Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup add new request | history | archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification English add new request | history CJK add new request | history Italic add new request | history Non-English (all other languages) add new request | history Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for deletion English add new request | history CJK add new request | history Italic add new request | history Reconstruction add new request | history Non-English (all other languages) add new request | history Requests for deletion of pages in the main and Reconstruction namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/Others add new request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.
Requests for moves, mergers and splits add new request | history | archives Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.			Language treatment requests add new request | history Requests for changes to Wiktionary's language treatment practices, including renames, merges and splits.
{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

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

This page is for entries in English as well as Middle English, Scots, Yola and Fingallian. For entries in other languages, including Old English and English-based creoles, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English.

Newest 10 tagged RFDs

• hoppily
  American colonial period
  Spanish colonial period
  nonsylhetis
  non-Sylheti
  Sylhet Muslim
  Sylheti Muslim
  even if
  Glenealy
  Poultry
  

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

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

October 2022

most

One of the senses given for most § Adverb is:

3. superlative of many

As many is not an adverb, I do not believe it has an adverbial superlative.  --Lambiam 08:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Isn't the usage example already covered by determiner sense 3? I don't really get the difference, if there is any. I guess that "Most times when I go hiking" is an adverbial phrase, but the word "most" itself is not being used as an adverb. 98.170.164.88 06:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, its syntactical function in the usage example is that of a determiner, the same as that of many in “many times when I’m lazy”, or most in “Some people succeed because they are destined to, but most people succeed because they are determined to.” The difference is that one (determiner) is correct while the other (adverb) is incorrect.  --Lambiam 10:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Would it change anything if the sentence were worded

Most times I go hiking, I wear boots.?

I was the one who added the usex, but i realize now that my sentence doesn't illustrate adverbial use. Still, I think this is possible to interpret as an adverb if we simply omit the word when, since it will then make times function like sometimes, which is an adverb. Since only an adverb can modify an adverb, I'd say that the questioned sense does exist. —Soap— 16:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Here the word most modifies times, which is the plural of the noun time, sense 3.4. Adverbs do not modify nouns. The grammatical function of most times in the adverbial clause most times when is not affected by the omission of the relative adverb when.  --Lambiam  --Lambiam 19:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm gonna say delete. 98.170.164.88 23:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Are we sure that times isn't a relic genitive of time? (connected to betimes, sometimes, ofttimes, possibly others) DCDuring (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Query: Do our definitions cover usages like: "They were the ones who won (the) most." (ie, say, "most frequently") DCDuring (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Delete, not an adverb, the phrase tree is misunderstood here. It is the determiner seens plus times together forming an adverbial. Fay Freak (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• My input is that I also agree that this is not an adverb. I think that this most-longest-standingest RFD item can be deleted now by consensus. Mihia (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 17:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

January 2023

adult material

Meaning "pornography", very transparent SOP, also used for other mature content which is not pornography. - TheDaveRoss 15:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

• Keep, I think. Ostensibly the term means "material that is suitable for adults", but because it is really only used to refer to pornography (perhaps euphemistically) and not, say, movies and novels where the characters are adults, points to the fact that it is idiomatic. — Sgconlaw (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  You are looking at the wrong definition of "adult," this is the sense "intended for use only by adults" e.g. "adult content", "adult movie", "adult magazine", "adult website", "adult language" etc. - TheDaveRoss 16:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I would say keep. It's from sense 3 of the adjective, and sense 2 of the noun material. It may be "material suitable for adults" but it's also "material unsuitable for children". DonnanZ (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

We also have adult content, of which this is a perfect synonym. I think these should be kept because of their function as euphemisms; only one sense of adult is ever meant, even though all senses of the adjective could potentially apply. This, that and the other (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but how far should we extend this? We could also create entries for adult bookstore, adult comic, adult comic book, adult literature, adult video, adult video game, and adult website, among others. Definition 3 of adult could theoretically be applied to any media-related noun.

I suppose the fact that these terms are euphemistic could make them less SOP, but I'm not entirely convinced. Binarystep (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you on all but adult bookstore, which Ive just now created. I think it's good that we're taking these on a case-by-case basis. Another good example is adult beverage, because there's no other context where the word adult means "containing alcohol".

As for this discussion, I can see both sides .... I'd even say the nominator undercut his argument by stating that it's not just for porn .... that makes it less sum-of-parts and means we might just need to clarify the definition instead of deleting the page. Yet, I could apply the same logic to adult and say we should rework definition #3 to clarify that it doesn't just mean porn. For now I abstain. —Soap— 13:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Side note: I found "adult drink", "adult root beer float", etc. prominently on Google. On this basis, I'm going to add another sense to the adjective at adult. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Delete all, unless any of them pass the jiffy test. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Delete per TheDaveRoss and Binarystep. Old Man Consequences (talk) 12:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I haven't checked, but adult should cover this, even if it doesn't yet. Equinox ◑ 00:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

If someone is said to be "noted for creating adult fingmippets" and we know that a "fingmippet" is a work in some creative medium, it will be obvious which sense of adult applies. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Delete: OK, I’m convinced so I’m changing my vote. I agree it is sufficient if the relevant meaning of adult is in that entry. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Note that we also have adult bookstore, adult movie, adult star, and several more equally SOP entries in which adult means “related to pornography”. — This unsigned comment was added by Lambiam (talk • contribs) at 13:01, 2 February 2023.

The reason I felt the need to create a page for adult bookstore is that it's not sum-of-parts ... knowing what adult and bookstore mean would not tell you what an adult bookstore is. An adult bookstore, so far as I know, sells primarily sex toys, with video and books being less profitable. I worded the definition conservatively out of caution. I don't think adult movie is sum-of-parts either because, while less common, there are movies with no sex but such graphic violence that they are also restricted to adult viewers in theaters, and adult movie as presently defined does not encompass that (and I believe the current definition is correct). As for adult star .... well, few native English speakers will misunderstand the meaning, but I always think of English language learners first .... for someone with an incomplete grasp of the language, it's very easy to misunderstand this as simply meaning someone who is both an adult and a star. I still don't have a strong opinion on what to do with adult material, and I promise I wont just vote keep just because Im in favor of keeping the other three .... I'd say all four of these phrases are different from each other, really, and should be treated as such. —Soap— 22:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• Keep per This, That and the other. AllenY99 (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete. This is less contoured than the examples adult bookstore, adult movie, adult star proferred by Soap; I am not convinced it must mean pornography, more like an SOP hypernym used as a totum pro parte. Fay Freak (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

adult diaper

We recently deleted adult diaper as a sum-of-parts, likely influenced by this ongoing RFD. At first that made sense to me, but while I don't doubt it's the sum of its parts, there are other reasons why we list two-word entries. In this case, deleting adult diaper could lead the reader to believe that the little-heard incontinence diaper is actually the most common term for what adults wear, when this to me sounds like not just a medical euphemism but one that might not be understood by a listener (what other kind of diaper could there be?) Someone might recommend listing adult diaper as a collocation under adult or diaper or both, but this doesnt solve the problem .... a person on the adult page probably already knows what theyre looking for, and a person on the diaper page is still liable to think incontinence diaper is the term they want, as it's the only one we deem worthy of a separate entry. Moreover, there is still no policy regarding collocations and so anyone can delete them at any time; reducing an entry to a collocation seems to me little different than deletion. Lastly, there's a possibility of unexpected dialectal agreement here ... do people in Commonwealth countries who say nappy for the baby's garment always call adult diapers nappies as well? I wouldnt be surprised if people thought nappy sounded too cute to refer to what grownups wear, but perhaps Im wrong. In any case, I would like to restore the adult diaper page. One more thing I could add: it's possible I'm the one who created the adult diaper entry, as I was the one who added it to diaper; but if that's the case, I've forgotten about it. Best regards, —Soap— 11:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

786

“[…] a lucky or holy number […]”. Tagged by Sinonquoi on 10 February (“Nonsensical entry.”), not listed. Created by Kashmiri language on 9 February. J3133 (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Delete Abstain Keep.^{(see below for new rationale)} The numerology sense is mentioned on Wikipedia at w:786 (number) and I think it is best kept there, since to explain the significance of the number to a naive reader in a dictionary would require so much background information that it would become an encyclopedic entry. —Soap— 16:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Im sitting this out for the time being, as the recent improvements to the page and the comments below have convinced me that this is a valid entry in and of itself. But I'm still reluctant to vote keep because numerology could also provide us with definitions for numbers like 19 (also significant in Islam), 616 (a variant of 666), 777 (used in Christianity), and I'm sure there are plenty of other examples. That we haven't added entries for these already makes me wonder whether we've just never gotten around to it in all this time, or whether it's best considered outside our project's scope. —Soap— 12:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Im changing my vote to Keep  as this is more wordlike than 19, 616, and 777. —Soap— 14:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete for the above reason. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

it's ridiculous i think there was a subject here or maybe on wikipedia about how many numbers -- as numbers and not years -- should have separate entries ... delete it immediately this is just absurd ... Technicalrestrictions01 (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Keep. The fact that this has an idiomatic meaning justifies its inclusion per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals, which is further supported by our recent decision to keep 666. Binarystep (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

"A lucky or holy number" isn't a sense, idiomatic or otherwise. We don't have "an unlucky number" at 4 and 13. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 02:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Delete per my comment above. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Keep, since the entry has been rewritten and per the evidence below. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Delete as defined. It doesn't have a meaning: it doesn't explain what it would mean if you spoke or wrote this in a sentence. Equinox ◑ 21:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

This book suggests it could be found in Indian Islamic books or letters as a shortening of the basmala, in which case we should definitely include it, but I don't know where to look for attestation. However, this book indicates that it is used in "truck art or other mediums vulnerable to the dirt and defilement of the outside world", in which case it may be difficult to find durably archived quotations. 70.172.194.25 00:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers—I found an example in diplomatic correspondence (in translation) here: [1] though worth noting that the original (scan given on previous page) uses Eastern Arabic numerals. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Al-Muqanna: I think this is another example, in English and using Western Arabic numerals: [2] (it occurs in the front matter, definitely not a page number). This might be a similar example in Urdu: [3] (I can't see the whole page, but it seems to be at the top of page 2, so it wouldn't be a page number, and I'm not sure what else it could mean). Accordingly, keep. 70.172.194.25 00:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Equinox Keep (Change meaning to area code 786) because for example: 305, named after the 305 area code. So if you clicked on the Wikipedia link it would bring you to "Area codes 305, 786, and 645". So 786 would have a meaning. But change the "lucky number" definition because any number can be "lucky". Heyandwhoa (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

You can't say "keep and change meaning". This RFD is for the sense given. Equinox ◑ 21:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2023

nasal vowel

SOP: "this vowel is nasal". PUC – 08:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Delete' Ioaxxere (talk) 04:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

oral vowel

SOP: “a vowel which resonates through the mouth (because the velum closes the passage of air through the nose)”. (Auxiliary request if the outcome of the motion to delete “nasal vowel” is successful.) Fay Freak (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delete both. Ultimateria (talk) 05:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

nasal consonant

Might as well add this too. lattermint (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

April 2023

fuck it up

fuck up + it. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Hmm, there is a similar entry for fuck up. Though it's not my kind of language, they seem to have (slightly) different senses. DonnanZ (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  I don't necessarily understand SoP, but fuck up is very similar to fuck it up. it could be normal to express this on the pages, as on the page there is already a link to fuck up. i only made the page because it was requested entry, but at the same time i believe the definitions are unique (in a sense).

  i'm very new to this, so i may be wrong, but i think this definition should stay :] | 24.227.101.130 14:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• Keep for the second sense. We don't have a sense at fuck up corresponding to the quotes on the citations page. (I'm not sure the second sense is defined correctly, but that's another issue)--Simplificationalizer (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
• Delete, separable verbs can have objects, in this case an expletive, in between. Fay Freak (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
• Keep. The nomination does not specify a sense of the two provided, and the second sense, "To go at something competently, usually in an aggressive or quick manner", is basically the opposite of the first, to make a mess of things. Since fuck up is usually not used to indicate competence, this is not SOP to an infix of that phrase. bd2412 T 00:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete The usage note claims "The "it" in "fuck it up" can be swapped out for direct objects, or removed entirely (see fuck up). ". If that's true then the problem is missing senses at fuck up, not a reason for a separate entry. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• I disagree. Compare kill it: there is no specific thing you can substitute for "it". This is an idiom. Equinox ◑ 23:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

June 2023

smackers

Rfd-sense: "(humorous slang) Money."

It's just the plural of smacker ("dollar"). Money is uncountable in this sense; smackers is not. DCDuring (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I almost agree with that but we should rewrite the definition of smacker along the lines of the one already in Collins dictionary, namely 'a pound or a dollar' (or 'a dollar or a pound' if you like) as it can certainly refer to pounds. I remember a parody song on the radio about the divorce between Liam Gallagher and Patsy Kensit where the lyrics parodied the Oasis song 'Don't Look Back in Anger' - it went:- "Oh Patsy can wait, she wants it all on a plate and there's just no way (can't remember the next line). She wants 5 million smackers, I heard her say". Of course she did then go on to win 5 mil in the divorce settlement, I can't find that online but I'm sure I could dig up some cites with this meaning. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Delete. I've found and added some cites where 'smackers' and 'smackeroonies' is used to mean pounds to Citations:smacker and Citations:smackeroonies but this word and all its variants doesn't mean money in an uncountable sense. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Rfd-sense No, I often hear and call money "smackers". — This unsigned comment was added by 81.111.205.155 (talk) at 13:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC).

Moved from a new section. J3133 (talk) 14:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep. It's used for dollars too, not just pounds, and probably could be used for any other unit of currency being casually discussed in English—if we're not accustomed to hearing about lira or rubles being called "smackers", it's probably because most English-language sources will be from countries that use dollars or pounds, or go out of their way to use the actual name of the currency instead, as a means of exoticizing the locale. But that doesn't mean that it couldn't be used. Alternatively, split the definition of smacker that attempts to cover both lips and money, and then you could delete the plural, since it links back to the singular. Really that definition should be split anyway. Just because both uses are slang doesn't mean that they're the same definition! P Aculeius (talk) 05:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

elder

One who is older than another.

Respect your elders.

This sense was removed by Mechanical Keyboarder on 28 April, with the edit summary “redundant”. We still have the translation table. J3133 (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Where it was, diff. It might have been considered redundant to sense 1, "An older person". DonnanZ (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah this is difficult. I strongly support keeping the deleted sense ... it's definitely not redundant ... but Im having a hard time explaining why. Maybe it would've been more clear if we hadnt used the word older in the deleted sense with its literal meaning and in sense 1 with its idiomatic meaning of someone who is advanced in age ("elderly"). Further complicating things is that I think elder can also be used both ways, e.g. an elder child can be six years old, but the elders of the community cannot. —Soap— 09:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

[:https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mechanical_Keyboarder] shows only 53 edits. Hardly an experienced user. DonnanZ (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

My Oxford Dictionary of English has:

(one's elders) people who are older than one: schoolchildren were no less fascinated than their elders.

(one's elder) a person who is older than one by a specified length of time: she was two years his elder.

Turning to Collins, my copy says, "an older person, one's senior", before covering tribal and religious elders. Online. Collins says: "A person's elder is someone who is older than them, especially someone quite a lot older: The young have no respect for their elders.

On this basis, I recommend that the deleted sense is reinstated. DonnanZ (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Merge senses? The definition of the first sense, “An older person”, is problematic. We give two senses for older: 1. “comparative form of old: more old, elder, senior” and 2. “elderly”. A user who is not proficient in English cannot know that in “An older person” the comparative is meant; used as a noun, elder – whether “an elder” or ”someone’s elder”, does not mean “an elderly person”. (The person referred to may of course happen to be elderly, but this is not conveyed by the term.) That said, like the deleting editor, I suspect that the intention of this definition is the same as that of the deleted sense, so instead of simply reinstating it, I think they should be merged into something unambiguous, such as “Someone who is older (than another person).”  --Lambiam 14:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

+1 to merging with the first sense. I can't imagine saying, of an older person, "see that elder across the way?" it has to be relative [someone's elder, my / your elder]. +sj + 20:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

This is really an RFV question, isn't it? I think of the YouTube series "Elders React", where the participants were referred to as elders in a non-relative sense, in the same way as the word seniors is used. Here and here are some uses of elders in a non-relative sense. This, that and the other (talk) 04:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. My first reaction was that these could be merged with sense 1 as ~"An older person (especially relative to someone else)". But could they, really? Maybe the difference in what "older" means in one vs the other, as Lambiam points out, suggests it's better to keep the senses separate like this (though I would move them next to each other for clarity and redefine this one more like "(in particular) A person who is older than someone else, in relation to that person"). - -sche (discuss) 02:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Colon Street

Another street that fails our CFI for place names because it lacks figurative senses. (Previously nominated as a member of Category:en:Roads but not discussed directly.) — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 03:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Delete as policy requires unless a figurative meaning can be established. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I decided to not add a street entry I discovered today to the category in question, due to the category's toxicity. DonnanZ (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

In other words, I refrained from adding the category to the entry. DonnanZ (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to solicit other people's input about this, and the previous discussion at Talk:Avus: if a user is trying to add/hide edits they know are policy-noncompliant, are we in the position of needing to remove the user from the Autopatroller user group so their edits show up in the patrol log again...? (The street in question above may've been Broadmead or Dundas.) - -sche (discuss) 18:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, @Donnanz, I don't know what you are trying to achieve by deliberately flouting policy. Either accept the current policy, or propose a change in policy through the proper channels and abide by the result, whichever way it goes. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@-sche, Sgconlaw: If Broadmead, which I didn't create, never had the category in the first place (you can check the entry's history), I can't be accused of deleting it and flouting policy. DonnanZ (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Keep for historical interest, which wasn't taken into account. DonnanZ (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

mathematical function program

SoP. Also barely attested, but probably keepable at RFV. This, that and the other (talk) 06:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• Delete, transparent (although it is unusual to refer to a subroutine as "program"). I doubt this would survive RFV; I see a use of the term mathematical function program library,^[4] but this is a program library of mathematical functions, where a program library is a collection of subroutines.^[5][6]  --Lambiam 13:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

instance dungeon

Redundant to instance senses 9-10. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The word instance has other meanings in video gaming, though admittedly Im thinking more about game design than game playing. (If I search Google for instance of an enemy I see people using six different game engines asking similar questions.) It does seem at least that not every instance is a dungeon in games such as STALCRAFT, so it's possible that some games prefer the longer form instance dungeon to make it clear what they mean. This is just a comment, though. —Soap— 09:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a video-game sense of instance (which we have), but I don't think "instance of an enemy" is using that sense. In programming if you have a type of object (e.g. defined by an OOP class) then any object of that type is an "instance". Equinox ◑ 13:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay thanks. It sounds I picked up a programming term and thought it was related to video games specifically. As for the existing senses we have at instance, yes, I saw those, and at first I thought they were too specific, but I suppose "dungeon or other area" is broad enough to cover the uses in non-RPG games like STALCRAFT. —Soap— 15:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Delete, gaming is dumb and we have been decadent enough to give space to a pertinent videogaming meaning at instance even. Programming creativity always gives wiggle-room to variation. Fay Freak (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

take its toll

To me this is NISoP, as the quotations seem to me to show. DCDuring (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Agree this in principle could be SoP, but the relevant sense of toll is worded poorly (loss or damage incurred through a disaster), whereas the definition here does not reference a disaster per se. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• I would say that the "take ... toll" pattern is in itself idiomatic enough to keep, but there are the usual doubts and problems about how to lemmatise it, given the variations possible. Mihia (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

keep. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

This sense of "toll" seems to be usable for any figurative "cost" in the form of negative effects. Phrases like "exact a heavy toll" come to mind, not to mention "pay a price". "Take" is fairly strongly collocated because it alliterates and works well prosodically with "toll", in the same way the "pay" and "price" go together. Whatever comes in between is prosodically unimportant, so it can be almost anything that makes sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Kube

Rfd-sense "(computing) An individual container of the Kubernetes orchestration system." Jargon specific to a particular system, not particularly relevant for a general dictionary. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Delete Jberkel 12:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Keep. Not sure why we shouldn't have jargon. The real question is whether it's attestable. cf (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

stem mutation

Originally this entry claimed it was a synonym of apophony / ablaut, meaning an internal vowel change like get vs. got. That's trivially false: of the first 5 relevant results I found on Google Books, 3 of them were talking about consonant changes (e.g. "nominal morphology of conservative Adamawa Fula is characterised by ... nominal stem mutation based on a system of initial consonant alternation" [7]). That leaves it just defined as a change in the stem, which looks SOP. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Since nobody's bitten on this so far, I'd also point out that "stem mutation" is attested in other contexts like biology for genetic mutations in a plant stem or in stem cells [8], so it doesn't seem to restrict the meaning of "stem". —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

abstinence

Two strange senses here. We've got:

1. (not being RFD'd): The act or practice of abstaining, refraining from indulging a desire or appetite. (with a bunch of subsenses)
2. ? The practice of self-denial; self-restraint; forebearance from anything.
3. ? (obsolete) Self-denial; abstaining; or forebearance of anything.

These are cited to the Shorter OED, which I don't have, but don't seem to correspond to anything in the full OED, which just distinguishes self-restraint (+ subsenses) and the practice of abstaining from a specific thing. I don't see what the distinction between our senses is meant to be, nor how the third one could be obsolete. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Al-Muqanna: I agree that senses 2 and 3 seem redundant to sense 1. Perhaps the terms “forbearance”, “self-denial”, etc., can be worked into sense 1. As for the difference between senses 2 and 3, perhaps the editor was trying to distinguish between uncountable and countable senses. The better way to do this is as follows: “(uncountable) Abstaining, forbearance, or self-denial; (countable) an instance of this.” But if the senses are merged into sense 1 this is unnecessary. — Sgconlaw (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

py chiminey

Do vee vant schpellinz like zees? Also py chiminy Pinch88 (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I think we need to consult @PseudoSkull. DonnanZ (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is useful, because I originally couldn't make out what it meant when I was reading a book that had that phrase in it. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Keep if it passes CFI. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm against including phrases like this, as I've intimated elsewhere, since in the vast majority of cases, these phrases are just eye dialect spellings of existing phrases, with no independent meaning. pasghetti is one of the few exceptions, a phrase that is used by adults to sound cute, and therefore can't be reduced to merely being a child's word for spaghetti. So I ask ... is py chiminey used by people without an accent in order to make fun of German immigrants? Perhaps it once was.

We could flood the site with hundreds more words and phrases like this so long as we can turn up three cites across the whole corpus of English literature for each one. But I'm reluctant to vote delete based on what might happen, so I want time to think some more about this. Whichever way this vote goes, it will help me firm up my opinions on the wider category of eye dialect spellings.

One more comment ... archive.org is impressing me with how powerful its search is in comparison to that of Google Books. py chiminey isnt cited now, and searching Google Books turns up mostly results about chimneys (forget about using plus signs and quote marks, as they dont seem to do much), but the new archive.org text search turns up plenty of hits for this exact phrase, so this would easily pass CFI if kept at RFD. Thanks, —Soap— 11:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Soap, this is useful to know. What specific search function are you using on archive.org? Searching books in general just returns an error for me. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

this link goes directly to the search results i was looking at. from the front page, use the main search tool (not the Wayback Machine) with "search text contents" selected and with the phrase in quotes. If that's what you've been doing and it returns an error, I can't help, but I notice the site is slow for me especially with large PDF's, so maybe their server resources arent as powerful as Google's and they sometimes fail to complete a search. —Soap— 18:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

A problem with Internet Archive is that older books are often badly OCR'd and the search function won't work there because the scanned text is garbled. That might be the problem Andrew's having. In those cases you often need to view the full scanned text, ctrl+F for plausible strings in the mess, and then plug in what you find to the search function in the main view to get the actual location. I imagine they also won't turn up in full-site searches. Google's OCR is generally better, errors are usually limited to the normal stuff like reading long s as "f" etc. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic, but what's going on with the /b/ → /p/ here, it does seem weird (expected in word-final position, final obstruent devoicing). Or is it simulating aspiration, /bʰ/? Jberkel 12:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

English stereotypes of how a German accent shifts English sounds often seem perplexingly backwards to me; a similar case is the English use of mid to signal a German pronunciation of the (German!) word mit. It's like a cross between eye dialect and Mockney: changing words to signal "this speaker has an accent" even if that means changing the words in diametrically the opposite way to what the speaker's accent does.- -sche (discuss) 09:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

and one of those cites has pisness for "business", so the /b/ > /p/ thing seems like part of a pattern. There are some dialects in the Alps where all stops are devoiced, which could have theoretically provided a sound basis for the stereotype, but I think in some cases writers need to "make it wrong on purpose" because subtleties of speech don't carry over as well in writing. The fact that pisness and mid appear in the same cite suggests accuracy isnt always a priority with writing. Makes me think also of a stereotypical pan-Asian accent where L and R are always switched, meaning the speaker somehow gets them both wrong instead of merging them both into one sound. —Soap— 10:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm leaning keep if it's attested (RFV), on the grounds that we keep all kinds of dialectally- / pronunciation- motivated respellings, and these are not predictable (indeed, as Jberkel's and my comments above indicate, it's unexpected). This is on a spectrum, IMO: on one end of the spectrum are things like Winterpeg (changing the spelling to highlight Winnipeg's coldness) that are clearly includable, on the other end is baaaaaaad (changing spelling to mark intensity / drawn-out pronunciation), which we explicitly decided to make redirects. I think this and e.g. dwagon are pretty low-importance, but still includable (and I think py... is slightly more includable than dwagon since dwagon is theowetically a systematic change, weplace all rs with w, wheweas py... doesn't seem to follow a consistent pattern). - -sche (discuss) 09:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Just pointing out that baaad exists as an independent page, among many others in Category:English elongated forms. I didn't look into the history behind the category, but I figured they'd be treated as ordinary words, meaning anything with three cites passes, and that because the spelling is flexible it's not required that they all have the exact same number of extra letters. —Soap— 10:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Soap: According to Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion § Repetitions, baaaaaaad would be a redirect to baaad (three repeating letters). J3133 (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I read the prior discussion just now for more context ... to be honest, that could have been deleted, but I won't poke the dragon ... and I won't worry about the elongated forms getting deleted since it seems we decided that they belong so long as they're cited, just like I'd assumed. I just misinterpreted the comment above to mean that they were supposed to be redirects to the standard spelling. This also gives me more material to add to an essay ... as I implied at the beginning of the discussion, I'm actually against including py chiminey and similar phrases, but I didnt place a vote because my objection is to the policy rather than to this individual entry, and we presumably won't be changing the policy without a long drawn-out vote in which at least two thirds of the community vote for a stricter policy. —Soap— 11:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it actually is systematic: voicing is switched, so that b>p and f>v, etc. It's just that it's only sprinkled in for effect so it won't obscure the meaning too much, and it's in addition to the changes that the average reader of the period who didn't know German would already be aware of. This convention is used even by writers such as Mark Twain, who had studied German and knew better. In this case, by jiminy is a phrase that has never been used much in real life but was often substituted in written reported speech for tabooed oaths. It's unintelligible to modern readers because it's the intersection of two artificial conventions that are no longer used. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

While searching for evidence to support the now-failed triste, I came across this strange passage by Walter Scott that supposedly represents the speech of a Highlander: “Put what would his honour pe axing for the peasts pe the head, if she was to tak the park for twa or three days?”[9] Overlordnat1 (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it is rubbish, but keep per above. It can probably be attested. But I am not convinced that this bizarre ethnic stereotype can be sensibly called a pronunciation spelling. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Delete as it is merely attempting to reproduce the idiosyncratic pronunciation of a specific speaker. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Delete. - TheDaveRoss 14:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

renewable resource

SOP? KLFThe Moomoo (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• It does not match the current definition at renewable: "sustainable; able to be regrown or renewed; having an ongoing or continuous source of supply" versus "replenished by natural processes at a rate comparable to its rate of consumption by humans or other users". The latter is much better albeit too verbose. Fossil fuels could even be "renewable" per the middle part of the definition at renewable, while solar energy and its derivative wind energy could arguably fall that part. It can be deleted once the definition there is acceptable. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

non-Arabic

non-Italian etc.

