Wiktionary:Requests for deletion

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
(Redirected from Wiktionary:RFD)
Jump to: navigation, search

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for deletion

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup
add new | history | archives

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for verification
add new | history | archives | old index

Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.

Requests for deletion
add new | history | archives

Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

Requests for deletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.

Requests for moves, mergers and splits
add new | history | archives

Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.

{{rfc-case}} - {{rfc-trans}} - {{rfdate}} - {{rfd-redundant}} - {{rfdef}} - {{rfe}} - {{rfex}} - {{rfap}} - {{rfp}} - {{rfphoto}} -

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

Scope of this request page:

  • In-scope: terms suspected to be multi-word sums of their parts such as “brown leaf”
  • Out-of-scope: terms to be attested by providing quotations of their use



See also:

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. One of the reasons for posting an entry or a sense here is that it is a sum of parts, such as "brown 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 requests for deletion in other namespaces such as "Category:" or "Template:", for which see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others. It is also not for requests for attestation. 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 "[[brown 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 when a decision to delete, keep, or transwiki has been reached, or after the request has expired. Closing a request normally consists of the following actions:

  • 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: The above is typical. However, in many cases, 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 consists of removing the discussion from this page, and copying it to the entry's talk page using {{archive-top|rfd}} + {{archive-bottom}}. Examples of discussions archived at talk pages: Talk:piffle, Talk:good job. Note that talk pages containing such discussions are preserved even if the associated article is deleted.

Time and expiration: Entries and senses should not normally be deleted in less than seven days after nomination. When there is no consensus after some time, the template {{look}} should be added to the bottom of the discussion. If there is no consensus for more than a month, the entry should be kept as a 'no consensus'.

Oldest tagged RFDs


June 2015[edit]

جدّی - jeddi [edit]

It is the established practice for most of the entries for these words to be at the form without the tashdid. جدّی was nominated by User:Placebo in 2010 but no agreement was reached. I started adding the forms with a tashdid as 'alternative forms' a while ago so that they would appear in search results, so I have added it as an alternative form at جدی. Other options would be to redirect, to have an entry as an 'alternative form' or for the entry to be at the form with the tashdid. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 11:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I didn't know what "tashdid" meant, so I looked it up for interest, but Wiktionary has no entry! 17:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    تَشْدِيد ‎(tašdīd) is the state of there being a شَدَّة ‎(šadda) in a word or on a letter. --WikiTiki89 17:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to جدی, there's no need for "alternative form" entries, we don't do this for terms with diacritics for Arabic or Hebrew script based languages, neither for Cyrillic-based with accents. I've started a "tashdid" entry. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Can someone just delete it, for goodness' sake. We don't have any other entries like this, it's not needed and the content has been moved. I don't care if some random ip doesn't know about tashdid. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you all have any idea of the scope of 'alternative forms' in Persian? Persian 'alternative forms' can be bigger than this whole Wiktionary! Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 11:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention the albatross that is 'derived terms'.Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I am going now, but I just want to point out that I wrote this the wrong way around; 'derived terms' could be bigger than this whole dictionary and 'alternative forms' is like an albatross. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
@Kaixinguo~enwiktionary: Is جدّی (entered as Persian currently transliterated as jeddi) attested in actual use? --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. If possible I would like to withdraw this request for deletion as it just highlights the need for a discussion and a policy regarding all the alternative forms in Persian, all the more so if the status quo cannot be a reason for deletion. I thought it would be a straightforward case for deletion. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kaixinguo~enwiktionary: the form is probably in actual use per "Yes, absolutely", and the RFD nominator has reconsidered per "If possible I would like to withdraw this request for deletion ...". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. @Kaixinguo~enwiktionary You must be confused. We wouldn't keep an Arabic entry for "جِدِّيّ" but we would for جِدِّيّ ‎(jiddiyy) (the SoP, sense "serious" and this reading are currently missing). Note that the entry links to "جدي" without diacritics. The long-term established policy for Arabic, Persian, Urdu, etc. to have entries without diacritic marks but for Arabic (only) the diacritics are used in the header. It's not a common practice to use Arabic diacritics in Persian texts, even for educational, religious, etc, purposes. The vocalisation is only used occasionally to show the correct pronunciation or for disambiguation. It's even less common than Arabic diacritics with Arabic. Forms with diacritics can be kept as hard redirects at best. @ZxxZxxZ, @Dick Laurent, @Dijan and many others may confirm that this is our policy. Likewise, we don't have Russian entries like ко́шка but we do have кошка, the stress mark is used in the header in the entry but not in the entry name or in templates, like ко́шка ‎(kóška). Does it make sense? @Benwing I think we need a statement in Wiktionary:AAR that entry names shouldn't contain diacritics (and similar thing for some other Arabic based languages). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I am not confused about anything! I am the one who nominated it for deletion! Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you are confused as you deleted useful content from جدی and redirected جدّی before this discussion was over and removed the 'rfd' template altogether. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    • It's just bloody ridiculous, someone has nominated this years ago, I have nominated it again, and yet I still can't get it deleted. I even wrote 'Can someone just delete it, for goodness' sake.' but still, no-one deleted it. I won't edit Wiktionary again until someone deletes it. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
      • @Kaixinguo~enwiktionary Hmm, why did you talk about the withdrawal of the nomination then? You can discuss the policy for Persian entries on Wiktionary_talk:About_Persian but let me assure you, we do have long-established practice of having Persian entries without diacritics and many entries like this one were deleted in the past.
      • Do you call the alternative form with diacritic "useful content"? In this diff I have reformatted the usage example and removed the "alternative form" section. If we decide that Persian entries may have diacritics, then the headword itself can take (similar to the Arabic example above). I personally think we don't need diacritics in the Persian headwords (displayed, for example as {{fa-adj|tr=jeddi|head=جدّی}}) but I let the community decide this. In any case, we never-ever have full Persian entry names with diacritics. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Talking about who is confused here again. If you're asking for the entry to be deleted, why do you complain about removing the link to the deleted entry?! (alternative forms) :) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Someone tagged me in this discussion, so I'll chime in. As we do with other diacritic marks in Arabic script, this too should be a shown only in headwords, or as a redirect at best. As far as Persian is concerned, and as far as I know, the shadda is not an alternative spelling, but can be used in writing to stress gemination or clarify pronunciation, especially in cases where a word exists with a similar or different meaning but is spelled the same without the diacritic. Urdu follows similar rules as Persian. The shadda is only used when gemination is being emphasized and to differentiate from similarly spelled words. --Dijan (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The entry was deleted (a while ago, not by me), in accordance with our general policy/practice on the matter; see also the comment of Persian-speaker ZxxZxxZ on the entry's talk page. (Strictly speaking, he and others proposed redirecting the entry, which I am fine with. Either delete or redirect the entry.) - -sche (discuss) 08:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
@-sche: Re: "general policy": What would that be, any link? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks to Anatoli T. for re-creating the entry! It's great that you are willing to step in and create re-directs for all the Persian entries. Take care not to forget forms with and without ZWNJ, forms with and without Persian kaf, forms with Persian yeh and Arabic yeh, and with yeh used to show an ezafe and so on. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I would hazard a guess that ZWNJs could be handled by automatic redirects the way long "ſ"es are, although for better or worse we do have some ZWNJs already (e.g. in the alt forms section of ذره‌بین). Z wrote on the talk page "tashdid shouldn't be used for every word that has it, but only for those which may be ambiguous without putting the mark"; assuming that's what we're doing (using shaddas in some entry titles), having a redirect here seems like (1) a good idea to help users find entries, (2) very different from including vowel diacritics or the like, and (3) something that couldn't be handled by automatic redirect like the other stuff (because sometimes the title with shadda is correct). - -sche (discuss) 09:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
@Kaixinguo~enwiktionary: Thank you but I only created this entry casually and I am not normally work with Persian but occasionally add translations of important terms, which are missing. Redirects are generally discouraged. Correctly formatted main entries are important, not redirects. We don't have an established policy for Arabic, only a convention and common practice but in Persian and Urdu, diacritics are used much less often and this hasn't become a great issue with entries. If we establish a policy for Persian diacritics, it's not clear if we should provide full vocalisation, only the parts that may cause problems, only cases when there are words with similar spellings, etc. Wiktionary:About Persian doesn't cover this. Perhaps we shouldn't do what native speakers don't either - add diacritics when there's hardly a Persian dictionary that uses them. I like what the Persian Wiktionary does, e.g. the term پادزهر ‎(pâdzahr) has (زَ) in the top right corner. It tells me that there is a fatha (fathe, zabar) after "ز", the alef is consistently a long "â", no other long vowels and other consonants are unmarked. That's enough for people who don't know enough Persian, like me to know how to pronounce it. (approximately). Full transliterations into Roman letters are better for foreigners, of course. (I recently bought some dictionaries with transliterations when I was in Paris: Persian-English-Persian, French-Hebrew-French and another good Arabic dictionary with examples)
I encourage you to make more Persian entries. I prefer to make a difference, not to make a point. :) The alternative forms with ZWNJ, etc, could always be added but we need more lemmas. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, {{fa-adj}} and others don't allow |head= parameter. I was thinking of adding |head=جدّی to the headword if it makes the entry better to display جدّی in the headword. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. Although this entry was already deleted prior to closure, the consensus is that this entry should not exist as an entry (there is some support for having a redirect, but more for the proposition that there should be no entry at this title). bd2412 T 15:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

July 2015[edit]


Sum of parts, in my opinion. Something can be "-centric" on virtually anything, e.g. even google books:"cave-centric" and google books:"middle-centric" are attested. - -sche (discuss) 21:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It's debatable whether or not COALMINE would apply if Shiacentric were attested: would COALMINE protect all hyphenated and spaced alt forms, or only ones which (like Shiacentric) lacked the apostrophe? (If Shi'acentric were attested, the case for COALMINE would be clearer.) It's not clear whether Shiacentric is attested or not: it's a blue link because PAM created it with two citations, but one didn't use the form in question and the other is possibly a typo or misspelling. - -sche (discuss) 21:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep single word. If attested. Ƿidsiþ 13:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete unless COALMINE applies. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Abstain. I am undecided about whether hyphenated compounds are automatically single words, like closed compounds. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 15:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


sum of parts: 亞美利加 (America) + (continent) (probably relevant: 北京市) —suzukaze (tc) 06:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Don't nominate something for deletion without first doing, then submitting, research to make sure that this term hasn't been used in print. 07:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Supporting the same approach for other Chinese, Japanese and Korean proper nouns where common nouns like "river, state, city, province, prefecture, country", etc. should be excluded from the lemma, unless they absolutely belong together. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as few Chinese say this sum of parts while too formal.--Jusjih (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 15:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

addictive personality[edit]

Sum of parts? ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I think SoP would be a personality that is itself addictive (easy to become addicted to). Although sense three of "addictive" covers this, it uses "addictive personality" as an example, and I don't know of another commonly used collocation where "addictive" is used to mean something other than sense 1 or 2. bd2412 T 13:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
    Some usage at COCA of addictive is more like definition three. Noun phrases headed by life, crime, disease, disorder, for example, don't well fit "1. Causing or tending to cause addiction; habit-forming.", let alone "2. Enjoyable."
A catchall sense, possibly even broader (eg, "or associated with") than "3. Characterized by or susceptible to addiction." seems necessary to include all of these.
OTOH addictive personality at OneLook Dictionary Search shows that two lemmings, a medical and a learner's dictionary, have it. DCDuring TALK 16:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. dictionary.cambridge.org has it[1]. Since no one posted any boldface yet, here is one. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 15:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Plautus characters[edit]



"Conquerer of many towers"


"Bread muncher"




"Embracer" or "Entangler"


"Lover of parties" (also, a woman, not a man!)


"The absolute end" (again, not a male character!)

All of these names are identified as being psuedo-Greek words invented by Plautus (I've given the etymologies above), and exist only as characters in his play Miles Gloriosus - they aren't Latin names any more than Nanki-Poo or Obi-Wan Kenobi are English names. As such, these fail WT:FICTION. There are well over a hundred of these entries, all with the same "male given name" definition (regardless of whether or not the character is male) - I don't want to flood RFD/RFV with them, but as it stands, they stand on the border between "misleading" and "flat-out wrong". Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating these. I found a genus of marine parasites named for one of Plautus parasites ("one who eats at the table of another, and repays him with flattery and buffoonery, parasite").
How does literary commentary count for attestation of fictional characters? There is a lot that refers to these characters. DCDuring TALK 23:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Del per nom. - -sche (discuss) 06:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I would like a little time to work on the other similar ones to determine which have been used as a source of taxonomic names. It is sometimes difficult to determine etymologies for taxa, especially the less common ones, so this work may be wasted as actual entries, but may be of some modest value for etymologies. DCDuring TALK 17:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge into a single Appendix, say Appendix:Names of characters in plays of Plautus, the ultimate contents being the name, the play, and some kind of etymology, and any derivations, such as taxonomic names. DCDuring TALK 17:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
See Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-10/Disallowing_certain_appendices for a related vote in favor of the principle of a single appendix for each class of such things, though an Appendix could also be RfDed. DCDuring TALK 00:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I would like to see all these Old Latin (itc-ola) entries kept, but failing that, an appendix such as the one DCDuring proposes, in conjunction with {{only in}} links thereto from all those pages, would be the next best thing. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
See User:DCDuring/Names of characters in plays of Plautus, where I've started work. A high percentage of the names are taxa or taxonomic epithets, as I suspected. But there are other sources for some of the derived taxa etc. DCDuring TALK 01:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I support appendicisation. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Appendicize. Sounds good to me. bd2412 T 15:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Abstain. Does this fail WT:CFI#Fictional universes? Since, the characters are fictional, right, but is the universe in which they reside fictional? In any case, correct the definitions to be accurate. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

KTV bar[edit]

SoP. My creation, but it was re-added to WT:REE after I removed it. Let the community decide... Equinox 02:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I added this request months ago when I was researching KTV in both Chinese and English. I requested five common collocations found on the internet that I didn't feel had a single obvious meaning guessable from the sum of their parts and my rudimentary knowledge of KTV.
In the case of KTV bar, I wasn't sure what this common phrase would be used for since all the KTV establishments I've seen in China don't have a bar but only have private rooms. It's certainly not a term I've encountered referring to anything in Australia. It might refer to something in Cambodia or some other place that has something called KTV that differs from Chinese KTV. Or perhaps there are actually some western-style karaoke bars and don't have private rooms in China and this term refers to those? It could also refer to a part of KTV establishment or private room where you order drinks.
We have quite a few comparable entries which some might consider SOP by the way: cash bar, coffee bar, gay bar, karaoke bar, milk bar, singles bar, snack bar, wet bar, wine bar
I've only come across this term online. I've never been to a KTV in China or Cambodia. I have been into places I assume are similar but not called "KTV" in Japan, Korea, and Vietnam, but they were all private room only with nothing I would consider to be a bar. You ordered drinks before you went to the room, by going back to the front desk, or via the karaoke control panel.
My hunch is that it is used for a type of establishment in the Philippines that does not exist in China. Perhaps like the go-go bars of Thailand but featuring karaoke as well as girls.
hippietrail (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I would consider both this and karaoke bar SOP and delete them. - -sche (discuss) 06:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Please add the reasoning behind only those two being SOP and not the others. — hippietrail (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: Collins has "karaoke bar"[2]. I also checked "singles bar", which is in oxforddictionaries.com[3], AHD[4], Collins[5], and dictionary.cambridge.org[6]. Singles bar appears similarly transparent as KTV bar. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

KTV lounge[edit]

SoP. My creation, but it was re-added to WT:REE after I removed it. Let the community decide... Equinox 02:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I added this request months ago when I was researching KTV in both Chinese and English. I requested five common collocations found on the internet that I didn't feel had a single obvious I could confidently guess from the sum of their parts and my rudimentary knowledge of KTV.
In the case of KTV lounge, does it refer to a cocktail lounge with karaoke? A KTV private room furnished more like a loungeroom? A KTV specializing in lounge music? A common room in a large hotel where patrons can sing karaoke?
We have quite a few comparable entries which some might consider SOP by the way: cocktail lounge, departure lounge, liquor lounge, sewing lounge, sun lounge
I've only come across this term online. I've never been to a KTV in China or Cambodia. I have been into places I assume are similar but not called "KTV" in Japan, Korea, and Vietnam, but they were all private room only with nothing I would consider to be a lounge, though the comfort of the furnishings varied I wouldn't compare any to a lounge.
My hunch is that it is used for either a very high-end exclusive kind of KTV establishment in China or an upscale version of a KTV bar in the Philippines, perhaps referring to a kind that is family friendly rather than a place to pick up working girls? I can only guess.
hippietrail (talk) 07:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I would consider both this and karaoke bar SOP (sense 3 of "lounge" is "an establishment, similar to a bar, that serves alcohol and often plays background music or shows television") and delete them. - -sche (discuss) 06:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Please describe your reasoning as to why those are SOP but not cocktail lounge and liquor lounge, which seem to fit your criteria. You should also nominate the other terms you feel are SOP and provide a link to the nomination here. — hippietrail (talk) 05:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: Collins has "karaoke bar"[7]. I also checked "singles bar", which is in oxforddictionaries.com[8], AHD[9], Collins[10], and dictionary.cambridge.org[11]. Singles bar appears similarly transparent as KTV lounge. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Prince of Demons[edit]

Delete for the same reason Talk:Prince of the Power of the Air was deleted, and for the same reason we don't have god of thunder, king of darkness / King of Darkness, god of the silver bow (see Epithets in Homer) or Lord of Light (or forty-third president of the United States). - -sche (discuss) 21:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


User:Fitoschido tagged it for speedy deletion, saying "misspelling of estercoleros. It is contrary to Spanish rules of diphthongization and should not remain here to popularize it". --A230rjfowe (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Fitoschido why delete just the plural but not estiercolero? — Ungoliant (falai) 14:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV because that page did not exist when I flagged estiercoleros for deletion. I would support deleting estiercolero as well. —Fitoschido (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy kept. This is stupid and does not belong at RFD; the word is easily citeable. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge I LOVE how you call people stupid when they don’t agree with you. Ridiculous. —Fitoschido (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
@Fitoschido: It's not about agreeing with me, it's about agreeing with WT:CFI. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge That is not true. It’s about you. You’re the only one who has swiftly killed a discussion process without much reasoning and with insults. Besides, you don’t seem to be much knowledgeable about Spanish, so please excuse me if I don’t think your opinion is very valuable. The misspelling is NOT “easily citable” just because a single newspaper published it. —Fitoschido (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be in RFV? --WikiTiki89 17:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: Only if you dispute the three cites I just added to it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
But theoretically, this discussion should have taken place at RFV. --WikiTiki89 18:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I am confused by the claim that this is not a misspelling. Although raw counts are of limited value, it's fairly striking that "estiercolero" OR "estiercoleros" gets 8220 web and 116 book hits, of which the top are the Wiktionary entry (always a bad sign) and a book discussing the word's nonexistence, while "estercolero" OR "estercoleros" gets 223,000 web and 711 book hits. (For the curious, the Handbook's citation to Eddington 1996 is to this paper (PDF), the author of which somewhat puzzlingly considered estercolero to be a nonexistent "nonce word", but which in any case found that native speakers of Spanish deemed the I-free version of this and other such words to be correct by a wide margin.) -- Visviva (talk) 00:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
A misspelling is a product of an orthographical deviation from what is deemed as standard. This is pronounced just as it is written, and both the pronunciation and orthography are different from standard. Therefore it is not a misspelling, but a proscribed alternative form, which is exactly what the lemma is marked as being. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Unclosing. The nomination would be that this is a rare misspelling; see WT:CFI#Spellings. Such a nomination belongs to RFD. We had multiple such nominations in RFD, and no one complained. Furthermore, there is nothing to verify in RFV since this is attested. Attested rare misspellings is what we deal with in RFD. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Abstain. estiercoleros,estercoleros at Google Ngram Viewer in the Spanish corpus does not find "estiercoleros" at all. google books:"estiercoleros" gives only few hits; it gives me 31 hits. This should probably be deleted as a rare misspelling per WT:CFI#Spellings. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    Switching to delete since the policy (WT:CFI#Spellings) is now to delete rare misspellings. The spelling is indeed barely attested. Visviva above also makes good points. Let me note that I do not care about whether it is "contrary to Spanish rules of diphthongization"; I only care about the actual frequency of the form, and the likelihood that, based on the frequency, it is a misspelling and a rare one too. The evidence of actual use or its lack suggests this is a rare misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep. It’s true that this is contrary to the Spanish rules of diphthongisation, but going against a grammatical rule creates a nonstandard form, not a misspelling. It is no more a misspelling of estercoleros than readed is a misspelling of read or sayed of said.
Of course, we’d be doing our readers a disfavour if its nonstandardness were not indicated in the entry, as it is in estiercolero. I recommend converting the definition to include something along the lines of “nonstandard form of estercoleros”. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
How do you know this spelling is intentional? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The presence or non-presence of diphthongisation in a Spanish word is a grammatical and phonetic matter. It has nothing to do with spelling. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)



Discussion moved from WT:TR.

