yard’? Overlordnat1 (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

There is not - we would literally just call it "the end of the yard". I would have assumed that the "bottom of the garden" meant under the ground. We are two peoples divided by a common language. bd2412 T 06:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

nature lover (unhyphenated)

Note that @Inqilābī has moved the hyphenated form to the non-hyphenated form, so I assume the discussion is no longer simply about the hyphenated form but about whether the non-hyphenated form itself is SoP (I think it is, and so would still vote to delete). — SGconlaw (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

And I see that "nature lover" has also been added to the heading here. I'm sorry but I strongly disagree with making these kinds of fundamental changes to the whole basis of a vote while it is in progress, even effectively reassigning votes that have already been cast. Mihia (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I’m not sure it was a good idea for the entry to have been moved in the middle of the discussion, but it was done. Feel free to vote afresh for the unhyphenated term below. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the first section likewise needs to have the subheading "nature-lover (hyphenated)", otherwise it can still easily appear that votes that were cast for the hyphenated form apply to both, which may not have been the intention of the voter, and in some cases clearly was not. In fact I will do that now. Mihia (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• I undid the move just now; but anyway, keep both. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 18:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• No, it wasn't a good idea to move it, anyway keep both. As I see it, nature means a generally unspoilt outdoor environment. DonnanZ (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

BTW, Norwegian Bokmål naturlover is a red herring for translation purposes; = laws of nature. DonnanZ (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete both (unhyphenated and hyphenated)--4SnavaA (talk) 05:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete both. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• Seems very sum-of-parts to me, per PseudoSkull. It doesn't mean tree hugger, but doesn't imply it either. The hyphen isn't enough to merit inclusion. I'd be OK to keep nature lover as a translation hub, given how common it is. No strong feelings on it. DAVilla 04:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

public-school

Does not meet criteria for inclusion: we don't keep entries for predictable English attributive forms. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

As there is an entry for public school, I would keep this one. Is this what the criteria is trying to prevent? DonnanZ (talk) 09:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Speedily deleted the challenged sense as a self-evident hyphenated attributive form: see "Wiktionary:Votes/2019-05/Excluding self-evident "attributive form of" definitions for hyphenated compounds". Similar entries can simply be tagged with {{delete}} for speedy deletion. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

If you don't mind me saying so, that was quite silly, as the noun form of public-school still exists. DonnanZ (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Donnanz: I don’t mind. However, there was a whole vote about this which achieved consensus. And, frankly, just because a compound noun like, oh, comfort food exists, it doesn’t mean we need a separate entry indicating the attributive form comfort-food. The use of a hyphen in this way is just the usual way attributive forms of multiword compound nouns are formed. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: I wouldn't normally create hyphenated attributive forms, but there is a definite need to include single-word attributive forms where the word is not a recognised adjective, and move such wrongly treated "adjectives" to "attributive". I did abstain in that vote, by the way. DonnanZ (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The outcome has become policy for all editors, regardless of how they voted. If you wish to retain this definition, you have to present a reasoned argument: either that the hyphenated-compound rule does not apply in this case; or that there is something very special about this specific term that warrants our making an exception.  --Lambiam 16:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Rolled back. The vote does not apply, as we are not debating the entry. This is not "merely as an attributive form of the individual components" like periodic-table was. DAVilla 18:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@DAVilla: how is it not? The very definition is "attributive form of public school". — SGconlaw (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and if it were the only definition, then the entry should be speedy deleted. The sense is the attributive form, but then entry is not merely the attributive form. DAVilla 18:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep. We look like fools to define public-school as a rare noun, but not list the correct adjective usage. DAVilla 18:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@DAVilla: we have had a whole discussion on this which has consensus. I'm afraid we have to adhere to that until the consensus changes. There is no particular reason to retain self-evident hyphenated attributive forms; hyphenating the nouns from which they are derived is simply the usual way of creating these attributive forms. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

If there is consensus to delete, per your reasoning, then the entry will be deleted. But you are misinterpreting where consensus lies. The vote cited concerned entries, not senses. This RFD needs to take its course. DAVilla 18:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@DAVilla: that is splitting hairs. It makes no sense whatsoever to interpret the policy as stating that if an entire entry consists of a self-evident hyphenated attributive form it is to be deleted, but if it is just one sense it gets to live. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

It is splitting hairs, but the vote explicitly says "entries". And it does make sense to include a definition line when there's an entry, and not include the entry with just the one definition, despite your opinion. We have &lit definitions for the same reason. If the entry is there, then we tell people how it's used. But there are no &lit only entries.

I'm not saying that my opinion on the matter supersedes yours, or that this won't ultimately be deleted. I'm just saying we need to be sure before we do. DAVilla 18:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep as an &lit adjective, per DAVilla. The implication that the only sense with which the reader will find this word is as a noun is indeed rather odd. bd2412 T 04:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete as I disagree the previous vote should be interpreted in that way. If we have decided not to have self-evident hyphenated attributive forms, then this applies across the board and not only in free-standing entries. Having exceptions in an entry which has other senses (such as an alternative form for a noun) is confusing to readers as they may wonder why such attributive forms are indicated, and may then prompt them to create other such attributive forms contrary to the policy. — SGconlaw (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

A bunch more predictable English attributive forms

• present-participle
• present-tense
• pressure-ulcer
• prime-minister
• prime-number
• prisoner-of-war
• pronunciation-guide
• proper-noun
• public-intoxication
• publicity-stunt
• public-law
• public-school
• puffed-rice
• puff-pastry
• pyramid-scheme
• quantum-limit
• radio-station
• rag-week
• rational-number
• razor-blade
• reasonable-person
• red-deer
• registered-trademark
• relative-pronoun
• religious-pluralism
• report-card
• reverse-commute
• right-angle

 

And pretty much any others at this subpage. My favourite is predator-bug, which may win a prize for the least likely usage example ever: This has a predator-bug taste—gross! Roger the Rodger (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I've struck public-school as it's already listed above. I don't know if this is coded anywhere, but we shouldn't have two active RFD discussions for the same item. DAVilla 18:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I love the implication that one should already know what predator bugs taste like. Don't get me wrong- I understand that some bugs are quite tasty- but these are rare exotics that a few people keep as pets, and assassin bugs tend to have extremely painful bites. You definitely don't want to get close enough to taste one. But I digress... Chuck Entz (talk) 03:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Speedily delete all.  --Lambiam 09:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Haven't looked at them all individually. Where the content is just "attributive form of (noun)" and perhaps a usex, I would say delete. Equinox ◑ 12:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete all. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Remaining predictable English hyphenated attributive forms

• abstinence-only
• action-movie
• ad-banner
• adult-movie
• air-resistance
• allopathic-medicine
• angst-bunny
• apocrine-gland
• arm's-length
• army-ant
• artificial-intelligence
• at-sign
• auto-insurance
• automobile-racing
• auto-racing
• auxiliary-verb
• award-ceremony
• awards-ceremony
• baby-oil
• bad-boy
• bad-faith
• baggage-claim
• balance-beam
• bare-metal
• barley-sugar
• barn-owl
• base-metal
• bead-breaker
• bearded-mussel
• belly-dance
• bet-exchange
• big-enchilada
• birthday-boy
• birthday-cake
• birthday-card
• black-box
• black-hole
• black-letter
• bleu-cheese
• blood-type
• board-of-directors
• bodily-fluid
• bone-marrow
• brass-band
• bread-line
• breaking-and-entering
• bull-bar
• bush-dog
• cable-jack
• cannon-bone
• caravan-park
• carbon-paper
• cardinal-number
• car-hop
• cash-and-carry
• cathode-ray
• cattle-grid
• center-of-gravity
• centre-of-gravity
• centrifugal-force
• change-of-life
• change-of-venue
• chaos-theory
• cheek-pouch
• chemical-bomb
• chemical-compound
• chemical-formula
• chemical-property
• chess-clock
• child-language
• chocolate-egg
• chopped-liver
• citation-cord
• city-council
• civil-law
• civil-marriage
• civil-society
• closed-form
• close-quarters
• clothes-shop
• coherent-light
• collision-theory
• commercial-at
• common-gull
• common-sense
• community-college
• comparison-shopper
• compound-symbol
• computer-language
• computer-science
• conservation-law
• conservation-of-mass
• constitutional-law
• contact-lens
• control-freak
• cooling-tower
• core-inflation
• couch-potato
• count-noun
• country-code
• cover-crop
• crazy-paving
• creek-bed
• criminal-law
• criminal-offence
• crude-oil
• cruise-control
• currency-code
• current-events
• curtain-call
• data-base
• data-structure
• date-of-birth
• dative-case
• dead-president
• death-squad
• debt-burden
• decision-making
• deep-sleep
• definite-article
• demonstrative-pronoun
• depleted-uranium
• descriptive-geometry
• desktop-picture
• dew-point
• direct-current
• direct-object
• direct-verb
• displaced-person
• dollar-sign
• domestic-debt
• door-closer
• double-action
• double-agent
• down-at-heel
• drag-queen
• drum-kit
• dry-closet
• dual-citizenship
• due-process
• Dutch-auction
• economic-development
• egg-hunt
• egg-roll
• electric-chair
• electronic-game
• emergency-brake
• endocrine-system
• endowment-policy
• enterprise-union
• equal-sign
• excise-tax
• exclamation-mark
• exterior-angle
• eye-candy
• eyelash-curler
• fallow-deer
• false-friend
• family-size
• fan-belt
• fancy-dress
• feast-day
• feed-drive
• field-trip
• figure-of-speech
• filing-cabinet
• fill-in-the-blank
• fire-engine
• first-class
• first-floor
• first-mover
• first-name
• fish-finger
• flannel-cake
• floor-exercise
• floor-plan
• foreign-debt
• free-speech
• fried-egg
• front-organization
• fruit-tree
• full-stop
• funeral-director
• funeral-home
• funeral-parlor
• future-tense
• game-bird
• game-of-chance
• game-point
• gap-year
• garlic-press
• general-election
• genitive-case
• ghost-town
• gift-horse
• given-name
• glad-wrap
• glass-cleaner
• glass-cockpit
• glow-plug
• golden-eagle
• good-faith
• graph-paper
• group-theoretical
• guinea-pig
• hair-gel
• hair-spray
• half-past
• hand-puppet
• head-of-state
• heavy-water
• helping-verb
• high-technology
• horse-hockey
• horse-race
• hot-cathode
• hot-chocolate
• hula-hoop
• human-pyramid
• ice-floe
• impersonal-subject
• incense-boat
• incidental-music
• incised-meander
• indefinite-article
• indefinite-pronoun
• indirect-object
• industrial-output
• inside-baseball
• interstate-compact
• intransitive-verb
• inverted-snobbery
• irregular-verb
• island-state
• jet-engine
• junior-college
• juvenile-delinquent
• kangaroo-bar
• kangaroo-piss
• kiwi-fruit
• knee-pad
• knob-jockey
• knock-about
• knock-knock
• language-code
• large-intestine
• lash-curler
• last-name
• laughing-gas
• lawn-chair
• leap-of-faith
• leap-year
• leather-jacket
• legal-beagle
• legal-eagle
• legal-entity
• life-assurance
• life-child
• lifetime-job
• little-finger
• little-owl
• live-weight
• love-egg
• machine-translation
• magic-wand
• main-clause
• main-verb
• mammary-gland
• man-of-letters
• maple-leaf
• maple-syrup
• market-research
• marsh-buck
• mass-noun
• mast-cell
• maternal-death
• med-mal
• memory-span
• metabolic-rate
• metric-system
• microwave-radiation
• middle-finger
• military-academy
• military-school
• mobile-phone
• mobile-station
• model-organism
• money-market
• morning-kitchen
• mother-goddess
• motor-racing
• mountain-goat
• mountain-lion
• mountain-reindeer
• mouse-wheel
• musk-ox
• myocardial-infarct
• my-way-or-the-highway
• nag-screen
• nail-bomb
• national-epic
• national-revival
• natural-gas
• negative-clause
• nerve-ending
• nest-scrape
• net-earnings
• network-subsystem
• neutral-zone
• neutron-star
• news-media
• nominative-case
• north-pole
• noun-phrase
• off-brand
• old-hat
• one-hundred
• open-book
• operating-room
• operating-system
• operating-theatre
• other-woman
• outer-space
• partial-fraction
• partial-order
• part-of-speech
• passive-voice
• past-participle
• past-tense
• peat-moss
• peptic-ulcer
• perpetual-license
• personal-pronoun
• phrase-book
• picture-postcard
• plasma-display
• plasma-screen
• pocket-watch
• pop-culture
• portmanteau-word
• pot-luck
• power-to-gas
• predator-bug
• present-participle
• pressure-cooker
• prime-cut
• private-eye
• public-law
• puff-pastry
• Purkinje-cell
• question-mark
• quotation-mark
• quotient-space
• red-ball
• reverse-pickpocket
• river-bank
• road-gang
• road-movie
• road-race
• rock-band
• rock-dove
• roe-deer
• rolled-oats
• roo-bar
• rubbish-bin
• running-shoe
• saddle-point
• sand-art
• school-band
• sea-lion
• sea-urchin
• secondhand-smoke
• second-sheet
• sewing-machine
• sex-life
• sexual-intercourse
• sheet-erosion
• sheet-piling
• shoe-polish
• shooting-spree
• shopping-cart
• short-sword
• simple-past
• simple-present
• size-zero
• skating-rink
• skid-lid
• skimmed-milk
• skim-milk
• skin-magazine
• small-fry
• smoking-gun
• snapping-turtle
• snooze-button
• snow-leopard
• soap-opera
• soccer-ball
• social-psychology
• social-science
• soft-key
• solar-system
• sole-trader
• sore-loser
• sore-winner
• sound-card
• soup-kitchen
• south-pole
• space-age
• space-station
• space-travel
• spitting-cobra
• spray-can
• spring-roll
• square-root
• station-wagon
• statutory-rape
• steam-engine
• stem-cell
• stink-bomb
• stomach-flu
• stone-fruit
• storm-cloud
• street-hockey
• strong-language
• subject-clause
• subordinate-clause
• sugar-water
• summer-camp
• symphony-orchestra
• tail-between-one's-legs
• tailgate-party
• tasting-menu
• tawny-owl
• tea-cosy
• team-sport
• teddy-bear
• tee-ball
• telephone-jack
• television-station
• ten-o'clock
• therapeutic-window
• thermal-paper
• third-gender
• tilt-barrier
• timber-camp
• timber-rafting
• toilet-paper
• toilet-roll
• top-gun
• total-order
• touch-move
• tour-of-duty
• toxic-waste
• trade-deficit
• trade-union
• trailer-park
• tropical-storm
• truck-driver
• true-leaf
• true-name
• tuna-fish
• two-liter
• verbal-noun
• video-game
• visible-light
• wall-clock
• water-buffalo
• water-vapor
• wear-and-tear
• weather-gauge
• web-browser
• white-cell
• white-hole
• white-meat
• white-stork
• whole-note
• whooping-crane
• wild-boar
• wind-instrument
• windscreen-washer
• wing-and-prayer
• wisdom-tooth
• woolly-bear
• woolly-worm
• work-release
• zoological-garden

 

(This applies only to “attributive form of” entries; the non-attributive noun pot-luck as an alternative form of potluck should remain.)  --Lambiam 10:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Note present-participle, public-law, and puff-pastry are already part of the previous list. DAVilla 18:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you put these terms in a collapsible box just for ease of navigation? —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. It was missing the parameter for the number of columns. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Now even less editable. I would say mass rejection, by saying no to mass extermination. DonnanZ (talk) 11:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I would say get a bot to delete only those entries that are attributive forms only. If there are other senses (for example, a hyphenated form of a compound noun), can the bot delete only the attributive sense? — SGconlaw (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I’ve never programmed a bot, but I think if a headword under the PoS Adjective has multiple senses with separate definitions, leave it alone. If it is the only sense, delete the whole Adjective section, and keep deleting parent nodes up to and including the page level if they have been voided in the sense of no longer containing any headwords. There is a complication though if there are several etymologies for a term, in which case the L2 section may require normalization (renumbering the etymologies, or removing the sole number and promoting its subsections because of an anomaly in how we represent the tree structure for a single etymology).  --Lambiam 08:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Delete all. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it's safe to delete most of these. However, I would keep those that have other definitions, such as reverse-commute especially, and also at-sign, bad-boy, etc. Arguably barley-sugar is misdefined, as the quotation is a noun not an adjective use. So please use discretion. And by the way, the quotation at arm's-length would imply that there's an alternative form arms length without the apostrophe. DAVilla 19:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I would lean towards keeping reasonable-person since it is particularly going to be used to reference the reasonable person standard. bd2412 T 05:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Sure. I didn't make it that far down the list. DAVilla 05:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I have to double-check to make sure a hyphenated attributive term is not on this confounded list. DonnanZ (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Destroy with nuclear weapon all those that are defined as nothing more than attributive form of the component parts. Mihia (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

smooth-running

Also looks SOP to me Roger the Rodger (talk) 09:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• It could be in certain cases, such as a smooth-running engine. That is not intended, nor included here. Keep. DonnanZ (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. One can keep a shop running smoothly,^[77], or get a club running smoothly.^[78] Engines are not the only things that can run smoothly (or sometimes not^[79] ).  --Lambiam 10:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