Not sure if we are prepared to have a plethora of lemmas of “non-X language”. We definitely haven’t finished creating entries of every language and lect names yet, and I can’t imagine the vast number of attested SoP entries that we will potentially bring forth by affixing non- to them all, a number that might be at the least as high as half of the aforesaid language/lect names; and I would strongly suggest including such terms in quotations/usexes in the relevant entry instead, as a decent way of representing such terms rather than have them as lemmas. I personally vote delete, but thoughts? We currently seem to be tolerant towards similar ethnic and national lemma like non-Arab, non-Canadian etc., but the language ones feel more weird and unnecessary. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 18:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Most of these non + proper adjective entries (though not "non-Arabic", a recent creation) seem to be Polanskyisms reflecting his personal interest in matters of hyphenation and capitalisation, and I agree they probably don't contribute much. There is an argument, though, that non- can be affixed productively to basically any adjective, and it's not clear that the orthographic convention that it always takes a hyphen before a capitalised one should determine whether the product counts as an eligible word. There are other things that can generate arbitrary and less controversial words (like verb + -er). So I don't have strong feelings about it at first glance.

I'm not sure the "etc." in the proposal is helpful: we should define the scope of the RFD clearly and of the four you list only "non-Arabic" is specifically glossed in terms of language. Are you proposing to delete all non- + nationality entries? Does for example non-Asian count? What about other proper adjectives like non-Bayesian? —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I nominated only the language entries / senses here. "Etc." indicates an exhaustive list of all “non-X language” constructions. And well, in my opinion productivity alone shouldn’t necessarily determine whether a term is suitable to have its own entry, and probably other criteria such as dating of a term may be considered as well: ”non-X language” terms are probably a rather recent coinage, whereas terms affixed with un- or dis- tend to date back to the formative period of the language itself, making the latter more legitimate as lemmas. (un- and dis- are still productive in contemporary English of course but newer coinages with un- and dis- for specific domains could always be challenged in RFD.) ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 22:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, these are the correct spelling forms, and should be kept for that reason. IMO, nothing else will do. DonnanZ (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: To be clear, non-Portuguese, non-Italian, and non-Spanish are currently defined in terms of the adjectives "Portuguese", "Spanish", "Italian", not in terms of languages like non-Arabic is. Google Books shows they're not used primarily in reference to languages either (e.g., "non-Italian immigrants", "non-Portuguese European merchants"). If definition in terms of language is the reason for nominating them then it seems to be spurious in those cases. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing it up. Since the definitions aren’t precise, I assumed they were defined in the sense of the language. Now I am confused myself, and will leave other people to interpret the definitions while still sticking to my nomination for deleting ”non-X language” terms LOL. So per your analysis, only the nomination of non-Arabic is valid now. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

You can try googling "Arabic * non-Arabic". You might be surprised by the results. DonnanZ (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Donnanz: Well my personal take is that the number of citations doesn’t necessarily reinforce the legitimacy of a term that feels very SoP. Phrases as non-Arabic speakers and the like could be easily added as citations to Arabic or even non- without any loss of valuable lexicographical information from Wiktionary. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 08:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Comment: we don't seem to be entirely consistent as far as whether we keep things like this, although we often do. Various similar discussions are Talk:non-French (deleted), Talk:non-Japanese (kept), Talk:ex-chancellor (kept), Talk:ex-pilot (deleted), Talk:ex-stepfather (kept), Talk:ex-alumna (Spanish, kept). - -sche (discuss) 18:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Confusing things further, at non-English it seems the discussion and decision were about deleting the general sense and the specific language sense was left alone, whereas this discussion seems to be taking the opposite angle. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Right… This time, I wanted to nominate the specific language sense instead of focusing on random senses, because the language senses feel more SoP than ethnic/national senses. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 08:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Delete non-Arabic (the others have been struck so I suppose they are no longer being considered right now). But I would prefer something like a BP discussion about whether to have such things in general, rather than piecemeal RfDs that go different ways for different non-glossonyms. - -sche (discuss) 04:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• @-sche Just such a BP discussion happened in Sep 2022 (initiated by Polansky). The result was 3 in favour of keeping them (including Polansky and myself, for transparency) and 1 in favour of deleting. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 20:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

history book

SOP; compare chemistry book, sociology book, etc. There may be an idiomatic sense out there (compare “the history books” in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, Longman.) but this is not it. PUC – 18:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Delete as it stands, although there may be a possibility for a better entry about what future generations will see in "the history books" etc.: often it's just a metaphor for history. Equinox ◑ 18:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I added a quote only yesterday, so there's something about "history books" that's idiomatic. You can't say it's plural only though. And @Equinox: I think you have butchered the def - it was better before. DonnanZ (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Delete, SOP, man should know from his linguistics books. Actually one should know from primary school 😱 – does this mean “primary school” has an “idiomatic” sense of “primary education“? No. This is what Equinox means with “metaphor”. There are figurative senses we must not include. Somewhere the relations are too close and the margins are fuzzy, vagueness. Separate senses must be contoured. Fay Freak (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep but improve the definition, and withal add a {{&lit}} sense. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 08:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Delete per nom. There is for the history books, essentially for the book(s), but I don't think that should be handled at history book (singular), and generally less fixed metaphors involving history books are probably going to be sum-of-parts. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 21:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• I think the definition provided is wrong based on the citations provided. There are history textbooks for school (which the definition suggests) and then there are general-readership books on history. I don't think that when someone refers to a sports performance as entering the history books, they mean that it will be included in school textbooks. bd2412 T 19:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it could be treated as an antonym of ash heap of history / trash heap of history, and we could base our definition off of that: "A notional place where …"? PUC – 09:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

That particular figurative sense only works in the plural. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with moving the entry to history books if necessary. PUC – 14:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I can also find the singular, google books:"entered the history book", albeit mostly in low-quality self-published books and/or books by non-native speakers. I would delete the entry as it stands ("history book" just defined as a book about history), but "history books" defined as "a notional place...[etc]" as discussed above, with "history book" as the {{singular of}} that, seems more inclusible. - -sche (discuss) 04:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep Purplebackpack89 06:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

dynamics

Rfd-sense: "Forces that stimulate growth, change, or development. The changing dynamics in international politics led to such an outcome."

I don't think this sense is plural-only—you can say for example "the dynamic of China–US relations"—dynamic#Noun just maybe needs a better gloss. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe—but definitely not unless any revision made to the plural-form entry is carefully coordinated with revisions to the singular-form entry, where several senses are arguably plural-only and have sample sentences where the entryword is used in the plural. — HelpMyUnbelief (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

ex-senator

And ex-minister. Like ex-king Jewle V (talk) 09:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• Delete both as SoP. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 19:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
• Delete both as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
• See also non-Arabic above. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 20:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Keep. Prefixes aren't separate words, and I disagree with the idea that a single word can somehow be SOP. This interpretation of WT:SOP has actually harmed our coverage of this prefix, as ex- is almost always followed by a hyphen in English. Looking at Category:English terms prefixed with ex-, you'd be led to think that ex- was one of the least productive prefixes in English, even though this couldn't be further from the truth. Binarystep (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC) (edited)

be at

SOP. Compare "be on", "be in", etc. Ioaxxere (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

lavalier microphone

Is this SOP? You can also just call it a lavalier#Noun... we also have "lavaliere microphone" as a usex of lavaliere#Adjective (note the spelling variation). - -sche (discuss) 21:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

WT:JIFFY? The earliest attestation for "lavalier microphone" I can find is 1946 (in Sales Management vol. 56), "lavalier" by itself seems to be a later development (OED has 1972, I can see some in the 60s). In early sources "lavalier-type microphone" seems to be common. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep as WT:JIFFY. I also edited the def here and at lavalier. This, that and the other (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

supply-side

I think it's just one of these "noun being used adjectivally" things Jewle V (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Meh, don't think it's a particularly useful entry but there are cases of it being used in a way that's solidly adjectival and not just an attributive noun (which is what I guess you mean), see the cites I added. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Hypatia

I thought WT:CFI did not permit names of individual persons. This certainly seems like a "name of a specific entity". But the wording seems to allow inclusion of a person with a one-part name. At the very least, the definition is encyclopedic, not a dictionary definition. Probably a definition like "A female given name of Greek origin". Maybe also it is a surname. DCDuring (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The name has been given to a few women, such as Hypatia Bradlaugh Bonner. Hypatia Tarleton is a character in GBS's play Misalliance. The name is derived from Ancient Greek ὕπατος (húpatos, “highest, best”).  --Lambiam 11:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I've added an ordinary given name sense and converted this to rfd-sense. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

CFI only says "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 [like] Walter Elias Disney". In practice, we so far seem to also exclude modern mononymic people, like the millions of truly mononymic Indonesians (Suharto, Sukarno, etc, who literally do not have any other parts to their names) and people who have but don't use last names like Madonna. However, we include a lot of old mononymic people (including the ancient equivalents of Madonna, people who did have full names but are just best known by mononyms), like Cicero and Virgil and Confucius... - -sche (discuss) 16:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

So, in the absence of any further input from anyone else, I say weak keep unless we're going to start getting rid of ancient mononymic people like that (see also: non-mononymic people, like Gengis Khan) more systematically. - -sche (discuss) 04:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

in conclave

SOP. PUC – 14:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The omission of the article is surprising, no? Isn't this part of a closed class of phrases like in force, in step, in secret, ...? (Note that, unlike in camera, in vitro, ..., this one is not Latin. That would be in conclāvī.) This, that and the other (talk) 09:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Isn’t it a predictable construction when an uncountable noun is involved? I’m thinking of examples like in amazement, in horror and in joy. The main thing to make clear would be that conclave can be used in this uncountable sense. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Is it uncountable in any other situation though? "Conclave is ..." for example. This, that and the other (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete. I don't think this construction needs an explanation, any more than "in school" or "in church" (although I note we do have "in hospital"). Still, it's just in + conclave, and it should be understandable by anyone who knows (or looks up) the meaning of "conclave" P Aculeius (talk) 05:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

leonine share

As I mentioned at Talk:lion's share some time ago, we're missing a figurative sense at leonine, but I believe this is SOP: compare leonine deal, leonine contract. PUC – 14:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep as this is not currently SoP because it is not adequately explained by leonine. You should have added your new sense there first. Equinox ◑ 22:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems to be literary rather than figurative, and not very common in any case. Keep, I think. DonnanZ (talk) 09:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

If actually cited, I suppose it could be included as (jocular) Alternative form of lion's share. Ƿidsiþ 08:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

stature in life

Sum of parts: stature sense 2. Various other obvious "X in life" are possible, e.g. success. Equinox ◑ 22:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Delete Ioaxxere (talk) 04:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment. For this to be seen as a sum of parts, life needs to have some meaning such as “society” (leading social circles). We do not list such a sense, and neither do leading dictionaries.  --Lambiam 11:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we should? Compare standing in life, maybe also position in life. PUC – 09:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I read this phrase as "[social] stature [one has attained] in [one's] life", parallel to phrases such as "achievements in life". This doesn't require an extra sense at life. This, that and the other (talk) 08:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Delete. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

We have “social life” at “life”. Maybe it is not informal after all. Allists underestimate in how much humans sustain themselves by social interaction. Accordingly, we can delete, though I find the present entry flattering as an elevated synonym. Fay Freak (talk) 12:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• RFD-fail Denazz (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

stray dog

You're not gonna like this RFD nomination, and will probably crush it, but here goes: SOP crap P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

SOP, compare stray cat, but I'm a bit hesitant here. Abstain for now. PUC – 09:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I am never going to like gonna. DonnanZ (talk) 12:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

What are you tryna say? PUC – 12:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

We do have one non-SOP translation so far (the Romanian; the German Streuner just means "stray") which makes me wonder if there would be more for a potential THUB here. This, that and the other (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: What about Dutch zwerfhond of straathond? Not super convincing examples as they can be fairly literally translated, but...

In any case, I'll say keep after all, as I think it's a useful entry. PUC – 10:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say that would count. "Street dog" is not a literal word-for-word translation of "stray dog" per WT:THUB. So keep as THUB. This, that and the other (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Delete Ƿidsiþ 08:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Keep as WT:THUB per above. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Keep per Hearts Purplebackpack89 06:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

well-gowned

Sum of parts ("wearing a fine gown"). Equinox ◑ 19:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Delete: "all words in all languages". PUC – 19:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Is it any different from well-dressed ? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 12:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

It's definitely in the same vein. DonnanZ (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards keep. Most of its usage relates to a period that finished around a century ago. A well-gowned woman was usually well-to-do, and could afford fine gowns. DonnanZ (talk) 09:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

But the definition says nothing about being well-to-do, it just says "wearing a fine gown". You're considering a definition in your own head that isn't in our entry at all. That's not how to handle an RFV. Equinox ◑ 14:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

That's my assessment after reading available material. I did see two quotes available on Google Books. DonnanZ (talk) 08:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• Meh. Kept P. Sovjunk (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Huh, what? PUC – 20:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• Failed was what was meant. Lfellet (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

October 2023

square root of fuck all

Tagged for speedy deletion but I feel like it should be discussed hence I've opened this discussion. User: The Ice Mage ^{talk to meh} 20:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

There are a few hits for things like "square root of nada/nothing/zilch", etc. Not enough to easily justify entries for them individually, but enough to show some productivity. Then there's "nothing squared" and "twice nothing"... Chuck Entz (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see any need for what is a long-winded sum of parts, one of which is potentially offensive. DonnanZ (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC) sum

Er, it's not a sum of parts because there is no sense at square root that applies here. Neither is offensiveness a reason for us to exclude things. You're just making stuff up. Equinox ◑ 14:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense. I didn't add "vulgar" to fuck all, which means "absolutely nothing" anyway. You will probably get away with this with the quotes you have dredged up. DonnanZ (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

You're throwing ad-hominems whereas I proved you wrong with logic. Equinox ◑ 16:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It'll be the heat death of the universe before @Donnanz reads WT:CFI. Theknightwho (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's how CFI works?????????????????? CitationsFreak (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep: not SoP (it doesn't mean "mathematical zero", and square root only has mathematical definitions). Send to RFV if we must verify it. Equinox ◑ 14:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

square root of nothing is also attested, as are square root of bugger all and square root of jack shit (though I only see one good GB hit). Are there others? If yes, I think the SOP argument could hold water, though I'm not sure (maybe all of these deserve entries? Or is it a snowclone?) PUC – 14:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I would say add something to the square root entry on this. Not sure how to word it, tho. CitationsFreak (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

There is also the square root of sod all, but it doesn't deserve an entry. DonnanZ (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Delete: Not a set phrase; "square root of" (or maybe "square root") is. CitationsFreak (talk) 09:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Move to something, but I'm not sure whether "square root" or "square root of" is a better location to host the definition. The problem is that grammatically "square root" is a noun, but it is used solely as an adverbial/adjectival intensifier for a noun meaning "nothing" (i.e. square root of fuck all is a set phrase except that one of the components is flexible). So I don't know how to define "square root" as a noun. We could define "square root of" as "basically; essentially" but that would mess with the parse tree. Perhaps we could move to square root of nothing and be clear that nothing is being used as a pronoun rather than an idiomatic component of the set phrase (similar to our use of one and someone in proverbs), and explain the situation in the usage notes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you say "square root of absolutely nothing"? "square root of jack squat"? "square root of fucking nothing"? Google says yes to all three. I say delete, add something to "square root". MedK1 (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@MedK1 What would you propose as a valid gloss definition for square root? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps exactly what's at square root of fuck all but preceded by "{{lb|with a term meaning nothing|"? I actually think it might be best for it to be added at the usage notes section instead, something along the lines of "May be used with a term meaning 'nothing' for an emphatic synonym of nothing." MedK1 (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

statically-typed language, dynamically-typed language

Another Sae1962 SOP creation. Jberkel 10:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Delete Ioaxxere (talk) 04:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• Note that dynamically-typed language has been a redirect to dynamically-typed since it was RFDed in 2017. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 21:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

adoptive mother

SOP. All translations appear SOP too. Compare Talk:madre adoptiva (Spanish). This, that and the other (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Reluctant keep because the Japanese translation doesn't appear SOP. 養 doesn't show up by itself as a word in the dictionaries I have with me. MedK1 (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

養 is given as the Japanese translation of adoptive. Perhaps the Japanese entry simply needs expansion. This, that and the other (talk) 06:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete if someone can confirm the East Asian translations are SOP. PUC – 14:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

pro-Hamas and anti-Hamas

SOP Ioaxxere (talk) 04:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
• Delete. We must draw the line somewhere. Otherwise there is no end to it: pro-Trump, anti-Biden, pro-ISIS, anti-Taliban, ..., all are easily attested, with exactly the meaning one would expect.  --Lambiam 16:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Delete per Lambiam. PUC – 17:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

These should easily be Speedied. AG202 (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• Created them in good faith! We have pro-Israel and anti-Israel so we probably should be consistent, or invoke the dumb WT:COALMINE rule. P. Sovjunk (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  Nobody doubts your good faith. The canary-in-a-coalmine rule would apply if proHamas and antiHamas were acceptable orthographic variants, but they are not.  --Lambiam 11:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas is the dirty word here. IMO, where there is no practical alternative, Lambiam's assertion is flawed. I can sympathise with WF in this particular case. DonnanZ (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

What does this even mean? Theknightwho (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. Prefixes aren't words. A single word should not be considered SOP. No one would argue that a term like antifascist is SOP; the only difference is the presence of a hyphen, which is grammatically required before a capital letter to prevent camelCase. See Talk:anti-Putinism and Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2022/September § Including hyphenated prefixed words as single words. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

"antifascist" is quite obviously SoP. What ought to happen is that someone looking up "antiX", in the case where no non-SoP word (e.g. differently constituted word) exists, should get some kind of an auto-generated "try anti + X" hint, which will eliminate the need for us to anticipate every possible combination and create a million individual SoP entries. The same can apply to all such limitlessly reusable prefixes that may or may not be hyphenated. Mihia (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, since a word like anti-Hamas is SoP. However, if there are enough people who write it like antiHamas, then anti-Hamas must be included (along with antiHamas.) CitationsFreak (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

We really do need to somehow move beyond this fixation that a trivial and cosmetic stylistic choice of writing e.g. "antiHamas" vs "anti-Hamas" is actually important to SoP and inclusion arguments. Mihia (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mihia: While I agree with you in principle, it's difficult to draw up a rule that distinguishes SOP from idiomatic uses of affixes clearly and unambiguously enough to avoid endless argumentation and inconsistency. Even if we had one, it would still be hard to get consensus. As with most of our CFI, it's a compromise. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Anything of the form e.g. "antiX" or "anti-X" that is deemed to have a meaning not entirely predictable from the components, including any idiomatic cases such as you mention, should of course continue to have its own individual entry. In the case of argumentation or disagreement about whether this is the case, these would have to go to RFD, just as happens now in any other SoP dispute. Mihia (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

You're just repeating Ioxxere's argument without addressing mine. There's nothing that makes pro-Hamas any more SOP than proshipper or proscience. You're treating pro- and Hamas as separate words, even though pro- is a prefix and cannot be used on its own. The only difference between pro-Hamas and a word like profascist is the presence of a hyphen, which is a requirement in English grammar because the alternative spelling of proHamas would look unusual to native speakers. This interpretation of WT:SOP effectively forbids all entries for prefixed words derived from capitalized stems. It's also the reason we have so few entries for words prefixed with ex-, despite it being one of the most common English prefixes – the prefix is almost always followed by a hyphen, which means that any resulting words are likely to be treated as "compounds" of ex- and the base stem. Binarystep (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I feel like it is the same concept. The reason we can't have "wine-lover" is that any user could just look up both "wine" and "lover" to get the full picture. Same thing with "pro-" and "Hamas". I do not care if the distribution of prefixed words is off, as we should have a note explaining why. CitationsFreak (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

A wine-lover is a lover of wine. Someone who is pro-Hamas does not feel pro- about Hamas. I think WT:SOP works best if it's strictly applied to compounds rather than transparent single-word entries. Wiktionary purports that its goal is to include "all words in all languages". I don't see why the presence of a hyphen should change that. Sure, the meaning of pro-Hamas is obvious... but so is profascist, and I don't think most users would consider that SOP. Binarystep (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Some one who is pro-Hamas is "agreeing with; supporting; favouring" "a militant Palestinianist and Sunni Muslim movement". It is SoP. CitationsFreak (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Someone who is profascist is "agreeing with; supporting; favouring" "a right-wing, authoritarian, nationalist ideology characterized by centralized, totalitarian governance, strong regimentation of the economy and society, and repression of criticism or opposition". Is profascist SOP? Binarystep (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

As a single word, no. If there was only the word "pro-fascist", then it would be indeed SoP. CitationsFreak (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

profascist and pro-fascist are both single words. Prefixes aren't words. Binarystep (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Meant that in the sense of "-ist" and "black hole" being words. CitationsFreak (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• "anti-". in the sense of being opposed to something, can be applied to almost literally ANY noun, with totally predictable meaning. "anti-parking", "anti-landfill", "anti-pumpkin" ... you name it. I completely fail to see the point of creating thousands and thousands of individual entries defining "anti-X" as meaning "opposed to X" for every noun in the dictionary. Mihia (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

And, by the way, if we can somehow also eliminate the nonsense whereby it supposedly matters that three people somewhere wrote "antipumpkin", then so much the better. Mihia (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

pro-Israel and anti-Israel

Nominating these as sum-of-parts as well. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Delete these and all similar. Limitless, blatantly SoP pattern. Mihia (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

pro-Russian and anti-Russian

Also P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

 Keep at least as a translation hub. Nyuhn (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you point to 3+ non-compound translations for each? I only see maybe one (Chinese) for pro-Russian though I'm not sure about the Hungarian breakdown for both. AG202 (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Others

Also nominating the following entries on the same basis as above. I have left out terms that have non-hyphenated forms, such as anti-Muslim and pro-Muslim. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

anti-American and pro-American

I did notice Cebuano amboy for pro-American. DonnanZ (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep ---- See this diff. In that diff, I show that the word 'anti-American' is a word according to five dictionaries. I am a deep skeptic of the way Wiktionary's Sum of Parts doctrine is enforced at present and over the past several years. I believe that the enforcement of SOP is biased against hyphenated words, and that the coverage of hyphenated words on Wiktionary is stilted and not conforming to actual usage because of a systemic preference for non-hyphenated words caused by hyper-enforcement of the SOP doctrine. I believe that the current iteration of the enforcement of the SOP doctrine is not academically sound, otherwise, the other dictionaries would exclude this word. I believe that the five dictionaries I cite are normative in including 'anti-American', and that Wiktionary is non-normative, i.e., fringe, if it excludes the word 'anti-American'. If 'anti-American' is removed as an entry as a result of these proceedings, I will attempt to bring a vote on SOP doctrine that adds another limit to the policy: that if mainstream, authoritative dictionaries include a term, that the SOP policy cannot be used to remove an entry from Wiktionary. Fight me, come at me, lol lmao even, I know kung fu, &c. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC) (Modified)

That's WT:LEMMING. Which isn't offcial policy yet. But it could be. CitationsFreak (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

pro-Arab

• Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

anti-British and pro-British

• Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

pro-Indonesian

• Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

anti-Jew and pro-Jew

• Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

anti-Palestinian and pro-Palestinian

• Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

anti-Slavism and pro-Slavism

• Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

pro-US

• Personally I would keep all of these (if cited) as single words. Ƿidsiþ 08:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree, per my comment above. DonnanZ (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. Binarystep (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

META

Is this a noun? Is it even English? Is it capitalised like this? So many questions. I can understand why we have an entry for meta tag, but this one is harder to stomach. This, that and the other (talk) 06:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I doubt HTML tags should be regarded as words. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The hypertext markup language is definitely not the English language or any other natural language. It is not a conlan either; HTML has no parts of speech such as nouns, verbs and adjectives, and HTML tags do not carry meaning in the sense that words in natural languages do. HTML tags are case-insensitive; one could write <mEtA property="og:title" content="META - Wiktionary, the free dictionary"> using camel case.  --Lambiam 17:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but should the "lemma" be capitalised, given that people stopped capitalising HTML tag names about 20 years ago? Thankfully, by your argument that's a moot point. This, that and the other (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Move to Translingual, preferably as lowercase. The English section was added to an existing Finnish acronym entry in 2018 for no discernible reason. @Nicole Sharp seems knowledgeable enough on technical subject matter, but not on organizing it for an online dictionary. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Delete. Not natural language. There are literally millions of programming keywords, tags, and API class/method names. Equinox ◑ 23:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Just for the "keep everything" people (who begin with D): let's just look at "what's obsolete" (a very very short list of things that have been removed from the framework recently): DefineDynamicAssembly, ExecuteAssembly, ExecuteAssemblyByName, AssemblyHash, you may enjoy hundreds more on the page [10]. And this is just what's obsolete, in one specific software framework, at one point in time. And they don't have definitions. You may also want to investigate food colorants. Equinox ◑ 06:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

This user beginning with D is abstaining. DonnanZ (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Delete. Not a word in any language.  --Lambiam 11:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

<marquee>Delete</marquee>. Jberkel 12:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

For clarity, I vote delete. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep iff there are three uses in running text. Otherwise, delete. CitationsFreak (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

If not appropriate as a mainspace entry, then you need to move all HTML elements to a Wiktionary Appendix and create Wiktionary Appendices for other computer programming and markup languages as well. These are important terms that should be defined somewhere on Wiktionary if not in mainspace. Nicole Sharp (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

We do have a sister project called Wikipedia for such things … — Sgconlaw (talk) 06:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• Delete as not natural language. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 00:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

primiparous

Rfd-sense: "bearing a first offspring; having borne only one previous offspring", same as the senses "pregnant for the first time" and "having given birth to only one child" above. RcAlex36 (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• I think the first sense also needs to be deleted or at least verified: a woman who just became pregnant for the first time is not a woman who has given birth to only one child. IMO only the second sense is correct, although I think it is better to define this sense as “Having given birth for the first time”. The definition of the third sense is off. Queen Hatshepsut gave birth to only one child, buy it would be ludicrous to write something like “Queen Hatshepsut was a primiparous Pharaoh”. And when María Josefa Pimentel gave birth to the second of her many children, she had borne only one previous offspring but was not primiparous. So I definitely support deletion of the third sense.  --Lambiam 16:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. A woman who is pregnant for the first time is primigravid. The first sense should perhaps be "giving birth for the first time" instead. RcAlex36 (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I thought of that, but when I read “At 10–11 months postpartum, primiparous mothers continued to be more attentive”,^[11] or “3 months postpartum, when primiparous mothers have become familiar with their infants”,^[12] the present participle is too present. In fact, all GBS hits I see for primiparous mother are about postpartum behaviour or offspring survival statistics.  --Lambiam 16:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

school-age

Attributive form of school age, not a real adjective. We also don't want working-age alongside working age. PUC – 13:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Note that it excludes university (and probably kindergarten, if people want to split hairs). —Soap— 18:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster considers it an adjective, unlike other dictionaries I checked. In any case, I've added a noun alt form section since school-age is attestable outside of attributive uses. If the adjective sense is deleted, the translation table should probably be moved to school-aged. I also created schoolage (with a noun header), which seems to occur only attributively. Einstein2 (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think any purpose would be served by deleting this. DonnanZ (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Delete the hyphenated attributive sense, following precedent. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

fat lot of good

Noun: of no use or help

Apart from being a definition that doesn’t fit a noun, it’s definitely sum of parts: a fat lot (“little or nothing”, sarcastic) + of + good. Theknightwho (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't a fat lot be moved to fat lot? As the RFD'd entry shows, it can be used without the article. Yes, it's probably omitted through a process of elision, but it still seems unnecessary to include in the headword. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Put together, the parts form an idiom. DonnanZ (talk) 08:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe redirect to "(a) fat lot". This collocation is extremely common but "fat lot" ought to explain the meaning. Equinox ◑ 11:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I've heard "a lot of good that'll do" with only the context and tone of voice to convey the sarcasm, as well as substitution of things like "help" for "good". Chuck Entz (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