I think this is a typo or tongue slip of arthralgia. It is well attested, but almost all Google Books hits (that aren’t scannos) use anthralgia once or twice and arthralgia much more often elsewhere. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Anthroconidia may have the same problem. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
When works which use a nonstandard spelling x also use the standard spelling y, that is IMO the clearest possible indication that x is a misspelling or typo (short of addenda to or subsequent edition of the works outright specifying that x was a mistype). Anthralgia is not even a common misspelling; arthralgia is a thousand times more common. I would delete anthralgia. Anthroconidia is so much rarer than arthroconidia that it doesn't even appear in ngrams; I would delete it, too. - -sche (discuss) 07:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Delete both per -sche. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep anthralgia as a common misspelling: (anthralgia*1000),arthralgia at Google Ngram Viewer gives a handsome frequency ratio of 1000 in copyedited corpus. Compare e.g. (beleive*2000),believe at Google Ngram Viewer; beleive. In CFI, it is WT:CFI#Spellings. For frequency ratio calibration, see User talk:Dan Polansky/2013#What is a misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    • But how many of those are scannos, i.e. cases like this where the text does say "arthralgia" but Google thinks it says "anthralgia"? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
      • On the 1st page of google books:"anthralgia" with 10 hits, I find only one scanno. So that looks good. Someone may want to examine more pages of the results. Even if every 2nd hit were a scanno, we would have frequency ratio of 2000 instead of 1000, which is still fine for a common misspelling by my lights. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Abstain on anthroconidia: absent from GNV, only 15 hits in google books:"anthroconidia". It probably should not be kept as per [[WT:CFI#Spellings] since it is a rare misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Arthroconidia is the plural of arthroconidium. anthroconidia occurs 4 times (~3%) in Google books with preview, whereas arthroconidia occurs about 135 time in Google books with preview. In contrast, another misspelling, arthroconida, occurs 11 times (~8%). Ie, arthroconida has a better claim for being a common misspelling than anthroconidia. DCDuring TALK 18:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • anthroconidia deleted by -sche; anthralgia not yet decided. @User:-sche: Can you explain why factor 1000 in the copyedited corpus of Google Ngram Viewer does not establish a common misspelling for anthralgia, based on the data that you have used to establish a threshold of commonness? Can you name some 7 items that you consider to be common misspellings? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

August 2015[edit]


RFD Spanish. Should be bóxer but I feel someone's gonna revert me if I plain delete it --A230rjfowe (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Might this be an alternative spelling (or common misspelling)? Accented words are often conveyed with accents missing in casual or careless usage. bd2412 T 18:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • This is an RFV issue, but in any case google books:"los boxers" definitely shows usage as an alt form. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


An old Gtroy entry for a rare typo (or perhaps in some cases a misspelling). Of the four citations Gtroy had found, three all used the spelling "mottled" more (suggesting "motted" was a mere typo), and the fourth seems to have been typoing "mooted" instead. - -sche (discuss) 23:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as common misspelling; the frequency ratio after 1950 is 2500: (motted*2500),mottled at Google Ngram Viewer, which is good enough for a common misspelling; compare e.g. (beleive*2000),believe at Google Ngram Viewer). The above mentioned fact that 'three [...] used the spelling "mottled" more' does not suggest to me that this is a typo rather than a misspelling; I'd hazard a guess that many works containing the misspelling beleive also contain believe. Moreover, WT:CFI#Spellings only excludes rare "misspellings"; it does not have any statement excluding "typos". Thus, CFI excludes rare typos to the extent they are considered rare misspellings. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

ghost town[edit]

RFD sense "An Internet forum that lacks active users." and "An artist who lacks a fan base.", now redundant to the newly added generalized figurative sense. --WikiTiki89 01:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. I don't think sense 4 exists ("An artist who lacks a fan base."), but if it did, I suppose it would be keepable just because it's a weird semantic leap to go from the fanbase being empty to the artist being a ghost town. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
    It depends how would be used. If you say "This artist is a ghost town", it's pretty clear what that would mean, but if you say "Do you know any ghost towns?" and expect people to understand it means an artist without a fanbase, then it would be idiomatic. --WikiTiki89 00:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
About the new generalized sense: can a person really be called "ghost town" ("anyone" in the definition), like "There's always a ghost town in a school class" or "After her husband died, she became a ghost town" ? --Hekaheka (talk) 04:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I removed the words "or anyone". --Hekaheka (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

ironic cool[edit]

SoP. Many things can be ironic. Equinox 11:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Absolute SOP, so I'll vote ironic keep (by which I mean Delete). Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'd have been sorely tempted to speedy an entry with such a definition, a mere specialization of an SoP definition. This might also have failed RfV, as the specifics of the lengthy definition would almost certainly not fit with a sufficient number of citations. DCDuring TALK 14:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 19:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


Get through the over-wordy definition, and this is just sense 2.2 restated in a user-unfriendly way. The paper given as a reference defines work like this: "Work may be defined roughly as any activity that is energetically equivalent to lifting a weight. Since it exists only at the time it is being performed, work is generally viewed both as a nonthermal actual energy in transit between one form or repository and another and as a means of nonthermal actual energy transfer." The simple layperson definition in the first sentence makes clear that this is just the usual physics sense defined in a more rigorous way. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Delete. There might be something to add to 2.2, but I wouldn't take it from 2.3. DCDuring TALK 15:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
To clarify, the sense in question is: A nonthermal First Law energy in transit between one form or repository and another. Also, a means of accomplishing such transit. Purplebackpack89 16:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 17:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

cielito lindo[edit]

  1. pretty darling
  2. A traditional Mexican song written in 1882 by Quirino Mendoza y Cortés.

The information is true, but it doesn't seem dictionary-worthy --A230rjfowe (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, sense 1 is SOP, sense 2 is encyclopedic (and would be spelled "Cielito lindo" with a capital C anyway). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Angr. - -sche (discuss) 22:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
    Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

er det det det er[edit]

The oldest entry in English Wiktionary, by the way. Almost ten years without being editted...From what I can see, it looks just like a fancy phrase where Norwegians can string the word det three times and sound smart. Is it actually a phrase? Also, the translations given makes no sense. --A230rjfowe (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Is that what it is, the oldest entry? The English phrase makes sense, but whether the Norwegian phrase does, I can't say. It doesn't seem to be attested, and I question whether or not it's idiomatic. Attestation is a matter for WT:RFV, but if it's not idiomatic, I'd think we could just deal with it here. - -sche (discuss) 22:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not the oldest entry in Wiktionary, maybe the oldest Norwegian entry. Anyway it seems to be verifiable. Maybe it can be moved to det (Bokmål) or det (Nynorsk) as an example sentence, and not killed off altogether. Donnanz (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Up until yesterday, it may have been the entry that had gone the longest without being edited. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
@Angr - That's what I means by "oldest". --A230rjfowe (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

impuesto sobre bienes y servicios[edit]

Dunno why, but it smells SOP --A230rjfowe (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

If goods and services tax is considered a legit entry, surely this one can be too? Donnanz (talk) 07:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
It seems that the form "impuesto a la venta de los bienes y servicios" with 630 Google books hits would be the preferred one among variants "impuesto sobre bienes y servicios", "impuesto a bienes y servicios", "impuesto a la venta de bienes y servicios", "impuesto sobre los bienes y servicios", "impuesto a los bienes y servicios", which get 4, 3, 12, 4 and 13 hits respectively. I would say we need to create an entry for "impuesto a la venta de los bienes y servicios", which would be the Spanish equivalent for "goods and services tax". It seems that Spain may be the only country where exactly this form ("impuesto sobre bienes y servicios") has been used as the Latin American countries prefer "a" over "sobre". I say "has been" because goods and services taxes have been largely replaced by value-added taxes (impuesto al valor agregado in most places but impuesto general a las ventas in Peru). Btw, "impuesto sobre bienes" looks highly suspicious to me. The author may have had "impuesto sobre bienes inmuebles" in his/her mind. --Hekaheka (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

bone fissure[edit]

Someone thinks this is sum of parts, not me (diff). --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

contaminación ambiente[edit]

Doesn't seem quite right. There's contaminación ambiental which means environmental pollution. but those terms may not be SOP. --A230rjfowe (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The translation (air pollution) was wrong - fixed. There seems to be some usage, also in books, which makes it attestable. Dunno about SOP-ness. --Hekaheka (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
This is weird, like a mistake that feels right. My gut says they're all SOP, so delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

karaoke bar[edit]

Same as KTV bar above. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Please expand on "Same as above". In particular what differentiates this term from these accepted existing entries: cash bar, coffee bar, gay bar, singles bar, wet bar, and wine barhippietrail (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
KTV bar is also an SoP and should be deleted, the others didn't go through an RFD process and may be deleted as well (they have to be checked individually). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
But what is your opinion on them? Do you find some of them to also be SOP? We need to determine if this term lacks a quality they have or whether any of those should also be considered for deletion. — hippietrail (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Listing six terms that look similar is not helpful IMO! Let's consider each entry on its merits rather than using distraction tactics to make a consensus less likely. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's just distracting from this topic. @Hippietrail If you wish to RFD those, go ahead. They need to be tested individually, IMO, not as a group. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Well if precedent no longer counts here just do whatever you want. I have no idea why you think I want to RFD the other terms other than as some kind of distraction to shortcut any debate. As far as I know each was contributed in good faith and I cannot see what is not SOP about car door here so as you don't wish to reveal the decision making process I'll just keep to my own contributions to the best of my ability and leave the SOP magic and politics to you guys. — hippietrail (talk) 06:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI, karaoke in contemporary times is more of an entertainment system-ish entity. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 05:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed -- amateur members of the public sang in bars before karaoke existed. Not sure if that's really an argument that this term should be kept or if my point is more that the definition is too broad. WurdSnatcher (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: Collins has it[12]. I also checked "singles bar", which is in oxforddictionaries.com[13], AHD[14], Collins[15], and dictionary.cambridge.org[16]. Singles bar appears similarly transparent as karaoke bar. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

software development[edit]

Delete for same reasons as software development process (above) -- · (talk) 00:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom. DCDuring TALK 00:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Abstain. I'm undecided about this one. Unlike the other terms listed above and below this one, this term may have reasons to be kept. --WikiTiki89 03:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't even read the definition, which makes it rather hard for me to comment. Is it really not the development of software as I had always thought? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
It is somewhat cumbersome way to say "development of software". Yurivict (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Abstain. I know the term sounded peculiar to me many years ago when I first heard the term, but it looks like a species of product development as opposed e.g. to product manufacturing or product marketing, fairly transparent and as expected. software development at OneLook Dictionary Search does not find any dictionaries worth following. Also, there is no strong case for translation target since the single-word translations in the entry are closed compounds with a word-for-word composition (e.g. German Softwareentwicklung). The entry does not harm anything, but I do not feel entitled to oppose its deletion at this point. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Deleted.​—msh210 (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


Not sure if this meets CFI and would pass any verification. @Suzukaze-c, Eirikr, TAKASUGI Shinji. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

For verification at least, there's 1 (Watamote chapter 7) and 2 (I'm not sure if this song has been on an albumja:EXIT TUNES PRESENTS Vocalogenesis feat.初音ミク but believe me when I say that popular Vocaloid songs are archived well anyways; fans can sub, cover, or reprint faster than rabbits breed) —suzukaze (tc) 01:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Hmm, this looks a lot like an SOP entry, comprised of two non-SOP terms. Specifically, リア充 ‎(riajū, a normal, a normie, someone living a normal and fulfilling life) + 爆発 ‎(bakuhatsu, explosion; to explode), with the addition of auxiliary verb する ‎(suru, to do) conjugated into the imperative form しろ ‎(shiro) (see the ====Conjugation==== table at 爆発).
There's nothing particularly idiomatic about the full phrase. One could just as easily say リア充出て行け ‎(riajū dete ike, normie, get the fuck out!), or 茄子爆発しろ ‎(nasu bakuhatsu shiro, eggplants, explode!).
Given the lack of idiomaticity, delete as SOP. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I think that it should be kept because it's a fixed phrase with unusual wording (telling people you don't like to explode??)—suzukaze (tc) 22:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
It’s a common phrase but clearly a sum of parts. We have already リア充. In addition, リア充 is not a derogatory term. It is rather a self-conciously jealous term. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 06:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

beneficial insect[edit]

This is not an idiom, and an easy to understand concept. No need to have the page beneficial X. Also need to delete beneficial bug for the same reason. Yurivict (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. DCDuring TALK 11:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- · (talk) 05:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • If we do end up deleting this (and I don't think we should), we should at least have the relevant sense at beneficial, surely. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
@Tooironic: We already have the relevant definition: "Helpful or good to something or someone." If we were define all the ways in which all beneficial things were beneficial we would have quite a long entry. If we were to have separate entries for all the things that might be termed beneficial, we would have quite a few entries. For example, we could have various types of insects at the family or genus level, each of which was beneficial to some other family, genus, or species in some setting in some way. DCDuring TALK 10:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
This seems like the sort of thing that could be moved, translations and all, to a collocations section or tab... Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/August#Adding_a_collocations_tab_or_section. - -sche (discuss) 15:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I have a feeling that this should be kept. Donnanz (talk) 07:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
When I first saw this I thought "beneficial to what?" and the definition made me think "who on earth thought of this wording?" Keep. —suzukaze (tc) 19:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
That's exactly what I thought originally: what the hell is a beneficial insect, and beneficial to whom, or what, or in what ways? I wouldn't say it's as easy to understand as the nominator claims. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
A beneficial X is an X that's beneficial. From that, I conclude a beneficial insect is an insect that's beneficial (as opposed to detrimental like a crop-eating locust). Looking at the definition, and Wikipedia, I see that's right — in addition to the bees and silkworms our entry mentions, Wikipedia mentions pest-eating bugs and several other kinds of bugs as beneficial. Delete per DCDuring. - -sche (discuss) 05:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes but you can have insects that are beneficial that aren't beneficial insects. For example, many insects are great sources of nutrition, and thus beneficial to eat, but are not considered beneficial insects. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to see that usage in a work where the author did not define the term immediately shortly after first use or deploy it as a lure in a headline or title (as in a newspaper or a book chapter title). Can you find a dictionary that includes the term? (Don't bother with OneLook: among their references only a certain encyclopedia has it.) The WP article makes it clear that the group of beneficial insects is relative to some population of beneficiaries and some theory of benefit. DCDuring TALK 11:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
A cursory look on Google Books reveals lots of hits where the author uses the term without providing any kind of definition afterwards, leading the reader to guess what is meant. Isn't this where a good dictionary would come in handy? ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Replacing the need for basic text interpretation skills is not among the purposes of a dictionary. Nearly every collocation will have information that can’t be known from the collocation alone. Brown leaf doesn’t tell you the shade of brown, tall person doesn’t tell you how tall the person is and beneficial insect doesn’t tell you to whom it is beneficial. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
After e/c: What he said. DCDuring TALK 13:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but brown leaf and tall person are not specific things are they? A beneficial insect is. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Are they actually called this?? If so, definitely keep, as I'd never heard the term before. Ƿidsiþ 09:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
@Widsith: The fact that you've never heard this has more to do with your experience in agriculture/environmental management than it does with the idiomaticity of this phrase; I can't see why you'd think that's a reasonable rationale to keep this. Delete per DCDuring. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Really? You can't think why a need for familiarity with some specialist area would be relevant to a term's idiomaticity? Surely the fact that its meaning is otherwise opaque is the crux of the whole argument. I think it clearly denotes a rather specific concept to gardeners and I think it's not at all clear to anyone that this phrase would be used. Why not ‘helpful insects’? ‘Propitious arthropods’? If this is used as a set phrase, then Wiktionary should be showing when it first entered usage and what kind fo currency it has. The fact that there is a Wikipedia entry explaining what this is increases my belief that we should keep it. Ƿidsiþ 14:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
@Widsith: Being a set phrase does not make it an idiomatic one. I presume you might also have trouble determining what exactly marine transgression and katabatic wind mean, but they are just as equally SOP, whether or not you've heard them before. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, well we just disagree there. I think set phrases are idiomatic by definition, though not all are in need of a dictionary definition. Of the two you mention, I certainly think we should define marine transgression and probably katabatic wind as well. (Edit: well what do you know. That one's been here since 2006.) Ƿidsiþ 19:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the most convincing reason why this should be kept is a point I made previously, that not all insects that are beneficial are beneficial insects, e.g. insects that benefit us by being sources of nutrition. Thus I believe this entry should be kept. ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as a weak translation target. From "beneficial insect", I'd expect Czech "prospěšný hmyz" but it is "užitečný hmyz". "useful insect" is much less common. I also noted http://chinese.stackexchange.com/questions/2252/how-to-say-a-beneficial-insect, which suggests usefulness for a translation into Chinese; and the Wiktionary entry was created by an English native speaker contributing Chinese entries and translations. The advantage of having this as a unit in Wiktionary is confirmed by Google Translate: there, when I enter "益蟲" at the left, Google treats it as a separate unit and gives me the common cs:užitečný hmyz; but when I enter "beneficial insect" at the left, Google gives me the much less common cs:prospěšný hmyz. As for replacing skills: surely we don't need to replace basic inflection skills by providing inflection tables, right? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleted both per the discussion above.​—msh210 (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Challenge: Above, I count 4.5 keeps: Donnanz, suzukaze, Ƿidsiþ, Tooironic, and Dan Polansky (0.5). And I find the 7 deletes: Yurivict, Hekaheka, DCDuring, Talking point (.), Ungoliant, -sche, and Metaknowledge. Does not look like consensus for deletion to me, not even if I count msh210 in the deletion camp and get 8 deletes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
    Challenge seconded. No one was able to counter the point I made which I believe proves it idiomatic. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

geotechnical engineer[edit]