According to Ngram Viewer, smoothrunning is about par. Someone can create that if they want to. DonnanZ (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I recall being advised that Google Ngrams isn’t reliable when it comes to distinguishing between hyphenated and unhyphenated forms because the underlying data are inconsistent. If you search for unhyphenated forms in Google Books, for example, you will often find that words indicated as unhyphenated are actually hyphenated in the text. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, what is indicated as being a solid word quite often turns out to be hyphenated when checked. I did find about 20 or so actually spelt "smoothrunning" though, so it does occur, although much rarer than thought. DonnanZ (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

That is clearly not a "normal" form and it's bad faith to try to beat consensus that way. Equinox ◑ 06:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

That form hasn't been created, I don't like it anyway. But I suspect that some editors employ that tactic, like with wellrested. DonnanZ (talk) 10:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Update: it has been created now. Not guilty! DonnanZ (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Delete per my comments at "well-run". Equinox ◑ 06:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Delete, and delete the alternate form as a rare misspelling. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I think you're going to have to vote for that separately. Not sure why it wasn't listed here. DAVilla 19:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Because it was created after this RFD. DonnanZ (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Delete. DAVilla 19:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

But see #smoothrunning below. DAVilla 21:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

smoothrunning

Tagged but not listed. I propose moving to RFV. DAVilla 19:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

If, for argument's sake, it survived RFV, would that not mean smooth-running passes WT:COALMINE? DonnanZ (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

In that hypothetical case, probably yes. DAVilla 21:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Delete as a rare misspelling whether or not there are three uses. Separate from that, I think the "coal mine" rule should be repealed. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Vox Sciurorum: I do too, but see this... PUC – 10:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

It’s a coalminefield.  --Lambiam 11:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

WT:COALMINE is common sense. We include attested words, and we include attested alternative spellings of attested words. Why would we exclude a common alternative spelling merely because the alteration was a space? bd2412 T 18:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

It's only common sense if you operate on the assumption that every attested meaningful string of characters spelled solidly (i.e. a "word") automatically deserves an entry; in that case, it indeed doesn't really make sense to exclude non-solid spellings that are vastly more common. But I don't adhere to this principle that every "word" deserves an entry (because I think solidly spelled "words" can also be SOP), and consequently I see COALMINE as a devious rule that allows inclusionists to keep what I consider unnecessary cruft that shouldn't be here. PUC – 18:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiktionary's mission statement is "to describe all words of all languages". The definition of "word" clearly and squarely includes attested meaningful string of letters spelled solidly (though of course we exclude many attested meaningful strings of characters, such as large numbers). Editors should either be here to fulfill our stated mission, or get out of the way of those who are doing the work. bd2412 T 22:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

What do you think I'm doing on this website, exactly? Just busybodying and getting in the way of "those who are doing the work"? How preposterous. I may have offended you last week with my comment on gaslighting, but yours sounds even more insulting - good job.

Every time one tries to push back against proposals and policies that one sees as robotic and that allow (or would allow) its partisans to forgo any kind of rational discussion - one doing so to try to avoid turning the dictionary into a mindless repository of strings or a rehash of what's been done before - one gets accused of lacking "common sense", of "getting in the way", of being a "destroyer" (not your words, but I've heard it from people from your camp), or gets nothing more for an answer than a peremptory "all words of all languages" (which admittedly is a good slogan but should not be taken to the letter and should be refined a bit if we don't want to turn the dictionary into a caricature). That's exhausting. PUC – 00:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

"This" is absurd; just because at one point in time, we were forced to use French type, doesn't mean that we should submit to þat imposition in þe modern world where þ is nigh universally in fonts. And I will bring þis up in every single discussion.

Or I could be a reasonable human being and accept that Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English is for discussing deletions for English entries under Wiktionary's current rules, and that discussions about changing those rules should be at Wiktionary:Beer parlour and other pages, and even then, bringing up the same issue over and over that general consensus has already decided on can be disruptive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Please reread the discussion. I did not bring up the topic of coalmine here, Vox Sciurorum did. They were apparently unaware that there has been a recent vote on the topic, so I pointed it out to them. I admit I could have abstained from voicing my opinion about the policy for an umpteenth time while doing so; but I did it very briefly ("I do too [think it should be repealed]") and had no intention of relitigating the whole issue here. Then bd2412 stepped in to campaign in favour of coalmine, presenting it as "common sense" (does that imply that people like me who oppose it lack common sense?), so I felt justified in pushing back against that idea and exposing my point of view.

Let me also note that nobody here, neither Vox Sciurorum nor me, has been trying to short-circuit the process (not this time, at least), contrary to what bd2412 claims below: Vox Sciurorum wrote his remark about coalmine as a parenthesis ("Separate from that, I think the "coal mine" rule should be repealed" - emphasis mine), while I haven't even voted in this RFD. PUC – 09:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@PUC: I apologize for implying that you are not doing the hard work on this project. Clearly you are a good and productive editor. At the same time, however, I do not think that the inclusion of the contested attested terms that we have been discussing (heat-resistent, nature lover, smooth-running) threaten to reduce the dictionary to a caricature. bd2412 T 17:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@BD2412: It's all good, I've become too touchy on the subject anyway. I guess it's only fair that I get a little flak: RFD's being the most frustrating part of Wiktionary for me - to the point of my being infuriated by some exchanges here -, I haven't always been extremely pleasant either to people I was disagreeing with.

To be clear, I'm not overly fussed about the three entries you mention, though I still think it would be a mistake to keep them. What worries me are some of the arguments invoked to keep them. I think accepting those arguments as valid would open the door to a flurry of useless entries. PUC – 17:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Rules are never common sense, they are devised to counter the lack thereof, and are unable to reproduce it, else they would be artificial intelligence. Only practitioners or originators of law can have common sense, it is clearly senseless to claim common sense being the words of a law, it is always arguing for one’s own common sense in pursuing the goals of the lawmaker with the lawbooks as a hopeful hint of common sense. Since the linearity of language—in which a mission is expressed—leaves only incomplete clues, with your literalist system you aren’t even trying to find common sense, bd2412. Fay Freak (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I have not proposed to keep "smoothrunning"; I agree with editors who correctly say that it should be sent to RfV. If its existence can't be attested with durably archived citations, then it will be deleted per the rules of that board, and smooth-running will need some other basis if it is to be kept. It is no solution to say that this process should be short-circuited by doing away with WT:COALMINE, thereby leaving odd gaps in attested alternative spellings of attested terms. bd2412 T 02:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

wellrested

Extremely rare misspelling – if occurring at all.  --Lambiam 14:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

It does occur. I propose moving to RFV. DAVilla 19:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Does it? I mean, really, in durably archived media?  --Lambiam 11:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

[80] DAVilla 13:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Delete as a rare misspelling. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

We ought to move to RFV although I find this spelling preposterous, personally. Equinox ◑ 03:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Move to RfV per the above. The Google search to which DAVilla points has only turned up false starts for me, but it is possible hits actually exist. If it does, it is not necessarily a misspelling. Words evolve. At one point wellbeing, wellborn, and welldoing were probably exclusively two word phrases. bd2412 T 06:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  RFV is not helpful. Even if the spelling has been used three times, it can be deleted as a rare misspelling unless those uses are significant relative to the standard spelling(s). Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  Has this happened before? Who exactly is making the decision that it's a misspelling? DAVilla 04:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  See Wiktionary:CFI#Spellings. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Oh right. Well that does leave it open to interpretation, tho. As far as I'm concerned, if it's intentional (not an obvious typo) then it's legit. DAVilla 08:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Moved to RFV (Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/English#wellrested). — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 04:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

in my opinion

"In my opinion", this is SOP, because you can also say in my view, in my worldview, in my perspective, in my outlook on life, etc. where "in" is being used in the same way. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I am more lenient to arguments for this phrase being set, however, because you wouldn't say something like "in my opinion on this topic, ..."; it's normally just said alone, while the below phrase being RFD'd (which I didn't realize was an entry until I saw it as a blue link) can be modified in this way. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Good for phrasebook at least. Equinox ◑ 23:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Keep but move to phrasebook. In many languages, this is expressed using a phrase that isn't a direct translation. For instance, in French one might say "selon/d'après moi" (according to me). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep. Fytcha (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

in my view

SOP PseudoSkull (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Facts707 (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

in one's opinion

SOP.  --Lambiam 11:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment. If the challenged entries are kept,they should be moved (with adjustments) to in someone's opinion^[81][82][83] and in someone's view.^[84][85][86] Note that we also have entries for in my honest opinion and in my humble opinion, which have complex, fully identical {{non-gloss definition}}s, where I doubt whether people using these phrases actually mean what these definitions proclaim.  --Lambiam 12:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep all three. AG202 (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

edge protector

Probably SOP. Roger the Rodger (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep as specific to "boxes, crates, bundles, and other packages". Not used for a soldier who guards a border, or anything for clothing, stationery, etc. Equinox ◑ 20:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Delete But it's not specific. The KidCo Foam Edge Protector protects kids from tabletops, bookcases with foam. Bed, Bath and Beyond has a decent variety of similar products come up for "edge protector". AliMed's edge protectors protect your wrist from the desk. Trimlok's edge guard / "plastic edge protector" protects the edges of doors and the like. In 1904, Patent 786,066 was for an Edge-Protector that protected the edges of clothing, specifically pantaloons. Patent 893,320 was for an edge protector that protected the edges of concrete curbs from wagon wheels and pedestrians. Skirts, garments in general, knives, and finally for now, climbing ropes and wounds (and like the commercial pages and unlike the other hits, the last two are 21st century.)

A specific audience would understand an "edge protector" to be exactly the definition we give, but a doctor would probably assume it's for wounds, and a climber for ropes, and I think it's clear it's used for a wide variety of things that either protect edges or protect from edges.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep. The sense given is correct, if there are other senses they can be added. DonnanZ (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• One interesting thing that habitual "delete" voters are probably not aware of is that there is no article in Wikipedia, but this entry is shown under the heading "Results from sister projects", with a link to Wiktionary, which is a good idea as long as this entry is kept. DonnanZ (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  • So? Wikipedia is more than capable of adding an article if they need one. Are the "keep" voters aware that they can add other senses if they feel this entry needs to mention every device described as an edge protector independently?--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia may think it's dictionary material... I think "Results from sister projects" is generated automatically, however. DonnanZ (talk) 10:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the sidebar "sister projects" is an automatic search feature. Equinox ◑ 18:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, refers to a specific or various specific things. None Shall Revert (talk) 09:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I strongly feel that this is something people are likely to encounter and want to look up, even though it may have various meanings in different contexts. None Shall Revert (talk) 06:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Delete per Prosfilaes. PUC – 12:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep. AG202 (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

everything under the sun

SOP? I feel it's just everything + under the sun. --ItMarki (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

"everything under the sun" is a common phrase and is easily cited in Collins, Cambridge, and the online "thefreedictionary"

also, a link to this synonymous phrase had already been located on the following page: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/everything_but_the_kitchen_sink 2602:306:CEC2:A3A0:A018:D0AF:7C22:6ED2 18:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to under the sun, to make clear the reason for that portion of the expression. bd2412 T 05:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep and rewrite the definitions to be clearer. AG202 (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep if everything that is possible is really a definition. DAVilla 05:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

May as well redirect. Equinox ◑ 22:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

not be an option

Sounds SOP. PUC – 11:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete as SOP, but create an entry for the interjection, not an option. bd2412 T 04:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

  That is not an option; “not an option” is not an interjection.  --Lambiam 11:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

  You need to get out more. bd2412 T 01:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  Is “liar” an interjection? Or “no men”?  --Lambiam 02:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  Surely it is as much of an interjection as, e.g., fuck off. bd2412 T 07:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  So do you propose we list terms such as liar, objection and no comment also as entries under a header Interjection?  --Lambiam 07:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  Given that "no comment" is listed as a phrase, "not an option" seems entirely plausible by comparison, perhaps also as a phrase; "objection" is obviously sometimes used as an interjection, particularly when people engage in faux legal discourse. In actual legal practice, it is literally an interjection, as it is intentionally interjected into a course of questioning thought to be legally improper. bd2412 T 22:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  I tentatively conclude that you agree these terms should not be listed under a header Interjection.  --Lambiam 16:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  A phrase can primarily be used as an interjection; and, obviously, an interjection can be a phrase. The existence of two correct alternatives does not diminish the correctness of either. The fact that we list no can do and no chance and not for the world as interjections (though, oddly, not a chance is listed as an adverb), when "not an option" is used functionally identically to all three phrases suggests that it would be appropriate as an interjection. Of course, objection as used in a legal colloquy is, as noted, literally interjected. bd2412 T 02:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  By the way, to be clear, I am not talking about the phrase as used as part of a sentence like "failure is not an option" or "quitting is not an option" or "that's not an option", but as a complete standalone response, particularly where whatever is being asked of the user is an option, but the user is indicating refusal to accept it as one, as in:

  2003, Sandra Brown, Hello, Darkness, p. 72: Should he send Gavin back to his mother? "Not an option," he muttered out loud.

  2009, Maria Lima, Matters of the Blood, p. 311: "And leave you—the two of you—to die? Not an option."

  2010, Catherine Jinks, The Genius Wars, p. 188: Saul shook his head. “Not an option,” he said flatly.