A more common collocation is fat lot of use, while fat lot of help is also common, so this is IMO SOP. I think a fat lot should actually be moved to a fat lot of, to be classified as a determiner (compare a lick of), to which fat lot and a fat lot can redirect.  --Lambiam 19:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Redirect to either fat lot or fat lot of, since other words can replace good. I would lemmatize the form without the a since it can be omitted: Citations:fat lot. - -sche (discuss) 01:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

blue light

Rfd-sense:"Visible light towards the blue end of the spectrum generated by an electronic device." Is this (sense 4) actually different from the &lit sense 5? I'm not sure. Ƿidsiþ 06:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Here is another sense: “Visible light towards the blue end of the spectrum produced by the light of an incandescent light source passing through a blue colour filter”.^[13] Also, “Visible light towards the blue end of the spectrum emitted by the daytime sky, caused by Rayleigh scattering”.^[14] As sense 4 is merely “Visible light having the colour of the clear sky or the deep sea, between green and purple in the visible spectrum”, without specifying the light source, I imagine we can expect many more precisely specified senses. In other words, Delete.  --Lambiam 18:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

acquired characteristic

SOP: "a characteristic that is acquired (i.e. "Developed after birth; not congenital")". PUC – 17:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. According to the Wikipedia article, "Applying makeup, nail polish, dying one's hair, applying henna to the skin, and tooth whitening are not examples of acquired traits" (which is a synonym according to the same article). However, if a celebrity does their hair and makeup in a particular way, that can be said to be acquired + a characteristic, but not an acquired characteristic. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I think you're suggesting this should be kept per WT:FRIED. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 00:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
• Keep. Strongly a fixed phrase describing concept in biology / evolutionary science. Mihia (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mihia: What makes it more deserving of an entry than acquired trait? PUC – 16:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

We could have that too, listed as a synonym. Mihia (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mihia: inherited trait (and inherited characteristic), vestigial trait, advanced trait, recessive trait, dominant trait, adaptive trait, are all phrases describing concepts in evolutionary biology. I don't see the point of creating entries for these, since they will be a rehash of what can be found in the entries of the component words. PUC – 16:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Each of those would need to be considered on its own merits. However, one difference between "acquired characteristic" and, let's say, "inherited characteristic", is that it is relatively obvious that "inherited characteristic" has something to do with characteristics passed to offspring, but less obvious that "acquired characteristic" does. If you mentioned the latter phrase to someone not familiar with the subject area, quite possibly they would not understand just from the parts the specific sense that it has in that regard. This is a reason to keep it, in my opinion. More generally speaking, I feel less inclined nowadays to delete phrases purely because the meaning can in theory be obtained by selecting the right combination of senses of the different parts, and more inclined to keep strong set phrases anyway -- within reason, of course, which is a subjective judgement. Mihia (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free

Feels SOP-y to me, being from the river to the sea plus the rest of the words. It's not a set phrase, either, because there are some uses with "Palestine will be free" at the front. An example of this is in the 2014 essay collection Conversations in Postcolonial Thought, in an essay by Ronit Lentin, in which she writes "This forgetting [of the element of violence that made Israel] ... is precisely what pro-Palestine demonstrators say: Palestine will be free from the river to the sea." However, I will admit that this element seems like it makes up a large chunk of the uses of "from the river to the sea". CitationsFreak (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Redirect to from the river to the sea, the minimal idiomatic component, per nom. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  And while we're at it, I think we need to improve the definition of from the river to the sea. The current Al-Jazeera citation does not support the use of the phrase as a slogan, but rather as a literal prepositional phrase (of course, with fried-egg restrictions on which river and sea are being referred to). In fact, can we find any examples of from the river to the sea being used in isolation (without any complement) as a slogan? If so, then we should have two definitions here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Redirect. - -sche (discuss) 17:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Al Jazeera

Encyclopedic. The article was nominated 15 years ago with no consensus. [15] The only arguments seem to be for notability, which disagrees with our policy. brittletheories (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Keep. I've expanded the entry with three quotes that probably meet WT:BRAND. Einstein2 (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Delete. I don't see how the quotes support any kind of inclusion. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The quotes don't identify Al Jazeera as a television channel, see the examples at Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Brand names. Einstein2 (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they do. Humans are capable of metonymy and irony regardless of ideomaticity. You could substitute Fox News for any one of them, and that was deleted before. brittletheories (talk) 10:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Good to know that I can sell videotapes of beheadings to Fox News. :)  --Lambiam 15:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

If Al-Jazeera is used as a stand-in for somethimg, it should be explicated. For instance:

1. (informal) Any sensationalist media that publishes offensive or shocking content.

I'm not aware of such an association. As it stands now, the article doesn't name a single figurative use of the term. brittletheories (talk) 10:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that these cites are in reference to Al Jazeera being seen as a Muslim news source, and therefore must have beheading tapes on their newsfeed. CitationsFreak (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Delete per the above. PUC – 12:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Delete per Brittletheories, any figurative sense ought to be stated explicitly to support inclusion and I don't see an obvious one here. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk)

Keep, but rework definition to explain quotes. CitationsFreak (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Weak delete. I'm not convinced by the cites; if a cite says someone could "talk to anybody about what she knew—even the Korean People's Army", does that make Korean People's Army idiomatic or is it still the province of an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary? I am thinking the latter. We have a lot of abbreviations of news media, like DW, BBC, MSNBC, CBS, but we don't have The Times, London Times, New York Times, Washington Post, British Broadcasting Corporation. - -sche (discuss) 17:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there any abbreviation for Al Jazeera? Ironically, I tend to use BBC instead of British Broadcasting Corporation, and so do the BBC. DonnanZ (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

As it stands, delete per Brittletheories and Al-Muqanna. The present entry does not even attempt to provide a non-encyclopedic definition, and the quotations themselves do not demonstrate dictionary senses, only contextually suggested associations or connotations of a nature that could routinely exist for proper nouns. Mihia (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete: no idiomatic use that satisfies WT:BRAND, as far as I can see. — Sgconlaw (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

by what right

This was just added, with a request for definition. But it is so very NISOP that it is hard to define. I notice that the translations added look pretty much like straightforward calques, so I don't think even the translation hub justification holds here. Kiwima (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Compare by what criterion,^[16] by what entrance,^[17] by what feat of logic,^[18] by what means,^[19] by what mistaken magic^[20] &c. &c.  --Lambiam 16:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. This is a transparent question. bd2412 T 03:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

accessory before the fact

accessory after the fact

SOP of accessory + before the fact and accessory + after the fact? PUC – 16:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• Keep, a very set phrase. bd2412 T 03:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

good boy, good girl

Seems to be SOP, just that it can be used sarcastically as in the given usage example. कालमैत्री (talk) 08:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Delete. (And if a good girl is a female child, how can she "stand by her man"? Sounds a bit dodgy!) Equinox ◑ 09:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Not so fast. I think they are common exclamations. If so, amend and keep. DonnanZ (talk) 11:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there is definitely use of both phrases as a sincere term of congratulations for a small child or for a pet, upon which the idiomatic use for adults is based. I think these pages should be expanded, but also support keeping the idiomatic usage, so my support is for adding your sense, not replacing the existing sense. —Soap— 12:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

As an aside, why does the nominator use an unreadable name? DonnanZ (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@Donnanz Do you think a conspirator shall speak of his ways? कालमैत्री (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

That's a counter-question, not a satisfactory answer. DonnanZ (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, the definition reads as "An obedient female child, or someone who behaves like one"; I presume that's the part that applies in this usex. The definition should be split imo, because I was also confused at first. PUC – 20:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Keep, as I think these are plainly idiomatic. Is it not obvious that the use-example I chose describes a woman who obeys her male partner without question? And that most of us would consider such a woman to be excessively obedient? This goes far beyond the literal meaning good girl you would use to describe a five-year-old who shares their candy with neighborhood kids even when their parents didn't tell them to. Likewise, the use-example on good boy describes an adult man who avoids taking on a difficult adult responsibility, something we would never expect a literal child to handle.

I created these pages just two days ago, and I intend to add to them a lot more, but I prefer to work at a slow pace, hopping around from page to page, rather than focusing on getting a new entry to completion right out of the gate. I wasn't expecting an RFD so soon after creation. Nonetheless, the core of the content is there, and I see no reason to consider this a sum-of-parts definition. The fact that it needs so much explanation is a demonstration on its own that it's idiomatic. Best regards, —Soap— 12:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the wording of the pages is good as it is, but if I were to break the combined definitions apart so that the idiomatic sense was defined as something such as an excessively obedient (wo)man, would we still consider this to be sum-of-parts? If so, how could a naive reader coming across the phrase good girl in a context like the above use our definitions of good (7 senses just for people) and girl (10 senses) to put together that it means an excessively obedient woman? If this is going to be another one of those "they'll figure it out from context" RFD's, I'll just say as I've said before that the people who look things up in a dictionary are precisely NOT the people who can piece out an unpredictable definition from the context it's in. We don't write for people like us. —Soap— 12:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I hope you realise how pretentious and condescending you're sounding right now. PUC – 13:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't. In fact, I don't think I could be condescending if I tried. But that's irrelevant ... what matters to me is .... can anyone answer my question? —Soap— 13:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Delete, SOAP. What next: good husband, good wife, good doggo? PUC – 13:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you show me idiomatic uses of those phrases? Particularly ones that are as far from a literal meaning as well-behaved child is from excessively obedient adult? —Soap— 13:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The meaning of words are not idiomatic, as i said of the usage examples you have: they have been used (shallowly) in the context to taunt, to suggest excessiveness. Words like good father etc. can be used similarly.
Yes, a kid might not understand the use case, but many a satirical use cases are not always apparent.
And lastly i think red-green alliance should have been kept. कालमैत्री (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Re good doggo: note that we have good boi. J3133 (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Keep, but I think the example for "good boy" is really weird and should be changed. Honestly the context for the current example is unclear to me. I think a better example for idiomatic usage (use for an adult) would be something like

"I know how to cook dinner, Dave. Now be a good boy and go wait quietly with the kids." Or

"Be a good boy and give your mother a call. She's been calling every day for a week!"

something like that. AmbiguouslyAnonymous (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep. I don't think these are used only in cases where it would be natural to use "boy" or "girl." Also, I think a good test for idiomaticity is if a term can be translated literally. Is that the case here? Can you say "bon garçon" to a dog or a child in French? I'm not a native speaker, but I think something like "bravo" would be more likely. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

But the senses don't include the use as interjection, while that should be the case only then. Have you read the entries? Your French argument is not correct, a particular phrase can be used in one language, but might sound awkward in other even with literal senses. कालमैत्री (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

To clarify my vote: Delete noun but keep as an interjection. My translation-based argument doesn't prove anything, it's true, but it is still evidence, or at least an argument for making it a translation hub. But you're right, I neglected to read the entry and based on some of the above comments, thought we were talking about an interjection sense. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Seconding this: keep as an interjection. Theknightwho (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

If kept, can we add an example for a pet, most esp. dog, which, at least where I live, is a very common usage. Two policeman at a police station, one says to the other "We've been interrogating this dog all morning, and he still won't tell us who's a good boy." Mihia (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Undeletion of ancient Greek

Deleted in 2014 with the rationale “This is a mistake not an alternative form. Hardly worth creating {{misspelling of}} entries for wrong capitalization.” Since then, there have been two sections on the talk page:

Not a mistaken form

Pace the editors above, lower-case ancient is more (not less) common when dealing with the people and adjective, with an established meaning very much more restrictive than simply the SOP of "anything very old related to Greece". Ancient Greek may be written either way, albeit it's increasingly common (as we learn ancient Greek less often) to give the name "Greek" to the modern form and instead describe ancient Greek as an all-capped thing-unto-itself.

Further, Ancient Greek is properly restricted to the Greek of antiquity. The phrase however is sometimes used (as in ISO 639) as inclusive of all Greek up to 1453, a sense where it should be lower-case (but still not SOP). — LlywelynII 22:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

ancient Greek

ancient Greek is definitely more common than Ancient Greek for adjectival use, which is actually the commonest use as well. See this ngram, and compare ancient Near Eastern, ancient Roman... which are also more common than Ancient Near Eastern ([21]) and Ancient Roman ([22]).

A core principle of the Wiktionary is Wiktionary:Descriptivism.

92.184.116.35 06:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The Ancient Greek entry has a usage note for the noun, which correctly states, “Usually, ancient is not capitalized in this sense”, with a hidden comment linking to the Google Ngram Viewer. Both the adjective and the noun are more commonly ancient Greek. Further, MLA style states in its page “Does MLA style capitalize ancient when it precedes Greece or Greek?”, “No. We follow Merriam-Webster, which indicates that the terms ancient and classical are not capitalized when they are attached to names of languages or periods.” It is clear that this is not a “mistake”, as was stated in the RfD, and also, as mentioned above, inconsistent with having the entries ancient Roman (more common form of Ancient Roman) and ancient Rome (which is the form, e.g., Wikipedia uses) or ancient Near Eastern (“of the Ancient Near East”). J3133 (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Undelete per nom. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Undelete. Binarystep (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Undelete. CitationsFreak (talk) 05:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Undelete. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 06:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg

Cites are for Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg and not Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg. Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg not asserted to be independent of Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg. Delete an entry that is not a term, but is merely a part of another term. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

This should be an RFV then. Equinox ◑ 09:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I tried looking up some other placenames that only occur as the names of lakes and rivers, and have to admit it was more difficult than I expected. It seems that we typically just don't list these either in their bare form or with "lake" and "river" attached. The ones I did find were all used in more than one placename, e.g. Sligo, Cam, Magog, Champlain. If we move this to RFV I suppose the question would be about whether people can say Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg to mean the lake, since that is the only placename there is. I would expect that they do, though it seems at least some of the Google search results for the long name without the word "lake" are simply pages in other languages. —Soap— 11:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

My intent was not to search for three cites but to delete the entry without a search for three cites on policy grounds. If I brought this at RFV and wrote what I wrote above, I guarantee it would be said "take it to RFD, you bitch ass punk". I have now opened an RFV too, copy-pasting the above grounds but as a different petition. I want to run an RFD and an RFV on this term simultaneously. I would suggest closing this one and recommending RFV and closing that one and recommending RFD. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense. You are saying that "Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg" alone (minus "Lake") does not exist. The way to disprove this is to find 3 cites for it. Thus RFV is the correct venue per policy. Equinox ◑ 11:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I see the error of my petitions, but I am just totally unexperienced with the process. I wash my hands of both petitions and retract them insofar as I can. Please do not contact me about this. I have no ill will toward you Equinox. And what I realize is that I have never had a successful RFD before- though I have had about 5 to 10 successful RFVs. That's the page where I can have a more interesting and useful role; I really have no opinions about policy-related questions that will come up in an RFD. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC) (Modified)

@Geographyinitiative: I never saw your response at the time. However: these RFVs and RFDs are not tribunals where we seek to punish people: they are (hopefully) a way to improve the dictionary by removing low-quality material, or merging, or whatever. We have probably fought a lot, Mr Geography, but only because of disagreements on inclusion, nothing strictly personal. I hope we will continue to fight on those grounds :) Equinox ◑ 06:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

subbranch

Rfd-sense "part of a branch". How is this different from sense 1 ("branch that is itself an offshoot of a branch of something")? PUC – 18:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

If a part of a branch isn't an entire branch in its own right, it wouldn't meet the definition of sense 1. I suppose there might be a way to combine the two, but it would have to be worded differently than the current sense 1. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure whether such “non-branches” would be called subbranches, and even if they would, is there a way to differentiate them from actual smaller branches? In any case, I think one definition line is sufficient (maybe after a bit of rewording). Einstein2 (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Lulu

Rfd-sense. We shouldn't list given names as being from Chinese, they would either be anglicised (in which case indistinguishable from the other one listed above on the page) or transliterations (which we don't include for Chinese given names). – wpi (talk) 08:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Unlike the situation in European languages, I've been told that you can use more or less any combination of characters to form a Chinese given name. Therefore just about any combination of two Pinyin syllables would be attestable as a given name. That's a theoretical 400 + 400*400 = 160,400 Chinese given name entries. Plus some people have three-syllable names. I don't think this is worth our time. However, I'm not sure how I feel about excluding one particular language's (⇒ ethnicity's?) names from inclusion. This, that and the other (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

-un-

From Wiktionary:Tea room/2023/November § Systematic element name infixes:

(E.g., as in unbiunium (“element 121”).) We have both un- (prefix) and -un- (infix), both defined as standing for the digit 1, but -bi-, which would be the infix, is a redirect to bi- (“2”), the prefix. -nil- (“0”), -tri- (“3”), -quad- (“4”), -pent- (“5”), -hex- (“6”), -sept- (“7”), -oct- (“8”), -enn- (“9”) are also redirects to the prefixes. See the RfD for -oct-, per which I suppose -un-, the only infix, should also be redirected. J3133 (talk) 09:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

J3133 (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Support deletion; it should redirect to un-. 2804:1B0:1901:5FD7:6060:15B5:AFC5:BD81 13:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

DKC2

Donkey Kong sequels. Per Talk:HP1 for Harry Potter. Equinox ◑ 11:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Support deletion for both terms. MedK1 (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

DKC3

Per DKC2 above. Equinox ◑ 11:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

W rizz

Nominated by @MedK1 with the comment “SOP. We don't have pages for W skills or W speech either. Why should "W rizz" and any of the pages linked in the Antonyms section get one?”. lattermint (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Should we have an adjective sense at W then?? Equinox ◑ 10:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

There is already an adjective sense at W, but it could also be interpreted as an attributive noun (sense 7) I suppose. lattermint (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

By the way, delete as SOP. lattermint (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete as per above. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk) 16:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• RFD-failed Denazz (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

L rizz

SOP. lattermint (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• Delete both as original nominator. It's a bit maddening that L rizz was even created considering its mention in the RFD reason for W rizz. MedK1 (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
• Delete both as SOP. Combining L or W with any term will provide several examples of this on Twitter, Reddit, etc. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 04:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• RFD-failed Denazz (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Undelete hurry-furry merger

I brought this up in the Discord and in User talk:DTLHS#Hurry-furry merger but it didn't get too far. @theknightwho seemed to agree with me though! I was able to find it in a few spots[23][24] and I've both seen it used and actually used it in conversations (see the talk page message for more). So yeah, I think the deletion was clearly unfair. There's no reason to think it was coined by Wikipedia or whatever. MedK1 (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Undelete - the reasons given for DTLHS's out-of-process deletion were "I bet it came from some dumb Wikipedia list" and "sounds like bullshit". Theknightwho (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Recreate and send to RFV? I see plenty on the Web, not much in GBooks (though their search sucks these days). Equinox ◑ 09:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The deleting administrator seemed to be in a bad mood on the day they were questioned about it and is no longer active, so I dont expect them to share an opinion here, but I agree with those above there's no reason this page should be omitted when cot-caught merger and similar pages are listed. —Soap— 12:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I've undeleted it. RFV it if needed, but as long as it's attested there doesn't seem to be any RFD-reason to exclude it. - -sche (discuss) 20:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

This is the name of a specific entity, just like the names Hjalmar Ekdal topology, Kurgan hypothesis, Lichnerowicz cohomology, twistor theory, and so on. When should we consider such names to have become lexicalized? We are lacking a criterion.  --Lambiam 20:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

mean time

Redundant to mean and time. A westman (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I assume sense 2 applies here. It doesn't seem to match the definition in my Oxford and Collins, where both refer to it being the short form of mean solar time, as referred to in the entry for Greenwich Mean Time. DonnanZ (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep. It's an alt form of "meantime" ("The time spent waiting for another event; time in between") which uses no sense of mean that is obvious to a modern speaker. Equinox ◑ 15:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• @A westman Did you mean to nominate both senses? — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 17:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• Keep sense 1 (the alt form). Delete sense 2 as SoP to mean etymology 3, adjective sense 1 ("average"), which is far from being obscure or obsolete. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 17:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  @ExcarnateSojourner: Sense 2 could be kept as {{&lit}}. J3133 (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  • Oh, good point. Let's do that. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 18:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

    There's actually a third sense that I added recently. It is the synonym of "solar time". newfiles (talk) 05:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

cyka blyat

English? Russian eye dialect/Volapük, whatever. Kill with fire. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@Atitarev: Note that Dictionary.com has an entry. J3133 (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep - it's used humorously. The current labels aren't sufficient, though. Theknightwho (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

We don’t keep terms on the basis of being funny. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@Atitarev But it’s used in English humorously, which was my point. Theknightwho (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• Send to RFV to search for unambiguously English cites? This, that and the other (talk) 07:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
• Send to RFV. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

suka blyat

As above. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• Send to RFV as well. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Kept. If anyone wants to send this to RFV, they can. Theknightwho (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

zinc-bearing

SOP? Synonym is probably zinciferous, if we have translationsDenazz (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete bear, etymology 2, sense 8 is a close fit for this use. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

foregoing

Rfd-sense

Etymology 1, the adjective. This seems redundant to Etymology 2, which is the present participle and gerund of forego. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep: It is a recognised adjective in Oxford and Collins, and probably others. The verb is apparently archaic, but it is also a variant of forgo. DonnanZ (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Currently the structure is unclear.

• Et1 of foregoing is empty, but based on the definition, seems to correspond to Et1 of forego.
• Et2 of foregoing points vaguely to forego which contains two et's.

Presumably User:Chuck_Entz reads Et2 of foregoing as a reference to Et1 of forego, otherwise why suggest the deletion of Et1 of foregoing? So then we would have two et's under foregoing that are both based on et1 of forego ...and nothing for et2 of forego.

I am strongly in favour of making the etymologies explicit in the foregoing entry, rather than missing or implicit.

I am neutral on the grammatical recognition of the adjectival form.

However, I thought a noun form should be added, per Talk:foregoing#noun (sorry if that's off-topic). Or is that already covered by the gerund label?

—DIV (1.145.214.72 03:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC))

unrequited love

SOP: "love that is unrequited". I don't believe "even though reciprocation is desired" should be part of the definition. PUC – 09:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• Love here is specifically romantic love (etymology 1, noun sense 2.3). If a mother loves her daughter but the daughter does not love her in return that would not be called unrequited love. Could WT:FRIED apply here? — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 18:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  I did find a couple of counterexamples (unrequited love of a mother for their child: [25] [26]) but they were picked out from a sea of examples that related to romantic love. I don't know what to make of it from a SOP point of view though. I'd lean keep but not strongly. In the event the term is deleted, translations should be moved to unrequited. This, that and the other (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Many of the translations are similarly SOP (imo) and not worth entries. PUC – 20:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I was referring specifically to the translations of the word unrequited in the SOP translations at unrequited love, which are not all present in the unrequited entry. This, that and the other (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

please restore adult diaper

I believe the adult diaper page should be restored, per the argument I made in August here. More succinctly, if our deletion policy is leading us to delete well-established terms as sum of parts, while continuing to list scarcely-used synonyms for those terms simply because they're not sum of parts, I think the policy needs to be reformed. —Soap— 17:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

You created this: entire definition was "Any diaper sized to be worn by adults". I deleted it as "Non-idiomatic sum-of-parts term: please see WT:SOP: adult Adjective: Intended for or restricted to adults rather than children due to size". I think that deletion was sound. Equinox ◑ 09:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

A synonym of incontinence diaper, I suspect. DonnanZ (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Weak keep due to it being synonymous and more used than "incontinence diaper". (Maybe make it a THUB?) CitationsFreak (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Saying "Keep" is misleading when you want to change the definition. Maybe "Recreate and rewrite"! Equinox ◑ 14:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

No, I think we should give "adult diaper" its definition, and replace "incontinence diaper" with "synonym of adult diaper". CitationsFreak (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep as a synonym of incontinence diaper. Theknightwho (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Saying "Keep" is misleading when you want to change the definition. Maybe "Recreate and rewrite"! Equinox ◑ 14:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Support restoration as a synonym. DonnanZ (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I can't see any difference between adult diaper and incontinence diaper from a SOP standpoint. "A diaper for adults" vs "a diaper for incontinence". There's no other sense at adult that could realistically apply. This, that and the other (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: No other sense? Just google "age play" and "adult diaper". bd2412 T 14:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@BD2412 This is a good argument for adult diaper's SOPness. Incontinence diapers and role play diapers are both "diapers for adults". The term adult diaper doesn't convey anything about the reason the diapers are worn. It is sense 2 (2.0, if you will) of adult that is used in both cases. You've convinced me that adult diaper and incontinence diaper should both be deleted, honestly. This, that and the other (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't particularly making an argument to keep. bd2412 T 22:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Support restoration as synonym per what This, that and the other's words. MedK1 (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. Even though it may be a synonym of incontinence diaper, that doesn’t justify it being an entry in its own right. The words adult and diaper can be linked separately. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. PUC – 20:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I think Soap makes a really strong point; nobody ever says incontinence diaper, usually just adult diaper or something euphemistic like protection, adult brief, continence aid or whatever, and Wikt does tend to be more sympathetic towards SOP entries that are widely-accepted specialist or technical terms. But, that said, it does unfortunately fit within WT:SoP; regarding said policy's stated exception "a phrase that is arguably unidiomatic may be included by the consensus of the community, based on the determination of editors that inclusion of the term is likely to be useful to readers," I cannot confidently say that our readers will not know what adult diaper means and find any use in an entry for it. Compare disposable diaper, which is probably the second-most popular childcare-related term after diaper itself, which noticeably does not have an entry because it is also SoP despite its commonness. Instead we have synonyms like sposie. While I would actually like an entry for this simply because it is the 'correct' (most common) term, Wiktionary's rules simply do not allow for it and IMO I cannot justify a strong enough argument to confidently say that it needs one.. maybe this is ultimately a problem with Wiktionary's rules, IDK 🤷 LunaEatsTuna (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep. If anything, incontinence diaper should be deleted since it's less of a set phrase. Binarystep (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

El Camino Real

WT:NSE requires figurative senses for individual roads, but we do not have any for this one. Previously nominated as a member of cat:en:Named roads. I'm making a separate request for the Spanish term. See also #Colon Street above. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 23:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Just for background: this was a route in California during the Spanish period connecting the missions in the region. It no longer exists in its old form, but it's symbolic of that period, and roads/highways that cover parts of the same route are often officially designated as part of it to empasize their connection to history. I think it's significant that "El" is capitalized, since it just means "the" in Spanish and it shows that the term isn't understood as the sum of its parts (I wonder if it makes any sense to have a Spanish entry at that capitalization). In fact, the term was probably not used for the modern concept during the mission period (any official route was so designated), but civic boosters in the past century or so resurrected it as a way to promote tourism by connecting their communities to what they portrayed as a romantic bygone era. I suppose it might be analogous to the Silk Road or the Royal Road, which we do have entries for, or the Appian Way, which we don't. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we should compare Spanish camino real (camino construido a expensas del Estado) with King's highway. Oxford, for Queen's highway (published before QEII died), a mass noun by the way, says "the public road network, regarded as being under royal protection". Thus not roads owned by the monarch, although they can use them. DonnanZ (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• Keep: Purplebackpack89 19:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• Keep per Purplebackpack. DonnanZ (talk) 09:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

quarter-

Not grammatically a prefix. Compare -prone above. Equinox ◑ 12:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe you're right, and we should also look at half-.