Non-idiomatic term, no need to list all kinds of engineers. Yurivict (talk) 12:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't geotechnical engineering go for the same reason, then? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
yes. Yurivict (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Yurivict is on a roll. -- · (talk) 05:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete this and geotechnical engineering. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

wood veneer[edit]

Sum of parts? - A wood veneer SemperBlotto (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: veneer suggests all veneers are wood. Is that right? WurdSnatcher (talk)
No, it's not. The OED says "or other suitable material". I've adjusted the entry at veneer. Dbfirs 21:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Wood precedes veneer 38/196 times at COCA. Types of wood are very common, but other materials include metal, stone (several types), brick, gossamer (figurative?), as well as figurative terms.
So wood veneer is not a pleonasm.
Delete. As there are 60 other nouns that precede veneer at COCA in 80% of the usages, it seems to occur in free combination. That most of those nouns are types of wood is of practical interest, but has little lexicographic force. DCDuring TALK 00:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

charge density[edit]

Not an idiom, simply means what it says, no need to have the separate article. Charge (in physics) means "electric charge". Yurivict (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd tend to keep any physics term that has its own letter, even it's SOP (since that would indicate that physicists think of it as a set term – magnetic flux density is apparent from the sum of its parts, but it has a distinct symbol (B) and is a fundamental quantity in electromagnetics). However, the symbol for charge density is just the symbol for density (in three dimensions, ρ), with a subscript q for charge, which indicates that it's probably not thought of as a distinct quantity, just a useful mathematical object. Weak delete Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as translation target. Translates to a single word in at least a couple of languages. Pengo (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep using the lemming heuristic: in oxforddictionaries.com[17], AHD[18], Collins[19]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

freight density[edit]

Non-idiomatic, means what it says. I even went to logistics site and made the sample calculation of "freight density", and it simply produces "lbs per cubic foot" result. Yurivict (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


Sense "fundamentalist Christian" seems to be redundant to a religious fundamentalist in general. The entry for fundamentalist itself might need similar merger. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep. It's often used to refer exclusively to fundamentalist Christians. One can encounter statements like "fundies want the Bible taught in our schools," which obviously doesn't include fundamentalist Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, etc. So it would be inaccurate to define it solely as "a religious fundamentalist of any faith." Plus, when it's used to refer to Christian fundamentalists, it's often unqualified. People speak of "fundies," rather than "Christian fundies." Whereas, with other religions, it's usually qualified. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't make much sense in light of the evidence, which is that unqualified uses of the word can apply to any religious fundamentalist, e.g. "Ijtihad is the excuse the fundies use to project their corruptness onto Islam." (from The Butterfly Mosque: A Young Woman's Journey to Love and Islam by G. Willow Wilson). Just because people talk about Christians more often with this word doesn't mean it constitutes a separate sense. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
keep or merge "Fundie" almost always refers to evangelical Christians, so the definition could just say "especially fundamentalist or evangelical Christian". The example sentence created for "Jewish fundie" is very contrived. "Keeping kosher" is more orthodox behaviour than "fundamentalist" (see w:Jewish fundamentalism and rationalwiki). Pengo (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Kept: A majority of users want this kept, and no new comments in more than a month. Purplebackpack89 20:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

evolutionary theory[edit]

"Any of several theories that have evolved over time" — clear SOP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

No such definition at evolutionary though. Does it exist? Evolutionary to mean 'that evolves'? Renard Migrant (talk) 09:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd say that evolutionary covers it, since we're talking about the evolution of the theory itself. But hell, I could probably RFV this sense just as easily. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The definition would seem to apply to something like evolved theory. This might be some kind of misconstruction. I don't see how we can include those even if attestable. I fear we would have to attest it, if possible, and then argue about it. DCDuring TALK 16:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm having trouble seeing why the main sense "the theory of evolution" isn't also just SOP. The provided WP link, for example, is just a redirect to "Evolution". Choor monster (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
It's necessary to define "evolutionary theory" because there's widespread misunderstanding over the scientific meaning of the word "theory." If we don't explain what "evolutionary theory" means, then people will be left to go to theory and try to discern which of the eight senses applies, and many will conclude it's sense five ("a hypothesis or conjecture"), when it's really sense two ("a coherent statement or set of ideas that explains observed facts or phenomena"). Thus we will unintentionally be helping reinforce the idea that "evolution is just conjecture," which is promulgated by anti-evolutionists. That said, defining "evolutionary theory" as "the theory of evolution" is unhelpful and recursive, so we should definitely improve the current definition. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm entirely aware of that difficulty. I don't see how anything we say here clarifies any particular instance, because "evolutionary theory" as a phrase is used in contexts where the conjectural sense of "theory" is deliberately intended, whereas "theory of evolution" has become essentially locked. For example, on my bookshelf is this book. In other words, a correct definition for both these usages of "evolutionary theory" is needed, at which point we as might as well pass the lexicographic burden back to "theory" alone. Either way, a reader at some point is going to actually have to understand what he's reading, and that's outside our remit. Choor monster (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The definition says "[o]f or relating to evolution", not "that evolves". Which tells me either we lack this definition of evolutionary, this is an idiom, or it doesn't exist it all. My instinct is the third one (this doesn't exist at all) but that's without researching it whatsoever (I said instinct not fact). Renard Migrant (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete the "theory of evolution" sense (sense 2), per Choor (or perhaps that needs its own RFD). Hold off on dealing with the "theory that evolves" sense (sense 1) until RFV determines whether or not it exists and, if it does exist, whether or not "evolutionary" means "that evolves" in other phrases, in which case also delete sense 1 of this entry. - -sche (discuss) 02:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Sense #2 of evolutionary theory should go as not dictionary material. The interest is topical not lexical and should therefore should be covered in an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I object to this reasoning. The definition should not be encyclopedic. The definition should state the highest of the high points, suitable as a first stab at the opening sentence of a corresponding Wikipedia entry, and nothing more than that except an interwiki link. The existence of the entry should essentially depend on whether this term has distinct semantic existence or not. It seems neither entry does, hence the calls for deletion. In contrast, we should have an entry for theory of evolution, like we have for theory of relativity. Just not an "encyclopedic" entry.
Think of all the poor suffering translators we have to cater to. They have absolutely no wiggle room when it comes to "theory of evolution", and an entry would make that clear in its translations table. In contrast, they should have as much wiggle room as they can get away with regarding "evolutionary theory", and an entry with a translations table actively interferes with that. That's because it's SOP, and that's why it should be deleted. Choor monster (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete sense 1. Keep sense 2 I've never heard sense #1 used, and it seems very much SOP or a "as used literally". Would be interested if there were any citations for this.
Sense #2 should be stated "A theory of evolution, especially the theory of evolution through natural selection." It rarely refers to just any evolutionary theory so it is not SOP. (e.g. Lamarckism is also an "evolutionary theory") [edit: I've edited the entry to reflect this now] —Pengo (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Tried searching for sense #1 and failed: There are many uses of expressions, unrelated to biology, starting with "evolutionary theory of ..." . e.g. evolutionary theory of the firm, the multinational, the family, the development of solidarity (or designed institutions, or properties), the universe, economic change, society, history, ethics, etc... I had a look at a book subtitled "An Evolutionary Theory of Institutions"[20] to see if it matched sense #1. The theory itself is not evolving, but it's a theory which is a counterpoint to the "neoclassical" view of economic equilibrium (p4), so it doesn't even fit sense #1, as it'a still a theory about evolution, not an evolving theory. —Pengo (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I put the rfd tag back for sense #2, and have added it for sense #3.
This is really an improved definition of "evolutionary", and should be defined there, not as part of this particular combined phrase. Consider "evolutionary model", "evolutionary programming", "evolutionary perspective", etc. Choor monster (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Fair call. —Pengo (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

accordion player[edit]

Seems SOP to me, one can be a player of anything really. And accordionist is a perfectly cromulent word. WurdSnatcher (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: I have found three cites for accordion-player. I still think this page can go, but I suppose per WT:COALMINE it shouldn't be? WurdSnatcher (talk)
If there was a prize for the most useless user page, I think you would win it. Donnanz (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
You think?! I better win it, I've worked hard to make my userpage useless. Just point me at whoever has a more useless user page. As God is my witness, I'll find a use for it! WurdSnatcher (talk)
Uh-huh. The result is a damp squib, and the page has never been changed since creation. At least it keeps your user name "out of the red". Donnanz (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
No, because accordion-player doesn't meet CFI (if accordion player doesn't without invoking COALMINE). (Anyway, I don't think COALMINE means to include a hyphenated form as what it calls a "single-word spelling".)​—msh210 (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
It seems so to me too, but is it a profession? I believe we have claimed that being the name of a profession is sufficient, as in the case of tennis player. See Talk:tennis player. DCDuring TALK 01:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but I don't think so: street performers can be accordion players (and another)), a "piano player" can become an "accordion player" just by picking one up; Clifton Chenier's father seems to be universally described as an "amateur accordion player" (and he's not the only one by any means). WurdSnatcher (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Few more: a boy can be an accordion player, morris dancers are accompanied by one (as a folk dance, probably very rarely a pro); this guy is professionally a vaudeville performer and music teacher, but it is also noted was known as an accordion player, suggesting he was not a professional at it. This contest is open to "both amateur and professional" accordion players. WurdSnatcher (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete. I get that many languages have a one-word equivalent of this, but that isn't a keep argument for me. Languages like Finnish and Hungarian can have very long words for things that we'd never consider creating English entries for. Equinox 02:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Amen. "Translation target" is not a criterion for inclusion.​—msh210 (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Delete or perhaps soft redirect using {{no entry}} like so to accordionist, and put translations there. If we had a collocations namespace (weigh in if you think we should or shouldn't have one), we could mention this as a collocation of accordion (and perhaps also player). - -sche (discuss) 03:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
There is, in effect, already a redirect. If we can't have two-word synonyms there is something fundamentally wrong with Wiktionary. Does anyone know whether the silent majority of users look at or for entries like this? Do you use cookies for successful searches? Donnanz (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I would not expect to encounter a two-word entry for something as simple as this. If I didn't understand "accordion player", I would check the components separately. If I wanted to know how one says "accordion player" in French, I would learn that "accordion" is "accordéon (m)" and player is "joueur (m)" or "joueuse (f)" and then I would just deduce that the answer to my quest is "joueur d'accordéon" or "joueuse d'accordéon"- bingo! Also, the potentially huge number of this sort of entries makes them pointless as translation targets, because our limited supply of editors is not going to have the time to fill in all the translations. --Hekaheka (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
And this entry doesn't take up a helluva lotta space, under 250 bytes. Donnanz (talk) 09:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
If you're actually worried about disk space, that's not remotely accurate; I would estimate between rounding up to block sizes and a plethora of indexes, that we're looking at least 64K. Much of which wouldn't change if it was merely deleted. Disk space is just not a factor in Wiktionary deletions.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete SOP.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Reference added. Donnanz (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. The practice of including phrase that describe professions without regard to the SoP nature of the phrase should be abandoned and the argument given no weight in RfD discussions. It was never policy. DCDuring TALK 14:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I changed my mind from abstain. First of all, one lemming has it: oxforddictionaries.com[21]. Second, another lemming has something similar: Collins has "percussion player"[22] in a minimal entry directing the reader to "percussionist". Even minimal entry using {{synonym of}}, having no synonyms and no translation section, would add value to the user by directing them to accordionist for translation. Note that this entry is a noun-noun compound, many of which are keen on appearing as closed compounds (space-less compounds), which we keep; "player of accоrdion" does not have a chance of appearing as *"playerofaccоrdion". On one last note, I found occurrences of "accordion-player" with a hyphen, although search is hard, which suggests to me this is thought of as a single concept. All of this is not strongly compelling, but I think our users are better off with our having this entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is as SoP as it is possible to be, and one lemming does not a Disney documentary make. Keith the Koala (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: I have found three cites for accordion-player. I still think this page can go, but I suppose per WT:COALMINE it shouldn't? WurdSnatcher (talk)
    @WurdSnatcher: COALMINE uses the phrase "single word spelling that already meets CFI". Many people do not consider hyphenated compounds ("coal-mine") to be single words, unlike closed compounds ("coalmine"). I remember no RFD kept via COALMINE in conjunction with a hyphenated form. COALMINE would be used with accordionplayer if it existed; can you attest that one? If you want to vote delete yet abide by the usual interpretation of COALMINE, you can vote delete AFAICS. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
    Okay then I'm still on delete. I found fluteplayer but that's it as far as one-word -player terms go. WurdSnatcher (talk) 11:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
lol bad faith. Well done! Equinox 05:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I was tempted to RFD a couple of WurdSnatcher's recent entries, tea chest bass and tea chest bassist, but so far I'm using the maxim "don't do unto others as they do unto you". I wondered whether a double standard was being employed. Donnanz (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. So clearly sum of parts.Sonofcawdrey (talk) 04:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as SOP.​—msh210 (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

September 2015[edit]


Same as #山崩地裂suzukaze (tc) 08:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

TCP segmentation offload[edit]

Seems SoP to me. Keith the Koala (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, delete. Equinox 18:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


opcode for "move characters" in IBM Assembler. Got a feeling we've deleted this kind of thing before. For those not technically inclined, this is akin to a keyword in a programming language, and probably isn't used in running text. Forgetting all higher-level languages and considering only assembler, there are all kinds of varieties. For example, here's a nice table of all the opcode mnemonics (abbreviations) for a Z80 processor: [23]. Equinox 00:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete. The same sequence of characters can have quite different meanings in different assembly languages, depending on the architecture of the processor- and there are lots of different processors. Plus, there are only so many short sequences of letters that evoke words and phrases, so one assembly language may use the same three letters for a completely different concept from another's. We don't want to get into the business of providing a keyword glossary for every assembly language that ever existed, and I don't look forward to verifying usage of assembler keywords for a processor that was only sold for 3 years 15 years ago. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • This seems like an RFV question to me. If it is not used in running text, delete. bd2412 T 04:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • In case it goes to RfV - I have added three citations that use the term in running text. (so Keep) SemperBlotto (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
delete because this is not a word in a language (where "language" refers to natural languages only and not to programming languages) -- Liliana 18:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The three citations added are definitely English language sentences, not programming language statements. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
It's still not a word because it doesn't convey any meaning. It's actually akin to a symbol, like . That symbol doesn't convey any meaning, it's just that, a symbol, and that's why these don't have entries here (or at least, shouldn't, seeing as that link appears to be blue). The same applies to MVC, it doesn't have any specific meaning, it just symbolizes an operator. -- Liliana 19:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Why is this here? It's an rfv matter, right? Renard Migrant (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Not really for RFV. Semper posted what looks like attesting quotations at Citations:MVC, including "... with a single MVC instruction". What to make of these quotations as for wordhood seems to depend rather on editor judgment, and thus suits well for RFD, I think. I found "A <td> tag is placed at the beginning of an individual table cell"; does it support [[<td>]] entry? Or does "... is extended again by the introduction of the elif keyword" support elif as a keyword of multiple programming/scripting languages? We had a discussion on this but I am too tired to search for it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
A discussion: Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2010/October#colspan, etc., full of Daniel Carrero ("Daniel.") and myself. The following items were RFV-failed in 2011: colspan, bgcolor, cellpadding and cellspacing. Other discussions: Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/April 06#Computing languages, Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2008/January#Parts of speech of reserved words in computing languages. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete, it's not that it doesn't have meaning, but it's just too jargony and computer-language specific. bgcolor is more entry-worthy, and it probably shouldn't have one either. Perhaps some computer language keywords may have made it into mainstream usage, like goto or print, but I don't think this opcode fits the bill. Pengo (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

桂英, 秀英, 秀蘭, Category:Mandarin given names[edit]

Any two characters can be combined at the parents' whim. 07:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

That is not much different from English, where parents can create fanciful names by combining elements of existing names; if such names were to occur with a CFI-worthy number of citations, we would include them. bd2412 T 12:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Strongly agree. Is there any reason to delete these? That's what this page is for, after all. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

вероятнее всего[edit]

I think it's neither an inflected form nor idiomatic, need some confirmation. See also Talk:вероятнее всего. I think these forms should probably not be included.

To form a superlative adjective, use "самый" + "positive form" of an adjective, many can use the suffixes "-айший"/"-ейший", prefix "наи-".