  These are elliptic for “that is not an option”, similar to “Good enough, court says”^[87] and ‘ “Unbelievable,” he said.’^[88] This can be done in speech with virtually any complement of the copula. “Knock, knock. Who’s there? Seasonal depression!”^[89] IMO this does not justify classifying the term seasonal depression as an interjection.  --Lambiam 08:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  How is this different from saying that no chance or not a chance is elliptic for "there is no chance" or "there is not a chance"? If "no chance" is an interjection, how can a synonym with similar construction and basically identical usage be a different part of speech? Also, is your objection to having an entry for not an option as an interjection, of for having such an entry at all, no matter the part of speech assigned? bd2412 T 17:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ My objection was specifically to the proposal for creating an entry for the phrase as an interjection. I don‘t think I‘d be in favour of an entry at all, though, because I am inclined to think this remains a transparent sum of parts. As to no change being elliptic for there is no chance, the following mini dialogue does not appear natural to me. “Tom—Might this work? Dick—There is no chance!”  --Lambiam 03:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Either keep or move to not an option. --Fytcha (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not too impressed by a word or phrase being used as an interjection as there are way too many of them and the criteria seem hopelessly vague. Interjections can be easily expressed with a "!" ("Wait!") or explicitly such as in '"Wait," she interjected as he described his plan.' Does "Doubt it", simply short for "I doubt it", count as an interjection? What about "No doubt" ("There is no doubt about what you are saying")? Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  Or “Told you so!”. Grammatically these are interjections, but not lexically, which is what should concern us here.  --Lambiam 09:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Lambian: Is there anything in Category:English interjections that doesn't fail that test? bd2412 T 15:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

  Yessiree!  --Lambiam 09:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

  Do you think, then, that no chance and no can do are currently incorrectly listed as interjections? bd2412 T 02:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - pretty much the definition of SOP. BigDom 09:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Delete as SOP. - excarnateSojourner (talk|contrib) 21:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep. Imetsia (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep Svartava2 (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Delete, pretty straightforward. The keep votes don't even have arguments, what the hell!? DAVilla 05:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@DAVilla: What do you think of not an option as an option for an entry? bd2412 T 20:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd have to give it more consideration, but the reasons so far don't seem compelling to me. DAVilla 21:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep AG202 (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Delete: option = "one of a set of choices that can be made". Not an option just means it's not a viable or permissible choice. Equinox ◑ 01:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Delete too literal. – Jberkel 10:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

RFD-deleted, reopen if objection —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 12:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

This one is a pity. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fytcha what do you mean? This has been here for a considerably long time, even you have cast your vote. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 13:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

That it's a pity that the entry was deleted, albeit by consensus. My comment is directed at the consensus, not the closing procedure. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fytcha Ah, okay. I implemented only the consensus; see my own vote. Could you please delete it? —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 13:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Furuba

(See the discussion at Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Non-English#Furuba#English, where it is lumped with similar Japanese terms. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC))

throw him a bone

The phrase's meaning is covered by throw someone a bone. - excarnateSojourner (talk|contrib) 18:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Speedy redirected to throw someone a bone. I believe this will be uncontroversial, because the standard is to use one or someone in a title, and never specific pronouns for people like him or her. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Great, thank you. - excarnateSojourner (talk|contrib) 18:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect. bd2412 T 18:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Delete the redirect. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 12:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Delete the redirect. I really don't understand its logic. "[T]he standard is to use one or someone... and never specific pronouns for people" (agreed), but then why a redirect? It makes more sense to delete it altogether if it is out of line with our standards. Imetsia (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I am also in favour of deleting the redirect (per Imetsia). - excarnateSojourner (talk|contrib) 23:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Imetsia I don't care enough to adamantly defend this specific redirect or anything, but I'm pretty sure there are other entries where him formations redirect to the one formation. I can't give any examples offhand, though. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, then delete all such entries. Imetsia (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Imetsia There ought to be some precedent that excludes him forms as redirects, then, if you want to be consistent. That could be brought up as a vote perhaps, at the Beer parlour, etc. However, I'd weak oppose that in said discussion, because while I don't think it's exceedingly important, it is true that people way more often say him than one in these phrases. You could easily demonstrate this for any number of phrases in Ngram, so there is a likelihood that the him form will be searched for. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Delete the redirect. It's not consistent. --Fytcha (talk) 08:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Are redirects less cheap here than on Wikipedia? bd2412 T 21:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep all such redirects. Anything that can reduce the risk of newcomers creating duplicates by ignorance of our conventions is good to have. PUC – 10:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I too support the redirect. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep the redirects, like we do for other entries where the entry is at a "genericized" title with "one" or "someone" (or no pronoun) but the phrase is most commonly used with specific pronouns and that's what people can be expected to look up; examples include take him down and of his word. - -sche (discuss) 16:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

family (2)

RFD two adjective senses:

1. Suitable for children and adults.

   It's not good for a date, it's a family restaurant.

   Some animated movies are not just for kids, they are family movies.

2. Conservative, traditional.

   The cultural struggle is for the survival of family values against all manner of atheistic amorality.

These are attributive uses of the noun, not true adjectives (and btw the fact that one might be able to say "a very/more family restaurant" is not conclusive since e.g. one can equally say "a very New York expression" or "a more New York way to dress", and hopefully we are not going to allow an adjective sense of "New York").

However, if these attributive uses are deemed non-obvious from the general noun senses, they can be moved to an "attributive use" sense of the noun and defined there.

See also Wiktionary:Tea_room/2021/October#any_other_family and family (1) above. — This unsigned comment was added by Mihia (talk • contribs) at 10:10, 16 October 2021.

Note we have family values. Equinox ◑ 10:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Lexico does include family as an adjective, with the sense "Designed to be suitable for children as well as adults." DonnanZ (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Sense 1 is more plausible than sense 2, for which the only usex is not actually a usex of family but of family values, which as Equinox points out is a different entry, so delete sense 2. - -sche (discuss) 16:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

red letter law

Our definition is not unambiguously supported by any of the citations, which instead support the SoP reading red-letter ("Particularly significant or positive.") + law. DCDuring (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

As currently defined, delete. I suspect from the quotations that there is a meaningful sense to be found, either contrasting with black-letter law or as a mistake for it. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Leaning delete. All of my legal dictionaries contain black-letter law, but none of them contain this. As noted, the quotes provided are not all clearly examples of the term as defined. bd2412 T 02:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

The definition was taken word-for-word from a commentary on a US history textbook. See the RfV discussion. DCDuring (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. I stand corrected, and withdraw my !vote. bd2412 T 04:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

keep As the person who supplied all the supporting citations, the thing I noticed when searching is that all the citations refer to laws that regulate businesses rather than individuals. I don't think "red-letter" in these quotes means "particularly significant or positive". In fact, in some cases, it seems to mean quite the opposite (such as the 2012 quote, which was ultimately about suspending public interest laws and regulations in order to more efficiently manage the recovery from the devastating earthquake of 2011). Kiwima (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Keep per Kiwima. Fytcha (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

laugh with

Not a phrasal verb, everything should be documented at laugh. Redirect with {{senseid}}. PUC – 22:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

laugh at

Not a phrasal verb, everything should be documented at laugh. Redirect with {{senseid}}. PUC – 22:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I just looked up “laugh at” as a reader, not as an editor. I was hoping to find how to say “laugh at” in French but the French translation isn't in there yet. Slightsmile (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

series

The "adjective" series#Adjective, is not an adjective, but attributive as far as I can see. Terms like pre-series, in series and series-wound all come from the noun. I suggest moving the content (including the diagram) to the noun as an attributive sense. DonnanZ (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The given usex "You have to connect the lights in series for them to work properly" is clearly not adjectival, though it is possible to find e.g. "a series connection" (attributive argument might still apply). Equinox ◑ 13:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the usex would be more appropriate at in series. DonnanZ (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

However, Donnanz, since series (noun) has 8 senses and connection (noun) has 11 senses, shouldn't we keep this, because non-electricians might not understand "series connection"? (your usual SoP logic) Equinox ◑ 20:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

As I said above "I suggest moving the content (including the diagram) to the noun as an attributive sense." So yes, we should keep it, but under a different heading. I could have moved it, but that would have left no content for the "adjective". DonnanZ (talk) 08:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

As stated, the existing example, "connect the lights in series", is obviously not adjectival. Collins Dictionary lists an adjective sense with examples "a series circuit" and "a series generator". I couldn't find any other dictionaries that do. I am sceptical that these are true adjectival uses. I think they are attributive uses of the noun. Delete, but the electronics sense does merit separate mention in the noun section. Mihia (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

boon companion

Not only is the definition questionable, this is SOP if you know the relevant sense of boon. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Lexico says "A close friend with whom one enjoys spending time", rather than "best friend". I'm not sure our definition at boon agrees with that. Keep but amend, I think. DonnanZ (talk) 09:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: Does deleting the article mean that the synonym in best friend has to go as well? Fytcha (talk) 04:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not happy with that decision. DonnanZ (talk) 10:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

We'll give it more time. Restored.

The term could have merits as the only phrase where this meaning of boon is still in use. DAVilla 17:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep, as I assume the answer to my above question to be yes. boon companion is an idiomatic (sense 1) synonym of best friend; I see value in recording that. Fytcha (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep per DonnanZ and Fytcha. AG202 (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep. Fossil phrases should not be regarded as SoP. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 18:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Seljuk

This concerns solely the listing of this and the subsequent terms under the PoS "Adjective". These various spellings are IMO not adjectives, but merely attributive uses of the noun or the proper noun. Also listing:

Seljuck

 --Lambiam 20:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Lambiam: There's also Saljuqid and Saljūqid with adjective senses. Fytcha (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

In case this RfD passes, is there a way to preserve the translation box? At least the German entry (that I've added, for disclosure) is legitimate and not a homoglyph of any of the other senses. Could we move it to Saljuqian? Fytcha (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I have left Saljuqid and several other forms alone because they are (IMO) true adjectives. The best spot for a table of adjectival translations is probably Seljukid, the more common English form in modern scholarship. Saljuqian is very rare.  --Lambiam 21:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

IP was probably following copious examples. For some reason Kazakh and Uzbek and Mamluk are definitely adjectives (the latter unacknowledged on Wiktionary but clearly after Arabic grammar), and even for Turk we have an adjective section. In this case I do not find it necessary to think there are attributive uses of the proper noun but conversion of the noun to an adjective, without being much aware that the proper noun is the original. It is likely that grammar follows Arabic and particularly Turkic where adjectives and nouns are freely interchangeable. So it is not off and not wrong that IP thought so, such xenisms do follow non-English grammar, so your English-grammar based argument of “attributive use” is bare unimpressive. Fay Freak (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Is there a basis for invoking the concept of xenism? If these words are truly xenisms, perhaps they should not be listed under the L2 of English. Why is Seljuk any more an adjective than Yorkshire?  --Lambiam 15:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Lambiam: We include a lot which is well reckoned xenistic. I spoke in comparison to the viewpoint of “normal dictionaries” which forgo to include such terms as on the very periphery of the language. Anyhow it would be overly essentialist to argue the syntactic category of the terms only after such classification, as the point stands that various contingents of a language attach by various degrees to the rules of other languages, before it behoved any lexicographer to pigeonhole them, as being a part of a language but not another, however the users of these words of occasion had perceptions of their syntactic category already. This is the ratio by which foreign grammar can prevail over native analogy. Fay Freak (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

If I fathom the portent of your verbiage, an unstated premise in the underlying implicit syllogism is that the Ottoman donors attached an adjectival category to their term سلجوق, a supposition for which I discern no supporting evidence.  --Lambiam 08:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

This is probably more of an RFV question, but: keep Seljuk; I can find plenty of citations where things "became Seljuk" (not "became Seljuk vassals", just "became Seljuk" like "became British" or "became destitute") or were "more Seljuk than Byzantine/Ottoman", etc. The translations would also seem to support keeping it, as would the WT:LEMMINGs: Merriam-Webster, Lexico, Dictionary.com, Collins etc all have it as an adjective as well as a noun. - -sche (discuss) 22:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

barefaced liar

SOP. PUC – 23:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Isn't a barefaced liar someone who tells barefaced lies, and not a liar who is barefaced?  --Lambiam 19:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

They are barefaced sense 2: "open, undisguised". Equinox ◑ 19:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I think Lambiam's point is that this term is a hypallage: "barefaced" grammatically modifies "liar" even though it semantically modifies the lies spouted by said liar. I think I agree with Lambian's assessment (because it's the lies that are undisguised, not the liar) but the question remains whether a simple hypallage saves a term from being SOP. Fytcha (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Someone who openly tells lies is an undisguised liar though. Equinox ◑ 19:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Someone hiding behind a fake social-media account can introduce blatant falsehoods in the conversation as if they are indisputable truths (such as, “COVID-19 vaccine-related deaths now exceed 6,000”). They themselves are disguised; the fact that they are lying is open to all that wish to see.  --Lambiam 03:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

If someone tells obvious lies but the person themselves is not obvious (e.g. they are concealed) they are still an obvious liar, because it is obvious that they are a liar (and not because their lies are obvious). Lambiam seems to be arguing against this, I think erroneously. Equinox ◑ 22:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep per Lambiam's argument. DAVilla 07:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Delete; agree with Eq. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 15:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• RFD-deleted (delete: PUC, myself; keep: DAVilla; note: if Lambiam's vote without '''Keep''' is counted, so should be Eq's arguments in favour of deletion -- the consensus >= 3/5 nonetheless) —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 15:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

  I would personally vote to Keep the entry per Lambiam. Also it feels just a bit scummy to vote and then delete the entry less than 10 minutes later when your delete vote would make the difference (as it would have been no consensus before then). I would've personally waited at the very least a week, if not a month, before closing @Svartava2. AG202 (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  @AG202 One example I could get was diff and I have seen many such others although rn dont remember. Also, note that this request was started on 30 Oct, i.e. I closed it in > 2 months, which seems more than enough time to let people vote, its double the usual time of 1 month. Feel free to start an undeletion request if you like. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 06:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Svartava2 The difference with that one was that Imetsia was not the deciding vote. If you had closed it without voting and/or it wasn't on the line, then it would've been less of a question of voting just so that it can be deleted. Also, I think that it could just be reopened now with an objection. AG202 (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  @AG202 I think what really matters is the total time period given for this RFD: 2 months. What if I had voted earlier and closed it when I had? The time period would be the same and the opportunity for anyone to vote would be the same. Pinging Imetsia, who is uninvolved here. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 06:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  I spoke with @Metaknowledge about it afterwards (if they so choose to share their opinion here), and also, if you had voted earlier and closed it a month later, there'd be no issue. AG202 (talk) 07:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  @AG202 What is the issue, then, if I voted and closed it at the same time after sufficient time? Talking about your keep vote, you could have done that earlier; 2 months ain't a jiffy. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 07:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  Reopened. I agree with AG202. It's true that I often vote on an RFD and then close it immediately after. But I only do that to pad a preexisting consensus rather than change the consensus. For what it's worth, I'm going to vote Keep due to the hypallage and maybe that it's a common and fixed expression. Imetsia (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed too. Maybe we should write into Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Header that some time has to pass between the last outcome-altering vote and the closure. Fytcha (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

cob

sense: A Spanish coin formerly current in Ireland, worth about four shillings and sixpence. - not sure if this is a separate term, or just Irish English for the Spanish money MooreDoor (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment. It seems extremely plausible this is the same sense, and not a specifically Irish one. The first two quotations for the preceding, not location-bound sense actually are uses of the term in Ireland, while the next two show that cobs were also common in the same period in the English colonies in North America. The Wikipedia article Spanish dollar states: “The term cob was used in Ireland and the British colonies to mean a piece of eight or a Spanish-American dollar, because Spanish gold and silver coins were irregularly shaped and crudely struck during this period.”  --Lambiam 14:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

boob

Adjective (not comparable): informal|pejorative}} Idiotic, foolish.

The looks suspiciously like attributive use of the noun ("Idiot, fool") to me. DCDuring (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

What? An adjective meaning “idiotic” that is not comparable? That’s the boobest thing I ever heard.  --Lambiam 17:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with what seems to be American English, but I do know there is a British noun sense missing, an embarrassing mistake, to go with the verb - "I made a boob." DonnanZ (talk) 09:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I just added the British meaning now. I first heard the American sense of ‘boob’=‘fool’, as well as ‘xerox’=‘photocopy’ from Mr Burns singing in the Simpsons song ‘Look at all those idiots!’ (available on YT). Overlordnat1 (talk) 14:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Seemingly attributive use of noun. Equinox ◑ 22:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

：Delete. General Vicinity (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• RFD-sense deleted —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 06:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

alouette

Tagged but not listed. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 12:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Presumably should have a capital A if kept. Equinox ◑ 14:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Thinking keep and capitalize, seems like someone might run across this and need to look it up (used without explanation). Should be a rule for this kind of thing, I asked in the beer parlour [90] None Shall Revert (talk) 12:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

enough

RFD for adjective sense: sufficient. DTLHS (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Just noting that OED does have an adjective sense but labels it "determiner". — SGconlaw (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

1. Perhaps it is more,
2. but it is not much.
3. Nevertheless, it is enough.

I think all three underlined terms are the same PoS.  --Lambiam 21:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It also seems plausible to me that "it is sufficient" is the same PoS as "it is enough", so if "enough" is deemed a determiner in such cases then should "sufficient" also be a determiner? (There is a determiner section at "sufficient" but only for one very special case, and the determiner definition would fit some adjectival examples too, so they are not well distinguished.) My feeling is that neither "enough" nor "sufficient" really describes a property of something in the way that an adjective should, but it is murky. By the way, one of the present examples for the adj sense is "The change in the women's hand would be enough". I have no idea what this refers to and I am tempted to delete it anyway. Anyone understand it? Mihia (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

As to the last, the women's hand is strange – a single hand collectively owned by a plurality of women? Replacing women by woman, the meaning could be: “The [value of] the coins in the the woman's hand would be enough to pay for [whatever].” A usage example for which one can only guess at its meaning is worse than useless.  --Lambiam 23:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes of course you must be correct: "change" must mean "small coins". I have no idea why I didn't think of that, though "women's hand" must be wrong, and probably an error for "woman's hand", I would imagine. Mihia (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

In fact, thinking about it some more, I would say that "a sufficient reason" is adjectival ("What kind of reason?" "A sufficient one"), while "this reason is sufficient" can be interpreted either as adjectival or (probably more commonly) non-adjectival. I think that this contrast can guide us towards understanding whether "enough" can ever be adjectival. Mihia (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The complement of copula verbs such as to be can be non-adjectival: Spring is in the air. The verb to get has many meanings, including a copulative one, synonymous with to become. I have the impression that the complement of copulative to get can only be adjectival: when the going gets tough. In smoke got in my eyes and he can never get enough, the sense is not copulative. Now compare:

(a)  If you wait another day or two, it will become red.