There is also Category:English terms prefixed with quarter-. Collins and Oxford don't seem to list quarter as an adjective either, just the noun and verb, but Merriam-Webster does make a brief mention of an adjective. Anyway, delete this. DonnanZ (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'll have my eye on half- if this one gets deleted; but, baby steps. It seems clear to me that "quarter-" doesn't morphologically merge into the following item. Equinox ◑ 18:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

An exception to this is cross-, which is a recognised combining form. DonnanZ (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Donnanz: Let's keep it brief because this thread is about quarter-, but: recognised by whom, as what? Hope it ain't the "it's not in the dictionary!" argument. An interesting counter-argument for cross- might be: if it's morphological, why must I say cross-state and not crosstate? They are separate words. Equinox ◑ 22:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Crosstate seems to be a commercial invention, found in New Jersey and South Africa. Back to quarter-. DonnanZ (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems like some of the words in Category:English terms prefixed with half- (e.g. halfter or halfway) seem to be legit examples of this suffix but in most of those words (e.g. half-finished or half-open) the "half" part is not grammatically a suffix. A Westman talk stalk 22:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@A_westman: You can't trust the category though. Casual editors will add and remove things to/from categories based on feelings, not necessarily on grammar. You need to use strong arguments to defend or refute the membership. Equinox ◑ 00:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

That's kind of what I meant... A Westman talk stalk 00:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

do want and do not want

SOP. A Westman talk stalk 20:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep. They are not grammatical and would not make sense otherwise: compare my bad. Equinox ◑ 22:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Some of the verb inflections given for do want are rather suspect. DonnanZ (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Weak keep because "do not want" has an acronym tied to it. I'd absolutely say "delete" otherwise. We don't keep a special sense at am for cutesy slang like "am smol child" (where the subject is ungrammatically omitted), so I don't think @Equinox's reasoning to keep these is good reasoning. MedK1 (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment. Both the etymology and the usex for do not want suggest that the term is an interjection. Is this also the case for do want? In that case, it is plausibly a back-formation from do not want.  --Lambiam 12:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete: elision of certain words (“[I] do want [this]”) doesn’t, in my view, make these lexical terms. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep. These do not follow normal grammatical rules/patterns, so I'm not sure how they can be SOP. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 07:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

because reasons

SOP. We could instead put this meaning in reasons. A Westman talk stalk 18:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It's actually already given as an example at because. (Saying "because X", rather than "because of X", seems to be recent net slang.) Equinox ◑ 18:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention that "for reasons" is also used. So this meaning should be moved. A Westman talk stalk 22:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep, since it refers to reasons that are "tangential, dubious or unknown", so it's not SOP. Perhaps "for reasons" is also used (I've never heard it), but I don't think other collocations are possible. Theknightwho (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Well: "for reasons" and "due to reasons" and "owing to reasons" obey traditional grammar. "Because reasons" doesn't. Anyway, your point about the "tangentiality" is something separate. Equinox ◑ 02:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The disobedience of grammar is already documented at because so I don't see the point of this. A Westman talk stalk 02:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@Equinox: time to take a step back and tone down the snappiness, I think. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you pinged the wrong person... CitationsFreak (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

[27] [28] Word0151 (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep. I don't think this is simply a special use of because. In my experience, it's usually said with a pause between "because" and "reasons", with the "reasons" meant to be a humorous replacement for actual reasons that one does not want to elaborate on (or that don't actually exist). So instead of telling my friend I didn't go to the party "Because I didn't feel like it", I might say "Because, reasons...", which is perhaps a way of verbalizing "Because [reasons]". Which is not an SOP phrase and not dependent on the grammar of either word involved. I'm just speculating here, but this may also be the original phrase which gave rise to the Internet slang sense of because. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I’ve heard “because, NP” (e.g., “because, politicans”) used in conversations. I’m not certain what constitutes Internet slang (Facebook, TAFKAT, neither of which I use?).  --Lambiam 12:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete, pragmatics with many analogues. In stream-of-conscious-like colloquial language some conventions of grammar are more frequently broken. Fay Freak (talk) 11:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

🐒 Word0151 (talk) 12:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete: I don’t think the elision of words (“because [of some] reasons”) makes the phrase lexical. Another instance is “I cannot [stand this]”. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: Compare I can't. J3133 (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Yup, we should nuke that one too. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: I created it. It is listed as an alternative form of I can’t even at Dictionary.com. See, e.g., “What's the meaning of "I can't (emotes)"” (Reddit: “It means something is extremely funny.”), “What does I can’t. mean? I saw ppl saying that below a meme, is it means laughing out of control?” (HiNative: “In the context of laughing because of a funny meme (I can’t 😭) I can’t means “I can’t with this meme/post” or “this meme/post is way too funny””), “What does I can't with you mean?” (HiNative: ““I can’t with you” in slang terms can mean that dealing with you right now is too much! This may be meant seriously or used sarcastically in a funny way depending on context.”), “What’s with “I can’t with”?” (Reddit: “Yeah, it's a slang phrase. […] It is a shortening of "I can't deal with ... " but it's taken over as a phrase. It is not technically correct usage but it has become very common.”; Grammarphobia: “You won’t find this sense of “I can’t with” in standard references, but it’s definitely out there. And if enough people use it, we may be seeing it in dictionaries someday.”). I believe it is worthy of an entry. J3133 (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

twelve hundred

sop? similarly, eleven hundred, thirteen hundred etc. Word0151 (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete, yes, dumb. Equinox ◑ 04:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I think WF has chosen the weakest link in the chain. There are entries for every hundred between two hundred and twenty-three hundred, including twenty hundred (for 24-hour clock), but no ten hundred for the 24-hour clock. It's pointless deleting this one without removing the others. DonnanZ (talk) 11:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete all the number senses. WT:CFI (established by this formal vote) is clear on this: "Numbers, numerals, and ordinals over 100 that are not single words or are sequences of digits should not be included in the dictionary, unless the number, numeral, or ordinal in question has a separate idiomatic sense that meets the CFI." The numerical use of eleven hundred, twelve hundred, and so on is already explained in "Appendix:English numerals". However, I think the 24-hour clock sense can stay. I am undecided on the year sense (leaning towards delete) as this is an infinite series—we should discuss this further. It may be better to explain this in a new appendix under "Appendix:Time". — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Convert all but the clock sense to an &lit sense. Or maybe delete. CitationsFreak (talk) 05:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Entry for hundred already includes the clock sense. Why do you think these should be kept? Word0151 (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I thought the sense said something different. Delete. CitationsFreak (talk) 05:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Since the. 24-hour clock sense is already explained at hundred, delete the entire entry and all similar entries. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep the lot. DonnanZ (talk) 11:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete all, useless. PUC – 20:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

non-English: Undeletion of "not English" sense

Deleted sense:

• Not English; not from England; not of English ancestry or origin.

  Synonym: un-English

Sense in entry:

• Not in the English language.

  Synonym: un-English

Compare non-Japanese, which was kept, as @-sche pointed out recently. If not as a full sense, then at least as {{&lit}}, indicating that non-English does not only refer to language. J3133 (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Support: You can have non-English food, for example. It was a silly RFD. DonnanZ (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Support per above. MedK1 (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose it means “not” and “English” in all senses of that word, making it SoP. Delete the entire entry. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: If there is no consensus for deletion of the entry itself, I assume you would not oppose adding this sense instead of having the entry incomplete. J3133 (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@J3133: in that scenario I abstain because I do not support such entries on the whole. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete all of these non- entries. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

nonEnglish is a non-runner, in British English at least. DonnanZ (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Obviously both senses should live or die together. I'd rather see them both die; the word is totally transparent. This, that and the other (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Question: how does the idiomacity of this term (or lack thereof) relate to that of un-English? bd2412 T 23:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Support Binarystep (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

December solstice

SoP. The solstice that's in December * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep as part of a set. The explanation is good enough; from personal experience a December solstice is more preferable in NZ than in the UK. DonnanZ (talk) 10:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Is the rest of the set not SoP too? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

ex-member

To join the other ex- terms Denazz (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

It has two translations. Weak keep. CitationsFreak (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete. German translation, like the English by Dan Polansky, is unidiomatic. “ehemaliges Mitglied” is preferred German. Fay Freak (talk) 11:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment: "other ex- terms". Which ones? Are we deleting things like ex-girlfriend too? MedK1 (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Nope, ex-wife and ex-slave I reckoned to designate particular status. Proliferation is of concern with the more abstract terms. Fay Freak (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 13:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

tacit collusion

SOP: a collusion that is tacit. PUC – 11:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete. Author purposefully misunderstands CFI. As on PUC’s talk page, I’ve investigated and found that there are no legal peculiarities to the term. Fay Freak (talk) 11:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

What shall be your view on the creation of tacit consent Word0151 (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete: ultimately it’s a form of collusion which is tacit, so it’s SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep - specialised term in economics. It refers to cartel-like behaviour where prices are fixed through implicit agreement, as opposed to a formal (hidden) agreement. Theknightwho (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I have given this way too much thought, and I think we should keep this as the economic equivalent of seafloor spreading, listed as precedent under WT:PRIOR. I was actually going to vote delete: This is clearly a set term of art in economics, but there is no real additional meaning imbued by the phrase beyond the literal meaning of the two terms (other than that it needs to be for the purposes of maximising profit - but to what other ends do businesses collude?). I searched for a plausible synonym, "unspoken collusion", and most of what I found was articles written for the lay reader, written by authors who clearly understand tacit collusion to be the "real" term. But seeing seafloor spreading convinced me we should keep this too. This, that and the other (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

One cannot gather the meaning of seafloor spreading from either seafloor or spreading, so clearly it is not SoP. But tacit collusion is defined as "A form of collusion in which colluding parties do not explicitly share information with one another, achieving a collusive arrangement by an unspoken understanding". In other words, it is a form of collusion that is tacit. The way I see it, defining the term with many words does not in itself make it less SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I mean it makes senses to write articles about it. But everything interesting on it is encyclopedic information. This, that and the other’s simile goes beyond what my creativity tolerates. Of course there are specialised terms that are SoP. Fay Freak (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Can't one? I can't imagine what else seafloor spreading could refer to other than the expansion (spread verb sense 6) of the seafloor. (Admittedly it could refer to spreading the seafloor with some substance as one spreads bread with peanut butter, but that is rather far-fetched from a practical standpoint.) And yet, it is a term of art in geology, so it seems we are keeping it solely on that basis - to allow our readers to benefit from the additional info and context provided in the definition line. This, that and the other (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: oh, I misunderstood you—I thought you meant seafloor spreading was some sort of economic term. If not it may warrant further examination. But it doesn’t change the point that I think tacit collusion is SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Unidiomatic higher-than-100 number pages like one hundred one

As stated here, I've recently learnt these pages (multiword, higher-than-100) are breaking CFI (per this formal vote). That means we should delete them, no? MedK1 (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete in compliance with WT:CFI, unless there is an figurative sense (variant of one hundred and one, though I've not heard it used this way?), in which case the numeral sense should be replaced by the figurative sense. — Sgconlaw (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

It's an American form, apparently. Not living in America, I can't verify that. DonnanZ (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete Word0151 (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete as per CFI, add usage note to and to explain British vs. American usage in these cases. (For the record, I've heard from an elementary school teacher that you shouldn't say "one hundred and one", as "and" is used for separating whole numbers from the decimal point [as in "three and fourteen hundredths" for 3.14] only.) CitationsFreak (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I would keep per 101 (number). hundred and one is a redirect, and we don't have one-oh-one. We probably don't need any other odd numbers above one hundred, only whole hundreds, though 111, 911 and 999 are valid ones. I think hundred and one can be idiomatic: "I have a hundred and one things to do". DonnanZ (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Redirect hundred and one to one hundred and one which has a figurative sense or, perhaps even better, make hundred and one the lemma since people often say a hundred and one as Donnanz points out. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

hundred and one was redirected in 2005, the early days, but can be undone, of course. We also have, (shock, horror) hundred-and-oneth. DonnanZ (talk) 13:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• Delete per CFI. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 03:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

This seems wholly SOP. A Westman talk stalk 13:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete: merry Christmas and happy New Year are already separate phrase book entries. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I feel about this one, but I just want to point out that there was a previous RFD discussion and I think this one should take the arguments made then into account. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 07:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The problem is it is being used as a translation hub. It maybe should be kept for that reason, though most of the translations are red links. DonnanZ (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Almost all the translations are SOP! Word0151 (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Weak keep, it's SOP but phrasebook entries don't fall under typical SOP rules. AG202 (talk) 14:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Delete per Sgconlaw. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 02:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

apple turnover

SOP imo: compare cherry turnover, apricot turnover, pear turnover, etc. The Dutch and German translations don't qualify for THUB. PUC – 23:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I have only come across (and eaten) apple turnovers, and I haven't heard of other types. DonnanZ (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Isotope names

The naming of nuclides is very systematic (element name + mass number, hyphenated), and there is nothing here but borderline WT:SOP mixed with encyclopedic content. The table of nuclides has over 3000 known entries; for example, the known isotopes of uranium range in mass number from 214 to 242 (cf. w:Isotopes of uranium). An entry consisting of chemical symbol + mass number is also included.

90 entries

• aluminium-27
• argon-36
• argon-38
• argon-40
• beryllium-9
• boron-10
• boron-11
• caesium-137
• calcium-40
• calcium-42
• calcium-43
• calcium-44
• calcium-45
• calcium-46
• calcium-48
• californium-252
• carbon-12
• carbon-13
• carbon-14
• chlorine-35
• chlorine-36
• chlorine-37
• chromium-52
• chromium-53
• chromium-54
• fluorine-18
• fluorine-19
• gold-197
• gold-198
• hassium-270
• helium-3
• helium-4
• hydrogen-1
• hydrogen-2
• hydrogen-3
• iodine-125
• iodine-131
• iron-54
• iron-56
• iron-57
• iron-58
• krypton-85
• lithium-6
• lithium-7
• magnesium-24
• magnesium-25
• magnesium-26
• manganese-55
• neon-20
• neon-21
• neon-22
• nitrogen-13
• nitrogen-14
• nitrogen-15
• oxygen-16
• oxygen-17
• oxygen-18
• phosphorus-31
• polonium-210
• potassium-39
• potassium-40
• potassium-42
• potassium-43
• scandium-45
• silicon-28
• silicon-29
• silicon-30
• sodium-23
• strontium-90
• sulfur-32
• sulfur-33
• sulfur-34
• sulfur-35
• sulfur-36
• tellurium-128
• tellurium-130
• thorium-228
• titanium-46
• titanium-47
• titanium-48
• titanium-49
• titanium-50
• uranium-233
• uranium-234
• uranium-235
• uranium-238
• vanadium-50
• vanadium-51
• yttrium-90
• U-235

LaundryPizza03 (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll need help tagging these. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 12:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

run

Rfd-sense: "(transitive) To achieve or perform by running or as if by running."

The horse ran a great race.

seems at best a specialization of "(transitive or intransitive) To compete in a race."

The horse will run in the Preakness next year.

I'm not ready to run a marathon.

If it is supposed to be a figurative sense, then it needs a figurative usex, and with a figurative definition not conflated with a literal one. DCDuring (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

What is probably needed is a cleanup of the entire English verb section with attention to things like the correspondence of trans/intrans labels to usage examples, placement of parentheses around objects in intransitive definitions as well as redundancy. DCDuring (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

queen bee

Rfd-sense: stem cell. Is this really such a stock metaphor that it needs its own sense? This, that and the other (talk) 07:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

neutron radiation

Obvious SOP. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep Word0000 (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete no reason for keeping given, looks SOP to me too. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

tuna salad

Wonderfool's contribution. Possible trolling. We don't care how WF makes their tuna salad.Denazz (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Apparently the mayonnaise is an essential component, making it non-SOP... This, that and the other (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Leaning keep on the grounds that a typical leafy green salad with slices of tuna added in would not meet the definition of a "tuna salad". bd2412 T 19:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Asking around, mayonnaise and celery sound like they're considered key components in tuna salads. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• Keep Purplebackpack89 14:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. It is unfortunate that it is called by tuna, giving the impression of possible SOPness, and not something else, which garden salad doesn’t since it is difficult to argue it being but a salad made from the garden. If walk into to a supermarket then it may be that there are only two kinds of generic off-brand salads: garden salad and tuna salads. There is also something peculiar about mayonnaise always being comprehended under the label. Fay Freak (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Did you know about c:Category:Salads with tuna vs c:Category:Tuna salad? I hardly agree about their categorization however and that tuna salad is “very specific”. This one is a tuna salad, or Thunfischsalat as I find standardized in the stores. Fay Freak (talk) 08:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay guys. True story, no lie: I made a great salad last night, a delicious one, truly: I put in celery, cucumber, tomatoes, rocket, tuna, sunflower oil, cider vinegar, and various herbs with which I will not bore you. I really made (and ate) that salad. Was it a "tuna salad"? According to the current tuna salad entry, no: and if that entry is correct, then a "salad that has tuna in it" is not a "tuna salad" and thus the entry should be kept as idiomatic and confusing. On the other hand, if my salad I made last night was a tuna salad, then the entry is wrong, and we should correct it, and if the corrected entry then says "any salad with tuna in it" then it fails RFD. I am doing the praxis. Equinox ◑ 08:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I just noticed that the term may have two meanings, a particular salad, directly competing with garden salad as described, and a “very specific” paste of tuna with mayonnaise and stuff, in tins, that’s why image results weird me out: Pasta Thunfisch-Salat it is written. Fay Freak (talk) 08:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the first couple pages of Google News, it seems that tuna salad is what Wonderfool has it as, and not Equinox's salad, yummy as it may be. CitationsFreak (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

See this article for more info. Word0151 (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Just to mix things up a bit: one might make a fruit salad with prickly pears, a.k.a. tunas. Do people call such a thing a "tuna salad"? Chuck Entz (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Do people really call prickly pears "tunas" outside of a dictionary? bd2412 T 16:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

occasional furniture

Apparently I prematurely archived the RFD of this term. It was resolved as far as it concerned occasional table, but not this entry. See Talk:occasional furniture. This, that and the other (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Nobody has voted delete so far, may as well keep it. DonnanZ (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

have to

I think have to [a verb] can be more accurately described as have [infinitive verb] and all senses should be moved to have. Cannot add the template now. A Westman talk stalk 05:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Etymologically, that may have been the case, but is it still? The fact that it is pronounced differently (at least in North America) than "have" + [to-infinitive] suggests to me that it is no longer analyzed that way by most speakers. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed - it's not at all how it's conceived by native speakers. Theknightwho (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep, a couple of three refs added. DonnanZ (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Added a couple of quotes as well. DonnanZ (talk) 10:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Keep, clearly a separate lemma in modern English. This, that and the other (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Forgot to close. A Westman talk stalk 00:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

biological parent

SOP: biological sense 3 + parent. Compare biological brother, biological uncle, biological grandparent, etc.; cf. also adoptive parent. PUC – 14:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Also biological child, biological son, and so on. But note (lemming test) that Collins has entries for most of these, e.g. biological parent, and so do Merriam–Webster and several medical dictionaries.  --Lambiam 20:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Good example of why I'm opposed to making WT:Lemmings a hard-and-fast rule and to giving an automatic pass to entries that meet the criterion. We can redirect the most common collocations to biological if necessary (or all of them, I don't care). PUC – 21:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I recall hearing "biological parent" used as a put-down by offspring who considered a parent to be distant or uncaring, even if it is the only parent (i.e. the birth parent is also the parenting parent, and there are no adoptive or step-parents involved). bd2412 T 14:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

And that’s more the tone or particular stress and possibly context that puts down, with the same denotation, not like fille meaning three different things “depending on whether you sneer in a certain way when you use it.” Fay Freak (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

biological mother

Same. PUC – 14:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

biological father

Same. PUC – 14:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete, we have good coverage without it. Also it’s wrong – did you know that one can have two biological mothers by mitochondrial replacement therapy? Only to illustrate the SOP nature. Fay Freak (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

January 2024

Veda bread

brand of bread. Fond of sanddunes (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Don’t see a different, more generic definition, either. Fay Freak (talk) 08:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Keep Word0151 (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Word0151 Your rationale? Equinox ◑ 06:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment - I suspect this has lexicalised beyond the brand, as I can see websites with recipes (including the BBC): e.g. [29], [30], [31]. Theknightwho (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Theknightwho: That I specifically considered, it as with any kind of brand on recipe sites. Your BBC example is naught as people when learning or having learnt and exerting themselves to cook or bake attempt to imitate industrial products. Say how to make Bounty or Knoppers at home. I admit I haven’t followed the brand criteria exactly to explain why we should or should not have Twix, which we have. But in the present form, with bread added and SOP definition and no suggestives cites I do not respect the entry.

I see another problem here, we would create entries for popular fashion items that have trended strongly enough to beget reps, like Off-White belt, Gucci loafers, big red boot, shark hoodie, which naturally in most real-world examples, counting those in Asia too at least, are fake—genericized? Be it that at the same time many of these items deserve encyclopedia entries, even if I think more specific wikis are better suited to catch the heat. Fay Freak (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

It obviously has nothing to do with Veda, the brand name appears to be coincidental. DonnanZ (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Keep, I think. It may be a brand, but different bakeries also have their own name on the wrapper. Expatriates from Northern Ireland can buy it online. I'm obviously missing something here in Middlesex. DonnanZ (talk) 11:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Delete unless it meets WT:BRAND. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

It should meet WT:BRAND in Northern Ireland at least, so it could be localised, not universal. Some quotes are needed, something for someone who specialises in digging on the Internet to do. I did find references to "some Veda bread" and "a loaf of Veda bread". DonnanZ (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

This page has many occurrences of veda with a lower-case v (“I remember growing up on veda, toasted with cheese”; “have to wait till I go back home to get my veda”; “Someone sent me a recipe for a wee malt loaf but nowhere near like veda.”)  --Lambiam 12:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Some people are lazy with capital letters, "Veda" and "Veda bread" can also be found in that link. DonnanZ (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

morel

Rfd-redundant: "Any of several edible mushrooms", versus the taxonomically-specific second sense. Tagged by DCDuring but not listed. This, that and the other (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Definitely redundant: "the common morel or yellow morel" is Morchella esculenta. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I have added a sense to morel#Etymology 2 to include plants of general Solanum, Atropa, and Aralia. It is probably "archaic", if not obsolete, still occurring in dictionaries, usually in compounds (great morel and petit morel).

I don't think there are genera of mushrooms called morels other than the true morels of genus Morchella. I have yet to find recent instances of the sometimes toxic false morels of genus Gyromitra being called morels, except in the collocation "collected as morels", probably an example of the role of evolution in language. DCDuring (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Delete/combine. Fay Freak (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

number homophone

Sum of parts. It was added to the WT:REE request list, and uhh let's say that a recent user has been loudly begging for creations lately; thus it got created. But it is really nothing more than number + homophone. Equinox ◑ 06:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Christmassed out, Christmassed-out

A Wonderfool entry, ostensibly an adjective. However, as noted at Wiktionary:Tea_room#Problem_with_Christmas_verb_(word_of_the_day_for_25th!), this is SOP with a common and productive sense of out. The Christmas part seems to be a verb ≈"to subject to Christmas"(?), because you can also be Christmassed to death (rather than out), if things happen which google:Christmas you to death, and equally you can be meetinged to death if people google:"meeting you to death", or you can be google books:meetinged into apathy, turkeyed out, turkeyed to death, etc. - -sche (discuss) 17:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd like an entry for turkeyed out... I have an awesome pun waiting for thatDenazz (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

To go with chickened out? DonnanZ (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Not quite as funny as thaat Denazz (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as SoP. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 17:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

two-move checkmate

SoP. The fact that it's one specific mate is not part of the definition - if a chess variant had a different mating position reachable in two moves you would call it a "two-move checkmate" as well. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between any old two-move checkmate (indefinite article) and the two-move checkmate. PUC – 20:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Not seeing that - if there's only one position in the entire game that is a two-move checkmate then it becomes the two-move checkmate. That still means no more than two-move checkmate IMO. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

pronoun

Rfd-sense "(LGBT, chiefly in the plural) Any of the pronouns by which a person prefers to be described, typically reflecting gender identity", with the usex "My pronouns are she/her" and cites like "students I interviewed used nonbinary pronouns for themselves". This seems to just be sense 1; you can construct analogous sentences using "name": "My name is River", "some non-binary people use gendered names", etc, but it doesn't mean "name" has a new sense "The name by which a person prefers to be described, typically reflecting gender identity".
On the talk page, Equinox notes that '"My pronouns" means "the ones I want others to use about me" and not (say) "ones I have coined" or "ones that I use to describe other people"', but the same can be said of name: "My name" usually means "the one I want others to use for me" and not "the one I invented" or "the one I use to describe someone else", except in the same specific contexts in which pronoun could also mean those things. - -sche (discuss) 21:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Somebody might say "I don't have pronouns" or "I don't need pronouns", meaning the LGBT thing, and not the traditional kind. Equinox ◑ 00:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

This is true, but IMO if we want a sense to cover things like "I don't use pronouns!", it needs different cites, because IMO the current cites ("my pronouns are she/her" etc) are sense 1.
I'm also unsure about considering "I don't use pronouns!"-type use to make a different sense, because such people also say things like "I don't have a gender, I'm a woman", and (especially a decade or two ago) "I don't have an orientation, I'm straight/normal", or think of other people but not themselves as having race, or think they don't have an accent, which seems to me like a grey area between lexical and extralexical. OTOH I concede that we do seem to cover such use of accent as a separate sense, and there may indeed be enough otherwise-perplexing uses to support a "transgender gender(s)" sense at gender (e.g. the surprisingly common phrase "women and the gender community", which otherwise makes piss-all sense), and to support a "nonwhite race(s)" sense at race and racial (as in race music, racial spoils), so meh. I'm not strongly opposed to having a sense like this... I just think it sure seems an awful lot like just sense 1. - -sche (discuss) 22:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure about entirely deleting the sense, but I don't like the label of "LGBT" on it. It makes it sound like it's solely LGBT folks that use them, when it's far from not. I'm not sure how to rephrase the labeling though. MW currently has "the third person personal pronouns (such as he/him, she/her, and they/them) that a person goes by", which we might want to emulate in our own definition. AG202 (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Support the proposed removal of the LGBT label. Cremastra (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

It should have some kind of label. It's overwhelmingly used by LGBT folx and not so much by others. Equinox ◑ 04:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I've heard this terms before in uses like "The Bible doesn't use pronouns, liberal snowflakes!", so it feels weird calling it an LGBTQIA2S+ thing. Maybe it's a different usage, who knows? CitationsFreak (talk) 04:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't really feel like any label is needed? Maybe "originally LGBT", but even that is pushing it, and I can't verify it. And again, it's not an LGBT-only thing, I've seen many many many folks outside of the community use it. We can just follow MW. AG202 (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I just removed the label. Kept the cat though, as it feels right in this context. CitationsFreak (talk) 06:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Citations:hump someone's brains out

There are plenty of cites (google books:"hump her brains out"), so we could create the entry, but isn't this SOP? Besides "fucking someone's brains out" you can also google books:"kiss her brains out", google books:"punch his brains out", google books:"screw my brains out" (google books:"frakked your brains out"), etc. Is the idiomatic component "someone's brains out"?? - -sche (discuss) 00:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• If there is no entry, leave it that way (like sleeping dogs), whether it's SoP or not. I don't see the need for fuck someone's brains out either. DonnanZ (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

someone's brains out looks weird on its own, not sure if it's lemma-able. Jberkel 08:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I thought the same. DonnanZ (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

We do have an entry for someone's arse off so it wouldn't be unprecedented. Einstein2 (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I suggest to move this to/create this at someone’s brains out therefore. I have similar thoughts about terms relating to excessive alcohol consumption. Imagine in Russian there are more of such terms: So you are not only пья́ный (pʹjányj, “drunk”) but пья́ный в драбада́н (pʹjányj v drabadán), with a variant of дребеде́нь (drebedénʹ) not occurring elsewhere, and in the same context one uses вдрызг (vdryzg) and many more exclusively. Russian Wiktionary did not know where to put it, hence they have it at ru:Викисловарь:Инкубатор/драбадан, the first time I see a Wiktionary page in the incubator. With the second you see common German translations containing morphemes not used in other contexts than for expressing that someone is “plastered, hammered”. There are similar intensifiers for words meaning = gleichgültig, egal, as with schnurz and piepe; in the formal this does not work, one needs to intensify with normal words like ganz gleichgültig, gar gleichgültig. Here you see we are dealing with adverbs, @-sche: I fucked her brains out = I fucked her very much = I have done her thoroughly etc. Fay Freak (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree, we have beat someone’s brains out already and a few entries ending someone's socks off and someone's lights out without entries for those phrases themselves though, so we're a bit inconsistent. The only form of the phrase X someone's block off we have is knock someone's block off but then I can't think of any verbs that are widely used to replace 'knock' in that context, so that one is probably alright as it is. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Citations:peanut butter and jelly sandwich

Like #Citations:hump someone's brains out: this is trivially attested, but I am reluctant to create the entry because isn't it SOP, just peanut butter and jelly (“peanut butter and jelly that is spread on bread to make a sandwich”) + sandwich? In which case, we don't need the cites page... - -sche (discuss) 20:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Then just move the quote to peanut butter and jelly and be done with it… Jberkel 22:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

That's probably the best treatment; but that combination sounds ghastly... DonnanZ (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Donnanz: What about barbecue cottage cheese salad? PUC – 11:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's gone. This one hasn't. DonnanZ (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Donnanz: I'm not talking about the entries or the words, but about their referents. Would you prefer eating a peanut butter and jelly sammich or a barbecue cottage cheese salad? PUC – 19:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Neither. Anyway, I hadn't heard of a sammich, and I don't have a great love for salads. DonnanZ (talk) 10:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Merge. Surely any citation for "peanut butter and jelly sandwich" is also a citation for "peanut butter and jelly", which has its own Citations:peanut butter and jelly page. Merge and redirect this there. Redirect peanut butter and jelly sandwich to peanut butter and jelly, also. bd2412 T 00:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

freak

Senses 2 and 3: "A hippie" and "a drug addict".