To form a superlative adverb (used for adjectives as well) - "comparative form" (-ее/-ей, -ше, -же, -че) + всего/всех, e.g. больше всего/всех - the biggest/the largest, most (of all).

--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, if it passes the lemming test, I'm withdrawing the RFD. BTW, slovari.yandex.ru is less reliable in terms of checking for SoP-ness. Can I close the case, any objections? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The problem that I see is that User:KoreanQuoter seems to have created the entry by copying word-for-word from yandex, as is apparent from the phrase after the last comma "the chances are better than even", which sounds non-native and make the yandex entry original and not amenable to merger doctrine. This has to be avoided to prevent copyright violation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
The good news is that I made more entries with {{rfdef|lang=ru}}. So, don't worry about other entries I made. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Nothing personal. Nothing wrong about making an honest mistake as a result of not being told better. These mistakes need to be pointed out or people are going to continue. You don't need to use rfdef if you take the minimal effort to actually apply the merger doctrine and thus rephrase or drop original parts instead of thoughtlessly copying. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

avoir une liaison[edit]

Discussion moved from WT:RFV#avoir une liaison.


I don't think this suit of words is a phrase in French. Instead, this is one way among others to say (by ellipse) have an affair, but not a set phrase. Your opinion? — Automatik (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you're right. I am the creator of the entry and I'm OK for it to be deleted. I can't confirm the sense but let's follow the process and see if anyone else has a different opinion. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I've explicitly added the sense to liaison#French, it just has 'liaison' as a definition before, which will correct doesn't tell you which senses of liaison#English apply. fr:liaison has 16 definitions, I've bumped us up to six so far. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I've also added the sense to avoir which lacked the 'to participate in an experience' definition. As in have an affair, have sexual relations, and so on. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


A fictional universe name for the Sheldon/Amy couple. 13:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not used in the universe, but only outside the universe (by fans), so that rule doesn't apply. Equinox 15:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
It has been used in-universe. At least once, very early on. Penny called them Shamy, Amy said she didn't like it. 15:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
At least twice, apparently. TBBT wiki says the name was first used by Howard. 15:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
"Shamy" has been used in a couple of episodes of the show, but it's also been used by fans. Combining the names of characters to create smush names is an established practice in fandom. Thus, it's difficult to gauge whether fan usage of "Shamy" is always the product of "Shamy" being used on the show, or whether some fans, following the fandom tradition of smush-naming, may have coined "Shamy" independently of the show's writers (it's certainly more catchy than the alternative "Ameldon"). "Shamy" already meets CFI by having three independent, durably-archived cites spread over a period of at least a year. Trying to answer the chicken-or-egg question of whether it should be considered a term originating in a fictional universe or fandom slang seems like an exercise in hair-splitting. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Hair-splitting? Chicken-or-egg? You're bluffing with nothing. Fans pick up on every last show usage. In the contrary direction, shows cherry-pick a very very limited number of names/terms/ideas from fans, since doing so usually leaves them vulnerable to copyright lawsuits. (Which used to happen: there's a reason shows/comics/etc have policies of not reading unsolicited manuscripts, tightly limiting fan/creator interactions, and so on.) I'd say the burden of proof that this is originally a fan coinage is squarely on those who claim it is so, because on its face it's a longshot. And WT:FICTION says terms originating from a fictional universe go into an appendix, unless they have three references that are made independently of the fictional source. The three citations are obviously direct references to the show.
You want fan coinage, try "Shenny". Google hits everywhere, I'm sure three of them will easily come from durable sources. Meanwhile, note that TBBT wiki claims "Shenny" is a fan coinage, something they pointedly do not say regarding "Shamy". 16:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
The portion of WT:FICTION you referred to is intended to apply to stuff like lightsaber and Jabba the Hutt. Both of these originate directly from the Star Wars franchise, but they've since entered into general use in English. One can find uses of both which don't directly reference the Star Wars franchise. Lightsaber is used as a generic word for the type of sci-fi weapon depicted in the films and Jabba the Hutt is used to mean "overweight person." These are examples of terms derived directly from a fictional universe being used independent of reference to that universe.
Contrast this to terms like Snapefic, which does not derive directly from a fictional universe (i.e., it's not used within the Harry Potter series), but rather is a fan coinage that references a character within a fictional universe. Smush names generally fall into this category. Thus, WT:FICTION doesn't apply to them. In the rare case of a smush name being used in canon, it's difficult to determine whether fan use predates, or arose independently of, the canon use, and thus standard citation criteria ought to apply. The standard citation criteria are pretty good at weeding out canonically-used smush names that were never adopted/independently coined by fans (see what's happening to Koothrapenny).
In practice, "durably-archived media" includes things published in physical mediums (books, newspapers, films), and excludes all digital mediums except Usenet posts. This is why I haven't been able to attest attest Shenny to date. "Non-durable" citations can be collected on citations pages for reference purposes, but they don't count toward the three citations needed to minimally attest a term. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Without getting into the debate, I will point out that "Shenny" has been as well-attested as "Shamy". Choor monster (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
All of the citations used to attest Shamy are from print publications. Whereas we don't currently have three "durable" citations for Shenny. Digital Spy is an online-only publication, and the Today cite uses it as a hashtag, so it's kind of iffy. That's why I held off creating a Shenny entry in mainspace. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Regardless whether it's coined by fans or the show writers, it's a fictional thing which exists only in a fictional universe. Snapefic is a thing in this universe; Shamy is not. WT:FICTION applies, as it should to all smushes of fictional character names. —Pengo (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Pedantically, even if this was first used in the fictional universe doesn't mean it originates from the fictional universe; the subsequent uses could have been coined independently without being a reference to the usage in the show. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
By this logic, we shouldn't have entries for unicorn, ray gun, or warp drive, as these these are all fictional/speculative things which exist only in fictional/speculative realms. Whether something is real or unreal has zero bearing on whether it's worthy of inclusion. Our mandate is "all words in all languages," not "all words for things that actually exist." Pairing smush names don't fall under WT:FICTION. They refer to elements from a fictional universe, but they're generally not taken directly from a fictional universe. Nor are they "names of persons or places from fictional universes." They're names for relationships (generally romantic or sexual) between characters. Not to mention, many, if not most, "ships" don't exist in canon. They don't exist in an established fictional universe, only in the imaginations of fans. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Your examples of unicorn, ray gun, and warp drive exist in multiple distinct fictional universes, not just in a fictional universe. They would also all pass WT:FICTION for attributive use. "All words in all languages" is tempered by WT:CFI. In this case you need citations that are independent of reference to that universe (emphasis in original document), i.e. find citations that nothing to do with the show or its fanfic. Fanfic and fan commentary is not "independent" of the show. In fact, it's very much dependent, as it references the same characters of the TV show when it uses the term sharmy. Exactly the same rules as apply as for lightsaber or Darth Vader. Those terms pass. Shamy fails. Who coined the word is, again, utterly irrelevant. —Pengo (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
The logic used by Pengo is WT:FICTION. The terms unicorn, ray gun, and warp drive have numerous instances of use made independently of whatever fictional universes they each came from.
As a style issue, should fan-jargon like "ship" be part of our definitions? Seems a bit urban to me. Choor monster (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd suggest it's okay as long as the sense has the "fandom" gloss: this makes it clear enough what sort of ship is meant. Equinox 15:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree that it's clear. I am disapproving, not bewildered. Choor monster (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
@Pengo. Finding citations of Janto or Snapefic that do not reference Torchwood or Harry Potter, respectively, would be impossible, as those fictional universes are inherent to the meanings of the terms in question. That's not what "independent of reference to [a fictional] universe" was intended to mean. It was not intended to exclude fandom slang that references elements from fictional universe. It was intended to cover words and names that originate directly from a fictional universe, to prevent mainspace from being crowded with crufty entries for jargon from Harry Potter, Star Wars, etc. In order to support the existence of an entry for Muggle, one would need to find citations independent of reference to the fictional universe from which the term originates, i.e. not citations from the Harry Potter novels, the series of films based on the novels, books about the novels, etc. A hypothetical scene in a sitcom in which one character declares, "Stand back, Muggle, this is a job for a real computer expert" would count, as it would be an example of taking a term from the Harry Potter novels (a fictional universe) and using it in a way that doesn't directly reference those novels. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Exactly zero words "originate directly from a fictional universe", because a fictional universe does not create new words. People do. I disagree with what you believe WT:FICTION intends. In my opinion, Janto should indeed be deleted because it is exactly the kind entry we do not want, whether it was created by the TV writers or the fans: It describes a concept that is only relevant to a single universe and has no meaning in English outside of that discussion of that universe. And this is what WT:FICTION intends to weed out: Words with no broader meaning, i.e. what you call "cruft". Snapefic gets a pass because it is not a fictional person or concept. —Pengo (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
"Terms originating in fictional universes" is the wording used in WT:CFI. I definitely think that wording could be changed to better communicate the concept in question ("terms originating from works of fiction and used exclusively within these works of fiction"?), but the implication that fictional universes can somehow generate words is CFI's fault, not mine. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Yep, I realise, which is why I was focusing on it, and showing that it needs interpretation. I agree that wording could be better. —Pengo (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. It seems there is agreement that the existing WT:FICTION is less than clear for this type of construction, and as such, it would be better to have a general rethink of what we want rather than just wikilawyer our way to a no-consensus keep. In general, fictional universe ontology poses some interesting philosophical questions, see 1986 Spring, Berel Lang, “Hamlet's Grandmother and Other Literary Facts”, Antioch Review, volume 44, number 2, JSTOR 4611583, pages 167–75:  for a by-now classic discussion. People here are just shooting from their hips as if it's black-and-white.
  • Note that fanfic is not particularly new, just way more common and visible nowadays. What is the boundary of a fictional universe? Do we, for example, count The Aeneid as part of Homer's universe? Do we distinguish between Canon and non-Canon? Do we care if the author named something first? (Shamy vs Shenny illustrates both questions, which is why there seems to be three opinions above.) Consider the thousands of latter-day additions to Alice, Sherlock, Oz, Conan. (From Sherlock/Irene or Johnlock shipping to Oz threeway slash, it's all there somewhere.) As an example of how this would matter, we ought to be clear whether a review of non-Canon is "independent" of the originating fictional universe (or rephrase our guideline). Choor monster (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

flag jacking[edit]

Supposedly a verb, but defined as if it were a noun. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, it is now defined as a noun. Perhaps there is a verb as well, but I can't find any citations. At this point, it looks like a rfv situation to me. Kiwima (talk) 06:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia that has citations in their article. IQ125 (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: Well known expression in Canada! IQ125 (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I have created flag jack (the verb), flag jacker (the person who does it) and a participle sense for flag jacking (which, like many -ing words, can be both a noun and a verb). I believe both could be attested. Purplebackpack89 20:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Thanks for participating Purple -:) IQ125 (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing on Google Books, Google Groups, or Issuu. (As an aside, I'm Canadian, and although I've heard of the practice of American travellers wearing Canada flag patches because they figure Canada has a better international reputation than the U.S. and they'll be more warmly received if they present themselves as Canadian, I've never heard it referred to by this term.) -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep in RFD; already in RFV where it belongs. I'd even propose archiving this RFD to nowhere. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

three quarters[edit]

This is a "translation-only" entry, but none of the given translations are particularly special in any way that would require us to have a translation-only entry to host them. --WikiTiki89 02:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Clear delete. Smurrayinchester (talk) 06:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • We have an entry for threequarters, but is it attestable? bd2412 T 13:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Probably. Hard-redirect to an existing article. Purplebackpack89 20:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Why would we hard redirect an unattested term? In any case, I brought it up because COALMINE could apply, but does not actually appear to. Nonetheless, keep, as I think that fractions are such fundamental concepts that we should at least have entries for one third, two thirds, one fourth (and one quarter), three fourths (and three quarters), and maybe even the fifths. bd2412 T 15:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Um, @BD2412, when I said hard-redirect, I didn't necessarily say hard-redirect to threequarters. We could also hard-redirect to three-quarters. That being said, I am changing my vote to keep as an alternate form. Purplebackpack89 17:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
          • I would disagree with that, as three-quarters is an adjective, and three quarters is often not. bd2412 T 04:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
            • It doesn't look like an adjective. Can you elaborate? Equinox 21:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
              • How would the hyphenated form be used other than as an adjective? Someone is "three-quarters" something, as opposed to numeral usage in "one half plus one quarter equals three quarters". Granted, people are probably more likely to say "fourths" rather than "quarters", but the meaning remains equivalent. bd2412 T 18:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
                • It's hard to say what POS this has. It may have more than one. Uses like "three-quarters full" could be attributive use of a numeral(??); other uses don't seem attributive and may be a different POS; e.g. (from Google Books) "three-quarters of a mile" and "three-quarters of a century" (both of which collocations also occur in other books with a space rather than a hyphen). Our entry for three-fourths (definition unchanged since 2006, POS added as guesswork in 2011) is a mess; the def is off (it doesn't fit uses like "three-fourths full") and the POS may also be wrong. Does CGEL say anything about what Part of Speech things like this have, @DCDuring? - -sche (discuss) 18:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, but not as an alternative form. Oxford lists it as a plural noun and an adverb, not a numeral [24]. Donnanz (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, what he said.
    - As an aside to this, surely the adjectival form would be three-quarter, without the "S". In the same way we say "Five cents", but "A five-cent coin". BTW - Adjectival forms of this type do not need entries, as they are simply grammatical constructs, otherwise we would end up with a double sized dictionary with most of the entries of the form (any number up to infinity) - (hyphen) - (any countable noun in singular). -- ALGRIF talk 13:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.​—msh210 (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

End of Cycle[edit]

The whole thing strikes me as difficult to handle in a normal lexicographic way, but I'll start with RFDing the first sense as SOP; the quotation gives a bunch of other phrases that are evidently equivalent in meaning just what they sound like. Maybe cites could be found to support merger of the senses in a coherent manner? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The entry as a whole, certainly the second definition, looks like a copyright violation as is. DCDuring TALK 07:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


The Translingual definition should be deleted for the same reason we don't have an entry relative molecular mass; many things in chemistry can be relative, and the standard way to denote that is to place a subscript r after the notation used for whatever is relative. As an aside, it doesn't even have the right entry title, which would be Mᵣ, so even if you vote to keep it should be moved. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


Rfd-sense: gay

Requesting deletion of current sense 6 under fabulous: "camp and flamboyant; appearing to be gay". This was discussed mainly on the entry's talk page, with notice given at the Tea room, and a little additional discussion there. IMO, the definition in question can't really be ascribed to the word. "Fabulous" is certainly associated with gay men, as the usage note already explains; but that's not enough to supply a new and precise definition of the word. Three examples were provided, but in each case, "fabulous" seemed to be used for other, existing meanings: specifically "wonderful" or "extreme" or something along those lines. The word was certainly chosen in each example because the sentence was describing someone or something associated with gay men or gayness; but in each case that meaning had to be supplied by other words indicating that the person or thing referred to was or might be gay. Each sentence reads pretty much the same if only the usual definitions of "fabulous" are applied. So I really don't think we've got a new or distinct meaning here; just the existing definitions with additional context. P Aculeius (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