(b)  If you wait another day or two, it will become enough.

(c)  If you wait another day or two, it will get red.

(d) *If you wait another day or two, it will get enough.

To me, (d), although understandable, feels not fully acceptable. (Same if get is replaced by turn.) This suggests (to me) that enough is in another syntax category than red.  --Lambiam 00:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Right, I don't see that "enough" can be a true adjective, so Delete unless anyone can make a convincing case why it is. Noting also the issue of whether we list should list a pronoun sense separately as we do with various other determiners ("enough is enough"), and that the existing "determiner" sense at "sufficient" does in fact have a (pro)noun-like definition and usage example. Mihia (talk) 09:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The adjective sense should probably go but what part of speech do we think ‘enough’ comes under in the sentence ‘Enough is enough’? I’m tempted to say that both appearances of the word are determiners and the idea that ‘enough’ can be a pronoun is a bit sus (and ‘interjection’ always feels like a bit of a cop-out classification). Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

IMO the first "enough" of "enough is enough" is (pro)noun-like, while the second is murky. The second could also be pronoun-like if the implied meaning is "enough of something is enough of something". Another plainer pronoun-like example could be "Enough has been provided". The same issue applies to many determiners/quantifiers, which can be used standalone in a noun-like way with a more-or-less implied object, and often we list these separately, as at e.g. some, any, many. E.g. the relevant definition at many is "An indefinite large number of people or things", while the corresponding definition at enough would be e.g. "A sufficient quantity of something". Another option would be an "as pronoun" or "with implied object" case/examples under a "determiner" heading, I suppose. Mihia (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I can see why it might be a pronoun, just not a personal or possessive one, also the similarity to “Two is enough” would make it noun-like (though it is seems to claim on Wikipedia that numbers can be classed as determiners too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determiner#Quantifiers). Overlordnat1 (talk) 14:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Isn’t “enough is enough” an instance of the snowclone X is X, like “no is no”,^[91][92][93] “basta is basta”,^[94] and “stop is stop”^[95]? The X of the snowclone can be basically anything, even an interjection.  --Lambiam 19:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps "enough is enough", which tries to illustrate two issues in one phrase, is not the greatest example then. But anyway, as a general principle, while "enough" as verb subject, e.g. in "enough was delivered", seems to fall into the standard category of "pronoun-like determiner with implied object", its PoS as complement of the "be" verb, e.g. in "this is enough", is less clear to me. It's not an adjective (we think). Can it be a determiner, and we just allow that determiners can be complements of the "be" verb? Or is it always again pronoun-like, implying "enough something"? Mihia (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Delete. The usex "It's enough to feed the whole family!" seems to use the pronoun. Anyway, it's not comparable, nor is the determiner, although you can say "more than enough" both on its own or as a determiner - "more than enough idiots in this world". DonnanZ (talk) 10:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Delete, redundant to the determiner and pronoun sections. Note that in German, to use it as an attributive adjective, one classically used genugsam. Fay Freak (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

RFD-deleted. --Fytcha (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

they say

Previously discussed at Wiktionary:Tea_room/2021/October#they_say. Sorry, but I don't see this as anything more than sense #3 at they, "People; some people; people in general; someone, excluding the speaker". You may as well have any verb. Indeed, "they say" is already one of the examples at they. Mihia (talk) 11:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Request translations. I agree with Mihia that the use of they here is nebulous. It is up to the reader/listener to determine or guess at the actual scope implied by the context and the speaker. That is not restricted to they; the scope of we, you, us, them, even he, she, it is not always clear. That being said, it is very common and it is quite plausible that people would look it up here. Perhaps translations can shed some light. If in some language the nebulous they meaning is clearly implied in some particular word that expresses "they say" then it may pass via WT:COALMINE. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

How is "COALMINE" relevant? There is no "theysay". Or are you suggesting that "theysay" in a different language should justify "they say" in English via "COALMINE"? Gawd help us. Mihia (talk) 01:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. The meaning of they in the phrase is ambiguous in line with the usual contextual ambiguity of they and other pronouns. An analogy might be "she said", with the meaning of she depending perhaps on someone earlier in the sentence, perhaps a domineering aunt, etc. — This unsigned comment was added by Conflatuman (talk • contribs) at 04:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC).

Abstain, I created it based on an earlier Tea Room discussion and lemmings, but I concede that the case for it is weak. - -sche (discuss) 21:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mihia, Facts707, -sche I've added translations in case this changes anything for you. I think keeping this as a THUB (or even phrasebook?) is fine. Fytcha (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Do those translations apply uniquely to the verb "say", or are they instances of more general patterns? Mihia (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Both my translations are instances of more general patterns that express how things are usually done (German man + verb, Romanian se + verb). Fytcha (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not believe that parallel SoP translations are, or should be, reason to keep a phrase as a THUB. There would be no end to it. In my view, THUBs should be used only when translations in multiple languages are completely unlike word-for-word translations of the English. Mihia (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I think Chinese 据说 should count as a non-SOP translation. Thai ว่ากันว่า might be another. General Vicinity (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

get off to a good start

SOP. This would also fail Imetsia's new SOP test as there are also the variants "(get/be) off to a (good/great/bad/...) start". --Fytcha (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Move to off to a good start and restructure for that definition. bd2412 T 20:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Thinking about this more deeply, I think that "off to a bad start" is a more problematic phrase, since someone who did not know the meaning could assume it was the sense of off as in something being off (basically any of adjective senses 1, 2, 4-7). bd2412 T 23:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

An additional possibility is that "off to (something)", in this sense, may be a listable idiomatic combination not limited to use with "start". E.g. I can find "off to a flier/flyer", "She was on track to graduate and her team was off to a winning season", "Chad Johnson's boxing debut was off to a surprisingly impressive showing until midway through the fourth round ... ", "Clearly, his career was off to a meteoric beginning.", "Szabo, a right-handed pitcher from Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, was off to a great season in 2020 for the Mountain Lions." Mihia (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

An entry for off to might suffice. I think part of the conceptual problem with "get off to a [qualifier] start" entries is that getting off to something imports possible meanings of get off, which can itself mean to start (as in get off on the wrong foot). In other words, the phrase could be read as something like "to start towards a [qualifier] start". bd2412 T 02:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Uses like “We are off to a promising second year of operations”^[96] and “they skated off to a happy future”^[97] show that off to a good start is indeed too restrictive. But is the meaning not just a non-literal use of what we see in “I’m off to the war”^[98] and “It’s off to work we go”^[99]?  --Lambiam 18:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I see the use of "off to" in "We are off to a promising second year of operations", in the intended meaning, as analogous to "off to a good start", but noticeably distinct from "skated off to a happy future", "off to the war" and "off to work", which are more easily explicable as "off" + "to". The difference may reside mostly in the sense of "to". Whether the former use could reasonably be called a "non-literal" form of the latter seems doubtful to me. Mihia (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Semantically, there seems to be a distinction between a state and a direction. One could paraphrase "off to a good start" as "beginning well", while "off to work" is more like "beginning to go toward work". Also, "off to work" seems like away from the current location to somewhere else, with the same connotation as "be off!". I'm not sure in what part of the expression this information resides. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

In "off to work", I see "off" as sense #9, "Started on the way", and "to" as essentially sense #1, "In the direction of". Thus these are separable, e.g. "Time to go to work. I'm off!". In "off to a good start", "off" could still be explained as sense #9, but is the meaning of "to" separable and existing outside this combination? Mihia (talk) 11:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Delete given the high number of variations, as mentioned above ("off to a winning season", "off to a lousy start", etc), I think. - -sche (discuss) 05:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Bagheera

Not the generic Cub Scout leader sense, but the proper noun: "A fictional panther character in Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book." Equinox ◑ 06:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Some other uses as cat's names on google books. None Shall Revert (talk) 12:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

see with one's own eyes

I created with one's own eyes because you can also say "I watched it with my own eyes." or "I viewed it with my own eyes." It can apply to any verb having to do with sight. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Isn't with one's own eyes SoP? Mihia (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Repeatable pattern (verb + with one's own eyes). --Fytcha (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

RFD-deleted. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 04:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

give someone static

I believe that this is using the same definition currently at static: "Verbal abuse." I think it may be extended to harsh criticism as well. See also "got some static" on Google Books. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I had never heard of it, apparently it's American English. DonnanZ (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Delete, as readers can easily look up static. But certainly if there are more senses they can be added there. Facts707 (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It's another one of these where the meaning can be deduced based on the parts but I still see value in recording the fact that "to give someone static" is idiomatic (sense 1) while "to bestow verbal abuse upon someone" is not. Also, keep per lemming. Fytcha (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

get a rise out of, get a rise, get a rise from

? Hardly give rise to though, in spite of rise having sufficient definitions. This idiomaticity stuff is complicated. Reminds me of Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English#SOPs in Category:Hindi compound verbs with base verb करना, and the endless entries with Persian كَردَن (kardan) (→ what links there)– if even that is kept, how to proceed with all that?

You forgot to add these to Category:English light verb constructions, meseems. Fay Freak (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

what

RFD alleged adverb sense:

1. (usually followed by "with," but also sometimes "would" or "might," especially in finance) In some manner or degree; in part; partly. See also what with

   What with singing and joking, the time passed quickly.

   The market will calculate these higher risks in their funding costs what might result in higher lending rates.

   This leads to an uncertain situation for creditors what would negatively affect the willingness to provide credit.

Previously discussed at Wiktionary:Tea_room/2021/December#what_(2). Appears to be largely nonsense, though I am happy to be corrected if anyone can explain why there is anything here worth keeping. None of the definitions are substitutable into the two "finance" examples. The definitions may just about be grammatically substitutable into the "what with" example, but they do not seem to accurately capture the meaning of "what". There is no obvious connection between the "what with" usage and the "finance" examples. The "finance" examples do not appear to be correct standard English, and the only interpretation so far is that they are faulty or nonstandard uses of "what" as a relative pronoun (standard English "which" or "that"), which is dealt with elsewhere at what, possibly committed by non-native writers. Mihia (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Delete. The first usex is an instance of what with; the others somewhat ungrammatical substitutions for (nonrestrictive) relative which, referring back to a clause. Note that German would use was here, which in other contexts corresponds to English what (Ich weiß nicht, was soll es bedeuten, daß ich so traurig bin.).  --Lambiam 18:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

This quote from Lorelei can be read simply as an embedded question, I don' t know, what should it mean, that I so sorry am. The word order is unusual (today, at least), but the unusual part translates fine into English, and I would chalk it up to poetic licence either way. ApisAzuli (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Delete; even if it's not deleted, I would move any cites of the form of the second and third usexes to be under the pronoun sense what they're actually using (they's uses of a dialectal pronoun what is in no way pacific to finance). - -sche (discuss) 16:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

To my mind, the second and third usexes are very atypical of native nonstandard use of "what" as a relative pronoun. The topic is not colloquial, and the rest of the language is relatively formal and advanced, with the "what"s sticking out like the proverbial. For this reason, I would personally discard these examples altogether. Mihia (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Good point, I agree. - -sche (discuss) 21:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment. I think that the "what with" usage is not completely restricted to "with", but can exist with some other prepositions, albeit much more rarely (or in old language). M-W says "used principally before phrases beginning with with" (my emphasis), but does not actually give any non-with examples. However, I think this may be one:

"The Chinese of all ranks, and in every place, received my books gladly, and listened with patience to what I had to say about the true God.—So that what from opportunities of attending to the object of my Mission among the Chinese—what from seasons of religious instruction to Dutch and English—what from intercourse with gentlemen of education and knowledge of the world—what from occasions of stating clearly the object of Missions, and of endeavouring to remove prejudices against them—and what from the view of a highly cultivated country, happy under an enlightened and liberal government, I have much reason to be satisfied with this journey, [...]" [100]

I think we ought to include this usage of "what" somehow, though I propose that we start again from scratch, so still delete the present effort. I'm not even sure what PoS it is. Other dictionaries say adverb, but it isn't very obvious to me why it is an adverb. Mihia (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I have now added this new entry, with examples for both "what from" and "what by". Mihia (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I have after some careless considerstion come to the opinion that it might reflect the old subjunctive, the one that was replaced by optative that is now subjunctive. Then I went reading up on the Ancient Greek subjunctive and fell asleep. Romanian too introduces subjunctives with a conjunction, ša. So ... would that be totally crazy? Anyway, I won't vote keep on it as the examples seem made up on the spot by the IP who added it and at least one the examples procured by Lambi are clearly ESL (the 2nd, missing determiners), or avoiding a comparative where the standard would prefer than (the first). That got me thinking about substandard German wie ("klüger wie du", "mehr Niveau als wie du") and the now removed adverbial sense from 2016 "what to water, what to land", where "wie" would work similar to "bald" (cf. DWDS) and "so", hence my allusion to the auxilary verbs with the same initials. ApisAzuli (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The second and third usexes of the third adverbial sense are non-standard uses of ‘what’ to mean ‘that’ or ‘which’ (and bear no relation to the claimed definition) and the first example ‘what with the singing and dancing’ comes under the new sense 2 as it suggests that singing and dancing led to a certain consequence, not necessarily that they only in part led to that consequence. So delete. Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

RFD-deleted. --Fytcha (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

proclaimed district

SOP now that I've added the appropriate verb sense Jnestorius (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, delete. Equinox ◑ 19:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 07:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

On one hand, it's not intuitive at all, relying on a sense of proclaim that is no longer common; on the other hand, it doesn't seem limited to districts, as Jnestorius has found cites referring to baronies, etc. Abstain for now, leaning towards delete. - -sche (discuss) 21:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• RFD-deleted. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 08:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

reel

I may be ignorant, but surely A machine on which yarn is wound and measured into lays and hanks, —-- for cotton or linen it is fifty-four inches in circuit; for worsted, thirty inches. is the same as the previous definition A kind of spool, turning on an axis, on which yarn, threads, lines, or the like, are wound Notusbutthem (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Send to RFV: this seems to refer to a powered machine that does work, and not a mere spool for thread like you'd buy at a craft shop. Equinox ◑ 22:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

maneki nekos

this entry should be deleted as the orthographically correct plural and hyphenated entry for "maneki-neko" already exists (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/maneki-nekos#English)

FYI, I created both entries. — This unsigned comment was added by 2602:306:CEC2:A3A0:1406:9EDE:4153:FB37 (talk) at 06:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC).

Seems to exist on google books, mostly capitalized. None Shall Revert (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep; I created maneki neko as an alternative form of maneki-neko and cited this plural. J3133 (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep; obviously exists from the most cursory search. Equinox ◑ 22:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• RFD-kept. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

mink coat

A coat made of mink, sense 2. None Shall Revert (talk) 11:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Tempted to say keep because I can find use of this word in the 1978, 1990, 1985, 1988 and 1982 New York Magazine. PanikAtYeeDisco (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not questioning whether it's in use, I'm just saying you only need to look up mink and coat to understand it. None Shall Revert (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• I would tend to keep as it is made from the fur of mink rather than the whole animal. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

  mink also refers to the fur of such an animal. Fytcha (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

  mink gloves, a mink stole or a mink sofa would also qualify then. --None Shall Revert (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not convinced it's more than sum of parts. Weak delete. DAVilla 18:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Not only that, it's a fur coat (which survived RFD) made from mink fur, so the definition is correct. And I suspect a status symbol for those who owned them before the days of anti-fur campaigners. Are they faux fur these days? Keep. DonnanZ (talk) 10:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Fur coat says " (This entry is here for translation purposes only)." which would be ok for me. The status part should be added to mink None Shall Revert (talk) 11:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

There are 2 definitions, both of which are literal, so I don't think fur coat is only for a t-hub. I've modified it. DAVilla 23:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• Convert to translation hub if possible (like fur coat), otherwise delete as SOP. As for the criterion in WT:THUB of two qualifying translations, translations of mink as synecdoches (like Czech norek) should not count as qualifying, as those are covered by sense 3 of mink. If 1_non-English is a translation of 1_English and 2_English is a (potentially SOP) synonym of 1_English, then 1_non-English should not count as a qualifying translation for the WT:THUB criterion as applied to 2_English. By contraposition: If we allowed this, it would make it possible to create all kinds of nonsense translation hubs like house roof because one could just qualify them with translations of roof. --Fytcha (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

  I don't see any translations that aren't mink + coat or mink + fur coat. Even the one-word ones are like Autoschlüssel which doesn't count. None Shall Revert (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• Keep but improve the definition to note that this is shorthand for wealth (there are other kinds of coats that are equally expensive, but are not referenced this way). See, e.g.:

  1988, Sylvia Harney, Married Beyond Recognition: A Humorous Look at Marriage, p. 2: "We think we will in no time parlay our abundant love into abundant riches of the mink coat type, so it comes as a major surprise that we could be so poor... for so long."