These types of people would have been seen as "freaks" (as in "an oddball") in 1969. As such, this is a dupe of sense 4. CitationsFreak (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Would labelling them "dated" do the trick? DonnanZ (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

No, as they would have been seen as "freaks" (as in oddballs) in 1969. (The OED lists this term as being coined in 1890, and these two groups were seen as the counterculture in the late '60s.)

However, the same source does list the hippie sense as its own thing. So, mayyybe it fits in? Feels a bit iffy to say that, since it is based on the same usage as "freak" as our sense 4, and any reclamation would be the same as reclamation of any insult. CitationsFreak (talk) 05:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

• I would put "hippie" and "drug addict" as subsenses under sense 4, or perhaps combined into one subsense, possibly with a label such as "now largely historical", or explicit mention of the 1960s, if it's considered that these senses are largely confined to the 1960s or references to the 1960s. Shocking to think of the 1960s as "historical"! Mihia (talk)

Perhaps "especially in reference to 1960s counterculture" would be an appropriate label. Mihia (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Citations:sugar-tongs

Citeable, but before I create the entry I want to check: is it SOP? Sugar-tongs or sugar tongs are tongs you use to pick up sugar cubes. - -sche (discuss) 21:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

• Don't create: seems SoP to me. Add as a collocation to tongs instead. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
• Create sugar tongs, it aroused my curiosity. There is a Wikipedia article, by the way. DonnanZ (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
• Create, there is no danger of proliferation, this is listed in inventories and people want to know about it and its translations. German Zuckerzange will have to be created in either case. Fay Freak (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Kept the Citations page. Whether to make entry is another matter Denazz (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  sugar nips may be the same... Denazz (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

aerophobia

Rfd-sense: (rare, by extension or possibly from acrophobia) Fear of heights

This might be just a typo. It's wrong anyway. --Hekaheka (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

hobosexual

Sense 2, defined as "Punning on bum (as a synonym of hobo).". That is not a real definition. The three citations do not appear to have the same meaning. Equinox ◑ 12:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

As far as I have encountered this word, it means a person only engaging in relations with a sexual element in order to avoid homelessness. Which for the first quote “a man who can only get excited by women who are real tramps” could mean that you yourself have to be kind of a tramp to accept such a boyfriend, otherwise too unorderly (sense 3) to care for himself; as with most sexualities the term is then used for the other party too, as by its formation the term implies to contain what one is attracted to. The definitions are unchanged since 2011’s creation by Doremítzwr, about whose reliability I have no information. Fay Freak (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding sense 1: that also seems to be a pun (on "tramp" meaning a slutty woman) and does not refer to "tramp" in the hobo sense. Equinox ◑ 12:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Also. Where we see again that one can employ a word in multiple of its assumed meanings simultaneously. But only by the peripheral understanding of it that serial monogamy is promiscuity, assuming our definition of tramp correct.

The psychological reality can of course be personality traits of a woman to make her inclined to any described livelihoods but various internalized expectations prevent her. For example if someone is borderliner (almost 2 % of the general population) they seek attachment to other people fast while simultaneously disengaging up to the point of homelessness due to self-devaluation. Or if someone has dependent personality disorder (almost 1 %, especially in women) after a breakup they will enter the next nightclub and anyone hooking up will be the boyfriend henceforth—which should sound ridiculous to sound people; people generally have a vague idea of the prevalent determination of life by irrational behaviours. But punning is of course no clear concept yet and thus the creator likely implemented more ideas in his definitions than users of the word could know or imply about psychological or behavorial reality. Fay Freak (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

👍 Word0151 (talk) 08:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

smoke-free zone

SOP SpAway (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Does it mean the same thing as non-smoking area? Or is it just a zone where there's no smoke? PUC – 20:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The current definition is An area or environment which is smoke-free., which is obvious SOP. Delete now, and if it can be proven to have a more specific non-SOP meaning it can be recreated. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

digital signal processing

The processing of digital signals. I suspect this is not the only SOP derived term at processing. This, that and the other (talk) 06:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

alt.

Prefix: "Indicates that the following string is a newsgroup." This is a total misunderstanding. 1. It's not an English prefix but a fragment like biz or www in domains. 2. The dot is a separator, so alt.suicide.holiday is not a prefix alt. on top of suicide.holiday, but rather the three components alt, suicide, holiday all separated by dots. 3. It doesn't mean "newsgroup in general" but a specific hierarchy (alternative groups), as opposed to (say) comp for computing groups and rec for recreation/hobbies. All of those are newsgroups; alt is just one subhierarchy of newsgroups; so the etymology is wrong too. Equinox ◑ 11:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@CitationsFreak. Equinox ◑ 11:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Equinox. What I was referring to when I wrote that was uses of the separator to refer to fictitious newsgroups. As such "alt.suicide.holiday" would not fall under what the definition was intended to cover, but "post this on alt.stupid.questions!" would. CitationsFreak (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Understandable misapprehension by Equinox based on the old definition, but as it stands, it seems worth keeping. Similar to TM or .com [32], neither of which we seem to have. This, that and the other (talk) 07:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Keep per the above. It seems similar to how we have UK plc and Singapore Inc due to the fact that countries aren't literally limited or incorporated companies. Perhaps we could try to generalise this phenomenon at PLC/plc and Inc/inc? I've seen Warwick PLC used to refer to the University of Warwick, for example. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

telegraph uniform

Like hump someone's brains out above: spotted this in Category:English citations of undefined terms, and it's possible to find more cites, but isn't this SOP, the uniform of one who delivers/operates telegraphs, like a google books:"grocery uniform", google books:"nursing uniform", google books:"Amazon uniform"? The fact that you need extra-lexical cultural/historical knowledge to know what items of clothing are part of any "telegraph uniform" or "nursing uniform" or "lieutenant's uniform" etc in a given time and place seems, well, extra-lexical. What am I missing? - -sche (discuss) 23:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I can understand the lack of will to create telegraph uniform, the term is so 19th century. There are very few derived terms listed at uniform (tango uniform doesn't count). On the other hand, there are plenty of derived terms for telegraph, many are red links, but this one never occurred to anybody. The best I can suggest is adding the two citations/quotations to both telegraph and uniform. DonnanZ (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

-faction

We've had this entry since 2005, but I dispute that it is really an English suffix.

Consider the list of derived terms. None of the stems to which -faction is added are English words:

‎*lique + ‎-faction → ‎liquefaction

‎*putre + ‎-faction → ‎putrefaction

‎*tume + ‎-faction → ‎tumefaction

I suppose you could make an argument that it overrides an -id suffix:

‎liquid + ‎-faction → ‎liquefaction

‎putrid + ‎-faction → ‎putrefaction

‎tumid + ‎-faction → ‎tumefaction

But the morphological process took place in Latin, not English.

Also counting in favour of deletion is the fact that Cat:English terms suffixed with -faction is empty, meaning that no-one has found it necessary to write {{af|en|...|-faction}} in an etymology. This, that and the other (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems like a relic of the days when we had English entries for this kind of thing just to collect in one place the reflexes of the cases where it was applied in Latin (we used to have sug- as an English prefix, ostensibly used in suggest). If there are not instances of it being applied in English, then delete. - -sche (discuss) 06:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

You're right in saying it's not a suffix. The Oxford Dictionary of English calls it a combining form, from Latin factio, in nouns of action derived from verbs ending in -fy (such as liquefaction from liquefy). I think it's keepable somehow. DonnanZ (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

So we could add the likes of "equivalent to {{af|en|liquefy|-faction}} to liquefaction, to populate the empty category. DonnanZ (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out the suffixes -ification, -fication, -ication, and -isation/-ization; all probably derive from -ation. With -fy verbs electrify becomes electrification as a noun, so the use of -faction is by no means universal for -fy verbs. DonnanZ (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Having through about this some more, it seems that the ending -efy consistently gives rise to -efaction rather than *-efication:

‎liquefy + ‎-faction → ‎liquefaction

‎putrefy + ‎-faction → ‎putrefaction

‎tumefy + ‎-faction → ‎tumefaction

But my point still stands about this being a grammatical process in Latin, not English. In support of this argument are new formations in -efy:

‎genrefy + ‎-faction → ‎*genrefaction (rather genrefication)

‎zombiefy + ‎-faction → ‎*zombiefaction (rather zombiefication)

This, that and the other (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Don't we already have entries for affixes (or affix variants) that are (at least mostly) only found in loanwords listed as non-productive? I don't see how this is any different from those. 2601:242:4100:22C0:FDAB:807C:167A:56D 18:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Strong keep, on the basis of English terms such as aerifaction, sonifaction, solifaction, etc. which don't exist in Latin Ioaxxere (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

heliocentric orbit

hadeocentric orbit

Claimed as THUBs, but all translations are word-for-word, either directly ("heliocentric" + "orbit") or indirectly ("heliocentric" = "with Sun at the center, around the Sun" + "orbit"). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Delete all, SOP. PUC – 20:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Delete all. Ultimateria (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Mirinda

a brand of fruit-flavored soft drink

Fails WT:BRAND. Theknightwho (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

In English yes, in Spanish and Portuguese meseems not. Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

bank loan

This is SOP. — This unsigned comment was added by Kiwima (talk • contribs) at 03:55, 11 February 2024.

Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ioaxxere (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• I bet bankloan is attestable (I'm not the sucker who's gonna create it...) P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

animal

Rfd-sense adjective: Of or relating to animals.

This seems like a very straightforward attributive use. Theknightwho (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Keep per the etymology, which also accords with older usage I've seen. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Keep per the OED, quotations (e.g., “both animal and vegetal remains”; “a form either wholly or partially animal. […] (who never has human form)”), and derived terms (e.g., semianimal (“half or partly animal”); cf. semihuman). J3133 (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Theknightwho: I am not sure if you looked in the OED adjective entry; if not, do you still propose this deletion? J3133 (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@J3133 That still seems attributive to me (despite the use of vegetal), but I don't mind if we keep it. The etymology argument is probably more convincing, under WT:JIFFY. Theknightwho (talk) 12:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Theknightwho: I do not see how “wholly or partially animal” or “half or partly animal” is attributive, because it does not “modif[y] another noun attributively”. J3133 (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@J3133 That just seems like a noun use: "a form either wholly or partially man" sounds odd but not ungrammatical. Theknightwho (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Theknightwho: I have added two more quotations: “I’m no longer human or animal or vegetal” and “though undoubtedly human, it was very animal in its instincts and ways”. The former uses three adjectives; the latter, with a modifier, clearly shows that this is an adjective. J3133 (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@J3133 I find the second quotation more convincing, but sure - this does seem to be an adjective in some uses. Theknightwho (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

persulphocyanic

Only used in persulphocyanic acid? Vilipender (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

It looks like it, but it's not a good enough reason for deletion. DonnanZ (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I would probably delete, if not found in other phrases. Similarly we don't have an entry for "dabba" purely because of "yabba dabba doo". Equinox ◑ 20:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

If true, convert to {{only in}}. I think that's the appropriate course of action for acid names. This, that and the other (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Keep and use {{only in}}. Ioaxxere (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

time perception

SOP. PUC – 23:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Delete, a redundant circumscription without concept. An actual term is autonoesis. Fay Freak (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Why delete when there is a Wikipedia article with the exact title? newfiles (talk) 05:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

There's also a Wikipedia article with the title "List of cities in Australia by population"... Chuck Entz (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It has been altered to a synonym, so is there some rule which says that we delete synonyms? DonnanZ (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes: WT:SOP PUC – 11:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

If it had been treated as a synonym in the first place, perhaps you would have left it alone. DonnanZ (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment - I suspect some uses of this might pass WT:PRIOR, given it's something that's frequently studied. Theknightwho (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Keep. It serves as a useful and convenient synonym and has a wide coverage in the world of philosophy. newfiles (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

global caliphate

Seems SoP: merely a caliphate spanning the globe. Equinox ◑ 12:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as SoP. Fay Freak (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not so sure. "Caliphate" simply means a state led by a caliph; if this were sum-of-parts, it would simply mean a caliphate encompassing the entire world. However, I believe the phrase is used to refer to a specific version of an Islamic theocracy, in which a particular version of Islamic law would be imposed on everyone. This would be more strict than the historical states that called themselves caliphates, and in fact while the title of caliph implies that one is the successor of Mohammed, it doesn't necessarily require theocratic rule, much less the specific vision of a particular, contemporary extremist movement. After all, the Ottoman sultans claimed the title for several centuries, and didn't operate as a strict theocracy! This seems to me to be more along the lines of "New World Order", which doesn't mean just "any global order that happens to be new", but which has specific social or cultural meaning that can't be intuited from the words alone. P Aculeius (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  "American caliphate" exists, meaning something along the lines of "America, but with Sharia law". I suspect that we're missing a def at caliphate. CitationsFreak (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

boo

This is my first nomination, so I hope I'm doing this right! Sense 2: "Used ironically in a situation where one had the opportunity to scare someone by speaking suddenly." I don't understand how this is a definition of "boo". Do words normally have distinct definitions when used ironically? I'm also having trouble visualizing this use, which seems rather nonsensical to me. Maybe I could just have deleted this as obvious nonsense, but I wasn't sure that would have been appropriate, and I thought I'd better seek feedback first. Also, and I don't know whether this should (or needs to be) discussed here or in a separate nomination, but I'm not sure that sense 1 needs the words "especially a child". Perhaps children are more likely to shout, "boo!" or be shouted "boo!" at than adults, but I'm not sure that this has anything to do with the definition of the word. And could I just have "been bold" and deleted one or both of these things? Most of my contributions on Wiktionary have been new definitions, rewording, or comments on talk pages, so I'm a little unsure of myself. P Aculeius (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes. “to scare someone by speaking suddenly” seems oddly specific. And every kind of child-directed speech can be used ironically. So this definition in question is at least superfluous in combination with the other questionable definition, the claim of the target of scaring being a child, so something must be deleted.

To get the real picture, scaring is not to be taken literal anyway. In affective neuroscience after Panksepp we assume rough-and-tumble Play as a basic emotional system positive in contrast to Fear, and by saying boo one targets the former primary-process system in order to train or maintain social interaction as a function of the age, i.e. booing is always “ironical”, so one should combine definitions with the line that the interjection is used to playfully introduce a sudden scare. The definition in the words “loud exclamation intended to scare” took itself way too serious. Fay Freak (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree with that last point. Shouting "boo!" when one jumps out at someone isn't necessarily ironic. A bit camp, perhaps, but that's only because our notion of what's scary—for adults—has changed, likely due to familiarity with horror movies and similar tropes. I don't think that playfulness or social interaction theory form any part of the definition of "boo". The definition is what it means, not what interpersonal dynamics might justify its use. "A loud exclamation intended to scare" is at least simple, straightforward, and accurate, whether or not grown-ups regard it as childish compared with a jump scare by an axe-wielding maniac. P Aculeius (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I have witnessed this. For example, someone is (apparently) alone in a room, and you draw attention to your presence by (quietly saying, not shouting) "boo". It's humorous. Equinox ◑ 11:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it can't be used ironically or humorously. I'm asking whether that constitutes a separate definition of it. It seems to be "the same meaning, but used ironically". Is it normal to have a separate definition for anything that can be said ironically or humorously? Perhaps the visualization issue is due to the wording: in your example, the presence of the person saying "boo" is either known, but unannounced until the person speaks, in which case there was no "opportunity to scare someone"; or the person's presence was not known, in which case quietly saying "boo" will still scare (or at least startle) someone, and therefore not be ironic. But either way, I don't think that ironic use of a word or phrase constitutes a separate definition. Is it normally treated as one in Wiktionary, or is there something special about this word? P Aculeius (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

With no further feedback, I've gone ahead and deleted the second sense, and done a little trimming of the other two, as indicated above, and also deleting the words "or many members" as an alternative to "a member" in sense 3; I think readers will assume that what one person in a crowd can do, several can also do. Also slight rewording of the first: it seems a little extreme to refer to someone frightened by a concealed person shouting "boo" as a "victim". P Aculeius (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

will to power, will-to-power

should not exist Word0151 (talk) 04:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Word0151: Why? You are challenging a well-known and famous philosophical term. You must provide an excellent reason. Equinox ◑ 04:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

will to power is an SOP actually, just like will to truth, will to stupidity. Nietzsche used this 'will to' in a similar manner as other "will to"s. Do we create the entry- will to truth to show what truth means to Nietzsche?
What is good?—Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself, in man. -Nietzsche. What power means here, why create an entry for? Word0151 (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Strong keep and yes, create the others. This term isn't SOP because it doesn't make sense in English. It's a calque of a German expression, which may well have been SOP in the original context, but certainly doesn't retain it's SOPness in English, where the grammatical structure is quite opaque. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Why does it not make sense in English?
To be succinct, will to power just means will to power. All other contemplations, what power means etc., are of no dictionary value, and doesn't add much. Word0151 (talk) 06:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

If I want to go shopping, that isn't "will to shopping" in English. This phrase is special. Equinox ◑ 06:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

=> Do you mean that since the phrase "will to" is not used colloquially, we should include it? Not an impressive refutation.
=> The phrase is special for sure and has a connotation, but what is its value here? Look at the superficial definitions given there, do they make sense. I have tried changing them. keep if my edit is not reverted 🦇 Word0151 (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot of shallow idiosyncrasies in philosophy whose presence in any lexicon one may be uneasy about (language game), yet this has caught on enough to require explanation and hence a dictionary entry, though our explanation will stay imperfect. Fay Freak (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not the sum of its parts, because you can't determine the meaning from the words alone. I know what each of those words means, but not what they mean together. Does it mean "the will to obtain power"? "Will that becomes power"? "The will to use power"? You can't tell what this phrase means simply by understanding the individual words—unlike, say, "go over there" or "five fat turkeys". Those are the sum of their parts. Without a definition, and perhaps the quote in context, nobody would know what "will to power" means, which is why it needs an entry in Wiktionary. P Aculeius (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Keep per all of the above. PUC – 19:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I was about to close as keep, but I noticed the nominator drastically changed the definition. I am tempted to just revert the change, but I know nothing of this kind of philosophy so was hoping for a second look. This, that and the other (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@PUC If you don't know what i did, why revert? I can give you reasoning for my edit though: the earlier definitions were really absurd with irrelevant expositions, i used the one which is in many dictionaries and also in the book Antichrist by Nietzsche himself. The definitions should be simple and in a fundamental manner without some opinion pieces. Word0151 (talk) 12:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Magnificat and Nunc dimittis

SOP. Both the terms Magnificat and Nunc dimittis can refer to the canticle itself or to a musical setting of the canticle. While musical settings of the two canticles are frequently published together, as they are performed together in Anglican evensong (or evening prayer) liturgies, that fact doesn't give the term any meaning beyond its component parts. Graham11 (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - this refers to a specific musical setting with two parts, in the same way mass refers to a specific setting in a musical context. What distinguishes it is that they're written as one unit: you can't take a Magnificat from one setting and a Nunc dimittis from another and call them a "Magnificat and Nunc dimittis" with the meaning of "a musical setting of the Magnificat and Nunc dimittis". Theknightwho (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

racial segregation

SOP. PUC – 13:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Keep as thub. Jberkel 09:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Keep. DonnanZ (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Donnanz: But which translations? PUC – 10:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Delete, no translations seem to qualify for THUB. This, that and the other (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

diriment impediment

SOP? Denazz (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Only if we agree that diriment is an adjective. Doesn't sound like one. Merriam-Webster has an entry for "diriment impediment" but no entry for "diriment" alone. Equinox ◑ 15:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I think diriment would pass RFV as an adjective per se. I found some uses of it in a predicative position: "this affinity is 'diriment' of marriage" and "The impediment is diriment only if...". This, that and the other (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it depends on whether "diriment impediment" or "diriment" existed first. If the adjective "diriment" is derived from the expression "diriment impediment", then "diriment impediment" should be kept per WT:JIFFY, isn't it? --Saviourofthe (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

polynomial time

Rfd-sense: adjective. Seems just to exist to house the translations Denazz (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

True. The occurrences in question are parts of compounds like the German translation given. So delete. The translation table can be moved to the noun section, for even though we voted to delete attributive-form sections, we did not take the same decision specifically for their translation sections. Some people in the vote opposed (6.: Ketiga123 only formulated it) deletion of the hyphenated-form entries for the translations’ sake. Fay Freak (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ioaxxere (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

gourmet pizza

"(Australia) A pizza with a non-traditional topping of gourmet ingredients." By no means specific to Australia (there was or is a "Gourmet Pizza Company" restaurant chain in Britain, along with a "Gourmet Burger Kitchen"). I doubt that the gourmet-ness has to be restricted to the toppings, either. Just seems SoP. Any food can be made "gourmet". A sandwich! Equinox ◑ 05:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree with your reasoning: any food be called "gourmet" based on its ingredients or manner of preparation. P Aculeius (talk) 05:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Delete. I've eaten at pizza restaurants in Australia that offer a more expensive "gourmet" section of the menu, which often includes pizzas with toppings not traditionally found on pizzas (such as salmon or satay sauce). But some of the gourmet pizzas are just gourmet versions of traditional pizzas. The term is still SOP notwithstanding all this. This, that and the other (talk) 00:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Delete as per above. SoP. As a side note, when my wife and I returned to Australia after a long absence, we noted how common the term gourmet had become. --Dmol (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• RFD-failed Denazz (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

disease-modifying drug

SOP: disease-modifying + drug. Einstein2 (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Delete as we have disease-modifying as a single entry. Examples with "drug" can be added there. Equinox ◑ 01:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Delete Ioaxxere (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Delete per Equinox. PUC – 19:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

come to a halt

A halt is a cessation of movement or other activity, so this seems like a sum-of-parts entry. The definition is “come to a standstill,” and standstill provides halt as synonymous. Furthermore, all variations of come/bring/grind/screech to a halt/stop/standstill are used, and they all mean the thing they're expected to mean (grind here in the sense of “to move with much difficulty or friction”). Hythonia (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Delete. This is certainly a common collocation, but so are "come to a stop" and "make a halt". Equinox ◑ 03:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 06:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

takes (something) to

In this form, we probs don't want it. Other cases including placeholder "something" can be found at Wiktionary:Todo/phrases not linked to from components/something. Denazz (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

If we're going to delete it we should also delete taking (something) to, took (something) to, and taken (something) to, no? Vergencescattered (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, part of me supports having "something"s used as placeholders to be in parentheses, as in "drink (something) like lemonade" or "spring to (someone's) defense". CitationsFreak (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

th sound

I feel like allowing this might encourage useless entries like r sound and whatever. —(((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 08:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Romanophile: dental fricative is SOP too. I wondered whether it could be a defence, but either entry should be deleted.

The encouragement is limited by the capabilities of the vocal tract, to which alphabetic writing systems and hence actually used terminology are limited, so one could keep the terms in consideration of incoming search traffic; is their presence good for children learning phonetics? Ach-Laut is actually used German and another dictionary has ch-Laut which illustrates how encyclopedic the definition is: if it is both ⟨ç⟩ and ⟨χ⟩ it is on two distinct articulation places, palatal and uvular: there isn’t any definition other than “what, i.e. the phoneme or quasi-phoneme (according to functional load), the graphic sequence typically stands for (in the language we talk), because man doesn’t know language-independent phonetic terminology”.