  • As creator of the entry, keep. I have to disagree with P Aculeius here; the citations don't make sense if fabulous only means "wonderful" or "extreme". When the author of the 2013 quote describes her "slightly effeminate" son as "totally fabulous", she is absolutely suggesting that he was camp and flamboyant (that's why she thought he was gay). Similarly, Obergefell v. Hodges is described as the "most fabulous" Supreme Court case precisely because it is about gay rights. Here's another example I found from the Guardian: the headline (which has to stand alone without context) is just "20 most fabulous". Click through, and you'll find it's "a celebration of pop's landmark gay moments". The Guardian clearly trusts that enough people understand that "fabulous" = "gay" to be hooked by the headline and read on. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
(By the way, I changed the title to "fabulous", just to make sure the section link still works) Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I've definitely heard "fabulous" used of an object, TV show, etc., to mean "campy, appealing to gays", though I haven't heard it used of a person to mean "gay". But I don't think I'd be able to find CFI-compliant cites for it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
No, none of the examples used clearly demonstrate the meanings you propose. Let's have a look.
  • "Michael was totally fabulous, slightly effeminate and possibly gay at a time and in a place where it wasn't discussed, let alone embraced."
In this case, the word is so vague that it's impossible to know what the speaker is talking about without the additions of "slightly effeminate" and "possibly gay", which supply the entire meaning of the sentence by themselves. Eliminate "fabulous" and it says exactly the same thing. Eliminate the other phrases and suddenly he's just "wonderful." That's all the word can logically mean in this sentence, no matter what associations its use in a specific context may have.
  • "We have everything you’d expect from a small-city parade — except a lot more fabulous, with rainbows and glitter."
Again, "rainbows and glitter" are what seem to matter here. Substitute "fireworks and confetti" and suddenly you have a different sentence without a hint of gayness. "Fabulous" doesn't change the sentence from thing A to thing B. I'm not saying that "rainbows and glitter" mean "gay" either. If you tried to put that gloss on "rainbow" you'd be just as wrong. Simply because a word is associated with something doesn't mean that said thing is a proper definition of the word.
  • "Of the cases pending on the docket, two will cause the biggest meltdowns. Here, we examine the most fabulous case."
By itself, the ordinary definition, "extreme or exaggerated" seems to be the most logical here. Of course the reference to "meltdowns" seems out of place, but without more information there's no clear indication that gayness is involved. You have to see that the quotation is lifted from an article entitled "A Guide to the Gay Marriage Cases." And once more, the meaning you're assigning to the word comes entirely from other things in the sentence/paragraph/citation.
  • "This could be Jeremy Kyle’s most fabulous guest yet. Glam Sam, a transvestite desperate to be accepted by her father, said she felt ashamed of herself on the show because of her cross dressing." Here, the meaning is clearly "wonderful" or "amazing". Simply because the person being described is a transvestite doesn't mean that "fabulous" means "transvestite", much less "gay" (or are we now equating the two?).
This last quotation was just added after the discussion of eliminating this definition was well underway. And it adds a new wrinkle to the discussion. We have five ordinary definitions of the word, all of which are attested in dictionaries and which require no special justification; and one questionable definition that includes all of the quotations, and as suggested above may require more, which risks the impression that somehow this definition is more important than all of the others. But ultimately this is just an association of a word with a particular concept. The word may be widely used by or of gay men, but it's not being used to mean that they're gay, or camp, or flamboyant. It's used to mean that they're wonderful, great, incredible, amazing, and soforth. If you substitute other meanings for that just because of the association with gayness, then you're arbitrarily changing what is actually being said. The mere association of a word or phrase with a particular context is best addressed with a usage note, like "fabulous" has been for years. P Aculeius (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Interpreting all language requires context – if we didn't have the context, how could we work out which meaning of any word applied? In each, the context the lens that shows us that fabulous means gay or camp. What ways of being "fabulous" were not "discussed, let alone embraced"? How does a gay pride parade differ from any other "small-city parade"? What makes the gay marriage case different from the other (often also controversial) cases on the docket at the time? How does Glam Sam differ from the dozens of other Jeremy Kyle guests who don't like their parents? In each of these cases, the common denominator is LGBT (You are correct that a better definition would mention transvestite and other forms of trans* separately, or simply use the LGBT initialism – the "appearing to be gay" part is currently a bit clunky. Perhaps they should even be split, as per this Daily Mail articleCara Delevingne is openly bi, but Jagger says she's "not fabulous" because she's tomboyish, not flamboyant or glamorous.) Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)gy
It's not enough that the context renders a certain meaning conceivable. In order to demonstrate that a word does mean something, it has to be possible to use it unambiguously for that specific meaning, not just something in the ballpark. Let's look at the examples again, bearing in mind that the definition proposed is "camp, flamboyant, or appearing to be gay."
  • "Michael was totally fabulous, slightly effeminate and possibly gay at a time and in a place where it wasn't discussed, let alone embraced." Do any of the words used in the proposed definition clearly and unambiguously fit? From the outset we can rule out "appearing to be gay". If that were what the writer intended, then she would be saying, "Michael appeared to be gay, slightly effeminate, and possibly gay." Which would make no sense at all. "Appearing to be gay" is close to what the writer meant by "slightly effeminate, and possibly gay." Except that she meant "appearing to be possibly gay," which is not quite the same thing. So did she mean "Michael was camp" or "Michael was flamboyant?" You simply can't tell. She could have meant "Michael was wonderful, amazing, exuberant, ebullient, effervescent, energetic, delightful, vivacious, cheerful, happy, pleasant, polite, courteous, demure, domestic, deferential," or any one of three dozen other adjectives that would be equally appropriate to the context. How do you know that she meant "camp" or "flamboyant?" You don't. Those are no better than guesses. Example no. 1 completely fails to demonstrate that "fabulous" means anything specific, much less one of the proposed words or phrases.
  • "We have everything you’d expect from a small-city parade — except a lot more fabulous, with rainbows and glitter." So, which meaning applies here, and how can you tell that it means that one thing, and not something else within the ordinary meaning of the word? "Except a lot more appearing to be gay" doesn't make much sense. "Except a lot more gay" might make some sense, but then fabulous would be defined as meaning gay. Is that what the proposed definition really means? "Except a lot more camp" doesn't make any sense at all. A small-city parade is camp by definition. Rainbows and glitter make it less campy, not more. Maybe "except a lot more flamboyant" might make sense, but then it wouldn't mean "gay" or "appearing to be gay." How do you know which meaning was intended? Can you demonstrate that "wonderful" or "amazing" was not the meaning intended by the writer? They both fit perfectly well in this sentence, as do other similar adjectives. Can you show that the word "fabulous" definitely means gay or appearing to be gay or flamboyant? How can you tell? Is that simply the meaning you want it to have?
  • "Of the cases pending on the docket, two will cause the biggest meltdowns. Here, we examine the most fabulous case." Here, once again, "appearing to be gay" doesn't make any sense. First of all, a case can't appear to be gay. It can't even be gay. The case is about gay marriage; it doesn't appear to be gay. And it's one of several cases being referred to, all of which are about gay marriage. One of them can't be any more gay than the others. So "appearing to be gay" doesn't fit at all in this example. "Here, we examine the most camp case" makes no sense either. How about "we examine the most flamboyant case?" I can just barely imagine someone describing a legal case as "flamboyant," but I think that would be a poor choice of words, when "flamboyant" would more logically apply to the people or facts of the case than to the case itself. In this example, the ordinary meanings of "extreme", "absurd", or "exaggerated" make much more sense than any of the words or phrases in the proposed definition.
  • "This could be Jeremy Kyle’s most fabulous guest yet. Glam Sam, a transvestite desperate to be accepted by her father, said she felt ashamed of herself on the show because of her cross dressing." Here, "appearing to be gay" doesn't make any sense. Then the sentence would say, "Glam Sam appears to be more gay than any of Jeremy's other guests". Which would be quite inappropriate, since it would imply that being a transvestite makes one appear to be extremely gay. But aside from the rudeness of it, the sentence doesn't say that Glam Sam appears to be gay. It says she's a transvestite. So that can't be the meaning of "fabulous" in this example. "Glam Sam is campier than any of Jeremy's other guests" could make sense, but not if she's a transvestite, which is about the least campy thing she could be. Wearing a poodle skirt, bobby socks, and a beehive hairdo would be camp. Transvestism isn't. "Glam Sam appears to be more flamboyant than any of Jeremy's other guests" would also be a logical statement, but probably not in this context. It's a young woman dressing in men's clothes, which would almost certainly be much less flamboyant than women's clothes. So it doesn't look like the speaker is describing Glam Sam as "camp, flamboyant, or appearing to be gay." Some other meaning must be intended in order to make sense in this context.
So what are we left with? In example 1, "camp" or "flamboyant" are possible meanings, but so are many other words that would make just as much sense in the context provided. There's no basis for concluding that the writer meant either "camp" or "flamboyant". In example 2, the parade could possibly mean "gay" (but perhaps not "appearing to be gay") or "flamboyant," but those words mean different things, and it can't really be shown that "wonderful", "amazing", or some similar word isn't the intended meaning. In example 3, "flamboyant" is the only word that could possibly be applied to a legal case, even one involving gay marriage, but even that doesn't really fit as well as "extreme", "absurd", or "exaggerated". Someone or something involved in the case might be flamboyant, but probably not the case itself. In example 4, none of the words or phrases in the proposed definition make any sense in the context of the sentence. None of the examples clearly show that the words or phrases in the proposed definition are more likely intended by the writer or speaker than those already included in the first five senses of "fabulous."
In other words, you can't infer that "fabulous" has a specific meaning merely because someone or something mentioned or alluded to is gay (or transvestite) or associated with gay people. It's not enough that there be "gayness in the air". The meaning has to be clear, not vague and ambiguous, or the examples don't support the definition. If the definition is justified, then there ought to be examples that clearly have the meaning proposed by the definition, and for which the other, established meanings of the word do not seem to apply. If those meanings make just as much sense in the same context, then the proposed definition hasn't been demonstrated. P Aculeius (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
"It's a young woman dressing in men's clothes..."—to be fair, the person on the photos is clearly biologically male. Which doesn't change the fact that this latest quote doesn't support the definition proposed either. Just a small note. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Almost missed this comment because of where it was placed. I'll admit, I was relying on the quotation to tell me what it was about, so it wasn't apparent that the person in question was a man dressing as a woman. That makes a slight difference with respect to the idea of "flamboyance," although not based on the photos in the article, which don't depict anything particularly flamboyant. But the quotation is that much more problematic, in that it implies that the person is a woman, addressed as "she". It says that "she's" a transvestite, not a transsexual, which means that if "she's" clearly a man, the appropriate pronoun is "he", no matter what clothes he chooses to wear. That makes the example even more confusing, since you can't tell what the word "fabulous" could possibly mean from the sentence; you need to resort to the original article, and frankly even knowing that it's a man, not a woman, you still can't tell what "fabulous" is supposed to mean in this case. It can't mean "gay" or "appearing to be gay", because it's about transvestism, not sexual identity; there's nothing campy about the way he's dressed; and it's not particularly flamboyant (although arguably more so than a tweed jacket with elbow patches would have been). I feel as though the only logical conclusion is that "fabulous" is being used with some other meaning in mind, although the way the word is used seems so casual in cases like this, that it's unclear whether any particular meaning is intended. P Aculeius (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
First off, you spent SEVEN THOUSAND CHARACTERS responding to my vote. In a couple weeks, I'll have a DYK on Wikipedia for an article that ain't even that long. Of course you can have a specific meaning that is allusion to the gay lifestyle. It's called a euphemism, and we have hundreds of definitions like that. If you don't believe the present citations support a definition such as this, you can take it to RfV and somebody will find other citations that do. Perhaps the word "camp" needs to go (or at least be replaced by something else), but not the rest of the definition should stay as is: even the citations given clearly support a hint or veneer of the gay lifestyle and/or the drag queen lifestyle (which should perhaps also be mentioned in this definition). As for ambiguity, the word DOES have five other definitions. Purplebackpack89 04:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't actually responding to your vote at all. I was responding to previous comments, but I didn't want to place my response between those comments and your vote, and risk them being mistaken for old material (if I had been responding to your vote, I might have pointed out that the definition at issue hasn't been reworded at all). Your work on Wikipedia is stupendous? Good for you. I'm just trying to make a clear point about what a word means or doesn't mean in a case that seems ambiguous at best, and unverifiable at worst. I'm not doing it for thanks or acclaim. I posted this here on the advice of experienced editors after discussing the matter in two other places. I understand that you disagree. But that doesn't mean this discussion needs to be ended and changed into a request for better proof. My argument is that there may not be any proof, and that without it a controversial definition can't meet the standard for inclusion. P Aculeius (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
This isn't the place to discuss proof or verifiability, though. RfV is. Purplebackpack89 15:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete sense, which does not correspond to citations, as Aculeius' exemplary, careful analysis shows. DCDuring TALK 17:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
@DCDuring Can't those issues be solved with either a) a slightly different definition, or b) different citations? Does the definition have to be completely deleted? Purplebackpack89 18:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The definition should be deleted if it doesn't seem to be a valid, verifiable definition. I know that a lot of entries don't have citations supporting them, but they're relatively uncontroversial. My contention is that this definition doesn't make sense. Sure, the word is loosely associated with gayness and gay-related issues (if there's a simpler way of saying that, it would be welcome). The usage note already explains that. But that doesn't mean that any specific concept in the orbit of GLBT/transvestism/etc. is clearly a definition of fabulous. If you think you can come up with a clear and logical definition (preferably one that doesn't mix three totally different concepts, like the current one) that can be supported with unambiguous examples, or which at least we can agree on, go ahead and propose one. Maybe we'll come up with something that covers the same general concept but in a logical and verifiable manner. Or maybe the attempt is doomed by its sheer broadness and inability to be pinned down to a specific meaning that necessarily excludes the existing ones. But there's no harm in trying. P Aculeius (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The problem, as I see it, is that associations, connotations and allusions aren't normally lexical in nature. For instance, there are all kinds of inferences (mostly sexual) that can be drawn from famous w:Mae West lines like "why don't you come up and see me sometime", most of which derive from knowledge of the type of characters she portrayed. That doesn't necessarily mean that the phrase should have an entry. Or how about "do you feel lucky" as uttered by w:Clint Eastwood? And if I say "shiver me timbers", one can infer that I'm imitating a pirate- but that's not what it means.
In the same way, if someone says fabulous a certain way, that alludes to all kinds of gay stereotypes, but doesn't explicitly carry the lexical meaning that someone is gay. I suspect that the word is used more by women in regular speech, so it's starting to gain an association with female speech, and the type of gay speech most people are familiar with tends to borrow a lot from female speech. That's all pretty indirect, though: I do hear heterosexual men use it from time to time without any hint that they're trying to sound gay. I'm sure a lot of it depends on whether one adopts certain vocal mannerisms that play into the gay stereotypes. Come to think of it, one can say almost anything and make it sound "gay".
To sum it up: there are layers of meaning there- but they're not dictionary material. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, this has escalated quickly. Delete. For reasons—see posts of editors with the same opinion above. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, either two senses like this if there are enough citations to support that, or perhaps one like this. The definition needs work but is on the right track. Delete the "gay"/"appearing to be gay" sense, but add an "effeminate" sense or, if you prefer to think of it in these terms, keep the "effeminate" part of the existing sense. The "Glam Sam" and "Cara D" citations discredit the suggestion that this implies / connotes "being gay (being a flamboyant gay male)". However, I think it outright denotes "feminine, effeminate" in some citations, especially the Cara one and google books:"fabulous gay men". In the phrase "fabulous gay men", it doesn't mean "gay", or the writer of the phrase wouldn't have proceeded to specify "gay" in the very next word, but it also doesn't mean "mythical", "extraordinary, extreme like in a fable", "fictional", or "unreliable". - -sche (discuss) 03:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but it clearly doesn't mean "effeminate" in any of the examples given. In example 1, "Michael was effeminate, slightly effeminate, and possibly gay" makes no sense. In example 2, a parade is not being described as "effeminate". In example 3, gay marriage cases are not effeminate. In example 4, it's possible that Glam Sam is effeminate, but he's hardly likely to be "the most effeminate guest yet," since other than wearing women's clothes, he's not doing anything to make himself appear female. The meaning of "effeminate" isn't carried by the word. There is no "Cara D" example; no idea what you're referring to. You can't cherry pick from the definitions and then say, "it's not senses 1 or 2, therefore sense 6 must be a valid definition." Sense 5 clearly fits in the context in question; there's no basis for asserting that the word fabulous clearly carries the meaning of "effeminate." At most what we have in most of these examples is "wonderful for reasons to be given by subsequent words or phrases." And if the reasons for being wonderful can't be determined from the word fabulous, but depend entirely on other words or phrases to list them, then they are not definitions of fabulous. If we followed that logic, then a sentence like "the zebra was utterly fabulous, with the most hypnotic pattern of stripes shading subtly from white to brown to black," would make "striped" a definition of fabulous. That's what's being done here. P Aculeius (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The Cara D citation is given further up in this discussion: "Cara Delevingne is a tomboy and not very fabulous at all". Your "it's not senses 1 or 2, therefore sense 6 must be a valid definition" is a straw man; my point is that senses 1-5 all don't apply, and that sense 6 needs modification but is going in the right direction. In fact, it may merit splitting, since "(of a person) effeminate" and "(of e.g. an inanimate court case) pertaining to or appearing to be gay" are somewhat different things. Nonetheless, reading the citations as "This could be Jeremy Kyle’s most wonderful guest yet" / "Here, we examine the most wonderful case" is improbable. "Cara Delevingne is a tomboy and not very wonderful at all" in particular is strained to the point of being a sense-3 fabulous (=made up, not believable) interpretation of the citation. - -sche (discuss) 19:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Your argument was that the word doesn't mean A, B, C, D, therefore it must mean E. But before you started deleting parts of the existing definition (ignoring the fact that Webster's gives those precise words as part of the definition), there were certainly other words it could possibly have meant in the sentences in question other than the ones you're convinced it means. And even with the new example, "Cara Delevingne is a tomboy and not very fabulous at all" there's still no clear definition. What does it mean? "Not a tomboy?" "not feminine?" Feminine and effeminate aren't the same thing at all. But if you ignore that for a moment, you're inferring from nothing more than the fact that she is one thing and isn't the other that the two things are definitional opposites. If "fabulous" means the opposite of being a tomboy, then you're saying that the sentence means, "Cara Delevingne is not feminine and not very feminine at all". Which isn't a logical way for it to read at all. So is there any basis for concluding that "fabulous" in this sentence specifically means "effeminate"? No. All we have is that it means something that a tomboy is not. Figuring out what requires us to get inside the speaker's head, which we can't do. Does the speaker mean that tomboys aren't cool? Aren't hip? Aren't nice? Aren't pretty? Aren't desirable? Any of those words and many others would make just as much sense in this sentence. How do you know that it means 'effeminate'? Of course, since the subject of the sentence is a woman, she's not effeminate. So again, the example does not support the proposed definition. P Aculeius (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I really have to object to being accused of "edit warring" by -sche, who keeps adding more and more examples that still don't demonstrate any particular meaning for "fabulous" while this discussion is still underway, at the same time as he deletes valid and attested meanings without any discussion or consensus, apparently because he doesn't like them. This is some of the most anti-collaborative behaviour I've seen on Wiktionary, circumventing an ongoing discussion and carrying on as if there were no issue to be resolved. It's becoming apparent that "fabulous" means whatever -sche wants it to mean, as long as anything in the sentence has anything at all to do with gayness, femininity, effeminateness, women, tranvestism, campiness, flamboyance, or flying green aardvarks. There need be no evidence whatever of what the writer or speaker actually intended the word to mean. At the same time, it's perfectly okay to say that it doesn't mean things that unreliable fringe dictionaries like Webster's Third New International Dictionary says that it means, and to dismiss people who believe that it might just happen to mean those things as slaves to Webster, because, well, he darn well feels like it! So, forget it. This whole discussion was a waste of time, because definitions on Wiktionary don't need to have any relationship to the actual meanings of words. P Aculeius (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