  2004, Alice Bach, Religion, Politics, Media in the Broadband Era, p. 106: "Richard Nixon attempted to clear himself of charges that he had a tapped a secret slush fund by exploiting that symbol of decadent luxury, the mink coat. His wife, Nixon boasted, did not own a mink coat, but rather she owned 'a respectable Republican cloth coat...'"

bd2412 T 18:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

master baiter

Always the punning punchline of a joke, like the deleted cereal killer [101]. Equinox ◑ 19:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep. Meaning is still conveyed, despite being part of a punchline. I also disagree with cereal killer's deletion for the same reason. It's not like icup which has literally no meaning without the joke. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

All puns convey meaning. You think we should include every pun? Like a door being not a door because it is "a jar"? Equinox ◑ 19:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

This is different, though. This word as a noun and humorous alternate form of masturbator can be used with no adjacent context to it, see 1 and 2 and 3 as examples, where fishing, baiting, etc. isn't even mentioned. I can produce countless more if need be. So my position is that this word evolved from simply being the punchline to a joke to being an actual synonym of masturbator that could be used without the context to the joke. a jar always has to be preceded by the joke, though, by its very nature. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Even I can think of this one, so as a pun it's pretty corny. DonnanZ (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Reminds me of User:Masterbutter. Name ist/war Programm. – Jberkel 00:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I wonder whether any of our cunning linguists have an opinion on this ... Mihia (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

(btw, is this the most hilarious definition in Wiktionary? cunning linguist: Used other than figuratively or idiomatically: see cunning,‎ linguist.)

• Keep. This easily attested non-idiomatic phrase is both non-idiomatic and easily attested. bd2412 T 00:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom. It beats me how this got a nonzero number of keep votes. Imetsia (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• I see what you did there. bd2412 T 18:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Heh, Imetsia pulled off a crafty one ... Mihia (talk) 10:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I honestly didn't have any double meanings in mind when I wrote that (and I didn't see it until bd2412's comment above). So this is just pure coincidence 😆! Imetsia (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Delete —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 03:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep per PseudoSkull and bd2412. AG202 (talk) 12:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Note to any future voters that the votes cast by @Equinox, Imetsia, Svartava still have yet to address the fact that this word can be used and has been used without the context of the pun, per Books citations by BD and Usenet citations by me, thereby making it more lexical like cunning linguist. I'm sure there are other words I could use as analogies that entered common usage but originated as simply a pun. Seems like the opposition is based on emotional biases against certain words rather than some hard evidence of not entering the lexicon. PseudoSkull (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• I did neglect to mention in my !vote that I (easily) found and added citations. I would suggest that this is obviously nonidiomatic to the words master and baiter, but that usage is transparent enough that this could basically be called a humorous alternative spelling of masturbator. bd2412 T 07:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep (due to the cunning linguist and humorous spelling arguments) Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

My main reason for voting for its deletion was that its very easily guessable and understandable. I had never read this word before, yet on the first sight I could correctly guess what it meant. I also think such puns shouldn't be a part of dictionary, e.g. other dictionaries don't have an entry for this term, but OTOH, as PseudoSkull stated that usages have been found without the context of the pun, the entry might as well be kept (after all, not all our entries are there in other dictionaries and that isn't really a valid criteria). Moreover, I am conflicted on whether this should be kept or deleted, so I abstain. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 16:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

internalized homophobia

This sense of internalized is now covered at that entry; therefore this is SOP. See also internalized misogyny, internalized racism, etc. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

internalized misogyny

SOP, same as above internalized homophobia. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Delete both. Fytcha (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Delete or redirect if we must, since they are very zeitgeisty phrases. Equinox ◑ 22:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Delete both. I would not be opposed to redirects, though the combinations are readily countable. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep both. Imho the definition at internalized is not well written and is not as detailed as the definition at internalized homophobia. I mean just compare them to begin with. They have consistent and widespread usage, have their own lemmatized meanings, are used as singular concepts and phenomenons, as seen here, here, here, here, and here. And so, I agree with the IP below that it's not as simple as "internalized" + "x word" for these examples. AG202 (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep both. Neither of these two particular entries are SOP; and in fact, neither one of the two elements of each of these two entries mean quite the same thing as their parts alone do. To help show this, I will contrast them with a similar combination that is the sum of its parts: internalized transphobia, which meaning thereof is not at all similar to the two nominations her (which might also explain why it does not also have its own entry; it seems unlikely that at the present that if three senses of 'homoohobia' 'misogyny' and 'transphobia' all had comparatively the same meaning , that there would be entries for the former two but not the latter.

Internalized transphobia in its usage is a sum of the parts. It is mostly used as a pejorative attack against various transgender or transsexual individuals, typically arising from said individual's publicly stated opinions on various matters that the person using the phrase disagrees with. Therefore it is used to discredit said transpersons opinion by accusing them of being bigoted towads trans people while also being trans, thus "internalized".

However, in the cases of internalized homophonia and misogyny, the terms as they are currently used are done so with a very different meaning and purpose. Internalized homophobia and misogyny is used to describe a phenomenon that is said to affect very young people that are either homosexual, or female, or both, arising as a result of new waves of both homophobia and misogyny amongst the young (school-aged and college) generation. The 'homophobia' and 'misogyny' in these cases are NOT bigotry, but a senseb of disgust and unhappiness with oneself, arising from external bigotry. In the worst of cases various forms of self harm may result, up to, but not limited to suicide.

I understand and acknowledge these are zeitgeizy phrases to an extent; but they are not a direct product of the current zeitgeist in and of themselves; they are a phenomenon observed by older generations of gays, lesbians, and women, amongst our younger brethren and sisters, much to our dismay, and at the risk of serious harm to them.

The dictionary entries need only DESCRIBE the usage and meaning of these terms, which I think could be be properly done in 3-4 sentences or sentence equivalents. It DOES NOT have to and it SHOULD not be reflective of any stance nor take any position on the question of whether ur not the phenomena exists. Not listing them at all, though, suppresses the concepts of the phenomena from being known too exist at all. In this case, simply knowing about its exisfence may prevent future harm on the individual level; we can include it without taking up a POV or being unneutral in its coverage.

If any additional informationn is requested I am happy to provide whatever is sought, upon request. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:F1ED:C01C:3051:CF8B 21:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• To clarify what I meant regarding zeitgeist: the terms themselves are NOT ab product of the current zeitgeist. Rather, the current manifestations of the phenomena that they describe are products of the current zeitgeist. A kind of use/mention distinction of sorts, I suppose. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:F1ED:C01C:3051:CF8B 21:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Delete both. If the definition at internalized isn't good enough, it should be improved, but that has no bearing on this RFD. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

How does it have no bearing if it's reason that the RFD was opened in the first place? And a lot of RFDs in general (from what I've seen) are based on current definitions and whether or not they encompass the idiomaticity of the phrase/word in question. So until the definition is updated to actually encompass the meaning, imho the entries shouldn't be deleted. Also regardless I do feel that this could fall under the prior knowledge test due to their primary usages in the social sciences. AG202 (talk) 01:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Delete both, as SOP as can be. AG202’s argument is wass. It’s a wiki and he is an editor of it and should have a concrete idea to do so if he already claims room for improvement, but his idea stays dim as he claims the definition at internalized homophobia weller written and more detailed, which it isn’t. Fay Freak (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn't mention it directly here, but in the discord, I mentioned how the definition at internalized homophobia needed to be updated too. I'd update the definitions, but 1. I'm not here 24/7 and 2. I wanted to make sure to have good-faith conversations and read up before updating them. I'd also suggest addressing me directly next time and actually moving towards good-faith conversations. AG202 (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@AG202: Ok cuz, but obviously I am not on Discord if only to be not 24/7 with Wiktionary, so I have to make sense of what you publicly write. Now you updated it I see no reason why it would not apply to internalized in general, otherwise than that your explanation is encyclopedic (for describing the causes, which may go too far). Are you sure “unconscious beliefs” exist? Ever since psychology and sociology is fashionable tings are unconscious this unconscious that, nothing with contours. Fay Freak (talk) 06:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Fay Freak Yes or at least that's what has been described in the articles that I have gone through thus far, ex:

2009, Karine J. Igartua, Kathryn Gill, Richard Montoro, “Internalized Homophobia: A Factor in Depression, Anxiety, and Suicide in the Gay and Lesbian Population”, in Canadian Journal of Mental Health‎^[102], McGill University, page 26:

“I don’t have any homophobia, I have a realistic concern that telling my mother I am gay would kill her, she has a heart condition you know” might alert the mental health professional to unconscious internalized homophobia. With these patients, as with those who are more overtly homophobic, targeting internalized homophobia during psychotherapy seems like a promising avenue for treating mood and anxiety disorders.

So it can definitely be unconscious, and then in terms of listing the causes, I think that it's integral to the definition, as that's almost exclusively how the term is used and how it's described. Some examples where causes are listed and are integral as well: sunstroke, bedsore, pilomotor reflex. Re: the comment below, this was the prior knowledge test that I was referencing: Wiktionary:Idioms_that_survived_RFD#Prior_knowledge_test. AG202 (talk) 07:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@AG202: Thank you, I haven’t known the names of all those tests there listed by heart. The definition of that test is a bit all over the place, but so you think that experts in the field think that it is a particular clinical picture; even though us would rather see it as an invalid conspiracy theory, reasoning that homophobia is natural rather than internalized from somewhere, and that man does not need to have a particular stance towards particular sexualities and them man apply the label internalized homophobia even if it is just this natural distance; so it is like granulomatosis with polyangiitis or indolent lesion of epithelial origin in the minds of particular people even though it be as real as Morgellons.

As for the unconsciousness thing, I mean the understanding that it is difficult to suppose that a belief is unconscious, in so far as the latter is conscious by definition. Behaviour or attitude and the like may be unconscious (which would make things problematic, as how is an attitude a clinical picture? You see how we find the term fishy: perhaps it is only un-SOP in the eyes of some people). Fay Freak (talk) 07:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Delete both as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I've updated the definition of internalized homophobia and added usage notes & references, per a few requests, so I hope that it's more clear. And so, with that, I'm less sure how to even start reconciling that within the definition at internalized as the same concepts might not apply universally, and I'd still call for the prior knowledge test. I'd also argue that it's a term that's useful to readers and could fall under the usefulness clause, unless we really want to link to articles about and explain internalized homophobia on the internalized page. AG202 (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

It kind of does not pass my tests, I don’t dig what you have in mind here. Fay Freak (talk) 06:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Delete both. Productive and SOP, if needed the constituent terms need improved entries. I can 'coin' "internalised Sinophobia", "internalised anti-Semitism", "internalised transphobia" or "internalised ace-phobia" and anybody would grasp what is meant if they know the meanings of the constituents. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Those would have to be cited as well though, and that can be applied to tons of individual concepts that have passed RFD. I would also take the time to look at the usage note that was added AG202 (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

That some of these are trivially citeable can be readily seen on Google Books. I care little for those other terms that have passed RFD, because I generally see subtitutionability and productivity as reasons for deletion; it is not inconsistency on my part. The usage note does little to address anything I have said and clearly homophobia and heteronormativity/heterosexism overlap and coexist on the same constructed spectrum so I don't find the note very informative; the last sentence needs editing for clarity by the way. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I've updated the usage note, but I would suggest not using "fictive" to describe concepts related to heteronormativity or homophobia as they are real and are defined and differentiated clearly within the social sciences and in their overall usage Clarified over Discord, my apologies. AG202 (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

On a balance, redirect or delete: a woman can google books:"internalize misogyny" in the present tense (thus google books:"internalizing misogyny"), people can google books:"internalize homophobia", and have google books:"internalized ableism" (if they google books:"internalize ableism"), google books:"internalized fatphobia", etc. Other examples from Google Books: "She had transferred her own internalized hatred of her black self to me. She had grown up in a world that taught her to hate things black", " lesbian women who grow up in a misogynist culture have to overcome an internalized hatred of themselves and women in general in order", "many African Americans have internalized a hatred for themselves". I.e., while our definitions or internalize and/or internalized could stand to be made more detailed, it does seem like that's where the semantics (unconscious absorption and devaluation, etc) reside. - -sche (discuss) 21:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Soviet Armed Forces

Compare Provisional IRA, United States Army. --Fytcha (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Delete, for consistency. Fay Freak (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Delete per FF. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 03:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Delete but if we use a template let's please not suggest citation (which would only be helpful in figurative use) or recreation. DAVilla 23:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@DAVilla: Good point. I went ahead and modified {{no entry}}: diff. Now using the parameter |because=rfd doesn't display the citation page link anymore. Fytcha (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 11:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam

Tagged here by @Imetsia but the listing was unfortunately lost due to an edit conflict. I vote delete (in the form of {{no entry}}) as I'm not the proposer of this deletion. --Fytcha (talk) 04:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Hm, German Provisorische Revolutionsregierung der Republik Südvietnam and provisorische revolutionäre Regierung der Republik Südvietnam by the way. Sometimes it is used together with Regierung der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, which also SOP, and Sowjetregierung, so apparently it is just the name of an institution of a state (which has been separately recognized by the GDR) – where it is otherwise just Regierung or the government of a state that interacts as a state’s organ, in the case of the Republic of South Vietnam one used an additional adjective to name the organ, but this does not take away from its SOPness, delete. Fay Freak (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Soviet-style

Tagged by @Equinox but not listed. I vote delete as I'm not the proposer of this deletion. --Fytcha (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Let's call it a joint effort. DonnanZ (talk) 12:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Limitless SoP pattern. Mihia (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Delete. This is just a "Soviet style" used attributively. DAVilla 18:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 04:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Delete —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 03:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Long live the great Soviet Union! It does not seem to be SoP, it refers to a particular form of governance, followed in the old USSR and even emulated by other countries. Keep. And it’s definitely dictionary material; the corresponding encyclopaedia article(s) would bear a different (SoP!) title. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 18:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Nigerian prince

"A cheat who seeks to obtain money through advance fee scams." But the only citation says: "Today, in an increasingly interconnected world, a person is more likely to be robbed by a “Nigerian prince” on the Internet than a masked street thug." That's a standard use of quotation marks to mean "not really", e.g. "I met an 'entrepreneur' online who turned out to be unemployed". Equinox ◑ 22:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Added a couple possible quotations to Citations:Nigerian prince. There are more along those lines that could be gathered. What do you think? 70.175.192.217 22:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, promising. Maybe this particular citation was just a bad selection by the creator. Equinox ◑ 22:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

It's a common internet meme, compare also Advance-fee scam. Move to RFV. Fytcha (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Easier to keep this than make Nigerian prince scam and Nigerian prince email and maybe more. General Vicinity (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. I have added the missing etymology, which is key to understanding the use of the phrase. bd2412 T 18:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep. If anything, this is an RFV issue, but that might even be widespread use. DAVilla 23:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep: widespread use, not SOP. --Rishabhbhat (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

garbage

I don't think it's an adjective, just a noun used attributively. "garbage advice" is already in the quotation. --General Vicinity (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Citable: [103], [104] Fytcha (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

May I mention again that apparent comparatives and superlatives do not IMO necessarily prove adjectiveness, or at least not to the extent to justify an entry. For example, one could cite "a more New York accent", or "the most Reagan of ways", or whatever, but I don't think this means we should have adjective senses for "New York" or "Reagan". Mihia (talk) 10:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mihia: Thank you for pointing this out to me. Is there any test to find out whether a word can be an adjective then? Fytcha (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiktionary:English_adjectives#Tests_of_whether_an_English_word_is_an_adjective lists various tests. In practice, I think a combination of tests plus "intuition" is sensible. Even if a word passes a test in terms of patterns or forms being citable, it may still not "feel" like a true adjective, or adjectival use may be too marginal for us to list. Some cases are very borderline or debatable (e.g. "substance" cases, such as "brick wall"). Mihia (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

You can check out rubbish#Adjective, the British equivalent, and form an opinion from that. DonnanZ (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

It's easier to find rubbishest than garbagest fwiw General Vicinity (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe if it's qualified by an adverb rather than an adjective? e.g. "pretty garbage" as in the usex and "completely garbage". General Vicinity (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the input above, I've convinced myself it can be an adjective so I'll withdraw if there are no objections. General Vicinity (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

IMO it probably just about passes as an adjective. Mihia (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Anecdotally, I think this has recently become more adjectival. (Brits don't usually talk about "garbage" in the noun sense: it would be "rubbish", "refuse" or "waste".) There's a lot of recent net slang like "he is a garbage human being", or "that was a garbage take" (i.e. a bad viewpoint). Equinox ◑ 04:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

As a BrE speaker, I would tend not to use "garbage" literally as a noun to mean "refuse" (to me this feels rather like an Americanism), but I would use the noun sense non-literally, as in "that's garbage" or "what a pile of garbage" in order to disparage something. Mihia (talk) 10:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

make right

Looks SOP. In the usexes given, it seems to be substitutable by "rectify/aright". —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 06:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you disagreeing with its use in English? :-P To me your argument actually solidifies it as a single concept. Keep set phrase. DAVilla 22:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the previous discussion on the talk page, this sense of "right" only goes with phrases like "make it right" or "make things right". General Vicinity (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Algrif, Msh210, DAVilla, Visviva General Vicinity (talk) 08:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why this sense of "right" should be limited to use with "make". What about e.g. "things are right between us now", "everything came right in the end", "something about that relationship wasn't right", "the atmosphere in that office doesn't seem right", etc. Isn't that the same sense of "right"? Mihia (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmm just the first one "things are right between us now" IMO, but still a good point. General Vicinity (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• I disagree with the need for an infixed object of the phrase. See, e.g.:

  1897, William Thomas Stead, The History of the Mystery: A Sequel to Blastus: the King's Chamberlain, p. 133: "Nothing could make right what Zahlbar has done."