So you are right that the analogy is strong. It is not really reasonable to assume idiomaticity for one such combination, like th sound, only because it more often makes sense than crazier Verlegenheitswörter. One should consider that not everything that language users answer in a questionnaire is a valid designation; elicited terms should have to be separated as invalid vocabulary, to some degree. Fay Freak (talk) 04:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

"th" can have different sounds - ð and θ in the IPA. DonnanZ (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

-tive

this doesn't seem to meet criteria for inclusion 2601:242:4100:22C0:AD:D9D8:8F5E:4926 17:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• More discussion needed. On the surface, it appears that -tive along with -ative, -itive, -utive etc. are just specific types of the -ive suffix. Useful for statistics or other language analyses, e.g. Category:"words ending in 'utive'", but I'm not sure a definition for each is necessary. Facts707 (talk) 07:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• I'm baffled by Category:English terms suffixed with -tive - it only contains innovative, which is surely innovate + -ive. If someone can think of an example of this being productive (which as we all know is produc + -tive) I'd say keep, but as it stands, Delete. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • (-ative is different, in that it sometimes suffixes to terms that don't have an -ate ending. go-aheadative or babblative for instance) Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
    • A complete list of English lemmas ending in -tive can be found here. It's a lot to go through, but I have yet to find one that isn't from []t + -ive or the equivalent in Old French or Latin (except the -ative ones you mentioned, and some possible candidates for a -itive ending, such as behabitive). Chuck Entz (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

mutual aid

This phrase has not four senses. It has a single SOP sense but is used in a variety of contexts. PUC – 23:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Can also describe military pacts, etc. Just means "helping each other" without more context. Facts707 (talk) 07:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

blue ribbon jury

SOP: compare blue-ribbon committee, blue-ribbon commission, blue-ribbon panel, blue-ribbon investigation. We're missing a sense at blue ribbon, however. PUC – 13:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

time gentleman please

time gentlemen please

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/time_gentleman_please

Please delete. The correct orthography is https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/time_gentlemen_please newfiles (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

This seems like SOP, either way. See the Interjection section at English time. I would say the rest of the phrase is just there to be polite. Not that I know a lot about bars and pubs... Chuck Entz (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

They are the same entry, not two. In any case, it's a time-honoured phrase. DonnanZ (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. newfiles (talk) 05:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Delete both as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 06:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Delete time gentleman please, that's wrong. Keep time gentlemen please, as an idiomatic time-honoured phrase. DonnanZ (talk) 08:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Delete both. "Time please, gentlemen" is just as well attested, suggesting it is not a set phrase. This, that and the other (talk) 07:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Delete "time gentleman please" as it's a clear mistake: the phrase is "gentlemen". (What if there's only one customer in the pub? Haha. Still doubt it.) Equinox ◑ 07:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

RFD-deleted time gentleman please, but the jury's still out on the plural form. This, that and the other (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

through

Postposition PoS header (should be Preposition if this is not an Adverb)

From beginning to end.

The baby cried the whole night through.

The usage seems very close in meaning to the Adverb def:

To the end.

He said he would see it through.

The adverb usage example would work pretty well:

He said he would see the crying through.

The adverb usage example, as most usage examples, should probably not use the term it rather than a common noun, it often being arguably part of an idiom or otherwise changing the usage by virtue of its 'lightness'. DCDuring (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Delete [or "re-POS"] the "Postposition" section IMO, in favor of viewing this as an adverb like long in equivalent phrases: "The baby cried the whole night long." (Prior discussion: Wiktionary:Tea_room/2024/January#through,_long.) - -sche (discuss) 15:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree ... these are tricky, but on balance I think it is best to call it an adverb. Mihia (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Mr. Clean

What about this is dictionary material? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards a redef. Maybe something like "One who resembles a characteristic of Mr. Clean, such as an obsession with cleanliness or being bald"? CitationsFreak (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Keep. I’ve redeffed the term as “Someone seeking cleanliness, especially if to an excessive degree.” The earlier definition agreed with neither the PoS heading (“Noun”) nor the quotation from a Bob Dylan song and was plainly wrong.  --Lambiam 10:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Keep with Lambiam's redefinition; compare Mr. Nice Guy. Lunabunn (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

language resource

Seems SOP, although I am struggling to grasp the precise signification of the term (the WP article didn't really help). This, that and the other (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Keep as a specific technical term; see WT:PRIOR. Lunabunn (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Lunabunn what is it about this sense of language resource that is more than just a "resource pertaining to a language"? Of course, if the term is used in computational linguistics, one expects that it will refer to resources that are relevant to computational linguistics, but that doesn't necessarily give the term more meaning than the sum of its parts. This, that and the other (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

fuck shit up

entry is very SoP, and anything can be substituted, such as fuck stuff up, fuck crap up, etc., newfiles (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• If that was the case, we would have a sense for this at fuck up, which we don't. I would also like to know if there are attestations for fuck stuff up or fuck crap up having the same declarative intentional meaning (which is very different from the "fuck things up" sense of mistaken action). To the extent that variations exist (in the way that fire truck and fire engine can both exist), I would posit that "fuck shit up" is the lemma, and bowdlerizations are back-formations. bd2412 T 03:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
  • We do have a sense for this at fuck up, i.e. sense 2. Why isn't it enough? PUC – 16:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

    QED. newfiles (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

    • This is not sense 2, "To botch or make a mess of", because that implies mistake leading to an undesired and unintended consequence, and can apply on a minimal scale (e.g., if I type a document and I misspell a word, I have "fucked up" that word, not caused chaos). This phrase specifically represents an intentional effort to achieve the outcome of causing a substantial effect. It is the opposite of the typical meaning of "fuck up".
      Put more directly, if you "fucked up", you did bad; if you "fucked shit up", you did good. bd2412 T 01:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

      • Your last sentence sounds rather like a contrived distinction imo, but if intentionality is what you're after, then sense 3. "I'm gonna fuck you up" and "I'm gonna fuck your life up" and "I'm gonna fuck shit up" are the same sense, aren't they? PUC – 16:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

        • Fuck someone up requires an object of the phrase; fuck shit up, even though shit is a noun, implies generalization. bd2412 T 04:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. We might want to reword the senses at fuck up though. PUC – 16:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete, clearly SOP. Lunabunn (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: If not kept, this should be redirected to the appropriate sense of fuck up as a common collocation. bd2412 T 21:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to fuck up. It’s common enough for somebody to look it up. —(((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 06:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• See also fuck it up RFD'd P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

if you see something, say something

Not a proverb, but a very modern slogan heard for example in UK rail station announcements! Equinox ◑ 19:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

why do you feel that this oft-heard phrase should be deleted? newfiles (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Because it is not lexicalised. Delete PUC – 19:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I hear it every time I travel by train. Maybe the BTP should trademark it. DonnanZ (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Or for that matter, New York's MTA. --Slgrandson (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Or L[os] A[ngeles] Metro, along with "si ve algo, diga algo" (it sounds more like "dig'algo") Chuck Entz (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep but move to see something, say something. Clearly idiomatic, because we generally see things throughout our waking day. The phrase requires knowledge that the "something" has to be something suspicious, and the "say something" has to be a notification of an authority figure. bd2412 T 04:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't dispute that. But the phrase is like Microsoft's slogan "where do you want to go today?" The "go" is figurative, but this kind of modern-day catchy slogan for promotional purposes is not dictionary material. Equinox ◑ 04:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete per Equinox. Fay Freak (talk) 04:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Common catchphrases, like advertising slogans, which are not longstanding proverbs and are otherwise SoP and not used outside their original context shouldn’t be entries. For those reasons, I’d argue that the phrase under consideration, and I’m lovin’ it and just do it, shouldn’t be entries. Compare finger-lickin' good, which is claimed to be used outside its original KFC context. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment: How do we know that this is not used outside of its original context as a slogan? If attestation is the issue, this should be moved to RFV. Lunabunn (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Lunabunn: the phrase is currently defined in a completely SoP manner. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw It clearly isn't, unless your definition of something is limited to "suspicious activity, misconduct, corrupt dealings, or the like" and your definition of say is limited to "report[ing something] to the relevant authority." Lunabunn (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

BTW, another one they use on the trains around here is: "See it, say it, sorted". Equinox ◑ 12:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, there may be no one-size-fits-all phrase. I'll be listening next time I travel by train (probably to Norbiton). DonnanZ (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: what if we move this to see something, say something, which appears to be a common enough shortening. bd2412 T 22:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  @BD2412: isn't that still SoP? — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  Is it SOP to the specific concept of "if you see suspicious activity, you should say something to an authority figure? We don't have entries for see something or say something that specify these narrow meanings, and nothing at see or say clearly indicates any such meaning. bd2412 T 22:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. Keep. Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  Also heard: "If you see something, report it using the LA Metro Transit Watch App". Remember that this is in a very specific context: along with recital of rules regarding rider conduct and tips for not attracting attention of thieves, all introduced as safety information- and often different ways of reporting are also covered. It's very strongly implied that misconduct of fellow riders or threats to safety are what is to be reported, the fact that this is a recording played over the PA system on the bus or train suggests that the authories are involved. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep as is. A speaker unfamiliar with this phrase would have no idea what it refers to. The definition needs fixing though, as it is somewhat broader. I'll have a go. This, that and the other (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep either as is or moved, whichever is more commonly attested. "[If you] see something, say something" definitely has a connotation beyond the meaning of its constituents (as per bd2412), and I have never set foot in the UK. Lunabunn (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

How can a subset of a phrase ever be less common than the phrase itself? Every instance of "if you see something, say something" is an attestation of the component, "see something, say something". bd2412 T 19:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@BD2412 Disagree. "See something, say something" is already a complete phrase, so were what you said to be true, "if you see something, say something" would have had to mean "if you [see something suspicious and report it to the authorities]." However, it instead just means the same thing as "see something, say something," so we can see that the two phrases are rather alternate forms of each other.

If you are arguing that the shortest form of any given phrase should always be the one that gets an entry, that seems both arbitrary and inconsistent. By that logic, for instance, we must remove most entries that begin with "the" such as the night is young, the nail that sticks out gets hammered down, et cetera because surely they are also uttered sometimes without the initial article. There are many more similar examples among currently existing (and uncontroversially so, as far as I can tell) idiom entries. Lunabunn (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

(Honestly, I feel like we should, but had the actual on-page headword read "the night...", etc.) CitationsFreak (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I would argue that "see something, say something" is a complete phrase in use in a way that "night is young" without the leading "the" is just not. bd2412 T 03:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep and move to see something, say something. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Sorry, but I would honestly delete this. I just don't see that it is dictionary material. It is non-self-explanatory only in the feeblest sense that a modicum of context is needed. We might as well include any other arbitrary slogan, such as it's a lot less bovver than a hover explaining how this refers to hover mowers. Mihia (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

-t

RFD of the sense currently listed as "(African-American Vernacular, slang) An intensifier added to the end of words ending in <d>, representing a change in pronunciation from /d/ to /t/."

The thrust of my argument is that, based on Taylor Jones' article Tweets as Graffiti, -t (in my opinion, more properly <-dt>) does not carry any semantic meaning that might qualify it under the "conveying meaning" clause of our criteria for inclusion as, say, -ist does. Instead, I would say <-dt> is a reflection of a sociolinguistically marked orthographic norm that would be better recorded on a page akin to Appendix:Early Modern English spellings. Please Talk:-t#African American usage for further details of my opinion on the matter as well discussion between me and @Ioaxxere.

If the consensus is to delete, there will be down stream effects on goodt, periodt, and Category:English terms suffixed with -t (intensifier) which either need updating, rewriting, or similar deletion, with exactly which is needed up to people's opinions. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

As possible evidence to the contrary, I pointed out this quote:

• 2021 January 7, “Best Friend”‎^[33]performed by Saweetie ft. Doja Cat:

  Bitch, you look goodt, with a T at the end / I'ma hype her every time, that my mothafuckin' friend

which seems to imply that -t has some intensifying force. Ioaxxere (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, a slang suffix is a suffix still. There are other words that can be found with this addition, e.g. "stupidt", and perhaps "hott". bd2412 T 22:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  @bd2412: Your comment doesn't appear to address User:The Editor's Apprentice's argument. Ioaxxere (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

  If these were not conveying meaning, then why is there one letter consistently used for this purpose? Why doesn't periodd or periodk carry the same meaning? bd2412 T 15:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think you are right. The argument is just phonocentrist. Clearly even if theoretically not even suprasegmentals distinguish the term then we would have a bespoke meaning conveyed. Keep for consistency with our eye-dialect spellings and what not, not to say this motion is just structurally racist: boy profiles blacks as speech-oriented and making improper sounds whose representations are less deserving of inclusion because they don’t represent actual thoughts (my experience is the opposite). Fay Freak (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  Part of my argument is that <t> is not the only letter that is used towards the purpose, as Jones describes it, of indicating secondary glottalization. <k> is also used in this way in connection to words with a standard written ending of <g> (e.g. thangk, cf. thang, thing) and similarly with <b> and <p> (e.g. cribp, cf. crib). The reason these letter pairs are connected is because the phonemes they usually represent as monographs share the same place of articulation, but differ in that one is voiced and one is unvoiced. That is why the hypothetical *periodd or *periodk don't exist in the same way, those spellings don't involve a digraph of consonant letters corresponding to the same place of articulation in the way periodt does. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

If that's true, it may be closer to "shm" reduplication as in "rules, shmules". Chuck Entz (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Assuming that your note about the development within AAVE is true, one cannot deny the slang usage of "goodt" and such aren't intensifying as per loaxxere.

Thus, keep with or without the AAVE label. If the AAVE label is removed (and honestly even if it isn't), the development should be moved to the Etymology section. Lunabunn (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Which "note about the development within AAVE" are you referring too? I'm a little confused. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm on the fence. The song and other examples suggest that spelling good (etc) as goodt ("with a t on the end") has intensifying force, but they are, I suppose, noncommital as to whether -t is an affix, i.e. as to whether goodt is the result of adding a -t to good, or the result of changing d to dt (and the latter, changing d to dt to express a pronunciation feature of AAVE, seems like it may well be how this originated). Compare how (despite my own reservations) people decided to delete -k- as used in to traffic→trafficked, viewing it as a change of c to ck rather than as the insertion of a -k-. Also compare how "colour, with a u in the middle" does not, in my view, imply that -u- is a Britishizing infix. However, it would not surprise me if the singer or other speakers did think of the -t as something that was added like an affix (although a layperson might not be familiar with the word affix); it may have outgrown its origins and become an affix. - -sche (discuss) 16:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The "u" in British colour/labour/neighbour is just a spelling variation, though. No one is suggesting that "goodt" or "periodt" is a legitimate and proper spelling variation of the words. The "t" is only ever added as an intensifier. bd2412 T 21:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The evidence cited by TEA, and what else I can find when I search for the origins of these spellings (albeit that what I find is also another paper by the same scholar, Taylor Jones), is that dt is a phonetic and spelling variation. That it is from AAVE and not from a "legitimate and proper" dialect seems immaterial. lithp is not a "proper" spelling of lisp, nor sitchuation nor google books:"zese zings", but does that mean -th- is an English infix meaning "replaces s to represent a lisp", -ch is "added to indicate yod-coalescence", or z- is "indicating a French or German accent"? It would not surprise me if someone could find evidence that goodt, Lordt etc has gone beyond only being a pronunciation and spelling variation (indeed, I suspect it could have!), but it's hard to pin down. (E.g., both the goodt song by Saweetie and Doja Cat and e.g. Ocean x KungFu - Oh Lordt c. 1:25 seem to use an AAVE pronunciation of the relevant word, so it's easy to view them as just using the corresponding AAVE spelling of that pronunciation.) - -sche (discuss) 22:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that it is accurate to characterize goodt and periodt as vernacular spellings, though. I see no evidence that there is a general tendency for members of a particular group to spell the words that way in common parlance, as opposed to spelling it that way only in intensified circumstances. bd2412 T 03:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

HitlerFan1488

RFD was opened by an IP user (@Sundaydriver1?) with the initial comment:

• It's just a user-name; other user-names were used trice or more as well and thus would pass the basic WT:CFI criteria (e.g. Amouranth, Rezo).
• WT:CFI#NSE: "No individual person should be listed as a sense [some restriction]". Likely this restriction should be extended.

Lunabunn (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep as the RFD seems misguided. The entry already contains 3 quotes (and I see that more attestations aren't hard to find), meaning the entry already passes the basic CFI attestation requirement.

The term also does not refer to an individual person; it is a notional username, as already clearly stated in the definition. Lunabunn (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Not a user name, but an archetype, like Mrs. Watanabe. Equinox ◑ 16:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Compare Firstname Bunchofnumbers. Binarystep (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Move to RFV, this term seems too obscure for inclusion. Ioaxxere (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

How many attestations are needed? Are the three existing attestations not sufficient?  --Lambiam 23:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Move to RFV per Ioaxxere. lattermint (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep per Lunabunn, Equinox, and Binarystep. CJ-Moki (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to strike this myself, but I'd take a look at the contributions of this user: Special:Contributions/CJ-Moki. Especially the fact that they have fewer than 50 edits + a significant percentage of them are for... questionable entries. AG202 (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Move to RFV. There need to be more durable quotes. Reddit has not been allowed yet as a durable source per WT:CFI. The vote at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2022/September § Reddit ended in 9-9, and the quoted issues still persist. Tumblr as a source is questionable (also has not been allowed yet), and I'm definitely not for a random message board counting for CFI, whose link doesn't even lead to the comment being mentioned. At least find some Twitter quotes. CC: @Lunabunn, @Lambiam AG202 (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I’ve not kept up with the policy changes on online-only sources. Does this count?

“Like, incoming argument that sounds like a ridiculous strawman but is genuinely sincere; let's say we get a new user named HitlerFan1488 (or something less ridiculous) and the first thing they do is create a page for a Fanfic named 'The Nazis Did Nothing Wrong', and it's exactly what you imagine.”^[34]

At least, this makes it abundantly clear that the term us not “just a username” and does not refer to any individual person.

Is there something special about Twitter uses? Here is one:

“Oh yes, those noted liberals on Twitter like "HitlerFan1488" and "OvenLordCuckslayer666" just have it so hard here.”^[35]

The term is unlikely to be found in printed sources. This will increasingly be true for new terms entering the lexicon.  --Lambiam 06:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Twitter tends to count, yes. AG202 (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Kept clear consensus to keep at RfD. Article may still face an RfV Purplebackpack89 21:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

-farm and rage-

These suffixes seem to just be the terms farm and rage used in compounds. Ioaxxere (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd delete, yes. Equinox ◑ 21:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete, but I must note that the sense in question is missing from farm. It should be moved there. Lunabunn (talk) 00:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep - they cannot be used with these senses outside of compounds, and they have very specific semantic connotations. For rage- in particular, there's also the fact it's used in unhyphenated compounds like ragequit, so you may as well nominate -man if you're going down this route. Theknightwho (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete, it doesn't make sense to state that like farm is like + -farm. The hyphen is supposed to indicate that we're dealing with a bound morpheme, which farm clearly isn't. PUC – 17:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete (or move?) -farm because all the examples given are of [x] farm; even if someone adds examples unspaced compounds (foofarm), it might be more parsimonious to view those as still using the noun farm, whether in one of the currently existing senses or in a sense that needs to be added (in the same way that "doghouse" does not make us add -house).- -sche (discuss) 19:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

that day is not today

SOP. PUC – 07:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete. - -sche (discuss) 19:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Perhaps as a translation hub? Much like what do you mean and other phrases, it's a common phrase, and while most of Google's results for "that day is not today" (in quotation marks) are from LeBron James' quote from July 2023, there are plenty of results in which the phrase is used in a completely different context. I see and hear it a lot, usually in the construction, "Someday, ..., but that day is not today." I encountered a variant of it ("that day will not be today") five years back in news articles about a 23-year-old man claiming to be the missing boy Timmothy Pitzen (missing for 8 years) even though he wasn't. [36] This instance of the phrase, of course, elaborates on a "one day" from the preceding sentence. I think it's a common enough phrase that, even if this RFD closes with a decision not to keep the definition, we can at least keep a translation hub. Inner Focus (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Your entry doesn't even have a translation table right now. Do you have anything specific to provide, or is this just handwaving? PUC – 21:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I have now added the translation table. Inner Focus (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

You have, and there's nothing useful in there. PUC – 21:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete The translations also seem to be SOP. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I feel like today is not that day is far more commonly used (and a Google search seems to reflect that, taken with the usual grain of salt). bd2412 T 00:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Îdinism

Îdinist as well. The entries speak for themselves. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Send to RFV I don't see any RfD matters here. If the question is whether the term is citable, then WT:RFV is the correct venue. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Is someone’s pet protologism born in a Discord server not a convincing enough candidate for deletion? There’s nothing to verify. I should’ve nominated it for speedy deletion, now that I think of it. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. It's not clear why a word "derived from the native name of the Romanian letter î (“î din i”), combined with the suffix -ism" should describe "a movement to promote the removal of the letter ⟨â⟩". Our entry seems to be missing the important piece of information that (according to example in linked UD entry) letter 'â' would be removed "in favour of the letter 'î'", I suppose meaning that â would be replaced by î? Anyway, if this entry is kept it would be useful to clarify this point. Mihia (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Abh. Berl. Akad.

I dispute the English section. Would a cite like

• 2014, Frederick C. Beiser, The Genesis of Neo-Kantianism, 1796-1880, Oxford University Press, USA, →ISBN, page 25:

  The first role became clear with the reaction against psychologistic interpretations of Kant, which began with Hermann Cohen's Kants Theorie der Erfahrung in 1871. […] When, in 1847, Apelt and his fellow editors founded the Abhandlung der Fries'schen Schule, they declared the importance of Fries' legacy to consist in his opposition to “Schellingian Neo-Platonism” and “Hegelian scholasticism”, and in his attempt to found philosophy on the methodology of the empirical sciences.

mean Kants Theorie der Erfahrung and Abhandlung der Fries'schen Schule were now not only the German but also the English titles of those works? I think not! I do not think that citing, effectively quoting, the German abbreviated form of a title makes it English, either. - -sche (discuss) 19:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@-sche: Unfortunately, this was the solution insisted upon by 93.221.34.66. See Talk:Abh. Berl. Akad. / Talk:Abh.Berl.Akad. and Citations:Abh.Berl.Akad.. What should be done about Abh.Berl.Akad. if Abh. Berl. Akad. is deleted? 0DF (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Redirect it, if we want to keep it, or even better (now that I think about it), delete it. We don't include full work titles like Abhandlung der Fries'schen Schule. We include "ASPCA"-type abbreviations, but for things like "Am. Soc. for Pharmacology", "Am. Soc. for Exp. Path.", "Assoc. of Am. Phys.", "Soc. for Exp. Biol. and Med.", "Am. Soc. for Steel Treating", I think the proper approach is entries for the individual components, not entries like Am. Soc. for Pharmacology or Abh. Berl. Akad.. - -sche (discuss) 23:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@-sche: Doesn't the fact that Abh.Berl.Akad. is unspaced (in a language that uses spaces) mean that it warrants inclusion? Then Abh. Berl. Akad. would warrant inclusion on the basis of the coal mine test. 0DF (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Whether parts of a term are delimited by a period/full stop or by a period/full stop + a space is not as important as whether they're delimited at all- it's almost like the difference between one space and two spaces. The coal mine test seems to be more about whether something is delimited at all. I'm also not so sure it's applicable at all to abbreviations. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. With hyphens, too: something like "I'm-going-to-make-you-want-me-until-you-ask-me-home" (or shorter and more common, "let's-do-this") is technically "unspaced", but it'd never survive RFD; the hyphens clarify what the parts to look up individually are as well as spaces would. - -sche (discuss) 03:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz, -sche: Please see Citations:AbhBerlAkad for English, German, and Italian citations sans delimiting periods. FWIW, I wasn't the one who created an English entry for Abh.Berl.Akad. and having an English entry for that and/or Abh. Berl. Akad. distinct from a German entry for it/them was not my preference. We have citations of various spellings of this abbreviation in English, German, Italian, and Spanish. In how many languages must there be evidence of use for a term to be considered translingual? 0DF (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@0DF: The coalmine test applies only to English terms that are sometimes written as separate words and sometimes written as a single English word. "AbhBerlAkad" is definitely not a single English word. Even without the dots or spaces, it's still an abbreviation, and I would also contend that it's not English. It's an abbreviation of the German title of a German publication. If it were an abbreviation of something like "Papers of the Berlin Academy", that would be different. As to whether it's translingual: there are are two ways that terms can exist in the text of various languages without being part of those languages: they can be completely independant of any one language, or they can belong to a single language and be mentioned or quoted by others. H²O or Homo sapiens sapiens are translingual. They may be borrowed into a language for some senses, but for the core meaning they're not part of any one language. "Abhandlungen der Berliner Academie" is German, and remains German regardless of the surroundng text. That's the other way: mentions and verbatim quotes in the original language. If I say "We read an excerpt from Proust's À la recherche du temps perdu in French class", that doesn't make "À la recherche du temps perdu" translingual (nor is it English- even though it was mentioned in a Monty Python sketch). I'm sorry if the IP editor from Paderborn gave you a hard time- they're quite knowledgable, but they're also idiosyncratic, opinionated and stubborn. That doesn't mean we should rewrite CFI to suit them. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I share the same view as Chuck Entz expressed, and I think we all have the same conviction. Maintaining bibliographic abbreviations is not completely useless. Sometimes an abbreviation is used in a field without it being transparent for outsiders how to resolve it, so the general dictionary can help; also the encyclopedia does but they have often insurmountable relevancy criteria not tailored for mere purposes of merely understanding a denotate. But of all things in a publication, the references are the most likely not to be in the language the publication is written in. IP applied fallacious logics throughout, and attempted to achieve minority domination by sneaking them into new cognitive conflicts we were not provided against because falsehoods are innumerous, that’s how there are always some that stick: → illusory truth effect, → firehose of falsehood.

What is the point of the names of some academic series of books being translated? Like after less than ten clicks on De Gruyter I find “Koloniale und Postkoloniale Linguistik / Colonial and Postcolonial Linguistics (KPL/CPL)”? Because obviously they are in one language otherwise, whether abbreviated or not. But according to IP logics if in a reference in a German opus as well as in an English opus we have this whole string then this whole string, I linked, can have both a German and an English section, and so on for occurrences in French, Persian, Italian, and other texts. Fay Freak (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @-sche, Chuck Entz, Fay Freak: I suggest we have a German entry for Abh. Berl. Akad. with redirects to it from Abh.Berl.Akad. and AbhBerlAkad, with a usage note in that entry stating that the abbreviation is also used in other languages, in which cases the Paderborner's asserted proscription in German against spaceless abbreviations like Abh.Berl.Akad. is sometimes not observed. Would you all be happy with that resolution? It would, in my opinion, be the most accurate way of describing actual usage. 0DF (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@-sche, Chuck Entz, Fay Freak: I hope that none of you will object to my presumption in interpretting the foregoing deafening silence as a mark of your enthusiastic and unanimous assent. I have made the changes I described; now the entry looks like this. Please let me know if you are unhappy with it in its present form. 0DF (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm (still) inclined to delete this, and the German entry as well. We seem to generally not have modern book, journal, magazine, etc titles, nor their short forms; we don't have Philosopher's Stone as a common short form of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, we specifically RFD-deleted HP1 (we also deleted Liber AL vel Legis) ... and I would not, personally, consider a few people typoing or ineptly writing Philosopher'sStone to abruptly make Philosopher's Stone includable. So it's still a delete from me. Other people may reach different conclusions (as WT:NSE says, there's no overarching agreement on things like this, so it comes down to case-by-case RFDs). - -sche (discuss) 15:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@-sche: Well, in favour of keeping this, I'll say that it was quite difficult to work out what exactly this abbreviation refers to, and that I'm sure others will be puzzled by it and will want to know what it means; our entry could well save others the trouble I had. With a view to preserving that usefulness somewhere, I've spruced up the German entries for Abh., Berl., und Akad. If the entry for Abh. Berl. Akad. is indeed deleted, I'll triplicate the quotations in Citations:Abh. Berl. Akad. at Citations:Abh., Citations:Berl., and Citations:Akad. and add some to their respective entries, in the hope that this will catch searches for the various forms. The etymological note (“Strictly speaking, an abbreviation of the informal shorthand form Abhandlungen der Berliner Akademie [‘Treatises of the Berlin Academy’]. There is considerable historical variation in the way writers referred to the Academy and to its periodical.”) and usage note (“German orthography prescribes that, in an abbreviated phrase, spacing be retained between each abbreviated word and the next; that regulation is almost universally observed wherever Abh. Berl. Akad. occurs in German texts. Other languages are less observant of this rule, however, with divergent forms such as AbhBerlAkad. [Italian] and Abh.Berl.Akad. [English and Spanish] occasionally occurring.”) will be lost if Abh. Berl. Akad. is deleted, perhaps to the anonymous Paderborner's chagrin, but hell, at least I tried to accommodate his/her concerns. 0DF (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

galaxy, sense #4

This is a poorly-contrived sense/definition:

(fashion, design) Any print or pattern reminiscent of a galaxy, generally consisting of blending, semiopaque patches of vibrant color on a dark background.