DCDuring removed some of the obsolete and inaccurate vocabulary that had been copied from Webster; you reverted him, but I felt his edit was correct, and removed a portion of the inaccurate information again (including the use of "unbelievable" in sense 2 which seems to stem from confusion of that sense and sense 3). As for the edits to the "effeminate" sense: all of the users who think the sense should be kept think it could benefit from being worded differently, so one of them (me) took a stab at rewording it and adding some better citations, as routinely happens in RFDs. You oppose any existence of the sense; can you see why your efforts to stonewall (no pun intended) and prevent improvement of it aren't being accepted? - -sche (discuss) 04:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
What's so galling about this process is that the double standard you're applying. When I wanted to delete a controversial and unattested use, I started a conversation on the entry's talk page, at the tea room, and here, and tried to build consensus. No consensus to keep the proposed definition has been established, and it really hasn't changed, except for the substitution of "effeminate" for "flamboyant". Meanwhile, you're deleting parts of the definition that are uncontroversial and attested by the very best sources there are, and claiming without any evidence (or discussion) that they're "inaccurate" and "obsolete" (by the way, obsolescence of a definition is not grounds for removing it from this or any other dictionary, since the purpose of a dictionary is to tell people what a word can or could have meant at any point in the past). So, I have to build consensus to delete unattested meanings, but you don't need consensus to delete well-attested ones over the objection of other editors. Instead of starting a discussion here or on the entry's talk page, you assert that it's the responsibility of anyone disagreeing with your changes to start one, and that the discussion shouldn't be held in a public area like this or the talk page, but on your private talk page. And in the most blatant example of the pot calling the kettle black, you accuse another editor (whom you've already dismissed in an edit summary as a "slave to Webster") of "edit warring" at the same time as you carry out an edit war yourself! But apparently the rules don't apply to administrators, only to other people.
You still don't have consensus, and your edits aren't so much "rewording" the proposed definition as they are just moving the words around and adding more words that still aren't supported by any of the examples given, and exchanging one of the examples for another, that also doesn't demonstrate the meaning of the word. The proposed definition was "camp and flamboyant; appearing to be gay", but now it reads "Pertaining to (stereotypically camp) gay people; in particular, camp/effeminate." The phrase "pertaining to gay people" simply describes the adjective "gay". But you're saying that it doesn't simply mean "gay", it means "gay in the sense of 'camp' or 'effeminate'." 'Camp' and 'effeminate' have very different meanings, and neither of them apply to the examples formerly or currently given:
  • Example 1: "Just like the rationale for a show on national television about five fabulous gay men who provide a valuable makeover service to heterosexual men[...]" How can you tell that the word "fabulous" here means 'camp' or 'effeminate'? Which one is it supposed to mean, anyway? It can mean one or the other, but not both. If there's no basis for determining which it means, how is it possible to say that it means either one? And how can you exclude the possibility that it means anything else that "fabulous" normally means, such as "wonderful" or "amazing", or even related words like "delightful" or "exuberant"? The former proposed definition, "flamboyant", which you've deleted, would make more sense here than either "camp" or "effeminate" in this example. But there's still no basis for determining which of these or many other possible meanings is assigned to "fabulous" in this sentence, so it doesn't support the proposed definition.
  • Example 2: "We have everything you’d expect from a small-city parade — except a lot more fabulous, with rainbows and glitter." Here, we know that "camp" isn't a possible meaning, because you can't get any more campy than a small-town parade, and "rainbows and glitter" aren't campy at all. They might be (but aren't necessarily) associated with "effeminate" things, but a parade can't be 'effeminate'. And again, it's impossible to show that the word "fabulous" in this sentence doesn't mean "wonderful" or any similar term; that meaning would make just as much sense in this sentence. The fact that rainbows and glitter in combination with a parade suggest the theme of "gay pride" doesn't tell you exactly what the speaker intended the word "fabulous" to mean.
  • Example 3: "This could be Jeremy Kyle’s most fabulous guest yet. Glam Sam, a transvestite desperate to be accepted by her father, said she felt ashamed of herself on the show because of her cross dressing." The subject, a man dressed as a woman, is obviously not campy, and other than wearing women's clothing is not in the least bit 'effeminate'. He could hardly be "Jeremy Kyle's 'most fabulous guest yet'..." if "fabulous" means 'effeminate'. Of course, you can't tell any of this from the sentence itself; you have to actually view the pictures or video to know that neither of these definitions can logically apply here. It's also confusing in that it refers to the subject, a man, as "she". Since he's wearing women's clothes and the sentence describes him as a transvestite and says that he's cross-dressing, we know that it doesn't just look like a man, it is a man, despite the opposite personal pronoun being used. So this is a terrible example to illustrate anything to do with the proposed definition; the meaning is not at all apparent from the sentence, and can't really be determined even from the original source.
  • Example 4: "Of the cases pending on the docket, two will cause the biggest meltdowns. Here, we examine the most fabulous case." The case can neither be 'camp' nor 'effeminate'. But as it's about gay marriage (a fact not apparent from the sentence, which makes it a bad example), we already know that 'camp' can't apply. We have no idea whether the people involved are 'effeminate'.
So, after all of this, what can we say with certainty about the word "fabulous" in connection with either the former or current proposed definition? We can say that none of the former examples have anything to do with campiness, and if the new Example 1 does, it's not apparent from the sentence; and even if 'campy' is a possible interpretation in that example, nothing in the sentence allows us to exclude other possible meanings. We can say that 'effeminate' doesn't apply any more than 'flamboyant' applied before it was removed from the definition. It's a possible interpretation in Examples 1 and 2, but so are many other words, and there's no way to tell exactly what meaning is intended in either case. It's not a logical interpretation in either Example 3 or Example 4.
The current wording of the definition is: "Pertaining to (stereotypically camp) gay people; in particular, camp/effeminate." The second clause limits the first one; it no longer means "pertaining to gay people," it means "camp or effeminate" in a gay context. But Examples 2 and 4 don't involve people at all, but things; a parade, a court case. So even though 'effeminate' is awkwardly possible in Example 2, neither example can be used to support this definition in its present wording. Example 3 doesn't involve gay people; transvestites aren't necessarily gay; implying that "transvestite = gay" is a negative stereotype. Just as importantly, nothing in the sentence tells us that Glam Sam is gay. Glam Sam is neither campy nor effeminate, but you can't tell that from the example either. So if we have no reason to believe that Glam Sam is gay, and it's clear from the context that the word "fabulous" applied to him cannot be intended to mean either 'campy' or 'effeminate', then the example really has nothing to do with the proposed definition and should be deleted. The only example left standing is the new Example 1; and that's only because 'camp' or 'effeminate' are possible interpretations; not because they're the 'only' possible interpretations. Many other words could be substituted for 'camp' or 'effeminate' in this sentence and make just as much sense. 'Campy' and 'effeminate' don't mean the same thing at all. If it's impossible to tell from the sentence which is meant, or to exclude other possible definitions of "fabulous", then how does the example support the proposed definition?
At the end of the day, all that we have here is the unproven assumption that if the word "fabulous" is used in a context where someone or something is gay, or associated with gay people, or gay icons, or gay mannerisms, or gay marriage, or transvestites, or tomboys, then that word must carry the meaning of 'gay, or something related to gayness, maybe campiness, maybe flamboyance, maybe effeminateness, maybe femininity, and if all of those fail, then cross-dressing; but definitely not any other meaning that doesn't imply one of those.' In other words, the ultimate wishy-washy definition, utterly impossible to pin down to a precise meaning, and in most cases completely opaque from the examples given. And that's why the definition fails. P Aculeius (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
re "no consensus to keep the proposed definition": 3 users voted 'delete' -- you; DCDuring based on the inadequacy of the citations in the entry at the time; and Pfftallofthemaretaken -- and 1 implicitly favours deletion: Chuck Entz, who says "associations, connotations and allusions aren't normally lexical in nature". 4 users voted to keep the sense and if possible improve it and its citations -- Smurray, Purplebackpack, me, Prosfilaes -- and 1 implicitly favours keeping: Angr, who says "I've definitely heard [it ...] But I don't think I'd be able to find CFI-compliant cites for it" (he can correct me if I'm wrong, but I take that to mean he'd keep it if there were citations, which have -- subsequent to his comment -- been provided). For better or for worse, the RFD process is by default inclusionary. There's no consensus to delete this sense, and if you Ctrl+F "no consensus" and peruse this page and you'll see what happens where there's no consensus to delete a term or sense altogether: it's kept. Modifying and improving senses and adding better citations during an RFD in an effort to better show that the sense is idiomatic and/or attested is routine: #put_on_one.27s_dancing_shoes further down this page is only the most recent example. (In turn, improving definitions that aren't even RFDed, like DCDuring and I did over the objections of only one user, is the basic work of the dictionary.)
re "How can you tell that the word 'fabulous' here means 'camp' or 'effeminate'? Which one is it supposed to mean, anyway? It can mean one or the other, but not both." That's a curious claim, given that our entry [[camp]] has (for over a year) defined it as "(of a man) Ostentatiously effeminate" and other dictionaries, if you prefer them, do likewise: Merriam-Webster defines the adjective camp as "of, relating to, being, or displaying camp [noun]", and defines the noun as "exaggerated effeminate mannerisms exhibited especially by homosexuals"; Collins defines the adjective as "1. effeminate; affected in mannerisms, dress, etc. 2. homosexual".
re "and "rainbows and glitter" aren't campy at all" and re "a parade can't be" effeminate/campy: a large number of books that describe glitter and glittery things as campy, and describe various (often gay) parades as campy. A few examples from Google Books: "Robinson stars in campy parade to mark Toronto's gay pride day", "(London's Gay Village) sponsor the Soho Pink Weekend, a charity event that includes a campy parade through Soho", "he finds a job in fashion without even leaving, and the wharf becomes a runway for a campy parade of typically Newfoundland queer fashions"; "he threw campy glitter-fraught award ceremonies", "via campy glitter-and-drag dress", "Anne, who took dowdiness to the same passionate peak Elton John took campy glitter, might have been a born princess, but she achieved her status as fashion pauper on her ornery own".
- -sche (discuss) 22:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @-sche I like the splitting idea. A few more hits to support the separate gay sense:
  • 2006 June 9, Mark K. Bilbo, “Re: Losers”, alt.atheism, Usenet:
    Barbie is going to be very disappointed to discover Ken is fabulous...
  • 2006, Jon Jackson, "Frozen in the closet", The Advocate
    Why don't those fabulous Olympic figure skaters come out?
  • 1995, David Bell, Gill Valentine, Mapping Desire: Geographies of Sexualities, Psychology Press (ISBN 9780415111645), page 14
    Of course, a Pride march—or at least one where anti-fabulous rulings don't apply—is important in that it creates an erotic ludic topography along its route.
Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Excellent finds! But how do you know Barbie isn't just disappointed that Ken is "wonderful" and that the rulings aren't just "anti-wonderful"? I'd be disappointed if someone were "wonderful". ;) And plenty of rulings are described as google books:"anti-wonderful rulings" while none are described as google books:"anti-gay rulings". ;) </tongue-in-cheek> - -sche (discuss) 22:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep "Cara Delevingne is a tomboy and not very fabulous at all".--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The idea that "camp" or "campy" has to do with being effeminate seems quite novel, considering that it's all about corniness. Deliberately affecting corny mannerisms may be characteristic of gay culture, but it's very odd for the word to be defined as the exact opposite of "corny" because of that. A parade that's deliberately corny in an ironic manner would be corny in the usual definition; and not at all the kind of parade dominated by glitter and rainbows. Cross-dressing isn't campy in that sense either, unless someone is deliberately dressing up like the stereotypical drag queen, which might just be considered campy. But even supposing that the definition of camp has now been extended to the exact opposite of its usual meaning, you still haven't shown that the word "fabulous" here has a specific meaning that can be determined with reasonable certainty from the example sentences themselves. All that's been done is show that some vague notion of gayness is somehow involved with the topic under discussion. Which is what Chuck Entz seems to have put much more succinctly. At the risk of sounding repetitive, it's not enough that there be "gayness in the air." You have to show that the meaning you propose is the only logical interpretation of a word in a given sentence (without reference to external facts; the whole point of using sentences to attest disputed uses is to prove what the word means), because if other, unrelated meanings could also be possible, then it's anybody's guess what the word means, and no definition can be based on that example. P Aculeius (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@P Aculeius It's not novel at all. The OED records "camp" meaning "effeminate; characteristic of homosexuals" as early as 1909, and that meaning is still definitely current (one example that comes to mind: the Simpsons episode where Homer worries that Bart is gay was originally called "Bart Goes to Camp"). The idea that it meant "corny, kitschy" only came decades later, largely as a result of Susan Sontag's essay Notes on "Camp". I recommend reading the Wikipedia article Camp (style), particularly the Origins and development section. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Suppose we concede that "camp" can mean "effeminate" or "gay". This isn't a debate about what "camp" means, but about what "fabulous" means. It still has to be apparent from each example sentence that "fabulous" can only make sense if it means camp, effeminate, or gay. If it could just as easily mean other things, then the example sentence fails to demonstrate the meaning of "fabulous" for attestation purposes. And it's not enough that someone or something being discussed is gay, a transvestite, or a woman. That doesn't tell you what the word "fabulous" means. Are the "five fabulous gay men" campy? Effeminate? Exuberant? Wonderful? How can we tell which of these meanings, or other similar meanings, is intended? How about a parade with rainbows and glitter? Is it possible to say that the word "fabulous" used to describe it does not mean "wonderful, amazing," or even "flamboyant" (which seems to have been deleted from the proposed definition)? If any of these meanings make sense, then we don't know that it means "campy" or "effeminate" or "gay".
The Jeremy Kyle example still doesn't fit with any of these meanings, and you have to look at pictures of Glam Sam to have any idea what might be intended. It doesn't matter whether whether you define "camp" as corny or effeminate. Glam Sam, a man wearing women's clothing, is neither corny nor effeminate. He certainly isn't the "corniest guest ever", nor the "most effeminate guest ever", and as there's nothing in the sentence to indicate whether or not he's gay, there's no basis for asserting that he's the "gayest guest ever" (which would certainly be hard to judge, wouldn't it?). And with respect to the gay marriage cases, a court case still can't be gay, effeminate, or campy, even if the people involved in the case are. Worse, just like the previous example, it's the "most fabulous" case. So it's "gayer" than other court cases? "The most effeminate case?" If campy means effeminate then it makes no sense; if it means corny then it seems unlikely to apply to gay marriage controversies.
The Cara Delavingne example hasn't been added as an example sentence, but as she's a woman, it doesn't make a lot of sense to describe her in terms of how "effeminate" she is. The allegation is that she's a tomboy. That may mean that she isn't very feminine, but feminine and effeminate are two very different words. I can see where the word "feminine" has been added to the definition of "effeminate," but that's not how the word is generally used. It's used of men or boys exhibiting characteristics of girls or women, not of girls or women behaving in stereotypical gender roles. At any rate, the example sentence certainly isn't calling her gay or corny. But what "fabulous" does mean is still an open question. Is the sentence saying that being a tomboy makes her unattractive? Undesirable? Less admirable than other models or women? These are perfectly sensible interpretations, which means that the sentence fails to demonstrate what "fabulous" actually means in this case.
Now, I can't really say that the Ken and Barbie example isn't a pretty clear example of "fabulous" being used synonymously with "gay", because that's an example where the meaning is fairly unavoidable. Ditto with the figure skaters and the "anti-fabulous" rulings. In those cases the meaning seems to be demonstrated as "gay" (but not effeminate, campy, or flamboyant). Those would make sense as substitutes for the current example sentences, because the meaning really is apparent from the sentences themselves. But it's going to be hard to find a sentence in which "fabulous" is specifically equated with effeminate or campy, and so far all of the examples provided are ambiguous.
Lastly, can the editors who decided that "unbelievable, extreme, or exaggerated" should be deleted from sense 2 (characteristic of fables) please justify doing so over solid dictionary attestation of these meanings, and the objection of other editors? P Aculeius (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I moved those terms to under the Synonyms header. Our definition style generally does not rely on a cloud of synonyms to define a word. The synonym-cloud style was used by MW1913, from which many of our definitions were taken. I'd guess that's where some of the definitions on [[fabulous]] came from. If someone finds our definition inadequate, they have the option of looking at usage examples, citations, and synonyms for additional perspectives on the word's use.