  2004, Michael Phillips, Together is All We Need (Shenandoah Sisters Book #4), p. 61: "But don't you think you ought to give him the chance to make right what he can?"

  2007, Raven Lilijana, Water Jars of Heaven, p. 111: "This could be your last chance to confess and make right your soul.

  2012, Stasia Minkowsky, Skinny White Woman, p. 243: "Standing before the judge, I was being given an opportunity to make right all the things that I wasn't able to make right from so many years ago."

  2016, Brett Campbell, Right Now!: Why Not You . . . and Why Not Now?, p. 32: "I committed to do whatever it took to make right what my father could—or would—not do."

• bd2412 T 08:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

THUB. Look at those nice translations. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 02:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

prior knowledge

Sense 3 is definitely the sum of its parts (knowledge that is prior); sense 1 refers specially to experience, but the usage example implies that experience is being construed widely enough to cover any acquisition of knowledge, in which case it is the same as sense 3. I abstain, however, on sense 2, which is a legal term of art, and which was the only sense to formally pass RFD back in 2006. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

There is also the usage of "A judge is disqualified if he or she has prior personal knowledge of evidentiary facts regarding a proceeding before the judge." (from Judicial Conduct and Ethics) I abstain though. General Vicinity (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Since this was brought about by my comments, I feel an obligation to weigh in. Delete sense 3 and keep sense 1 & 2. AG202 (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Definition 1 is specifically about previous experience, not just any possible knowledge derived from experience, even though that is now absent from the definition. Similarly for definition 2, is about knowledge available to a suspect prior to the wrongful act. No lemmings either. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• Note. The legal sense does not appear in any edition of Black's Law Dictionary (unlike, e.g., prior art and prior restraint). bd2412 T 18:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Replace sense 3 with &lit. DAVilla 22:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Not convinced that sense 1 and 3 are meaningfully different and idiomatic. Should both be merged into one {{&lit}}. Fytcha (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

bottle deposit

Sum-of-parts, a deposit on a bottle. A common usage but not idiomatic or anything. General Vicinity (talk) 09:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep, I think. It's not a place where bottles are deposited, like a bottle bank. I'm not sure whether bottle deposits are still charged, so it could be obsolete and of historical relevance. DonnanZ (talk) 00:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep, apparently a technical concept, as well as a translation target. It seems that only the fact of it being uncommon in English-language countries makes you think that it is “unidiomatic”. But in the end we will have various names of securities and credits, such as revolving credit. Fay Freak (talk) 14:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment. See also container deposit. Mihia (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep, also thub. – Jberkel 09:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep. AG202 (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep per Fay Freak. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 15:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Bank of Canada

Like Banca d'Italia doesn't seem to have any lexical qualities. Do we want every central bank? General Vicinity (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

No, we don't want every central bank for every single country, just the more important ones. DonnanZ (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. --Fytcha (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Delete —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 16:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Delete: not dictionary material. — SGconlaw (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep. I suspect it's very important for Canadians, and this is a global, multi-language dictionary. — This unsigned comment was added by Donnanz (talk • contribs) at 15:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC).

@Donnanz: I'm sure League of Legends and Mario Kart 64 are important to a lot of people too, but that doesn't have any bearing on us having such articles or not. Please have a look at WT:CFI. Fytcha (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Bank of England

Per #Bank of Canada and Banca d'Italia. --Fytcha (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Previous discussion: https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?oldid=5014791#Bank_of_England --General Vicinity (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Delete —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 16:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

What would the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street do without the Bank of England? This is yet another overzealous RFD. Keep. DonnanZ (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

We should definitely include the idiom as safe as the Bank of England.  --Lambiam 11:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Whether we do or not, all banknotes in England and Wales are issued by the Bank of England. Added an image for a tenner. DonnanZ (talk) 10:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Unlike Bank of Canada, this one does seem like it could have linguistic merit. Any other examples? DAVilla 22:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete as not being dictionary material, unless the term itself without added words has some idiomatic sense. In my view, the fact that other entries may refer to this entry is not a sufficient reason for having the entry if it does not pass CFI. We have many “derivative” entries such as Darwinian and Lessepsian, but this doesn’t justify the creation of Charles Darwin or Ferdinand de Lesseps. — SGconlaw (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: Lexico, Collins, and Cambridge (at least) all disagree with that assertion, all having entries. There may be others. My 2005 Oxford hard copy lists it, so it is dictionary material. DonnanZ (talk) 10:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Donnanz: I’m not seeing a principled way of distinguishing this from the central bank of any other country (should we create an entry for Monetary Authority of Singapore?) or, indeed, any government agency in any country. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: We need some sort of rationale here, I wouldn't create an entry for the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, but there is, quite rightly, European Central Bank, which Britain should belong to, but we know what happened there. Canadians probably think the Bank of Canada more important than every other central bank, in England the B of E is probably more important than the government, even though it is government-owned. I think that perhaps only the most important or best-known central banks should be included, and the B of E is certainly well known (throughout the world?). DonnanZ (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Donnanz: I'm doubtful that the touchstone should be "most important" or "best-known"; that seems quite subjective. Presumably on that token the Central Bank of Russia, People's Bank of China and Reserve Bank of India should be added (not that I am agreeing). — SGconlaw (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: Hmm-yeah, on the basis that The Fed, Federal Reserve and Federal Reserve System are included (all the same thing, not sure why the latter one has a plural), I guess the Russian, Chinese and Indian ones should be included. But I hesitate here, and don't think I will be the one who adds them - they are better known to those in the banking industry, and the populations in the countries concerned. But I have no objection if another editor dares to add them. DonnanZ (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep, particularly for sense 2. Looks like a well-established term, seeing as it appears in other wordbooks. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 15:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

As well as that building it also has a banknote printing works in Debden, Essex. DonnanZ (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

fi

fi meaning "to"

Does this request belong here? I want to put back "fi" meaning "to" as Jamaican English not just Jamaican Creole. If Citations:fi isn't enough please tell me how I can tell what is Creole and what is English. General Vicinity (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I think you’ve done a convincing job of providing support for an English (Jamaican dialect) sense of fi. I think the Creole sense of ‘should/must’ should be explained as a contraction of affi (or haffi, which we don’t currently have a Creole sense for), rather than coming directly from for though. Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The RFV resulted in deletion for lack of citation. I agree this has now passed. DAVilla 22:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

sex addict

SOP Br00pVain (talk) 14:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Delete: SOP, per WF. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 14:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

It’s a certain condition more than an addiction to a certain activity, so not SOP, albeit in some, untechnical, occurrences SOP, so keep. Cf. drug addict (though cocaine addict may be a stretch). Fay Freak (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

A sex addict could possibly lose their addiction in later life. DonnanZ (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Delete, this figurative usage of addict is very much productive. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. I have adjusted the definition to match the cited lede of the Wikipedia article. Sex addiction (and therefore the status of sex addict) encompasses sexual activity beyond actual intercourse. bd2412 T 07:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

  That seems irrelevant. Someone can be a football addict, without playing it. Besides, sex has tonnes of non-intercourse definitions. Br00pVain (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

  Keep. I don't know how to explain why. In contrast to football addict, sex addict seems like one "word" (or thought) to me. DAVilla 22:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep per above "keep" votes. AG202 (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep or at least convert to translation hub. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep per the other keep votes. DonnanZ (talk) 11:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Undelete without hesitation

Set phrase and lemmings (M-W, Collins). The other "similar" constructions mentioned in the original RFD ("without pausing," "without another moment's time," etc.) are much rarer, which confirms that this is a set phrase. Imetsia (talk) 18:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I support keeping strong set phrases even if explicable as SoP, but, for me personally, "without hesitation" doesn't quite pass muster. Mihia (talk) 19:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

It's probably not even useful, if someone doesn't know the meaning of hesitation but knows the meaning of without, they'll probably look for hesitation and not the whole phrase. Oppose undeletion, unless a compelling argument against it being SOP or showing that it's really useful is presented. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 04:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Could probably pass as a WT:THUB with German ohne zu zögern and Romanian fără să ezite. Fytcha (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone feel this is necessary? Because in English specifically, it feels very SOP to me. DAVilla 22:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

We need to keep some sort of a lid on "THUB", IMO. Mihia (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

As well as the Italian senza indugio (which prompted me to propose this undeletion in the first place). From a previous RFDN, I got the impression that the community preference was to keep these sorts of entries (at least the Italian ones). But it looks like that isn't the case for similar English expressions. Imetsia (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can make out, senza indugio word-for-word means "without hesitation", in which case I cannot accept that it justifies a "THUB" entry in English. (TBH, I don't really understand why it is not SoP in Italian.) In my opinion, "THUB" entries should be reserved for cases where translations in multiple languages are completely unlike word-for-word or part-by-part translations of the English (or of each other perhaps). Otherwise it could get silly. Mihia (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mihia: We have a great many similar entries (senza tempo, senza parola, senza prezzo, senza intenzione, senza precedenti, senza nome, senza vita, etc.), some of which were challenged at RFDN and passed. It seems that the general community preference is to keep these entries, even against my own views of which entries we should delete. So we consider most of these entries set-phraseish enough to keep. On the item of senza indugio itself, it's also worth noting that the lemming argument is particularly strong as the three leading Italian dictionaries (D-O, Treccani, Zingarelli) all include it. Imetsia (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Imetsia: Does recreating an RFD-deleted entry require RFD consensus if it has been deleted as a full article and the recreation is a THub that passes per WT:THUB? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 15:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fytcha: I'm pretty sure it does, especially given that the application of THUB is subjective (and that some users simply think THUB is not enough to keep an entry). Imetsia (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Undeletion of I can wait as can wait

See Talk:I can wait. I wasn't around for that RFD discussion. I think this should be kept because the SOP argument doesn't hold up (despite the last consensus). Example sentence:

Person A: "I can't wait for this movie to come out." Person B: "I can wait."

"I can wait" in this sentence does not simply mean "I am able to wait". It has a deeper meaning, more like "I am not particularly eager to do something like you are." PseudoSkull (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: I changed the vote to put the lemma at can wait, since, though much rarer, I'm sure it's possible to say "John can certainly wait." or something similar. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

There is also, “What’s the hurry? It can wait.” If this be SOP, I’m unclear which sense of wait covers this use.  --Lambiam 12:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

"to remain neglected or in readiness" General Vicinity (talk) 13:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I think "John can certainly wait" is unusable unless "I can't wait" or something has been said previously, because the regular sense of "wait" dominates General Vicinity (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

There's something to this, but I wonder if it shouldn't just be covered at wait. DAVilla 22:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

engineer

rfd-sense: {{lb|en|Philippines}} A title given to an engineer. seems pretty ridiculous... Br00pVain (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Delete —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 10:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Delete is a statement given indicating that you want something deleted. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Does it mean a Philippine engineer has a university degree, and letters after his name? DonnanZ (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Does it mean that you could be addressed as "Engineer Smith"? If so, how is it any worse than Admiral? Equinox ◑ 03:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

If that's what it means, and I do mean if, shouldn't it be at Engineer then? DAVilla 22:28, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

While I am not cognisant of any Philippines-specific sense, generally speaking it is debatable how far we should go with these. One could equally have "Nurse Smith", "Driver Smith", "Submariner Smith", and so on and so forth. Mihia (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. The New of "New York" etc. was deleted and these feel similar to me. I would prefer a usage note on such terms saying they can be used as capitalised titles before a name or surname. Equinox ◑ 04:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete as it’s simply the word engineer with no change in sense capitalized when used as a title. — SGconlaw (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

We do presently list some capitalised titles -- such as Doctor, Professor, King. Is there an objective basis on which we should include some but not others I wonder? Mihia (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mihia: I feel all of them should be deleted. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. Fytcha (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

chair with wheels

The translations seem SoPs and looks useless. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 15:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Delete. For a translation hub, this is called an office chair in English. DAVilla 22:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Does an office chair by definition have wheels? I'm not defending this entry, but I want to be clear on this. bd2412 T 03:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

An alternative term is swivel chair, which definitely has wheels. Equinox ◑ 04:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Can't there be swivel chairs without wheels? DonnanZ (talk) 11:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of! Equinox ◑ 11:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete as completely SoP. Move the translations to swivel chair. — SGconlaw (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. I am used to seeing Romance languages SoPs, but German Stuhl mit Rollen was hilarious. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

:) Well, at least it records the fact that Rollstuhl or Radstuhl (!?) are wrong translations. --Fytcha (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Vivaelcelta as the creator. --Fytcha (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Is this like a dog wheelchair? Delete – Jberkel 23:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022

Hungarian alphabet

Russian alphabet

Please don't add more nominations to this RFD. The entries were chosen deliberately.