With such quotes as:

• "Her walls and ceiling were covered with galaxy wallpaper; it was like stepping into space."
• "Her nerdy glasses sat perched on her face, and she wore a May the Force Be With You T-shirt with a black lace skirt, galaxy leggings, and a pair of white Star Wars Vans."
• "She hurriedly said that she found an^[sic] faded galaxy blanket. She loved galaxy patterned things."

In the quotes that are given, "galaxy-patterned" is an adjective, and in the three of "galaxy leggings", "galaxy wallpaper", and "galaxy blanket", the actual nouns (this sense/definition is under the heading of "noun") are "leggings", "wallpaper", and "blanket", "galaxy" is not functioning in any other sense or with any other definition other than #2 and #3 above it in the entry. You can replace "galaxy" in any of the quotes with almost any other noun, e.g. "flower leggings", "racecar blanket", "slinky wallpaper"—"galaxy" isn’t novel in this sense.

Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• If "galaxy" really is a generic name in the fashion or design industries for a type of pattern "blending, semiopaque patches of vibrant color on a dark background", then I believe we should keep this definition, but it isn't very clear that the present examples are meant in this sense, rather than just the "literally pictures of galaxies" sense. I thought that "galaxy leggings" looked most promising, but Google image search does seem to show a lot of examples that seem to literally be patterned with galaxies. Who knew? Mihia (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

... and following on from that, I meant to say that perhaps this should be moved to RFV to see if anyone can find uses that unambiguously do not refer to literal galaxies ... BUT ... another point has occurred to me also. Presumably a (whole) galaxy should be a discrete thing, yet some of the "galaxy leggings" patterns on Google image search, while "astronomical" in appearance, apparently do not depict entire galaxies, but rather nebulae, as far as I can tell. Can this be dismissed as a non-lexicographical terminological mix-up, or could it be seen as evidence of the queried "not literally galaxies" sense? Mihia (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about this, but I would not, at least for my own part, regard some leggings only depicting nebulae as relevant, because that seems to be a general phenomenon true of this class of things: a "tomato" is a whole fruit/plant, but some "tomato leggings" I see (in a quick Google Images search) only depict slices of tomatoes, ditto "onion leggings", "Danny Devito" is a whole person but most "Danny Devito leggings" I can find only depict his head, an "oak" is a whole tree but many paintings of oaks only depict the above-ground part and not the root structure, etc. Depicting a recognizable part of something and not getting overly fine-grained in your terminology when selling it seems like a general phenomenon. On a balance, I'm leaning delete because it does seem, as HTG says, like "x leggings" being leggings that depict an approximation of (some recognizable portion of) x, and likewise for "x wallpaper", etc, is a general phenomenon. - -sche (discuss) 15:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. "Galaxy print" was a huge trend in fashion about six years ago. It isn't just NASA photos slapped onto consumer goods – although cheaper examples on Amazon often will be. Higher-quality examples typically feature watercolourish clouds in aesthetically-pleasing purples and blues. They aren't "literal pictures of galaxies" but rather stylised artistic representations meant to evoke galaxies (or more likely nebulae). There might be stars, but there won't be a discernible spiral shape, the muddy yellow-black of real galaxy photos, etc. It's a prettified and abstract idea of space. We have a pattern-related sense of floral ("portraying flowers, especially in a stylized way") that's a lot more literal than this. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Korea

Rfd-sense: "a dependency of Japan". Now covered under the reworked main sense "a nation and peninsula in East Asia".--Saranamd (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep. I deny the premise directly and squarely. The administrative division of the Japanese empire that was the dependency of Korea was not the nation of Korea, nor was it the peninsula of Korea, hence it is not covered under the reworked main sense "a nation and peninsula in East Asia". See also Ireland, which has a sense for the island and the nation-state, which includes islands that are not the Island of Ireland proper. Similar treatment for Korea would call for this "reworked main sense" be split between nation and peninsula. Does the peninsula sense include Jeju island? No, it doesn't. Does the nation sense include Jeju island? Yes, it does. A scientific geography can distinguish between a political entity concept and a physical geography concept. Are we just gonna bowdlerize everything, or are we going to do an actual dictionary? Similarly, Taiwan is an island, and has a history as various political entities that extend beyond the island proper, or only cover part of the island. I would just say that the various political entities for Korea, Ireland and Taiwan ought to be considered separately in Wiktionary's ultimate form. You might retort that: "That's too confusing for a reader my bro, not workable." I don't know, to me, I see a clear dividing line that's easy to explain to a 5th grader. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC) (Modified)

I am leaning towards deletion. In general, I don't agree with the tendency of some of our entries to (in effect) put changes of government as a separate sense line; we do not, for example, have separate senses at France for France as a monarchy that also governed colonies overseas, vs a republic that also governs colonies / 'constituent parts' overseas, etc (even though the scope of the first France and the second France are different), or for the times Poland was ruled by others vs itself. - -sche (discuss) 15:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Same here. Keeping track of all the countries, provinces, client states, entities at various levels in various feudal hierarchies, etc. in Europe would be very, very messy. Is Serbia a kingdom, a principality, a republic, a despotate, a part of Yugoslavia (which Yugoslavia?), of Serbia and Montenegro, of Austro-Hungary, of the Ottoman Empire, of the Byzantine Empire, or of Bulgaria? All of the above, in various permutations, and I'm sure I'm missing some. Likewise, Korea has been a kingdom, a single state, a divided state, any number of collections of kingdoms, etc. This seems like the purview of an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I also tend to agree. To me, "dependency of Japan" seems more like an episode in the history of the entity "Korea" rather than a separate entity. As others have mentioned, this could explode if our policy was to give all similar historical episodes in various parts of the world separate definition lines. Mihia (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I think there's scope for listing multiple polities when they are connected but in a discontinuous way, or we risk confusing readers (e.g. Gwynedd refers to a historical Welsh kingdom and a modern county in Wales, both being roughly in the same location, but neither is a helpful definition if you're reading something that's talking about the other one). However, it's silly to list all the different permutations that a continuous polity has taken over time. Theknightwho (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

So, to make my position (see my comment above) explicit, I'm thinking delete this sense. Regarding Geographyinitiative's point about the scope of the nation and the scope of the peninsula being different (which is a separate question from whether 'the nation' and 'the nation as a dependency of Japan' are separate), we might want to have a general discussion about whether to split polity vs geography senses in general. Australia also lumps together the most common 'an island' and 'a country' senses (it only has a separate geographic sense for the plate-tectonic sense, 'the island of Australia, plus New Guinea'), whereas Philippines splits the archipelago vs the country (and also has a dependency sense I'm going to add to this RFD). - -sche (discuss) 18:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know about policy, since it can get complicated, so even making a policy fails. Entries just need to look good, this one doesn’t. Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Philippines

Rfd-sense: "(historical) A dependency of the United States (1898–1946)." (See preceding discussion about the "dependency" sense of Korea.) - -sche (discuss) 18:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

keep the Sabbath

• RFD-failed Denazz (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

observe the Sabbath

Both SOP, respectively keep (“to observe or celebrate (a holiday)”) + the + Sabbath and observe + the + Sabbath. The entry claims an additional meaning of maintaining the ‘holiness or sanctity’ of the Sabbath is implied by the phrases, but surely that’s just a matter of the nature of the Sabbath as a religious holiday, not an additional denotation supplied by the construction as a whole. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 19:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete both per proponent, SOP. Compare "keep the Ramadan", "keep the Lent", "observe Ramadan", "observe Lent". PUC – 08:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete both * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete, but these would be okay as examples in keep, observe, or Sabbath. —(((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 22:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete, unless it is shown that multiple Jewish languages have idiomatic translations and hence WT:THUB applies. Fay Freak (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• RFD-failed Denazz (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

green line

SO GUYS N GIRLS I was looking into Cypriot history (as you do) and I saw this sense 2 here: "An indicator of grammar errors in some word processing applications. I am getting a green line. Where have I gone wrong?" Now I don't dispute that "some word processing applications" show a green line for grammar errors (actually I think it's just Microsoft Word — and perhaps the slavish clone LibreOffice); usually it's a red line for spelling errors (we don't have a sense for that). But the fact that a red line means a thing doesn't make it a sense of the term "red line". In the same way that, while a yellow triangle is a common warning icon, we don't create an entry for "yellow triangle". Right? Delete? I would. Equinox ◑ 01:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Send to RfV to see if this is even attested first. bd2412 T 02:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• IMO seems a waste of time if there is a fair chance of a majority delete here. Equinox ◑ 02:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  If the "majority delete" is based on the premise that this is not a real phrase, then this just isn't the best process. bd2412 T 02:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete, not lexicalised. This, that and the other (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete SOP. A green line here is a literal green line displayed by the app. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep I'm not buying the nom's argument, sorry Purplebackpack89 20:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete, not lexicalised. PUC – 16:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete, probably schizo entry by 2008 IP editor with seemingly no other entries. Fay Freak (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Falcon 9

Starship

How are these dictionary material? They are basically just product names. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 11:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete. We've had at least a couple of keen astronautical users who add such things. No better than the "list of potions in Harry Potter" really. Equinox ◑ 13:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• I would be inclined to delete all, but I am just thinking out loud that there might be some merit to keeping Starship in anticipation of enduring use as a signifier, and as an alternative capitalization of the existing starship. Probably not at this time, though. bd2412 T 18:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete. @Solomonfromfinland —Fish bowl (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Deeleeht. (just created to fill the even more useless categories, it seems). Jberkel 14:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete, apparently we don’t create ship, aircraft or auto models. We can create Leopard from tanks, such as we have Fuchs, but not Leopard 2, and for further illustration GMLRS, ATACMS, AK-47 as a whole series. Someone interested should know where the general dictionary coverage ends. Fay Freak (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

when one least expects it

SOP. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 18:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. PUC – 16:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete, collocation. Fay Freak (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete; meaning is too obvious. That said, it would be a good example for expect. —(((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 00:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

federal official

SOP, an official (“office holder, a person holding an official position in government, etc.”) who is federal (“pertaining to the national government level in a federal nation”). Analogously, there are also state officials, county officials, etc., ad nauseam. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 18:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete. I think that the author submitted this because it sounds country‐specific, which I find hard to believe, and I was surprised to see that Wikipedia does not even use it as a redirection. It would be okay as an example of official, though. —(((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 00:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Army of the Republic of Vietnam

Clear SoP of Army + of + the + Republic of Vietnam. Also refer to the comments on Talk:People's Liberation Army Navy.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Consequent terms proposed for deletion:

• Army of the Republic of Viet Nam
• Army of the Republic of Viet-Nam.

廣九直通車 (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Saviourofthe (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

People's Army of Vietnam

SoP of People's + Army + of + Vietnam, and just like we won't create other similar terms like Czechoslovak People's Army or Polish People's Army. Also refer to the comments on Talk:People's Liberation Army Navy.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Its synonym Vietnam People's Army is also a SoP. --Saviourofthe (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Vietnam People's Army

SoP of Vietnam + People's + Army, cf. comments by Saviourofthe.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

health nut

SOP, health + nut (“An extreme enthusiast”). — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 19:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete (as I previously hinted on the talk page). Equinox ◑ 19:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Abstain. I don't think the def is wrong. Some users are obsessed with deleting everything. DonnanZ (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The argument for deletion is not that the definition is wrong, but I think it could be improved. Would one call someone a health nut because they take their well-being seriously? As I understand the term, it implies an attitude that the utterer considers at least bordering the obsessive, and the sense of nut here is closer to nutcase.  --Lambiam 08:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Isn’t that the case for any use of ‘nut’ in this sense? Compare ‘gun nut’ and the like. Seems like a property of ‘nut’ to me, not something idiomatic to this particular collocation. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 02:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I was commenting on the definition currently given for this term: “(informal, derogatory) A person who is serious about or obsessed with their health and well-being”. This was triggered by the statement, “I don't think the def is wrong”. I do think this definition is perhaps not wrong, but also not good. It also has some bearing on the interpretation given by nominator: “health + nut (“An extreme enthusiast”)”. I am more inclined to interpret the term as health + nut (“A crazy person”), but under either interpretation it is a sum of parts.  --Lambiam 19:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

W comment, Donnanz Purplebackpack89 15:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. PUC – 09:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Donnanz, "big yellow dog outside my house" can also have a correct definition. You know by now that isn't the reason we don't include such things here. Equinox ◑ 10:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I DO wish you'd stop with the slippery-slope analogies... Purplebackpack89 02:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see what's the problem with showing that an argument is bad. PUC – 17:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

A slippery-slope analogy is itself a bad argument. And an ineffective one too...instead of it bringing me around to Equinox's line of thinking, it's led me to believe that it's not such a bad idea to have those things if it means everything in the gray area of SOP is also retained. Purplebackpack89 14:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

How is this a slippery-slope analogy? This is just him comparing two entries. It's not like he's saying "if we have 'health nut', then we will have 'big yellow dog outside my house'!". (Also, you want that entry?) CitationsFreak (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: It's not a "slippery slope" analogy (which would be something like "if we do X today, we must do Y tomorrow"). It's simply stating the rule we have had for years, which a tiny few morons cannot understand. Those people should stay out of RFV and RFD. Equinox ◑ 04:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Failed Denazz (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

now go away

now + go away — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Speedied. Equinox ◑ 10:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

A self-dismissing entry.  --Lambiam 19:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

araneomorph funnel-web spider

Transparent SoP: araneomorph + funnel-web spider. DCDuring (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

If it's SOP, how does araneomorph (“any of the Araneomorphae, a suborder of spiders whose fangs cross with a pinching action”) + funnel-web spider (“any spider of the families Atracidae, Macrothelidae, and Macrothelidae, all of which weave funnel-shaped webs”) give us araneomorph funnel-web spider (“any spider of the family Agelenidae”)? Doesn't seem SOP at all. Theknightwho (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

If WP is to be believed (w:Funnel-web spider), we appear to have a simple a set-intersection type scenario here. The funnel-web spiders that are araneomorphs happen to be the Agelenidae. That makes it SOP if you know your taxonomy. This, that and the other (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

dance-time

dance +‎ time sense 6.1 or 6.2 (note the usage note I just added to that entry). This, that and the other (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The genius Kiwima just added several cites to this entry (which is incidentally an alternative form of dancetime.) newfiles (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

RFD-kept, WT:COALMINE. This, that and the other (talk) 04:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, can the RFD tag be removed from this entry? Or is this still up for debate? newfiles (talk) 05:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done. DonnanZ (talk) 08:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. newfiles (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

out of

RFD adverb sense:

1. expression of how distant a person or an object is.

   Five meters out of the ocean

Vague definition. Example is apparently not adverbial but analogous to existing prepositional example "His feet rested out of the water". Mihia (talk) 10:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't seem to be an adverb, but a preposition. DonnanZ (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

preparation time

Sum of parts. "1. (cooking) The amount of time required to gather all necessary ingredients and utensils." i.e. time to prepare. "2. (education) The time during which a teacher or member of faculty is not required to be in contact with a student for the purpose of instruction or supervision." This is misleading because it does not include things like the teacher's spare time or vacation time. It is in fact time for preparation of educational material. And "3. Time spent preparing for something." Obviously SoP. A lot of this user's numerous recent "time" entries may be SoP. Equinox ◑ 10:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. I would like to prevent this user from creating any more entries for some time. PUC – 12:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

For what reason? I am creating these entries in good faith, since they all appear as redlinked entries under the "hyponyms" section of time. newfiles (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I also don't appreciate that comment that you made earlier that I'm "creating a lot of crap". That is very rude. I'm not a troll. And I'm creating entries that are redlinked, in order to build and expand Wiktionary. newfiles (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not doubting your good faith, I'm doubting your judgment. You should not create entries for every red link that you see. PUC – 15:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I would not create entries for redlinked terms that I know and realize would clearly be deemed SoP by the Wiktionary community. For example, "perfect time", from the discussion previously, which was instantly marked for deletion, even though it was discovered that is a legitimate term in the world of music. newfiles (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

In the case of perfect time, let's not forget that the version of the entry that was nominated for deletion is this one. PUC – 17:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeed it was. But that doesn't detract from the fact that you were very rude to me by stating I'm "adding a lot of crap entries". newfiles (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

An IP on Wikipedia didn't like it when I called him a "troublesome user" recently. I do wonder why the user is unregistered. DonnanZ (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Which user are you talking about? PUC – 15:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I haven't got a clue. You can see here: Skates (surname). I have some unfinished business. DonnanZ (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mynewfiles: I previously pointed out to you that you can't just look at the red links in a list of hyponyms or derived terms and start creating entries for them. This is a wiki—editors sometimes add items to lists without being aware of policies that may disallow entries to be made for such items. Now that you are aware of the SoP policy, try to consider if a term may be SoP before creating an entry. For example, if preparation time means nothing more than time spent preparing for something, then it's SoP. You added an education and a cooking sense, but if such senses are allowed, then why not also senses like time spent in preparation by a chemist, dentist, or engineer? I hope you can see how quickly the number of senses would increase, and that as a whole it is unreasonable to have such an entry. If you're unsure if a term is SoP or not, raise the matter for discussion at the Tea Room. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Most of this user's entries are good, and they are evidently learning and getting better, but it behoves them to keep SoP at the front of mind when creating multi-word terms. This, that and the other (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete 3 - SOP. Take 2 (in rewritten form) to RFV - I've only heard of this being called "prep time" or "preparatory time", but if it's citable then I think it's not SOP - it refers to a specific scheduled block in school timetabling (where teachers and/or students are required to be on campus but do not have lessons. You see it a lot in old boarding school novels). I think delete 1, but it has a specific meaning in cooking: the time required to set mise en place. After all, all cooking is food preparation in one form or another, but if a cookbook says "20 minutes preparation time" they mean "Chopping and weighing ingredients will take 20 minutes". Preparation time would include the time it takes to slice meat, but not the time it takes to cook nor to marinate. That said, maybe that nuance would be better handled as a sense at preparation. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

You say: if a cookbook says "20 minutes preparation time" they mean "Chopping and weighing ingredients will take 20 minutes". A cookbook doesn't need to tell you how to chop and weigh things: those instructions are not in the recipe. So they are preparation for the recipe. Seems fairly self-evident in context. Equinox ◑ 10:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Equinox: Could it be useful for mentally impaired people to define it a bit more precisely like this? Then I am inclined to keep it. The second definition too, I wouldn’t guess it. 3rd should be {{&lit}}. How to cook or navigate educational institutions (efficiently) isn’t intuitive to everyone, actually these are whole arts by themselves. Fay Freak (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• RFD failed Denazz (talk) 08:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

GSK

Failed RFD in 2008. That was a long time ago, so I'm bringing it back to make sure it still fails in 2024. Note that "GSK" isn't actually the company name, so WT:COMPANY does not necessarily apply. This, that and the other (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I just looked, and apparently they did rename themselves "GSK" at some stage. I guess this is a clear-cut WT:COMPANY delete then? This, that and the other (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't see the deletion notice, if there was one. Right now it's no longer an abbreviation, but at some point it was. Shouldn't that be recorded? Jberkel 12:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Even if the name was officially changed from GlaxoSmithKline to GSK, there are are plenty of hits for the full form of the name. I think a deletion would be premature, if it should be deleted at all. Abbreviated forms often prove to be useful. DonnanZ (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep - I'm pretty certain the change of name postdates (and was in part caused by) the use of the abbreviation, which means WT:COMPANY doesn't apply. Theknightwho (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep: even if it isn't technically an abbreviation now, it was one in the past. We record past as well as present usage. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, keep. DonnanZ (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

For better or worse, we keep a lot of acronyms for companies and organizations and similar entities that we would never keep the spelled-out forms of, e.g. BBC, most of ABC#Proper noun, PLAN (where we specifically deleted People's Liberation Army Navy; we could probably also have PLANAF, but probably wouldn't add People's Liberation Army Navy Air Force). - -sche (discuss) 23:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@-sche: which is the way it should be, I think. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Right. So I'm thinking weak keep. We do also have other healthcare company-or-organization initialisms that came to mind to check, like NHS and BCBS. - -sche (discuss) 17:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

time stand still

Both the entry and the definition are grammatically incorrect. The definition is somewhat nonsensical as well: "to occur an apocalyptic event." Even the part of speech is incorrect. The correct expression is time stands still. newfiles (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Speedily deleted as an obvious error redundant to time stands still. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. newfiles (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• It isn't totally obvious to me that time stands still is the correct (or only) lemma. time stood still, at least, is obviously possible in the same idiomatic sense. Something like "may/let time stand still" is possible also, but it becomes less clear that it is truly the same idiomatic sense. Also there are variations such as "time seemed to stand still", so this is by no means an invariable fixed expression. Mihia (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mihia: you can certainly start an RFD for time stands still if you see fit. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't presently have a definite better idea of how this should be treated. We do have stand still, and I did wonder whether the uses with "time" could go there, but I don't know if this would lose too much of the expression. Mihia (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I just added a Cambridge dictionary entry reference to "time stands still" to indicate its validity. newfiles (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't prove anything, except that they also overlooked e.g. "time stood still" and/or didn't know how else to list it. Mihia (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw @Mihia I think there is a wider point that we don't have a systematic way to handle phrases which can take multiple tenses. Another one is sparks fly, where sparks flew is easily attestable. Theknightwho (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Theknightwho: this issue has come up before. I think the most practical way to deal with it is to lemmatize at what is perceived to be the most common form, and then add a usage note indicating variations: see balloon goes up. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Ideally we would list under an infinitive form, but it is not clear how this would be expressed. Mihia (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mihia: which is why this issue has come up before, and my recollection of the discussion is what I summarized above. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

As it happens, Ngrams, which, I don't know if we totally trust, but must be better than general-search unexplained Large Random Numbers^TM, shows "time stood still" overall more common than "time stands still", but in any case, for consistency, it might be better to consistently use present tense, unless present tense is odd, which approach would retain the status quo wrt "time stands still". I am not personally a massive fan of the afterthought-by-usage-note approach to inflections as at balloon goes up, but, again, sadly I do not at the moment have a better suggestion. Mihia (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The only way I can think of to get an infinitive out of this phrase is to make it the object of certain verbs: "make time stand still", "watch time stand still", "have time stand still". Chuck Entz (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

What about "for time to stand still"? PUC – 09:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Or as a question: "Does time stand still in Sleepy Hollow?" DonnanZ (talk) 09:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

For sake of argument: it could be the subjunctive! Equinox ◑ 21:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Right. Mihia (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Just added three cites from 17th and 18th centuries if anyone's interested. newfiles (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mynewfiles: attestability is not the issue here—once again, the question is whether it is SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I do understand that issue. newfiles (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure you meant to say that the issue is SoP? I don't see anyone arguing that. I would be happy that it is idiomatic enough, at some lemma. Mihia (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mihia: I can readily see how this may be SoP: time + stands still. But a separate RFD should be started for that. The issue here was the entry time stand still. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I have now nominated time stands still for deletion as being SoP—see below. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

nonunifrom polynomial time

plz delete, I created this entry with an orthographic error. Correct entry is nonuniform polynomial time. newfiles (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mynewfiles: For typos like that you can use {{d}}; no need to go through a RFD. PUC – 09:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. newfiles (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

two-legged beast

It's descriptive, but not idiomatic. Compare Talk:whirling void. Additionally, the citations don't match the definition; in particular, the second citation isn't derogatory, and should actually be read as two-legged + beasts of burden, not two-legged beasts + of burden as the page suggests. Binarystep (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete. As you say, one citation is no good, and the other seems doubtful. Equinox ◑ 21:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

complicity in genocide

SOP. It's also not a fixed term; one can just as easily find complicity to commit genocide, for instance. Binarystep (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 21:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Britons traditionally don’t have it, but in other legal systems for something to be a crime, the behaviour must be a statutory crime. This holds true for every form of non-principal responsibility. Incitement and accessoryship thus would be unpunished were it not defined in § 26 and 27 Criminal Code FRG. Therefore the idea of the Genocide Convention is that the treaty states be obliged to make the accomplice a criminal, not only the principal. Delete, SOP, as other complicities. Fay Freak (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

good deal

Sum of parts. I suggest adding a separate section in deal as interjection. JimiY☽ru 06:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• Although I am not familiar with this expression, as far as I can tell I would lean towards keep, if only because of such similarity with the better-known or more widespread expression a good deal, or indeed literal sense such as "I got a good deal on my new car", which could confuse people as to the intended meaning of this "good deal". I don't think the present example makes the greatest sense ever relative to the definition, however. "You got everything packed? Good deal!" How does this "affirm, indicate agreement, or consent"? Can we find a clearer example? Mihia (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• I have also noticed that, while great deal covers noun uses without "a", such as The audience is generally unaware of the great deal of work that goes into its creation (and in fact a great deal is missing (redirect only), and needs to be added if only for the adverb sense), the corresponding uses of good deal without the indefinite article, which could be directly substituted into e.g. The audience is generally unaware of the good deal of work that goes into its creation, are missing. Most probably the organisation of "(a) good deal" should be changed to mirror that of "(a) great deal", in which case the entry for "good deal" would be kept anyway, for the "ordinary" idiomatic uses. Mihia (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC) NOW DONE

autokinetic illusion

Sum of parts. Equinox ◑ 21:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• : Delete. Quite right, mea culpa, the entry seems self-explanatory. Saviourofthe (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Binarystep (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

eternity collar

this is a brand name. https://www.eternitycollars.com/ --Simplificationalizer (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I have added 3 cites that do not mention the brand, and are lower-cased. Equinox ◑ 14:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep. --Saviourofthe (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Eternally keep. Binarystep (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Theknightwho (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

she could be his mother

he could be her father

SOP, and no more entryworthy than the myriad of variations possible: you could be her father, you could be his mother, he could be her grandfather, she could be his grandmother, old enough to be her grandfather, old enough to be his grandmother, you could be her mother / you could be her father (for gay couples), etc. PUC – 14:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete per Talk:could be someone's parent. Equinox ◑ 14:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete for Equinox's reason. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Binarystep (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Failed Denazz (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

channel coal

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English.

Please see my talk page: [37]. By the way, I might delete this later, so if anyone wants to archive and copy it here, feel free, just let me know.