...I've always thought of such synonym-cloud definitions as needing cleanup to fit our style rather than rfd or rfv. I certainly don't think that an entire entry need be frozen while one sense is being rfved or rfded. When part of an entry is the object of some kind of request may be the only time its content is likely to be read by active contributors. DCDuring TALK 13:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Merseburger Zaubersprüche[edit]

Proper name of a literary work. Not dictionary material. -- Liliana 11:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete. I thought I could cite The Snow Queen as a precedent but did we keep that? what. what. why. what is wrong with everyone. Equinox 21:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete. We do (appropriately, IMO) have Bible and Aeneid, but this is SOPpy in addition to being minor in comparison to those single-word classics. - -sche (discuss) 15:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Abstain. Let's keep single-word attested names of literary works such as Lysistrata and Decameron but this is a multi-word name. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


Notwithstanding that it doesn't seem to make much sense, this is a direct copyvio of [25]. I haven't checked other entries from the same editor. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

embalming fluid[edit]

Nope, just a fluid used for embalming. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

But it's a particular fluid or combination of chemicals, not just whatever happens to be used; a regular phrase with a specific meaning, like post office, hood ornament, or mixing bowl. A compound word, to be sure, but because it refers to a specific medium rather than a generic one in a particular sense, it seems like an appropriate entry. In other words, it's idiomatic because the meaning is more specific than the sum of its parts; not just any fluid that an embalmer might happen to use, but a specific fluid or fluids used for that particular purpose; according to the criteria for inclusion, it meets the "fried egg test". Not sure if it helps to know this, but a raw Google search just now showed that about 1/3 of all mentions of "embalming" are for the specific phrase "embalming fluid." P Aculeius (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
"...it refers to a specific medium..."—the thing is, it doesn't refer to anything specific in terms of contents, but to "a variety of preservatives, sanitising and disinfectant agents and additives... Typically embalming fluid contains a mixture of formaldehyde, methanol, and other solvents." (bold mine). Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
But because there are typical ingredients or mixtures that are used for embalming, rather than other purposes, it's a particular thing, not just any fluid that an embalmer might happen to pour into a corpse. Embalming fluid isn't the same thing as say, lighter fluid; not just because it's poured into the body cavity, rather than a lighter, but because it necessarily consists of different things. Embalming fluid may not always consist of the exact same mixture, but it's definitely not just any fluid that an embalmer might make use of (no rule against embalmers using lighter fluid to light a cigarette or start a fire, is there?). Note the fried egg test mentioned under criteria for inclusion. A fried egg means a specific way of preparing an egg, even though other ways of cooking an egg also involve frying (note that just because a fried egg is a specific thing, it doesn't have to be fried in exactly the same way every time). The phrase "embalming fluid" is more than the sum of its parts, meaning more than simply the word "embalming" plus the word "fluid." If it were, then any fluid would become "embalming fluid" if an embalmer poured it into someone, whether or not it's normally used in the embalming process, or has the desired effect of embalming. It doesn't have to consist of one and only one combination of ingredients; note that lighter fluid doesn't have to be butane, but could be naphtha or conceivably any fluid that might be used for the same purpose in a lighter, but it wouldn't refer to bodily fluids, even if you put them in a lighter. P Aculeius (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
"If it were, then any fluid would become "embalming fluid" if an embalmer poured it into someone, whether or not it's normally used in the embalming process, or has the desired effect of embalming." (bold mine)—that's actually it: any fluid becomes embalming fluid if it has the desired effect of embalming. Whatever people in Ancient Egypt used for embalming probably differed substantially from what is used now. And even components used nowadays differ depending on who does the embalming and where it takes place. In the future, we might come up with totally different components, and used together they will still be called "embalming fluid". Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I believe that's what I said. And it would still be a distinct thing, separate from lighter fluid or amniotic fluid or spinal fluid. It's not a random confluence (pardon the pun) of words. There's a rather limited number of regularly-encountered phrases (or idioms, or compound words, however you want to call it) involving fluid, and this is one of them. It's not merely fluid that happens to be involved in some way in the process of embalming, such as something that leaks out of the body when somebody is being embalmed, or something you find in embalmed people. It's something specific that embalmers use in the embalming process. The fact that it can consist of different ingredients doesn't make the words generic, any more than a fried egg isn't a thing because you can fry it with butter, margerine, or oil, or because you can fry a chicken egg, a turkey egg, or an ostrich egg, or because you can add salt or pepper or other ingredients as you fry it. It's still different from a scrambled egg, even though a scrambled egg is also cooked by frying. And embalming fluid is distinct from the concept of "any fluid that one might encounter in the course of, due to, or after embalming." Such fluids could also be described generically as "embalming fluids" even if they're not used for the purpose of embalming, the same as many berries are blue without being blueberries. But when you use the phrase "embalming fluid," you create the expectation that you're referring specifically to the fluids used by a mortician to embalm someone, not other fluids to which the word "embalming" could theoretically be applied. For instance, if somebody fell into a vat of some liquid and were unintentionally embalmed, that would be "an embalming fluid" in the generic sense, as long as the person were embalmed in it. And any fluid combined with it later would be "an embalming fluid". But that wouldn't make it "embalming fluid", which is a liquid prepared for the express purpose of embalming, no matter what it's made of. P Aculeius (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
It may be a "distinct thing", but dictionaries are for "words", not "things". Encyclopedias are for "things". In this case, the "thing" is identifiable by reading our entries for the "words" embalming and fluid. --WikiTiki89 16:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
How is it different from "lighter fluid" then? Anything can be used as an embalming fluid, as long as it embalms. Anything can be used as a lighter fluid, as long as it lights a lighter. In fact, there could conceivably be a substance that could function as both an embalming fluid and a lighter fluid. Let's call it Fluid X. How would you define Fluid X? What if it can also be used as a substitute for blood, or, say, to treat cancer? Would you call it "embalming fluid" or "new blood"? Why not "lighter fluid"? Or better yet, "lighter fluid lite". And what if somebody runs a test on it and discovers that it only contains salt and water, and all of its properties are just imaginary? Salt and water—what kind of fluid is that? Can you embalm with that? Or what if it's genuine, but comes from China? And by China I mean PRC. And you don't know what's in it. And you are legally forbidden to run the test because they put a copyright on that product. No tinkering with the source code. Would you use that for embalming? Would you trust the CPC with that? Why on earth would you use anything for embalming? Who are you going to embalm, and why? It would make as much sense as writing countless paragraphs full of musings about embalming on the Internet!
My point being—there must be a less voluminous and convoluted way of making a point than the one you tend to employ. If you could find it, maybe people wouldn't get lost in your arguments and waste their time contradicting you with points that in fact don't contradict what you say at all.
As for the reasons the entry should be deleted—what Wikitiki89 said. Much more succinct, and you don't have to drag bodily fluids into the discussion. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
It sucks but this doesn't meet CFI so it should be deleted. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. If I get a water pistol and fill it with "embalming fluid" and spray it on random bystanders, will they suddenly become enbalmed? No? Then there is idiomatic limitation to its usage. bd2412 T 18:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
    Umm... That's a feature of embalming, not of the fluid. You can't just take a living person and suddenly embalm them. In case what you meant to ask is whether the fluid you sprayed is still embalming fluid since you are not using it for embalming: Well, is a salad bowl still a salad bowl if you put soup in it? Yes, a salad bowl is still a salad bowl even when you put soup in it and embalming fluid shot out of a water gun is still embalming fluid (and the water gun is still a water gun), but that doesn't mean that is not evidence that these noun phrases are lexicalized. --WikiTiki89 19:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
BD2412, relevance? Renard Migrant (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The relevance is what most of the people replying keep missing. The phrase is idiomatic because it refers to a particular thing that is more than the sum of its parts. The criteria for inclusion clearly explains this concept, and I've been trying to get that idea across, apparently without much success. "Green fluid" isn't idiomatic. "Smelly fluid" isn't idiomatic. "Cattle rustling fluid" isn't idiomatic. They're all phrases, they all mean something, or possibly a whole range of things. But "embalming fluid" is a very specific thing, and it doesn't encompass every fluid to which the word "embalming" could possibly apply, and as BD2412 tried to explain, it's embalming fluid whether or not you happen to be embalming anything with it. Simply because something is a noun and might warrant an encyclopedic discussion doesn't mean that it doesn't belong in a dictionary. Most dictionaries do include words like this, even if they don't always include every word that could possibly be included. Webster's Third, for example, doesn't include "salad bowl," but does include "salad plate" and "salad fork." No harm is done by including a one-sentence definition of a word merely because you could get several paragraphs about it in an encyclopedia. P Aculeius (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
"...I've been trying to get that idea across, apparently without much success."—could it be that there's something wrong with the message then?.. The phrase is not idiomatic, because—here's the definition of 'idiom' from the Oxford Dictionary of English: a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words (e.g. over the moon, see the light) (bold mine). "Embalming fluid" is not an idiom, because its meaning is totally deductible from the individual words. What's more, it's totally just a sum of parts, as 'embalming' here means 'that which embalms', not 'that which is used during embalming', so it's literally 'embalming' + 'fluid', "fluid that embalms". Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
If it is "fluid that embalms", why can't I embalm a random stranger by pouring a bucket of it on him? "Salad bowl" is an apples and oranges comparison. "Salad" is not a gerund. Compare running shoe. bd2412 T 20:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Because it's not "fluid that can embalm anything even if it cannot normally be embalmed", it is just "fluid that embalms" or "fluid for embalming" (just like "bowl for salad"). If you could embalm a random stranger on the street at will, then it would be with embalming fluid, wouldn't it? --WikiTiki89 20:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
If I had a fluid that would instantly embalm a stranger on the street, I would think it would need to be called something other than "embalming fluid" to avoid confusing it with fluid engineered for embalming. If I mix pineapple juice and cranberry juice together, it might make a juice that is orange, but it wouldn't be right to call it "orange juice". bd2412 T 20:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you can embalm a random stranger by pouring embalming liquid on them. We don't know. Because, as it has been established, there are no established components for an embalming fluid—they differ all the time, from culture to culture, from epoch to epoch. We simply don't know what it is. What are we defining??
Why would you call that fluid something else? Take WD-40—you can use it for almost anything in the world (probably for embalming too). Do people call WD-40 something else every time they use it for something else? Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
My point is that you can't embalm a random stranger regardless of the fluid you use, because that wouldn't make sense under the definition of embalm. --WikiTiki89 21:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: Are there any uses of "embalming fluid" outside the most common context? e.g. I assume coroners use more than one fluid in their job, are they ever referred to together as "embalming fluids"? Is "embalming fluid" also used in reference to, say, ancient Egyptian embalming? Or just the modern array of fluids? WurdSnatcher (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC) (Edit: Okay, I've been convinced to keep.)
    "Ancient Egyptian embalming fluid" gets zero readable Google Books hits, and a half dozen regular Google hits (the most comprehensible comes from this "Bee & Honey Facts" blog, which says that "[h]oney has been used an ancient Egyptian embalming fluid, as a cure for burns, as sweetener for tea, and much more"). bd2412 T 23:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
When I looked up "embalming" and "embalming fluid" on Wikipedia, I saw numerous references to other methods of embalming, and a few fluids used for embalming other than those used nowadays, but none of them were referred to as "embalming fluid." When Nelson was embalmed in brandy, the brandy was literally an embalming fluid, but it was still just brandy, not "embalming fluid." In other words, the phrase "embalming fluid" means something more specific than "any liquid with which someone might happen to be embalmed." It doesn't depend on an actual embalming to become embalming fluid; it's embalming fluid even if you pour it over your driveway. The key is that it's a fluid produced for the specific purpose of embalming, whether or not someone is actually embalmed in it, and the fact that someone is embalmed in a fluid doesn't make that liquid "embalming fluid". P.S. not sure that a modern web site's statement that honey was used as "embalming fluid" by the Egyptians tells us much about the specific meaning of the phrase, since it's A) obviously influenced by the use of the phrase in modern English; B) if an Egyptian were found immersed in honey, we would say honey, not embalming fluid; and C) embalming fluid refers to something produced for the purpose of embalming; that's the defining criterion. The precise ingredients don't seem to be essential in determining whether something is or isn't embalming fluid. P Aculeius (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
There's also the matter of the bodily fluids displaced by the embalming fluid and drained from the body, which could be called embalming fluid by virtue of being a byproduct of the embalming process- but apparently aren't. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Precisely. Not all embalming fluids are "embalming fluid". That's how we know that it's idiomatic. P Aculeius (talk) 02:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
But we still need the entry itself for the slang term, if I understand correctly. Sooner or later somebody will write the slang definition. Can somebody please write the slang definition and put an end to this, please?? Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Pfftallofthemaretaken and WikiTiki. @BD2412 re putting embalming fluid in a water gun and failing to embalm living people by squirting them with it: if I put pickling solution into a water gun and squirt it on people, they won't become pickled, but I don't think "pickling solution" (or "pickling liquid") is idiomatic; do you? - -sche (discuss) 22:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
    If it can just as easily be called "pickling solution" or "pickling liquid" (or perhaps, "pickling fluid") then it hasn't become set. bd2412 T 23:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep — I do not think this passes the "fried egg" test. It is SOP (i.e. any fluid intended for embalming, whether you put in a water pistol or a bucket). But I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that it's likely a useful translation target, as there's probably a bunch of languages that use a single word for the concept. —Pengo (talk) 05:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC) [Also keep for slang usage, which is not SOP] —Pengo (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Re slang terms. The terms I mentioned above are NOT slang terms for embalming fluid, they are joints or cigarretes or cigars etc. which have been soaked in embalming fluid. That is what the anti-drug educational books, articles, and web sites say. I do not feel like writing these entries, but the point is that you can find plenty of quotations of the type "... is made by dipping a cigarette into embalming fluid". This means that authorities understand that "embalming fluid" describes a certain substance that can be abused. (Not just any old fluid that might possibly be injected into a corpse, such as diluted honey). -- ALGRIF talk 11:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Those joints aren't soaked in actual embalming fluid, but in PCP, euphemistically called 'embalming fluid': [[28]]. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I have read some articles about this, for ex.[[29]] and see that generally the people (agencies and so on) who write about this subject state that "embalming fluid" means literal embalming fluid, or PCP (as you say), or a mixture of the two. Given that "embalming fluid" in the literature can mean any of three things, i.e. has three definitions, plus we are seeing a use of embalming fluid for something other than embalming, and yet still being referred to as "embalming fluid", i.e. is similar to correction fluid or washing-up liquid, then that means the term complies with CFI rules and conventions. - Keep. - ALGRIF talk 16:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
BD2412, you're not proposing any relevance and I think you're absolutely right not to. Hypothetical points about what something doesn't do aren't good arguments. A brown leaf can't teleport, hence, it's idiomatic? Right. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Again, apples and oranges. "Brown" is not a gerund, and a "brown leaf" is not a leaf used to "brown" something. Explain why "fruit juice" is idiomatic and you will have answered your own question. bd2412 T 16:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I really don't think that's a helpful argument. The analogy here is more akin to "correction fluid". The word is idiomatic because it doesn't apply to just any fluid used for the purpose of correcting anything; water sprayed at unruly dogs may correct their behaviour, but it isn't "correction fluid". If you apply solvent to ink or paint in order to correct a mistake, it still isn't "correction fluid". The word doesn't refer to a single formula or set of ingredients; it can be made different ways and doesn't have to look the same; it's not a brand name and can be applied to substances used for a similar purpose from different sources. The point that BD2412 has been making is that a word can also be determined to be idiomatic because the thing described retains its identity if used in ways not described by its name. It doesn't cease to be "correction fluid" if you use it for something other than correcting things; if a catcher uses it to paint his nails, it's still "correction fluid", not "nail polish". So it's not irrelevant at all. Embalming fluid doesn't refer to "any fluid to which the word 'embalming' might be applied; nor does it cease to be embalming fluid if it's used for something other than embalming. By contrast, "brown leaf" can refer to any leaf that's brown, with no limitation or exclusion; if it stops being brown, then it's no longer a "brown leaf." That's why the phrase "brown leaf" is no more than the sum of its parts, while "embalming fluid" is idiomatic. P Aculeius (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
That is an excellent analogy, but is actually the contrapositive of what I have been arguing, which is that "embalming fluid" is a fluid that performs the function of embalming only in narrowly defined circumstances. In the same sense, you couldn't throw "correction fluid" on a chronic misspeller and turn them into a correct speller (in fact you generally can't "correct" any mistake by putting correction fluid on it except removing a stray mark). However, both correction fluid and embalming fluid are still called by those names even where they are used in a way that can not lead to the result suggested by their names. bd2412 T 17:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep. Ƿidsiþ 06:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Keep.Sonofcawdrey (talk) 04:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Keep as a useful term. Donnanz (talk) 11:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom et al.​—msh210 (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Kept as no consensus.​—msh210 (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


Sense 4 is redundant to sense 1 (it defines beautiful as "beautiful"!) – you could use basically any generically positive adjective this way (stunning! fabulous! great! incredible! smashing! wonderful! glorious! super! nice! magical!). Sense 5 is just ironic inversion of the usual sense, and we have long had an informal policy to exclude these (which reminds me, I should probably start Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-03/Excluding most sarcastic usage from CFI). Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a silly entry, a bit like defining the imperative of verbs separately as interjections (like "march", "run!" and so on) and should be deleted. Also sarcasm isn't a property of a word, but of a sentence, paragraph or even a string of paragraphs. The word beautiful is not sarcastic on its own. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, although I would say that the example sentences for senses 4 and 5 both use sense 3 as an interjection, with and without irony. I'm surprised these entries have survived for eight and a half years (added February 2007). I don't think that being a "pro-sentence" (which sounds like jargon to me, since it just seems to be an interjection with a specific meaning) justifies a separate entry for praise and another for sarcasm. P Aculeius (talk) 12:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Virtually any word can be used sarcastically. --Romanophile (contributions) 02:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

data value[edit]

In spite of the definition that's given, I don't think this phrase means anything beyond data + value (sense 7). —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 12:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I sort of feel like because of the definition we should RFV. But the common sense thing to do is to delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The definition looks wrong to me - it's the value of a data item, whether you measure it or not. Sum-of-parts - delete. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Deleted.​—msh210 (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

mean absolute deviation[edit]

From the same IP as data value above. Evidently sum of parts. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 12:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Looks like sum-of-parts to me - so delete. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I have noticed that anything mathematical easily gets doomed SOP here, whereas terms like "embalming fluid" (right above) provoke lengthy discussions which often result in keeping the term or definition due to lack of consensus. I'd say this is statistical term which on one hand has a clear definition but which on the other hand can refer to a number of concepts as both the averaging method and the definition of the central point may vary. --Hekaheka (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
No, this really is just SOP. Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep. It cannot be sum of parts because the special meaning of absolute is not in Wiktionary. I've clarified the definition and believe that it is now no longer a sum of parts. Dbfirs 07:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Could you explain why the new definition is not sum of parts? To me it looks like mean + absolute deviation. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 12:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I see what you mean. The definition was incorrectly linked, so I didn't notice that we have absolute deviation. I still think it's worth an entry because the meaning is not easily found from the separate words. Dbfirs 20:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
@Dbfirs I've added absolute. We should've had it.​—msh210 (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

accelerating universe[edit]

Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I lean towards keep. "accelerating" normally means "increasing in speed", not "increasing in rate of expansion". Smurrayinchester (talk) 05:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Sum of parts - crap definition - delete SemperBlotto (talk) 06:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete DCDuring TALK 07:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. bd2412 T 13:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Delete. I really hope that people who write definitions like that aren't involved in scientific research. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC) OK, I'm convinced (see below). Pfftallofthemaretaken 17:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The universe is not accelerating, is it? It is the expansion that is accelerating. So per Smurrayinchester. Also, dictionary.reference.com has it[30]. As for the definition being crap or not, we now have "a universe whose expansion is accelerating", which looks fine. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, we cannot very well use 'whose' if it's not alive. And the phrase refers, very specifically, to our universe, so it cannot be 'a universe' . I would fix the definition, but the thing is, accelerating universe is a theory, and is only applicable within another, larger theory of the metric expansion of space, so you need to mention both, and at least some background information to make the definition more than a confusing jumble of science-speak. So, before long, we would have a small encyclopedia article—which we don't need, since we have a "bigger, better" article on Wikipedia.
In short, still delete. User:Pfftallofthemaretaken 11:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The above user is Pfftallofthemaretaken, who has already voted above. I am removing the boldface from the above "delete" to remove confusion for the closing admin, and removing the obfuscation from the signature. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Smurrayinchester. The phrase "accelerating universe" would be expected to mean a universe that is moving through some external space at an accelerating rate. Instead, it means a universe that is expanding at an accelerating rate. This is idiomatic. In response to Pfftallofthemaretaken's objection to "whose", sense 3 of "whose" is appropriate for the definition. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 12:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
These are some sad developments in the use of the English language that I was unaware of.
My objections to the use of ' a universe' and making Wiktionary a shorter, worse Wikipedia still stand. Pfftallofthemaretaken 13:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The question is, is the term a semantic sum of parts (SOP) or not? This question is mandated by WT:CFI. There really is not a question of whether Wikipedia covers this: Wikipedia covers black hole as well, and we're not in the process of removing black hole, quantum mechanics, uncertainty principle, wave-particle duality, or de Broglie wavelength only because they are covered by Wikipedia. ---Dan Polansky (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
'Black hole' has gone way beyond science in its use, and that's why we have the entry. 'Quantum mechanics' is also quite mainstream. As for all the other things—maybe we should be discussing whether to remove them or not. I'm not going to start those discussions, but would certainly be in favor of removal.
Getting back to accelerating universe—this is what OneLook yields: [[31]]
The only 'dictionary' entry comes from Dictionary.com (which isn't a dictionary)—they borrowed it from The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, a rather obscure publication. Should we be following their example?
Compare with 'black hole': [[32]] Pfftallofthemaretaken 13:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Smurrayinchester. Not a sum of parts as the intended meaning is not immediately derivable from the term itself. It is not a theory either (that would be "the accelerating universe theory" for which there is no entry). I agree that "whose" is awkwardly expressed. If the def is poor - surely this means it needs improving not deleting. I don't see any problem with "a universe" since we do not really know if there are others, and the term accelerating universe could be use to discuss other theoretically posited universes that similarly expand (also our def 2 of universe covers this usage). That it is not in other dictionaries seems to be a poor standard to use in this case.Sonofcawdrey (talk) 04:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
"It is not a theory either (that would be "the accelerating universe theory" for which there is no entry)."—Do we refer to evolution as 'the evolution theory' every time we mention it? It is a theory. Scientists made observations and then tried to create a system that would explain said observations.
"I don't see any problem with "a universe" since we do not really know if there are others, and the term accelerating universe could be use to discuss other theoretically posited universes that similarly expand..."—Sure thing. If one day there is incontrovertible proof that other universes exist, and if the same observation regarding their expansion is made, then perhaps this term could be applied to those hypothetical universes. Until then, it's ' the universe'.
As for everything else—I'm convinced. Have just amended the definition and changed my vote to 'keep'.
(Although, now that I think of it, it's scary that people involved in scientific research cannot make themselves clear even in something as basic as the everyday terminology they use. Educational standards are indeed falling.) Pfftallofthemaretaken 17:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Is it really a theory or is it a universe that is accelerating (or expanding) which is itself described by a theory? The point about accelerate not normally meaning expanding (increasing in size) is a good one and I have no answer to it without doing a bit of research first.