To be consistent with Cyrillic alphabet, Balinese alphabet, Sorani alphabet etc. language + "alphabet" gives over 6k entries. --Fytcha (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know whether this is the case here, but certain alphabets have different alphabetical order, or different letters/characters. The Norwegian alphabet has the letters æ, ø, and å following z, for instance. DonnanZ (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Donnanz: Yeah they do, but that's encyclopedia stuff. Fytcha (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Is it really? I would call it "dictionary stuff", what dictionaries are based on. I didn't know how many letters there are in the Russian alphabet. In response to that, keep the lot. DonnanZ (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay. So you are telling me that Latin alphabet and Latin script (which have artificial sense distinctions) should get deleted because the definition is covered by Latin, the definition 2 of which reads “of or relating to the script of the language spoken in ancient Rome and many modern alphabets.” This sounds like the way I proceed; as seen on مَغْرِبِيّ (maḡribiyy) and طُومَار (ṭūmār). I did not like to create those calligraphic terms preceded by خَطّ (ḵaṭṭ) and قَلَم (qalam) and other words, which are more prominently placed as shown under the bare adjectives. Fay Freak (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: I can't speak (for) Arabic, but yes, the argument is that the adjective already captures all relevant semantics. Honestly, I don't have any particularly strong feelings regarding these "X alphabet/script" entries in and of themselves, I just really value consistency. Fytcha (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Why not move this stuff to the Appendix? We already have various spelling alphabets there. – Jberkel 11:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I support this, compare Appendix:German alphabet. My concern was just to get them out of the main namespace one way or another. For Russian and Phoenician (listed here), we already have this: Appendix:Russian alphabet, Appendix:Phoenician script. However, articles such as Khmer script don't contain nearly enough information currently to warrant anything but deletion. Fytcha (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Move the lot to the appendix and delete the entries. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 23:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep "Khmer script". For the rest, I'd suggest redirecting them to the Appendix rather than outright deleting them, as the Appendix is not as accessible for the everyday user, so it'd be best to have a redirect that points them there. AG202 (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

ocker

rfd-sense pertaining to an ocker. All the citations just look to me like attributive-noun use Br00pVain (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

If the quotes are genuine, the comparative "more ocker" occurs in three of them. On that basis, the adjective should remain. DonnanZ (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The case for adjectivity is quite borderline, since gradation with "more"/"most is not 100% conclusive ("that's the most New York thing", "that's the most Angela Merkel attitude", etc), and a lot of the citations look like attributive nouns, as Br00p says. I did find and add one citation of "ockerest". - -sche (discuss) 20:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

A more common adjective might be ockerish. But I'm a Kiwi, not an Aussie. DonnanZ (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

go to one's room

Tagged by @Br00pVain (WF). Why I don't know. The definition makes it pretty clear that the verb has more implications than its sum of parts. Need I present linguistic evidence to show that this phrase in fact carries that specific idiomatic meaning? PseudoSkull vacay (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• I can't see how this is any more idiomatic than stay after the class, you're under arrest or bend over and take it like the dirty slut that you are Br00pVain (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Br00pVain How so? The implications are very specific and set to this specific phrase as far as I've ever known, and the specifics cannot be determined by the mere sum of its parts. Ngram comparison between "go to your room now" and "go to your bedroom now" makes my case clear that this is, at worst, a set phrase with an extended meaning, and at best, a properly idiomatic phrase. (you're under arrest might be a good phrasebook entry though...) PseudoSkull vacay (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

(apparently, according to The Free Dictionary, go to your room is also a synonym of on your bike. Is this true? Never heard of it. If so that might deserve an entry on its own...) PseudoSkull vacay (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• Another entry for Cpt. Literal – Jberkel 23:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Nice snarky comment—unfortunately it has nothing to do with whether or not my entry agrees with CFI standards so what's the point of it? PseudoSkull vacay (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok then, the only information this entry seems to provide is that you're supposed to stay in your room after you've gone to it. Do we really need to explain all implied meanings of simple sentences? There's only a literal sense, which makes it SOP. Delete – Jberkel 14:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jberkel: Yes, we really do, when in this context it is only used this way. While someone could just say "I went to my room and got X", saying "go to your room" to a child (in the US at least) always means "go to your room and stay there as a punishment". Always. Or at least 99% of the time. The Idiom Dictionary has an entry on go to your room as well (for a lemming argument), but for some reason half the time it shows up as a synonym of on your bike, and half the time it shows up as this sense. I honestly don't know what causes that bug, but whatever... To be fair, you also can have "I sent him to his room", however the meaning is more literal there than in this entry. PseudoSkull vacay (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The Idiom Dictionary has "A literal command typically issued by a parent to a child […] ". Exactly that is the problem. The “…and stay there” is just implied (and sometimes even said). That isn't so surprising as to warrant its own entry. – Jberkel 16:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• I think this should be at send one to one's room (or perhaps send to one's room), which is used idiomatically to mean to punish someone even where no "room" is actually involved. bd2412 T 03:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  “Should be at”??? These are completely different dictions.  --Lambiam 19:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  • The concept should be, which would require changing one or two words in the definition. bd2412 T 19:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 19:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. - TheDaveRoss 15:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

stay wicked fah apaht

@Br00pVain This is a set phrase, literally created for this specific purpose in this specific context. Purposeful pronunciation spelling and the regional wicked included for the purpose of resonating with northern NE communities. The dialect is used in this specific way in these instances on purpose. It's a phrase that was created, and used throughout a community to communicate a very certain meaning that isn't necessarily deducible without a lot of context provided, so in my view it counts as a WT-able term. I challenge you to find another construction, such as "stay fah apaht" used in this same context (about COVID pandemic, used to resonate with travelers and locals, etc.) to prove a case that it's SOP and not a set phrase if that's what you mean to put here.

If you meant to send this to RFV, hint, local newspapers tend to count for us as citations because they tend to also appear on paper. I found at least 3 that I thought were valid.

Keep as I wasn't the one who tagged it. PseudoSkull vacay (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Does Wiktionary have similar set phrases, except for the phrasebook? I think you can understand it by looking up the parts. General Vicinity (talk) 07:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@General Vicinity Yes. See the entry for set phrase itself! Technically deducible from its own parts, but only used in a specific context and uses specific senses of each word. PseudoSkull vacay (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

A public health warning which needs a dictionary entry to explain it? Fail. – Jberkel 10:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

"The word apple needs a dictionary entry? Why? Everybody knows what an apple is!" PseudoSkull vacay (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. I don't buy the "conveys real meaning" bit. It's just a phrase engineered to be witty and to circulate through social media. And look, now it's here. – Jberkel 15:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jberkel: I hate social media as much as the next guy here (presumably), but that doesn't say anything about whether or not social media slang deserves entries. PseudoSkull vacay (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Internet/social media slang is fine, and probably one of the main sources for new words now. But we're discussing a dead horse. I'd rather create new entries instead. – Jberkel 17:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. If slogans aren't dictionary material (as they shouldn't be), why should this? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Surjection Because it's a set phrase, conveys real meaning (therefore can't be argued to be mention-only), and is not entirely logically deducible from the sum of its parts without knowing the context it's in (that context being the current pandemic, and the geographic area). Also, a slogan is more like something that a specific company made up for marketing purposes, so would probably have to pass WT:BRAND. The phrase currently being debated (albeit barely) became common throughout communities and has nothing to do with any one organization, according to what I've thus far seen. PseudoSkull vacay (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It is "entirely logically deducible" if a couple years ago you could've said this to a group of people to tell them to stay far apart from each other for any reason and they would've understood it. There is nothing to suggest that wouldn't apply. Otherwise, by the same token, we could also have stay home as "an encouragement to stay home and not go outside in order to not inadvertently spread a disease one might not be aware one has". — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Surjection: stay home is a simple construction has been used in so many different contexts, with ~74 million Google results in quotes and 3 billion without. Meanwhile, stay wicked fah apaht as a construction, while technically SOP, has literally never been used in any other context in durably archived sources, other than the pandemic. Thus it can be concluded to be a set phrase. PseudoSkull vacay (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Not really. If another pandemic comes around, stay wicked fah apaht will still work. If an alien race decides that they'll instantly vaporize any two humans who come closer than six feet to each other, stay wicked fah apaht will still work. Everything about its current listed sense is contextual and everything else can be understood from its constituent parts. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Surjection: In my view, context is an incredibly important part of a dictionary definition, so shouldn't be given so little credit. Without the context, you don't really understand the phrase. You understand the basic meaning, but don't understand it in enough detail to know how to use it. Since the evidence shows the phrase has been used solely in this very specific context, that evidence leads me to believe it should be kept as a dictionary definition, with the context being explained. Really this could more-so be considered a hot word actually since usage started in 2021, so perhaps your arguments may become more apparent as a truth later. PseudoSkull vacay (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Context does not make an entry dictionary-worthy on its own. As I said before, otherwise we would already have stay home, use a mask and so on all with COVID-related definitions, but we do not and should not. This entry is no different just because someone came up with it recently and it became popular due to prevailing circumstances. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. - TheDaveRoss 15:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Joan of Arc

As WT:CFI ever so clearly says: "Wiktionary articles are about words, not about people or places. Articles about the specific places and people belong in Wikipedia." — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

(Compare Talk:George VI, which was deleted) — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Surjection Except that we have Category:en:Individuals which are exceptions to this rule. Joan of Arc has lexical significance because of its interesting and complicated etymology; her original name was Jehanne and not anything remotely related to "Joan of Arc". Her real English name would logically be something like "Joan Darc" or just "Joan", but that's not how it turned out, in a unique turn of events due to centuries of apparent misinterpretation. George VI is not remotely comparable. The formula there is "King's name + roman numeral". The formula here is not so predictable. Keep. PseudoSkull vacay (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Most terms in Category:en:Individuals are not entries about individuals but about terms named after individuals. All of the latter in my view should go unless they have idiomatic senses otherwise documented, regardless of how historically important the individual was (or in rare cases is). The etymology argument could be plausible for something like Buddha or Genghis Khan, but in my view not here, where the etymological discussion should belong on the Wikipedia entry. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

And what about French Jeanne d’Arc, and Joan-of-Arcian?

But there's a punchline here, Lexico thinks it's includable, but they don't have Wiktionary's CFI. DonnanZ (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Surjection: There's a lot of things that belong on Wikipedia and also here and we shouldn't see things exclusively either way. Compare ham radio, which has an entire article about its etymology on Wikipedia. For Joan of Arc it is long, but just simple enough that it can be included as a paragraph in a single etymology section. Genghis Khan is an incredibly similar entry to this one, with the etymology only shorter. In my view, an individual's name or nickname (keep in mind Joan of Arc is essentially the historical figure's nickname, again the real name was Jehanne) becomes lexical in its own right where it does not follow a particular formula wherein they are easily discernible from each other; for example, I'd be against Christopher Columbus (a person with the given name Christopher and the last name Columbus) or George IV (first name + number to represent generation). Try and parse Joan of Arc now. "A person named Joan from a place called Arc". Oh wait, Arc doesn't actually exist. So it therefore passed my test of lexicality. PseudoSkull vacay (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Joan-of-Arcian is completely fine. The French entry is not if the English entry isn't either.

The whole of (something) to justify keeping an entry lends itself to a very slippery slope, because that is standard for many historical figures, and probably part of the reason besides this very mistranslation, which to me is an etymological detail and not by itself a sufficient reason to keep an entry that would otherwise probably have never been created. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Surjection: Clearly people cared about this entry's lexical significance (which is why I actually have hope for this RFD passing). For one, this entry was bombed with translations by several users other than myself. Just look at that box! Also, 46 page views in the past 30 days alone. Clearly someone cares, and this entry may very well have been created eventually if I had not done it myself. PseudoSkull vacay (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The vast majority of those translations are not entry-worthy because they are simple transcriptions of the French name (even if some of the European languages, such as Italian, have transcribed the name in a more "native" way). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Except I see them as entry-worthy (if I am understanding the translations correctly), for the same reason I see this English one as entry-worthy. I believe my arguments are sufficient. "The etymology ain't unique enough" doesn't fly, because it actually is pretty unique after all. "an etymological detail" Well good. Etymology is all about detail. Bring 'em all! PseudoSkull vacay (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull vacay: I am impartial to the existence of this article, I just wanted to say that you shouldn't take me adding translation as an expression of any kind of opinion. I have also added translations to articles that I would have voted to delete if an RFD was set up. Apart from you, me and Surjection, only one person has added translations to this article (User:DPUH) and they have seemingly just copied Wikipedia titles, some of which appear to be unattested. Fytcha (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Surjection WT:CFI also says (pretty explicitly also): "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic." In other words, if it weren't for the first thing you listed, this line allows for exceptions that do not include both given names, family names, etc. formulaically.

I think "Wiktionary articles are about words, not about people or places." is both an untrue statement in the context of Wiktionary as it stands today and an incorrect statement about words. Words for places are words (and Millinocket couldn't exist if we followed this to the letter). Words for people are words. Even some terms for individuals are words (Genghis Khan couldn't exist if we followed this to the letter). I think this sentence in CFI should be reformed (or perhaps more detail on exceptions to this rule on names for individuals should be provided below). I disagree with your view that terms for individuals don't belong; I think they do belong, as long as they are rare exceptions that don't follow a common formula. Joan of Arc applies to that, so in my view it counts. PseudoSkull vacay (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe a generic sense could be added, like for Attila the Hun. You can google "the Joan of Arc of" and find evidence. General Vicinity (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep. Used figuratively. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 05:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

ex-pilot

ex-student

WT:SOP: "Idiomaticity rules apply to hyphenated compounds in the same way as to spaced phrases.". Compare also the RFD-deleted ex-Beatle, ex-Muslim, ex-Jew, ex-ex-gay. --Fytcha (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete all. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 09:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete all. - TheDaveRoss 15:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

law of conservation of energy

We already have conservation of energy. Unlike law of cosines, law of sines, this one is really transparent. --Fytcha (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Bank of China

Per Banca d'Italia. See also #Bank of Canada, #Bank of England. --Fytcha (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. Name of a corporation. RcAlex36 (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 15:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

It shouldn't be confused with the central bank, as per usage note, so I see no harm in keeping this. DonnanZ (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete — in fact, speedy — per precedent. Imetsia (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

tiprosilant

Misspelling of tiprolisant. DCDuring (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Speedied, obvious mistake, would fail an RFV anyway. Not letting this RFD conclude in a normal fashion has the advantage that no RFD recreation discussion will be necessary should this term become attestable. In case anyone wants to put this somewhere else, the gloss was: # A [[histamine]] [[antagonist]] that has shown [[stimulant]] and [[nootropic]] effects in animal studies, proposed for the treatment of [[narcolepsy]] and [[schizophrenia]]. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 00:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Javanese script

Should be an appendix in Category:Alphabet appendices. See the RFD-deleted Cyrillic alphabet, Balinese alphabet, Sorani alphabet and the above requests at #Hungarian alphabet. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 02:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep. Looking at the Wikipedia page for Javanese script, it seems that it's not solely used for the Javanese language and our current definition isn't that accurate and needs significant cleanup. AG202 (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It’s not about the def, the entry itself is not dictionary material. Please try to understand how this project works before voting keep all the time. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Inqilābī I do understand how this project works, and regardless, I do not vote keep all the time, literally go see the above RFD vote for Cyrillic alphabet and the rest of them besides "Khmer script" or the RFD for prior knowledge, both of which are recent. Regarding this specific RFD, we have an entry for Latin script that was brought up in prior conversations and that's part of why I voted to keep the script entries nominated thus far, as they tend to be used by multiple languages and are not as simple as "language + alphabet". See @Andrew Sheedy's comment from the discussion on the first RFD: "Keep. These are not transparent. For instance, the Latin alphabet includes letters that were never used in Latin, and many non-Latin languages, like English, Italian, or Tagalog, use it."

The whole thing about "dictionary material" is subjective anyways, is not codified, and differs from person to person, as some folks would consider these entries dictionary material, see Collins: Latin alphabet and Merriam-Webster: Latin alphabet, so imo it's fine to extend that here as well. AG202 (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fytcha: This way of notimating X Alphabet/Script entries intermittently is very time-consuming. I had previously nominated all of their kind for deletion, but that nomination was deemed too radical. What do you think, is a BP discussion required…? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: Feel free to bring this up in the BP, it will definitely make things easier in the future. Keep in mind that there might be reasons why we should keep some language+"alphabet" terms (Latin alphabet is one that might survive an RFD individually). If there was some kind of BP consensus, I would speedy these entries and their SOP translations on sight. It would also be good to know where the broader community stands on hard-redirecting these entries to the appendix (cross-NS hard-redirects are not that common). — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 18:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

subway car

WT:SOP. Additionally, the reference provided is not a lemming: The site just shows a couple of automatically filtered example sentences. Search engine output does not constitute a lemming. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 02:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Leaning keep, but the definition needs work. "A passenger vehicle in a subway train" sounds like a vehicle that goes back and forth inside the subway. bd2412 T 00:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Is the def better now? Keep anyway, it's NOFSOP (not obvious from sum of parts). DonnanZ (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

How is it not obvious? subway sense 2 "An underground railway, especially for mass transit of people in urban areas. " + car sense 5 "A passenger-carrying unit in a subway or elevated train, whether powered or not." — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 02:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Is it really, though? bd2412 T 17:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Nice one! DonnanZ (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

"Subway" and "subway" are not the same. Our entry titles take capitalisation into account. Equinox ◑ 09:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

You can write "on a New York Subway car" or "on a subway car in New York". DonnanZ (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Equinox: The car doesn't say "Subway", though; it says "SUBWAY", which can be parsed as any capitalization the reader can think of. Also, what about this (Elon Musk's subterranean car tunnel), or this scene of "subway cars"? bd2412 T 19:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

So what is that supposed to mean for Wiktionary? I can spray SHIT on a car? Does that attest "shit car"? What point are you trying to make, dude? Equinox ◑ 05:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Equinox: Surely you know that the phrase "shit car" occurs almost exclusively within the larger phrase, "piece of shit car". The point in this case, however, is that there are numerous meanings of "subway" and "car" and the common meaning specific to the combination of them is less obvious. bd2412 T 22:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