My understanding is that this is a (possibly legitimate) variant of cannel coal, but we have an academic, or at least a pedant, who wants it destroyed, even if there is a bunch of evidence for the term in use. So: what say ye, Wiktionarians? Equinox ◑ 00:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be in RFV? Binarystep (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Binarystep: Principle of charity... move it all if you want. I wasn't inclined, after this guy's behaviour. Equinox ◑ 01:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Binarystep why did you want this brought to RFV? It always had three cites. The question seems to be whether the term fails CFI in some other way, perhaps as a rare misspelling - which is a subjective criterion best dealt with at RFD. This, that and the other (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: Honestly, I must've missed that. I'll move it back. Binarystep (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

incontinence diaper

SOP, and not very common. Compare adult diaper, which was deleted for being SOP despite being far more common. Binarystep (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here, I was going to do it myself for exactly this reason. Delete. This, that and the other (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete as SOP, the same would go for versions with 'adult' instead of 'incontinent' and 'nappy' instead of 'diaper' if they existed. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Achilles tendon reflex time

Speedied as SOP by Kiwima but recreated by Mynewfiles. This, that and the other (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Kiwima actually deleted it because the original author provided a very unclear and unambiguous definition, not because it was SOP. newfiles (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

N.B. Kiwima's note in the logs --- rfdef|en|OK, so that's what the test is used for, but the definition says nothing about what the test actually is. newfiles (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thus, I recreated the term after finding the correct and accurate definition in the field of medicine. It wasn't an easy task to locate it. newfiles (talk) 04:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Would you care to respond to any of my points? newfiles (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

For the record, there was some discussion about this on my talk page. This, that and the other (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for the information. newfiles (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

box ears

Entry created for a user's convenience (see history), but the cites are really for box the ears, box someone's ears, and even box on the ear (noun, not verb). Not how Wiktionary works. Equinox ◑ 09:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to box someone's ears. On one hand, I can see how this entry would be useful to someone (and be more obvious than the correct page title), but on the other hand, we don't have entries for blow mind or lose temper either. Binarystep (talk) 10:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Please note that the original reason for drafting the entry was that speaking as a user I had struggled to find the topic in Wkt, so box someone's ears patently is not an adequate headword: Wkt is not supposed to be limited to users who already know the content. I did eventually, shamefacedly, find it via Google in MW, then just for laughs looked in Wkt and there box someone's ears was. But it seems to me a confession of inadequacy when we have to go to MW for information before going back to Wkt...!

Such an item could be worded in various ways, so I created "box ears", those being the key words (and you can check the Wkt index to see that the entry does work). Note that blow mind and lose temper are not perfect analogies, because it is hard to provide examples of natural use of them as terms, whereas a construction such as: "If this happens again I'll have to come down and box ears till they begin to listen!" is perfectly natural.

If there is a natural Redirect facility in Wkt, (is there?) then it would be adequate to have just one entry plus as many redirects as anyone pleases. But in that case, or if box ears is to be deleted, then because the entry box someone's ears as it stands, is inadequate, then the content of the central entry should be replaced with the current current of box ears. I added that content because it told me what I had wanted to know, and had had to research, whereas the existing article had not. JonRichfield (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Reading this brings cauliflower ears to mind... DonnanZ (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete or redirect for nominator's reason. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete If you search for "box ears", "box someone's ears" is the (now) second result, not sure why this entry was created. Jberkel 18:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

malding

Rfd-sense adjective:

1. (Internet slang, neologism, Twitch-speak) Angry about a game, especially on the part of a man who is a poor loser.
2. (Internet slang, neologism, by extension) Angry or irate.

I'd say both of these are covered as participles of mald:

(slang, video games) To become extremely angry, especially as a result of losing a video game.

Theknightwho (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Strictly "being" in a state is not the same as "becoming" that state. Equinox ◑ 13:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Isn't this just like raging or fuming? BigDom 13:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

disem-

Not a prefix. disembowel is dis- + embowel, disembark is dis- + embark, etc. PUC – 20:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

OED has an entry for this prefix. Still delete?

https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=disem- newfiles (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

If there is no instance of a word actually formed with it, then yes, delete. PUC – 08:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

disem-/disen- would be a derivative of dis-/-em and and dis-/-en. newfiles (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

"-em" / "-en" is not right, as these are not suffixes. PUC – 08:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

There's disemelevator (and the lack of a corresponding *emelevator), but it failed RFV in 2021 due to being mostly attested online. It could potentially be allowed under our new policy, but it's also clearly based on disembark and analyzable as dis- +‎ em- +‎ elevator anyway. Binarystep (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The OED entry pointed to by Mynewfiles isn't a real entry, just a little discussion of the use of the prefix dis- with en- and em-. However, it does say this:

Forms in disem- and disen- are found even where no verbs in em- or en- appear, as in disemburden, disenhallow, disenravel.

When it comes to attestation requirements for affixes, we generally look for three words formed in the modern stage of the language using the affix. If we can attest those three words (or others like disemelevator) I would say this prefix can be kept. This, that and the other (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Heh, I see our entry for disemburden has for its etymology dis- +‎ emburden. OED doesn't have an entry for the latter word, but we do. Equinox created it so it's almost certainly real. However, its absence from OED suggests that disemburden predates emburden, which would make our etymology diachronic. This, that and the other (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Anachronic, you mean? PUC – 07:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

anachronistic, you mean? LOL!n newfiles (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Clearly. Anyway I looked into it some more and I think OED's remark is simply a reflection of lacunae in its coverage:

• emburden can be found in EEBO. OED lemmatises it at imburden. So disemburden is not evidence for the prefix disem-.
• The participle/adjective disenhallowed is almost attestable: Citations:disenhallowed (even if the verb is not), but enhallowed is actually more abundantly attested.
• The same appears to be the case for disenravelled/enravelled = disenraveled/enraveled.

So it looks more and more like PUC is on the money. This, that and the other (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

For disembowel the 1933 OED also has this:

Disembow·el, v. [f. Dis- 6 + Embowel v. (in sense 3); but in sense 1 app. only an intensive of Disbowel.]

 --Lambiam 18:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

make-work job

The definition gives a wrong impression of idiomaticity because its focus is off. It's true that a make-work job is likely to be a "job that has less immediate financial benefit to the economy than it costs to support", but make-work job does not actually mean that; it just means "work assigned or taken on only to keep someone from being idle". In other words it's a plain SOP of make-work + job, and is no more entryworthy than make-work project, make-work activity, make-work policy, etc. PUC – 22:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

wedding day

Sum of parts. JimiY☽ru 06:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• I would keep this as a set phrase. We don't say "my marriage day", we say "my wedding day". I think we should keep strong set phrases even if technically explicable as SoP. Mihia (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• Is this useful as a translation hub? Of the languages I speak, the translations all look like transparent "wedding + day" compounds, but I can imagine some language might have a unique word for this. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Passes WT:FRIED. It is restricted in meaning in that it is a day where a past wedding is commemorated according to analogous calendary date, if the marriage is intact. judgement day, day of the rope, German Tag X etc. conversely refers to an occurrence and single day expected in the future, rest day an activity in the same day. Keep. Fay Freak (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's right. "Wedding day" can be a past, present, future or entirely hypothetical event (you'll find lots of people fantasising about their future wedding day).

• 2018 November 6, Diana Taylor, Life Unarmed: My Story, Christian Faith Publishing, Inc., →ISBN:

  He said that he was looking forward to my wedding day and walking me down the aisle, and our father-daughter dance at the reception.

• 2009 11, Rogers E. a. Rogers, Someday (a Love Story) Andstories about Life and Death Love Liberrty Cats and Dogs Cakes and Other Stuff, iUniverse, →ISBN, page 62:

  Today is my wedding day! Is this another of my dreams? Today is my wedding day. Did I really write that? Did I, Anna Augusta Verona Parker really write that? Yes! Yes! Yes! It is true. Today is my wedding day!

• 2021 February 24, Sue Taylor, Everything You Need for Your Wedding Day, Xlibris Corporation, →ISBN:

  The heavier makeup used on a wedding day will really emphasize any facial hair even if it's fine and blonde.

Using "wedding day" as a synonym for "anniversary" sounds very wrong to me - if someone said "We're celebrating our wedding day next week" I'd think they were telling me they were getting married, not commemorating a wedding years ago. Interestingly the hits on Google Books for "celebrating our wedding day" (in the anniversary sense) are almost all a hundred years old, so I wonder if that would work as an obsolete sense. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Smurrayinchester: Yeah, but don’t they plan it for the future for memory afterwards? Like graduation balls, which deffo should be an entry imho. (Also, people might do both for networking, but I am unsure about the extent of this motivation.) The idiomatic part is the social significance, the constructing social status and personal identity within it, which though lifechanging is imperfectly verbalized until a bunch of loners attempt to define it for their dictionary. Fay Freak (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• Leaning keep per Mihia. bd2412 T 03:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per Mihia. Inqilābī 14:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

absquatulate

Rfd-redundant — This unsigned comment was added by 212.179.254.67 (talk) at 17:01, 20 May 2024‎.

Comment: RFM is probably a better venue for this discussion. I guess sense 2 can be merged with sense 1 as it isn't significantly different. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

time stands still

I think this is SoP: time + stands still. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• I would keep this somehow, since it has connotations beyond the impossible situation (short of travelling at light-speed) that the words literally describe. There are, however, the problems mentioned earlier of how to list it, since there is no obvious infinitive form. Mihia (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It is correctly classed as a phrase (non-prepositional). DonnanZ (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

time stood still is also a phrase. Mihia (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Most metaphorical phrases denote impossible situations if taken literally (“the impossible happened”;^[38] “his eyes were fiery coals”;^[39] “my blood turned into ice”^[40]). The fact that they have nonliteral connotations is IMO an insufficient argument for considering them to be lexicalized. Lexicalization requires that these connotations are nonobvious, for example because the original meaning of some of its parts has become obsolete, as is the case for the expression shuffle off this mortal coil.  --Lambiam 09:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the connotations are completely obvious. Someone could think that "time stands still" referred to a very boring situation, one in which time dragged to an extreme degree, which is almost opposite to what it does often mean, e.g. in "I saw the car coming straight towards me, and for a moment time stood still". Having said that, the present quotations at the article do not all seem to very clearly illustrate this sense, which is the one I think the definition is referring to (though I don't think it is the greatest definition ever written), so this could need attention. Mihia (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

You can also have a village where “time stands still”^[41][42] (or “stood still”^[43][44]), which can mean that nothing dramatic happens there so one’s soul can find rest, but also that the local traditions are old, allowing us to have a peep through a telescope back in time. Perhaps it can also mean other things; it is what you expect to see for a sum of parts that by themselves can have several meanings. Alternatively, one can say that “time was frozen”,^[45][46] with a similar range of meanings.  --Lambiam 14:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mihia: I feel that what you said actually supports my views. Why couldn't someone write that a performance was so boring that "time stood still" for her? It wouldn't be obviously wrong. I also agree with @Lambiam's views above. — Sgconlaw (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

They can write that, and, in fact, at least one of the examples that we presently have may refer to this sense. (The examples are mixed up and do not (all) illustrate the sense that the present definition apparently refers to.) However, I doubt that an entry should be disqualified because it has a range of uses. In fact, the contrast between, say, "a village where time stood still" and the "car coming towards me"-type usage is even more reason to keep, I would say. Above all, and different from, let's say, "time drags", "time goes quickly", "time goes slowly", etc. etc., this one to me just feels like a set phrase that has an identity of its own, some quality greater than the sum of its parts. Mihia (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The cites that we have are no good (they are clearly straightforwardly saying that time (sense 1.4) stood still), but I think this can be salvaged. I've added one cite that feels more clearly idiomatic, using the phrase adjectivally to describe travel through a storm as as "a time-stands-still' ride", and I'm sure I've seen it as a standalone phrase ("The glasses hit the ground and shatter. Time stands still. What have I done?") but it's hard to search for. I've also added a second sense (used to refer to historic-feeling places such as "a town where time stands still"), although I'm not sure about the definition. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for adding the additional citations. newfiles (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

language learning

If this isn't SOP, then what is? Ditto for language learner. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Is the term used idiomatically for non-human languages, e.g. programming? Equinox ◑ 22:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not idiomatic, it's brachylogy if anything. Programming language is still a language and it doesn't even deserve a mention in either definition. JimiY☽ru 04:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

What does this even mean? PUC – 16:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It would be idiosyncrasy. I am self-aware about it as an autist.

But third language acquisition is of greater concern. We rather need to fill the link for language acquisition; note that, I think, language acquisition tends to mean native language amongst children, too, whereas language learning is the more systematic stuff one does when already possessing a language from upbringing and hence tackles one of an othered (sic!) language community. second-language acquisition may stay because it is a customary course in colleges, I know when I studied linguistics BA, they have Zweitspracherwerb as well as Erstspracherwerb, and coursebooks and the like on this. Not to speak of statistical language acquisition. The case is lost, I think, thanks to @Oliver201013’s bravado as the author of these entries this year. I mean, we won’t have fifth-language acquisition just because. Though I spy a few uses of fourth-language acquisition. We are limited by attestation either way. Fay Freak (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• "language learning" does seem to be much more common than other comparable phrases, e.g. "math/maths/mathematics learning", "speech learning", etc. Is this just because it is a more written-about topic, or does it point to any special quality of the phrase? Having said that, those others, such as "speech learning", "math learning", etc., can of course readily be attested. Mihia (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • The fact that one counts languages, in one’s portfolio, achievement unlocked. Like law shopping is achieving an individualized result. Or credit-card churning squeezing it out like butter. People are thrilled by it, and if there is enough money behind it become professors in it, but at least teach it somewhere else with materials. I mean this explains the frequency whereby one talks about a thing, not whether the name for the particular method and application of collecting a particular kind of achievement is idiomatic. Fay Freak (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @Mihia: Never underestimate the influence of alliteration and prosody on commonness. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

    True, although some tests I did at Ngrams seemed to show "language learning" a hundred times, or even several hundred times, more common than other apparently comparable phrases with "learning", which did strike me as a lot ... Mihia (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

boom

Rfd-sense: A period of prosperity, growth, progress, or high market activity. Not asking for this to be deleted, just moved to Etymology 1 Denazz (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if this might be raised at Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium. Seems to hinge on the strength of the "perhaps" in "Perhaps a figurative development of Etymology 1". It does seem kind of "obvious", but maybe there are sound reasons for uncertainty. But in any case, it doesn't seem plausible that Ety 1 has at the moment a sense "A rapid expansion or increase", with example "You should prepare for the coming boom in the tech industry", AND we should have a separate Ety 3 with your sense. Mihia (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Does any authority suggest "a period of ... growth" is a separate ety from "a rapid expansion or increase"? Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster both sort it into the list of "expansion" senses with no comment, AFAICT. It was split in diff in 2010. - -sche (discuss) 17:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we have to keep Etymology 3 somehow. Collins English Dictionary merges it with the sound, so has two senses. The Oxford Dictionary of English has all three senses, but says for the period of prosperity or rapid growth: Origin late 19th cent. (originally US):probably from BOOM1 [the sound]. Maybe Etyms 2 & 3 should swap places (and numbers). DonnanZ (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Procedural close because this isn't a deletion request Purplebackpack89 19:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Not helpful. The discussion can be moved if necessary. Theknightwho (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

And resolved by (re)merging ety 3 and ety 1. - -sche (discuss) 20:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, now it can be closed. Theknightwho (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

DONT TREAD ON ME

It's just don't tread on me capitalized. We also don't have BITE ME alongside bite me or FUCK OFF alongside fuck off just because it could be printed like that on a t-shirt. PUC – 17:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Speedily deleted as an obvious mistake. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep/Restore: Creation WAS intentional. Usage notes in Wikipedia article note that phrase was first rendered on the flag that way and continues to be commonly rendered that way. @PUC @Sgconlaw please consider this context and reconsider your vote Purplebackpack89 19:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: I don't think that makes a difference. It's just typography. Let's see if anyone else has comments. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I've got an additional bugaboo: if you thought the creation was a mistake, why didn't you ask me about it BEFORE deleting it? Why did you delete it NINETEEN MINUTES into the discussion, before it was likely I'd have seen it? Purplebackpack89 19:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Presumably because it's so patently not within the scope of things we include. Compare The ("the at the start of a sentence"), or any of the various discussions of why words from Latin inscriptions THAT THE ROMANS INSCR. LIKE THIS are lowercased here. - -sche (discuss) 20:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - It's stylistic, not lexical. You can find it written in bold type too, but we wouldn't have an entry for 𝐝𝐨𝐧'𝐭 𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐦𝐞. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

interbourse

Looks like a proper noun Denazz (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete Word0151 (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster has it as an adjective, which, though it's rare, can be found. The stockbrokers' annual event probably should be Interbourse. DonnanZ (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete (well, change to proper noun), although I've added the adjective sense. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Fortescue

Two businesses and an acronym blithely added by an IP. DonnanZ (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete. I highly doubt "WT:COMPANY" is satisfied for the businesses, and in any case I don't think we list these types of senses under proper nouns. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete the senses as encyclopedic content. Only the initialism entry (FMG) is lexicographical material. Inqilābī 05:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

sum of its parts

SOP. Nicodene (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Lol, this is a bit surreal. I added Jimbo Wales' quote about the purpose of Wikipedia ("sum of all human knowledge" etc) under sense 1 of sum ("a quantity obtained by addition or aggregation"), which should take care of this. Delete. This, that and the other (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

An autological phrase! Mihia (talk)

mobile translation

Supposedly means "Electronic devices or software applications that provides audio translation." Only Wikipedia and our entry restrict this to audio translation (and amusingly, our definition doesn't even require that the translation have any "mobile" characteristic!). In truth the term is SOP. This, that and the other (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

bro's

SOP - "bro is" Ioaxxere (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ioaxxere: This is defined as “his” (i.e., with the possessive -'s; and “Bro's mom wants him home by 6” as a usage example), not “bro is”. J3133 (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete It is SOP, alike to that dude's mother. The usage might be slangular though. Word0151 (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete as SoP: he + 's. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: I assume you mean -'s (possessive); we have he's as “he is”, though. J3133 (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete - I assume this was made because bro is a pronoun, and bro's is the equivalent possessive form (i.e. he-his, bro-bro's), but there's a key difference: possessive forms in English aren't usually applied to nouns individually, but to noun phrases as a whole. This means regular nouns and pronouns don't (have to) take the possessive form when used as part of a noun phrase (e.g. in "John and Jenny's house", John does not (have to) take the possessive form John's; it's usually just applied to the whole noun phrase John and Jenny). The irregular pronouns break this trend (e.g. it's "his and her house", never "he and her house"), which I think is an important difference, as it makes them vestiges of a true possessive case which other nouns and pronouns don't have. bro is not one of those exceptional cases.

Theknightwho (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Bah! Humbug!

Fine, I'll send this bullshit here. Lol, the antagonists of the RFV (Purple,Equinox and Wonderfool) are the three least diplomatic users on the site, no wonder it is messy...anyway, I hope to see this entry out of my dictionary before the end of June... Denazz (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Strong keep, block nominator Nominator has provided no rationale for deletion and nomination is a personal attack. From a RfD standpoint, if bah humbug is considered to pass CFI, than its alternate forms are too. Purplebackpack89 12:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted that WF also takes the piss out of himself. I don't see any reason for deletion. DonnanZ (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep. No reason for deletion. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep, per above. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Repeating the view I expressed at RFV, I think it may not be worth keeping it since it's just an (old-fashioned) typographical variant of bah humbug. In general I'm not in favour of having entries for every possible variant if they differ only in punctuation or typography, and not in spelling (e.g., bah humbug!, bah, humbug, bah, humbug!, bah—humbug). Reasonable numbers of variant forms can just be added as quotations to the lemma, and if necessary a usage note can be added to provide some explanation. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 18:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete similar case as "DONT TREAD ON ME". We (usually) don't include typographic variants (ſ/s, v/u, etc.). Jberkel 18:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

There is consensus to include words featuring obsolete typographical letters. It’s just that we haven’t created enough such entries. Inqilābī 04:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong keep as an {{alternative case form of}} entry, if amply attested. On a different note, I am also of opinion that common nouns in older English texts that were spelt with an initial uppercase should have their entries. Inqilābī 04:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

NO-O-O-O-O ... Please!! Mihia (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

It may not be obvious to a non-native speaker, but you can't tell what the case is for either word. In English, just about any word will be changed to uppercase when it's the first word in a[n orthographic] sentence: "What would you like to eat?" "Applesauce." "Applesauce?" "Yes, applesauce." If memory serves, the phrase started out as the juxtaposition of two interjections: bah and humbug, which would make this SOP. As "humbug", especially, has become obsolete, this has become a phrase with an idiomatic meaning. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

My view is a bit more nuanced: I think the entry should survive if this precise capitalisation and punctuation was a widespread form that was especially worth documenting. As it is, though, there is no evidence that this is true, so I say delete. (Note this is not an RFV argument; I would still advance it if (say) the term passed RFV but it was particularly difficult to find good uses, suggesting this orthographic/typographic variant is rare.) This, that and the other (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete. One can find plenty of examples of phrases being broken up like this. I don't see what makes Bah! Humbug! special, aside from its pop-cultural significance. Binarystep (talk) 06:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete per Jberkel. PUC – 12:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: You could have one rule for St Marys, St Mary's, St. Marys and St. Mary's, and another rule for the likes of this? DonnanZ (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

They are toponyms / proper nouns so if you don’t distinguish between the slightly different orthography then one name can be mistook for another, which can cause serious inconveniencies. It’s beyond lexicography. Inqilābī 14:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, OK. They can still be a minefield. I can find St Mary's in a Sydney suburban railway timetable from 1970 (with St. Mary's in the index), and St Marys for the same place in Wikipedia. DonnanZ (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep Word0151 (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• I added I! Love! You!, even more common a phrase. Denazz (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  OK, that was a silly idea (as silly as Bah! Humbug!, TBF). Denazz (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Why are you wasting everyone’s time by trolling? Inqilābī 14:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• I can't see that we need multiple entries for this kind of different punctuation/capitalisation style, where there is no material difference in meaning. Where would it end? As far as I can tell, our convention is not to capitalise (other than proper nouns) or add exclamation marks to the lemma forms of exclamations, but to list them in lower case and without the punctuation that might typically accompany them. Therefore, on that basis, this one seems to be rightly listed at bah humbug. The original form, which is not exactly Bah! Humbug! anyway, can be explained at bah humbug, and indeed already is. Delete. Mihia (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm tired of "where will it end?" (basically a slippery slope) as an argument for deletion. Purplebackpack89 13:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  In addition to the two we presently have, just in a few minutes I can find Bah Humbug, Bah Humbug!, Bah, Humbug!, Bah! Humbug, Bah ! Humbug !, BAH HUMBUG, Bah humbug, Bah, humbug and Bah-Humbug. Would you allow entries for all of these? If not, how would you decide which to allow and which to disallow? Mihia (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Weak delete per TTO and Sgconlaw.
OTOH, when words use different letters, like in the case of u/v mentioned above, I do support having entries, because...as Widsith put it when someone said u/v was just "different encoding": "you don't think it's a problem that the 'encoding' happens to be in the form of a different existing letter of the alphabet?" (How could we expect a language learner to know that the unfamiliar-to-them word vs is to be looked up under vs if it means versus [you don't know what it means, that's why you're looking it up], but to be looked up under us when it means us?) But universal (translingual, situation-independent) rules like "when looking up a word, try looking up only the word, not the word+punctuation" (because punctuation is only rarely part of the word) are reasonable, so I don't see as much value to this, or freeze!, Freeze!, Hands up!, etc. - -sche (discuss) 17:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Citations:Cultural Revolution

Keep Citations should appear on the Citations page, therefore this page should not be deleted. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep, no reason given for deletion and the idea of sending a Citations page to RFD is odd in any case. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative @Overlordnat1 The original reason given by @Inqilābī was that all the quotes are duplicated in the entry itself. Theknightwho (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Is that rationale a valid ground for deletion? Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Put it this way: I never use the Citations page, and always use {{quote}} within the entry. There's no point in duplicating them. DonnanZ (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah there's discontent about Citations pages, but it's more valuable than you know. They seem silly or wrong somehow to many people. But I love 'em. They're a true "safe space" for the citations and words I work with, and they give me breathing room to explore very very ugly citations like for words found most commonly in propaganda from authoritarian government sources, blogs from evil people, super NSFW, and sources that are very ugly in other ways, stuff that would discredit Wiktionary if it were on the entry proper, but stuff that's consistent with the descriptivist ethic. Where would the 1975 cite on Citations:transgender go on the entry? Are you sure what the author means there? But yet if we want to understand the early history of 'transgender' we don't want to ignore early sources, so it's on the Citations page for now. And what about that 1966 cite? And Citations pages allows categorization by contexts and senses that don't yet or may not appear on the entry page, or citations for specific contexts that a word appears in that wouldn't normally form a separate sense on the entry proper. And its a place for senses that are in a nascent stage or citations of uncertain meaning or categorization. Maybe I'm not sure I'll reach 3 cites, so instead of crazily just making an entry, I put what I got on the Citations page and wait and see if I ever run into a third cite. Citations:intercessionate will be waiting for the discovery of a third author's work long after intercessionate is deleted in the current RFV- and I believe it's out there, and the entry will later be restored! There IS a proper place for Citations pages. It's a really interesting world, an underbelly on the underbelly. If you want the pure product, go there. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Donnanz’s take on the matter, and think Citation pages should be largely deprecated due to the redundance of such duplicated content, except in the cases of uncreated entries and missing senses or (specialized) senses not meeting CFI (as pointed out by GI). I disagree that quotes with controversial (especially political) POVs should be kept outside of the dictionary entry; I once suggested before that Wiktionary could just add a note of disclaimer stating that the project does not identify with any of the views expressed in them. Inqilābī 05:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Concerning the "note of disclaimer", I mean that's an interesting concept, but I would also say that some sources are going to be so controversial that even that note of disclaimer is not going to be enough.
Another thing, there are a lot of homonyms/homophones in Mandarin. So sometimes I will use Citations pages to just collect whatever cites I see for the word until I can figure out where the cites go (which senses) rather than just guessing which cites go with which senses on the entry. When I have the space to compare and contrast several citations with authoritative information, then I can properly sort them out.
I'm exploring the citations at Citations:Pinghai. I think I know which location this refers to, but I'm kind of mulling it over and checking to make sure I'm right. I may not make an entry on Pinghai, or maybe it will get made. But the cites are real and ready for me or someone else to work with when we move to the next step. This is responsible entry creation.
I don't speak Spanish. Should I just create the Spanish section on the entry for Fuling so I can add the Spanish language cite I added at Citations:Fuling? Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• I’m withdrawing my nomination for deletion in light of the fact that the Nixon quote has been removed from the dictionary entry. But, @Geographyinitiative I think the Nixon quote is pertinent seeing that the person he talks about was an important figure of Cultural Revolution till the end– you could have simply kept it in the dictionary entry and applied brackets to the quote to indicate its supposed wavering from the original sense; but I’ll stop nitpicking & leave everything to your discretion. Inqilābī 22:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

apple blossom, apricot blossom, orange blossom

Blatant SOP’s. Orange blossom’s mitigating circumstance is its handful of one-word Romance equivalents, which might perhaps insure survival as translation hub.

There’s also cherry blossom and peach blossom, which have separate meanings, and plum blossom, which does things right. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep all Purplebackpack89 23:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  Delete as obvious SOP's, although I agree that orange blossom could be kept as a translation hub. I note that User:Purplebackpack89 gives no justification for their keep vote other than a statement on their user page that they disagree with the SOP principle (which is nonetheless a cornerstone principle of Wiktionary). Benwing2 (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

dont tread on me

Questionable creation by User:Purplebackpack89. A misspelling tagged as an "alternative form"; not even in Google Ngrams. Do we really want all possible misspellings of every random term out there? Benwing2 (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

the Gadsden Flag contains the phrase without an apostrophe

• Strongest possible keep and suggest immediate withdrawal. First off, are you nominated this because I'm the creator, or because you actually think it should be deleted? Please remember to focus RfDs on content. Also, what background research did you do before this nomination, apart from Google Ngrams? The first sentence of the Wikipedia article notes that the phrase is "usually stylized in all caps without an apostrophe". The Gadsden Flag and First Navy Jack, the most common displays of the phrase, contain it without the apostrophe. See also dont. Purplebackpack89 23:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)