An editor who thinks he "knows it all" shouldn't assume that passive users can piece together the parts like he can. That is the height of arrogance. This entry should do it for them. DonnanZ (talk) 09:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure if this term is entry-worthy or not, but you might as well use this collocation as a usage example at the subway entry: {{ux|en|subway car|t=a passenger compartment which is one of several in a subway train, used on a subway}}. I think it’s the compromise we badly need for non-obvious SoPs like this. The |t= parameter is already used to translate some obscure Early Modern English quotes, so this idea should not be problematic. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Leaning keep per bd2412. AG202 (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delete – obviously SOP as per Fytcha.  --Lambiam 19:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete – Jberkel 20:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Weak delete. Must have been spending too much time around the brown-leaf OED. Equinox ◑ 05:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. - TheDaveRoss 15:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Would this be a useful entry for translations? Are their other languages where "subway car" is translated differently than "train car"? bd2412 T 16:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Possibly. Synonyms would be metro car, Tube car, Tube carriage, underground car, etc. DonnanZ (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

pokemon TCG

Sum of parts. Pokémon + TCG. 70.172.194.25 02:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

RFD-deleted (speedied). — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 02:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

many-branched

Look clearly SOP to me VealSociedad (talk) 12:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

We don't have an adverb definition of many though. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

A synonym of multibranched or multi-branched. DonnanZ (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment. The etymology section analyzes this as {{compound|en|many|{{suffix|en|branch|ed}}}}, but I think this is {{suffix|en|[[many]] [[branch|branch(es)]]|ed}}, that is “having many branches” (see -ed § Etymology 3). We have entries for several analogously formed words, such as many-coloured and many-sided, which to me feel just as much a SOP.  --Lambiam 21:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment on comment: as branched is a valid adjective, {{af|en|many|branched}} would suffice: multibranched uses "branched". DonnanZ (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a difference between the bracketing (many- + (branch + -ed )) and ((many + branch) + -ed ). Although “n + 1” is by itself a valid mathematical formula, you cannot replace “2 × n + 1” by “2 × (n + 1)”.  --Lambiam 11:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no many- prefix. DonnanZ (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

test framework, automated test framework, unit testing framework, testing framework

SOP – Jberkel 17:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delete  --Lambiam 21:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. Obvious SOPs. What's next? unit test framework, unit test library, unit test program? No, thanks. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 21:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 16:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

bitcoin maximalist, bitcoin maximalism

Looks SOP, or is this a different usage of maximalist? – Jberkel 00:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a sufficiently distinct phrase, unless you want to add a meaning to maximalist/maximalism

• We define maximalism as "a tendency toward excess", contrasted with minimalism. So, you would use the word to describe a work of art that goes all out, or to contrast someone's lush luxurious lifestyle to that of an ascetic, for instance. On the other hand, the use of maximalism in 'bitcoin maximalism' is more like "a belief in superiority" (similar to supremacism, perhaps, without as many negative connotations).
• The entry maximalist is not much better. It provides two adjectival definitions, one of which applies to art and the other to science, and neither of which relates to bitcoin maximalist. Moving on to the correct part of speech, the sole nominal definition, "someone who prefers redundancy or excess", does not capture exactly the right sense either; although bitcoin maximalists may tend to invest in their favorite crypto asset to a degree that others would call excessive, the core definition relates to a belief.

A bitcoin maximalist is not necessarily a crypto-rich bitcoin investor who lives lavishly, as the literal sum of parts would imply. 70.172.194.25 06:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the definition of maximalist/maximalism needs tweaking. I've seen the word used in other contexts, such as “metaverse maximalist”. And why shouldn't there be Ethereum maximalists? – Jberkel 08:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that if maximalism can be expanded to encompass that sense then bitcoin maximalism would probably be SOP. Although perhaps I could see a case for keeping it and saying the others are derived by analogy, since AFAIK that was the origin of this specific genre of compounds (à la WT:JIFFY). 70.172.194.25 09:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take a look at expanding these entries. – Jberkel 10:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

manila envelope, manila paper?

After creating the entry it looks more like SOP. – Jberkel 11:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I would keep both, but point out that the envelope is made from the paper, not straight from the hemp. Also that a brown envelope is made from light brown paper, not necessarily from manila paper, which is probably more expensive. And that Lexico capitalises it as Manila. DonnanZ (talk) 12:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep manila envelope, but expand the definition to note (per Manila folder) that this is usually specifically an oversized envelope noted for repeated re-use in office settings. No opinion as to manila paper, but it would be worth looking into whether there are single-word translations to make a THub worthwhile. bd2412 T 16:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Big Red

Tagged as speedy here by User:WordyAndNerdy with the reason "No lexical value. This woman is not a public figure (no Wikipedia article, no social media presence). The only articles about her in the last 5 years are about how she was stalked and harassed while grocery shopping.". — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete, doesn't look like dictionary material to me atleast. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 16:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I think this is more an RFV issue. If the only attestations refer to one specific individual, it should perhaps be deleted (we don't have orange man either, though I'm not so sure as to why we don't these; they convey non-transparent meaning, no?). If, on the other hand, it can be attested to mean any particular of a broader class of people (as is the case with a similar term AIDS Skrillex in this citation), it should obviously be kept. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete, Jberkel 16:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. Refers to a non-notable person. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. Sometimes you get it right, unlike with subway car. DonnanZ (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Donnanz: Why do you bring this up here? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 17:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

To highlight the difference between good judgment and poor judgment. DonnanZ (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you have any valuable insight to share into what is or isn't good judgement, considering you vote based on whether institutions are important to people. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 18:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

So? My abstention from voting for your adminship was also a recent decision. DonnanZ (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. I speedied this for a reason. An article about this meme wouldn't last a minute on Wikipedia on notability and BLP grounds. The subject has spent the last 10 years keeping a low profile. She's been stalked and harassed in person because of this meme. We're a dictionary, not a place to memorialize every bit of 4chan effluvium. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is completely irrelevant here. We have our own inclusion policies, see WT:CFI. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 18:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

CFI is full of major gaps. There's nothing in it that explicitly provides for the inclusion of nicknames or epithets for specific individuals. That seems to be another one of those unwritten policies we've never gotten around to making into actual policy. Beyond that, there's nothing in CFI establishing notability guidelines for what individuals warrant entries for their nicknames/epithets (politicians and pop stars seem safe), nor any kind of BLP-like instrument for navigating the complex factual, ethical, and legal considerations involved in writing about living persons. In the absence of an existing policy framework on our side, it's entirely reasonable to look to Wikipedia for guidance. In any case, this is all rather perpendicular to the main topic at hand. This entry needs to be nuked with an orbital laser. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiktionary is still bound by a relevant Wikimedia Foundation resolution at least, which emphasizes "Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest", which could apply here. That said, the nickname is already widely known. 70.172.194.25 21:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete Vininn126 (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. A person. Not dictionary material. Equinox ◑ 22:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

RFD-snowball deleted. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 22:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

cocaine addict

If this is included, even as a translation hub, there is no limit to the addictive substances/activities that can be added. The translations all seem to follow a predictable pattern which could hopefully be handled at addict General Vicinity (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. Vininn126 (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The only thing is, what should happen to the translations? Moving them to cokehead feels wrong because that term is derogatory and slang, so I guess we'd delete them? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 18:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem moving the translations to cokehead. Isn't cocaine addict derogatory? bd2412 T 19:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Although I wouldn't recommend being a cocaine addict, I don't regard the term as derogatory, unlike cokehead. It seems ridiculous to move the translations to a derogatory term, so I think this must be kept, if only for the translations. DonnanZ (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

This illustrates an illogical flaw in removing SOP terms, where a two-word term acceptable in normal formal language could be removed, yet a single-word compound derogatory synonym always seems to remain. There is plenty wrong in some users' attitude towards two-word terms like this. DonnanZ (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a suggested test along the lines of COALMINE? General Vicinity (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think COALMINE applies here, so common sense should apply instead. DonnanZ (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

So how do we feel about coke addict television addict smartphone addict crack addict videogame addict meth addict etc? --General Vicinity (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

They may attract unwelcome attention if they were created. There's no problem at the moment, so that bridge can be crossed later. DonnanZ (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

growing

falling

surrounding

serving

spinning

I have struck the ones not being discussed. List separately if you must. DonnanZ (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

RFD-sense the adjectives; they're just present participle with no additional meanings. Compare them to present participles that actually carry additional information in their adjectival senses, like becoming or eating. See also the RFD-deleted #spiring. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 03:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete Vininn126 (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep. Although it is also a present participle, it is definitely an adjective, and that assertion is utter nonsense. Four references now bear testimony. DonnanZ (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

It's as much an adjective as any other present participle. Do you want to have two parts of speech, verb and adjective, for every single -ing word? Compare this to eating which actually has a true adjective sense that is distinct from the present participle. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not, it depends. But the evidence of this as an adjective is there, so why argue the toss? DonnanZ (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Because it's essentially the same information doubled, as it's already there in the active participle information. We don't have a habit of doubling information - and if we do, usually it's removed. And tbh the noun senses feel like they might be covered by the gerund as well. We don't need all the same information 3 times. Vininn126 (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Donnanz – Where is that evidence? I don’t see it. Did someone remove it? Milk is good for growing children. – Chicken manure is good for growing potatoes.^[105]  --Lambiam 17:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lambiam: Milk is good for growing children is included as a usex; it could be rephrased as Milk is good for a growing child.. I don't know whether the chicken manure one was ever included, but growing as used there seems to be a present participle. I did add a quote to grow today, dangers to trespassers, especially children, are growing [increasing]. DonnanZ (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The bit in small print was just a joke. The question remains. When the Titanic is sinking, she is a sinking ship. When Titania is growing, she is a growing child. Are both adjectives? Are all present participles adjectives? If not, how is growing different?  --Lambiam 00:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I would say yes, definitely an adjective in both cases, as growing is preceded by "a". DonnanZ (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

If you read the English Wikipedia on Modern English Participles, you get this: "Participles, or participial phrases (clauses) formed from them, are used as follows:

1. As an adjective used in an attributive sense", so while they do work that way, it's already implied by having the entry list "present participle". That covers its 1) usage in the "continuous" tenses, 2) its adjectival use and 3) its gerund use. Why should we separate them when it's already built into the definition of "present participle"? Vininn126 (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I wish that editors wouldn't add other terms after the debate has started. First of all, adjectives need not be comparable, that is a popular misconception. And what about the combinations, fast-growing, ever-growing, are they not adjectives? "The children are growing" uses the present participle, "there is a growing feeling" the adjective. May I also say that even if this is deleted, there is nothing to stop another editor reinstating it, as the page will remain. DonnanZ (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Re "comparable": I never said it has to be comparable, I don't think anybody ever has said that all adjectives are comparable as that would be patently absurd. Nobody disputes that nominative is an adjective.

Re "nothing to stop another editor reinstating it": Wrong. I am stopping them. Re-adding RFD-deleted terms without consensus is not allowed. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 14:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I suspect that adminship has gone to this user's head. DonnanZ (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact you shouldn't touch those things until the debate is over. Vininn126 (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. The only edits I have made to growing are adding references. As a normal RFD notice says (but not in this case) "You may continue to edit this entry while the discussion proceeds." DonnanZ (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

No one said anything about comparability, and the the evidence of derived terms is not evidence that they are adjectives. It's simply an adverb + a participle, nothing more. Vininn126 (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep: I think it's well established that -ing can be used to create adjectives as well as the present participles of verbs; indeed, this is what etymology 3, sense 2 of our entry says: "Having a specified quality, characteristic, or nature; of the kind of". Moreover, all of the entries nominated above are marked as having an adjective sense by the OED, so I'd say the lemming principle applies. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yes they can, which is exactly why we shouldn't record this information in every single -ing entry. To give another point of reference: Almost all German and Romanian adjectives can, without morphological alteration, also be used adverbially; would you be in favor of adding identical adverb senses to almost all Category:German adjectives and Category:Romanian adjectives? Note also that we have RFD-deleted #spiring, so keeping these nominations here is just making the dictionary internally inconsistent. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 17:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  I don’t know either German or Romanian so I can’t comment as to those languages. I also don’t know if it’s the case that in English every present participle of a verb can be used adjectivally. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  I would say that 99% of English participles can be used adjectivially - that's... more or less their job. Vininn126 (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  I oppose the inclusion of these "trivial part-of-speech conversions" that come with absolutely no semantic, orthographic nor phonetic change, for the reasons that 1. they bloat the dictionary immensely 2. the information presented therein is a general property of the language's grammar, not of the individual words 3. they make looking up interesting information harder (like, finding all non-trivial adjectives that are born out of present participles in the case of English) 4. the use of including them is extremely marginal (once you know the grammar rule that present participles can be used adjectivally, they all become self-evident). I don't think a very small percentage of outliers justifies the inclusion either; those should probably be put in a category rather (if they even exist, which remains to be seen in the case of English present participles). — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 21:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delete. This should IMO apply to all present participles that have no other adjectival sense than the predictable “that verbs”.  --Lambiam 12:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• In response to this discussion, I have now created Wiktionary:Votes/2022-01/Excluding trivial present participal adjectives. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

That's a worrying development. Pending the outcome of that vote, any decision on these ones should be suspended. DonnanZ (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

bash into

We don't usually add entries for verb+preposition combination that are semantically 100% predictable by the verb and the preposition. Would we really want ram into, crash into, collide into etc.? There's a reason why some reference grammars don't consider (transitive?) verb+preposition combinations to be phrasal verbs. The preposition is simply the first part of the prepositional argument, so the bracketing is also wrong. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delete for the nominator's reason. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: I don't want to give that user any more ammunition, but he is wrong. Other entries, some on the same theme, already exist and create a precedent, and most of those that I saw are confirmed by Lexico. So is this one, otherwise it wouldn't have been entered. So it is keep for me. DonnanZ (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Donnanz: it doesn’t seem evident to me that bash into has any sense other than bash + into (like yoke together which I previously nominated and which has been deleted). — SGconlaw (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

At this point it feels like you're completely ignoring the CFI and instead are making a personal attack on Fytcha. Vininn126 (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not going to name any more RFD targets, even if this one is sacrificed, and that's that. DonnanZ (talk) 07:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete, this is SOP. Vininn126 (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

On the SOP basis, entries like go mad would be deletable. DonnanZ (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Arguably yes. Vininn126 (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete per nom's analysis. go mad is at least intransitive --General Vicinity (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

A-shaped, B-shaped … Z-shaped

Delete: all SOPs. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 06:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep all. This was discussed previously. John Cross (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, see Talk:H-shaped. There's no need to go through this again, keep all. DonnanZ (talk) 07:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Nigerian scam

Tagged but not listed by an IP. If someone with authority wants to just remove the tag it's fine by me. See also the talk page. General Vicinity (talk) 08:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

falling

spinning

Moved out of the other RFD upon DonnanZ's request. My rationale is exactly the same one though, see my comments at #growing. Most importantly, I don't deny that these present participles can be used adjectivally (like other things as User:Vininn126 stated), I simply deem that not inclusion-worthy for these 100% transparent cases (see my comment starting with "I oppose the inclusion of these "trivial part-of-speech conversions""). Please note that we RFD-deleted #spiring by consensus already so keeping any of these makes the dictionary internally inconsistent. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete, as per Fytcha. No one is denying they can be used adjectivally - just trying to not double mark information. Vininn126 (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I meant completely separate listings, but this will have to do.

Definitely keep falling and surrounding. I'm not sure about the latter two at the moment, they need further thought. But I suspect not enough effort has been made by the user to study where a present participle is used, likewise for the adjective. It is far too simplistic to combine the two, and is a massive slap in the face for the many users who believe they are adjectives, and created the entries. So these RFDs deserve to fail. You shouldn't impose your own cock-eyed belief on the dictionary, it's not in the dictionary's interest. DonnanZ (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

You're claiming that we are saying they aren't adjectives. We aren't. Please read my above comment. Vininn126 (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Then keep them as adjectives! There is absolutely no sense in removing them. DonnanZ (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Except it's dupiclate information??? Vininn126 (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

DonnanZ, I ask you to cease the bullying behavior and personal attacks towards me. I am not "imposing" anything, I am not "cock-eyed", nothing about my conduct is "worrying", nothing has "gone to my head", and neither do I think I have displayed "poor judgment" in the last couple of RFD discussions. I can't help but interpret your conduct as personal bullying towards me (likely motivated by your dislike for my RFD nominations) for the reason that there's absolutely no objective grounds for that unprovoked, off-topic, snide comment of yours made in #Big Red. Also, let me apologize for the snide reply I gave thereupon. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 14:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)