Punctuation is not part of the word. Create a usage note at re instead. Equinox 20:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Re your nomination: I agree; redirect to [[re]]. This is very similar to "(sic)" vs "sic": the colon is clearly punctuation rather than a part of the term, because it can be moved, as in my first sentence, which was "re your nomination: I agree" and not "re: your nomination I agree". - -sche (discuss) 22:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Redirect per -sche. --Romanophile (contributions) 16:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I actually have seen this used in running text where no punctuation is needed. As in "Re: your nomination". Renard Migrant (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Redirected.​—msh210 (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

on the subject of[edit]

Not worthy as a phrasebook addition? ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

  • A phrasebook addition is only useful if there are translations, of which this entry has none. Are there translations for this concept that could not just as easily be housed at "regarding" or "concerning"? bd2412 T 13:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Although it could be more interesting in the form "be on the subject". - "While we are on the subject (of) ..." -- ALGRIF talk 15:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
A person whose language proficiency would allow them to have conversations in which this phrase could be used don't need a phrasebook. People who need phrasebooks won't be using this phrase. And why on earth is it 'informal'?? that guy 21:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Just doesn't sound right. Delete it. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, delete. bd2412 T 14:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Weak delete; it may be worth noting that we have au sujet de. --Romanophile (contributions) 16:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleted.​—msh210 (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


In terms like "load-bearing", bearing is just the second part of a compound, not a suffix. --WikiTiki89 18:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

But I need it for god-bearing people! that guy 19:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
@Pfftallofthemaretaken: No you don't. In fact I already fixed that for you. --WikiTiki89 19:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, even though it might not be a suffix, -bearing describes the meaning of the word in 'god-bearing' more accurately than bearing. that guy 21:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Well that is more of a problem with the entry for bearing. The applicable sense is "participle of bear", which is currently on the bottom of the page. --WikiTiki89 21:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete, the fact that -bearing describes it better than bearing is an argument to move the information to bearing, not an argument for creating a page for a suffix which doesn't exist! The word is bearing, if there are problems with that entry, fix it rather than creating an entry for something which doesn't exist! Renard Migrant (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I would keep this as common usage, even though it's not a recognised suffix, but I wonder whether it should be kept separate or merged with the adjective - it should be kept in some form. At least a link from bearing (adjective) exists. Donnanz (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Not a suffix at all. It's a word of its own, separated by a hyphen (unlike, say, -ly). The hyphen on a suffix indicates that it can be attached to things, not that it is written with a hyphen in resulting compounds. We shouldn't have this, nor -eating to explain meat-eating, nor -walker to explain dog-walker. Delete. Equinox 14:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Delete per Equinox. - -sche (discuss) 20:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Equinox. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Eq.​—msh210 (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

bowling club[edit]

Sum of parts? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like it to me. Can anybody think of a specialized use? I can imagine a bowling club doing something other than bowling, such as going to dinner or fund-raising, but if it didn't bowl at all, I don't think it would be a bowling club (although I suppose it could keep the phrase in its name, which wouldn't really be the same thing). The only possible window I can see for it referring to a subset of possible applications would be that there are different types of bowling; but I would say that the phrase could apply to any of these. Probably even a club that makes bowls as a social activity. So the term doesn't really seem limited to me. P Aculeius (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Not a sum of parts. In Australian English a bowling club does not refer to any type of establishment other than one for lawn bowls as per the definition. The term does not refer to a place or club where one can play ten-pin bowling or make ceramic bowls. Further, to be a member you do not have to play bowls, and bowling clubs serve a social function for many people, rather like a worker's club or RSL, where people go for dinner, to play poker machines, take part in trivia quizzes and raffles for charity, see entertainment, etc. I originally added the definition so that I could make a link to it from the colloquial term "bowlo".Sonofcawdrey (talk) 04:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Are you saying that a club consisting of people who engage in ten-pin bowling couldn't or wouldn't be considered a "bowling club"? According to the Wikipedia article, this is called "bowling" in Australian English, so wouldn't a club that does it be a bowling club? If so, then it's not idiomatic because of referring to only a limited subset of activities that the words alone might apply to. The phrase also doesn't become idiomatic merely because the members of a bowling club could engage in other activities, any more than a "pickleball club" is idiomatic merely because its members go out to dinner or hold a raffle. Now, if a club that has no connection to bowling at all can be called a "bowling club", then you have idiomaticity. So, if you form a dinner club out of people who never bowl and have no intention of bowling, would it be correct to refer to it as a "bowling club"? If not, then I don't think it's idiomatic, because it can refer to anything that the words do standing together, and doesn't apply to clubs that don't have anything to do with bowling. P Aculeius (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of speculation in the arguments here. Okay, maybe a ten-pin bowling alley could possibly be called a bowling club by someone, hypothetically, or a club of ceramicists who make bowls could hypothetically name themselves the Upper Bongo Bowling Club, etc., but the question surely is - do they? In other words, what evidence is there to support the claim that bowling club does not specifically refer to clubs for lawn bowls? Therefore it is idiomatic since bowling club does not mean "any club where people bowl (for any sense of the verb bowl)" - that would be a definition that is unsupported by evidence. In Australian English the term is restricted as per the definition. It probably needs an Australian English context added too if it is not used that way in other varieties of English. 07:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Sorry - was not logged in, not trying to hide my ID.Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, I guess, Seems to have some regional variation and some idiom. I'm also a native Australian English speaker and I'd personally only call it a "bowls club" and not a bowling club—though this seems to be a well established synonym. At first glance, I thought of a "bowling club" as something akin to a chess club for 10-pin bowlers (which would probably not be idiomatic). But I don't think you could ever call place where you do 10-pin bowling a "bowling club"— it's a bowling alley. Official names for lawn bowls clubs seem split between bowls and bowling: e.g. Thornbury Bowls Club, City of Melbourne Bowls Club, Brunswick Bowling Club, Hawthorn Bowling Club, Leichhardt Bowling & Recreation Club Sydney, Waverton North Sydney Lawn Bowls Club and Wedding.... No "bowling clubs" that I could find are for 10-pin/alley bowling though. Pengo (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Question: is regional variation in a phrase important to whether it's idiomatic? The fact that some people might say "bowls club" instead of "bowling club" doesn't seem very important. Is "red brown" idiomatic because people in New England prefer "reddish brown"? Also, is the distinction between a "club" as an organization and a "club" as a physical building relevant to this discussion? If not, then it doesn't matter whether a bowling alley could be called a bowling club. I had rather assumed that the phrase bowling club was being used in the sense of a group of people who bowl, rather than a building designed for ten-pin bowling. I'm sure you're right that the phrase generally isn't used of buildings; not because it couldn't be (at least if some sort of membership were involved), but because the phrase "bowling alley" is idiomatic and pretty much sweeps the field. But is there any inherent limitation in the phrase to render it idiomatic? i.e. can it be shown definitely to refer only to certain clubs and to exclude others that might technically be involved in bowling? The fact that another phrase is universally employed for one subset doesn't really prevent anyone from using another to describe it. Or can the phrase be applied to a club outside the context of bowling altogether? i.e. is it still a bowling club if its members never go bowling, but make jams and jellies instead? P Aculeius (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, regional variation is important as to whether a term is idiomatic or not. If a term has regional restriction, then that means that people from outside the region do not use the term in that way, and thus are liable to misinterpret it. Of course, these statements refer to "a term" - i.e. something that is a lexical item - which is what we are trying to determine for "bowling club" here. For "red brown" and "reddish brown" obviously it doesn't matter if there is regional variation as the meaning of the two collocations is the same, and they are only collocations not compound nouns. So they are not a good comparison. 07:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Sorry - was not logged in, not trying to hide my ID.Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
The only excuse I can think of for us having a definition of "(activity) club" would be the example case of golf club where there are two clear definitions. Which is NOT the case here. Delete SoP. -- ALGRIF talk 13:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
My main line of thinking was more than if "Bowls club" was used more in one region and "Bowling club" in another then it might be evidence of idiom, and worth mentioning the regional split on the entries. However, I haven't found evidence of that, and no one else has come forward with such evidence, so I withdraw my "keep" vote. —01:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not convinced that the words ever mean anything other than a club formed for the purpose of bowling. I think that holds whether it refers to a group of people, or the place where they gather (whether or not bowling is done there). The fact that another phrase is almost universally employed for one possible sense ("bowling alley" for a building with lanes for ten-pin bowling) doesn't really limit the use of "bowling club". While a bowling club could also have pool tables or host beauty pageants, go to dinners or raise money for charity, I don't think it would be a bowling club if it didn't bowl at all. So I don't see any signs of idiomaticity. P Aculeius (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have always associated bowling clubs with bowling greens and lawn bowls, not bowling alleys. Donnanz (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
But are you saying that it can't be used of a facility for ten-pin bowling, or that you just don't personally associate it with bowling alleys? The question here isn't whether it usually refers to a subset of bowling or bowlers, but whether it necessarily excludes others. And wouldn't a group of people who associate for the purpose of bowling be a "bowling club" even if they bowl at an alley? P Aculeius (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
If I may, I would like to query this statement, "The question here isn't whether it usually refers to a subset of bowling or bowlers, but whether it necessarily excludes others." I think this is a misinterpretation of the CFI. According to the CFI a term is idiomatic if "its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components" - which is clearly the case. If fact all this discussion of what people "thought" bowling club referred to is telling, because if you were in Australia or were familiar with Australian English, you'd know what it meant. To put it another way, if you were in Aust and you wanted to go ten-pin bowling and you looked in the Yellow Pages for bowling clubs, packed your best bowling shoes and favourite bowling ball and set off to the club you'd gotten an address for, you'd be sorely disappointed, and you'd be outside it realising that bowling club is idiomatic (in AusE at least), and that the meaning is not "easily derived from the meaning of its separate components". There is nothing in the CFI that states a terms must "necessarily exclude" any or all other potential interpretations. 07:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Sorry - was not logged in, not trying to hide my ID.Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Let me see if I can make my point clearer. We have a term, which can refer to A, B, or C, all of which can reasonably be inferred from its parts. In one region, it usually refers to A or B, a different term being used for C; but C is not necessarily excluded when the term is used. Does that make the term idiomatic? In your example, a person looking for C would be disappointed simply because all of the examples of the term that a person encountered in the phone book referred to A or B; therefore it must be idiomatic. I'm not convinced that this is enough to make "bowling club" idiomatic. Does that mean that "banana shop" would be idiomatic in New Hampshire if none of the banana shops there sold plantains? P Aculeius (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Keep per Sonofcawdrey.​—msh210 (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

pair of glasses, pair of eyeglasses, pair of spectacles, pair of specs[edit]

Sum of parts? We don't have pair of jeans or pair of scissors, last time I checked. ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems borderline. One glass doesn't refer to a monocle, nobody refers to an eyeglass, a spectacle is something completely different, and nobody knows what a spec is without more context. So it might be considered idiomatic. While "pair of jeans" or "pair of scissors" may not have entries, we do have "pair of pants," presumably because referring to "one pant" is a modern barbarism. On the other hand, Webster's Third New International Dictionary doesn't have entries for any of these, except for "pair of spectacles", which is a cricketing expression. I expect we could do without these, although knowing about the expression, I think that one should survive with the appropriate definition. P Aculeius (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I assume we have an entry for pair of pants because of the mathematical sense. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 00:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I think all the points you mentioned P Aculeius are all reasonable, but surely these are all things that could be mentioned at the respective entries glasses, spectacles, etc.? These "-of-" entries don't seem idiomatic to me, especially considering they are not so fixed given all the synonyms involved. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm personally rather neutral on this. On the one hand, Webster is pretty good authority for not needing them. On the other hand, the number of synonyms for "glasses" seems less relevant than the fact that it has to be a pair no matter which of them you use. So I'd like to know what other editors think. P Aculeius (talk) 02:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
And some nouns only collocate with certain classifiers. I don't think that indicates idiomaticity. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
There are too many such cases: a pride of lions, not a herd, a skein of geese on the wing, but a gaggle on the ground, a dozen eggs, a flight of arrows, but not a flight of bullets, a yard of fabric- but not three feet, a glass of water- not a glass of dirt, a herd of wildebeest/cattle/sheep/goats/bison, but not a herd of butterflies. Then there's the matter of a pair of trousers, of pants, of shorts, of breeches/britches, of underwear, of boxers, of briefs, of whitey tighties, of long johns- just about any garment with two legs that doesn't extend above the waist (an even then, there's a pair of overalls). As for a pair of scissors, the same holds true for shears, tongs, tweezers, forceps, pincers, etc. Finally, while we're at it, we might as well incorporate w:George Carlin's observation that no one says "hand me that piano", though I'm not sure where or how... Chuck Entz (talk) 03:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Weak keep, pretty borderline. Pengo (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Why are you leaning towards keep? ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Delete. They look obvious to me, and I don’t think that they have much lexical value. --Romanophile (contributions) 16:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Another good example of why we need a "Collocations" space. Delete - But only when we have collocations spaces in glass / -es, spectacle / -s, spec / -s -- ALGRIF talk 13:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I would keep any "pair of" entry. In some cases the pair is joined, in others not so, such as a pair of gloves, pair of socks - often this means with clothing there are two legs joined at the crotch. A pair of knickers is still so-called no matter how skimpy they are; there are still two holes for legs. A pair of underwear strikes me as rather odd though. Donnanz (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
    And yet you haven't demonstrated how that makes a pair of glasses idiomatic. ---> Tooironic (talk)
  • Delete SOP.​—msh210 (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


I request restoration of this, based on a recent discussion at Talk:LiBr. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep AKA restore. (In part repetitive from Talk:LiBr) We probably don't want to include every chemical formula attested in running text but it is practical enough to include the short ones, isn't it? In Category:mul:Chemical formulae, the longest one is CH3COOH; the category has 54 entries. The argument about opening the door, and indiscriminate collection is familiar from discussions of placenames and company names, and is implausible to me. It leads to the style of regulation in which the regulator makes it all too easy for himself. If we worry about the number of items in some category, we can seek criteria that will put limit on that number, even somewhat arbitrary criteria. One of the simplest limits could be this: keep a chemical formula only if it involves no more than 3 chemical elements and no more than 10 atoms. Alternatively, keep a chemical formula only if the chemical it denotes has a CFI-meeting name: e.g. H₂SO₄ has sulfuric acid or AsH₃ has arsine. This criterion ensures that the inclusion of chemical formulas no more than doubles the number of items in the dictionary. In a more refined look, the addition of formulas that have CFI-meeting names increases the volume by factor (1 + 1/n) where n is the number of languages for which the names have translations; the formula is translingual. Thus, if there were 5 000 English entries for names of chemicals, and if there were translations to 9 languages, that would lead to 50 000 entries on names, and additional 5 000 entries on formulas, leading to 55 000 entries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
    Practicality has never proven to be a serious consideration in any of our decisions, which tend to be naively "principled"/idealistic and/or legalistic. I would expect each inclusion decision to lead to more and longer formulas. One reasonably principled, legalistic rule that might work, would be to include any formula that otherwise met our attestation standards and had an entry with its name in a spoken language. In this case arsine. We already follow that principle in the case of one-letter formulas, eg, O - oxygen, O2 (atmospheric oxygen) and O3, ozone. OTOH most of the benefit to users would be derived from having the formula included in the entry for arsine, as it would appear at or near the top of the no-entry failed-search page. DCDuring TALK 10:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Don't restore. Equinox 12:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Restore per LiBr. Pengo (talk) 07:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Restore --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Restore per LiBr. If it is CFI-attestable then I see no good reason for excluding it. I don't think there's much risk of us being overrun by huge numbers of chemical formula entries, but if that is a concern, DCDuring's criteria above sound reasonable. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Don’t restore. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Don't restore. It seems to me that any chemical formula that's easily mistaken for a word/acronym, like KCN or even LiBr, should be kept, but not this, which is clearly a chemical formula. This, per the overriding concern behind our CFI: "A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means." (This is similar to my own view, not endorsed by the community, that, in any language wherein words are generally separated by spaces, anything run together without spaces and without punctuation cannot be SOP. Thus, German nouns, Hebrew כשהגיע, etc.)​—msh210 (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


Initialism for two missing wiki pages. Yurivict (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

What's the reason for deletion? If the issue is that the initialism seems not to exist, that is an RFV issue. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 02:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Googling this term itself, and wiki titles referred in it don't return any results. I thought RFV is when meaning is unclear or questionable, and this whole article looks like a mistake, same as aace. Yurivict (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep and Move to Rfv. DCDuring TALK 03:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to RFV, which is the appropriate place to go when there is doubt that a word exists. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Moved to RFV; no RFD-applicable reason for deletion stated. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


Initialism for a missing wiki page. Yurivict (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep and Move to Rfv. DCDuring TALK 03:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Definitions need to be expanded and given more context. Rfv seems more appropriate. Delete Actually, google and google books show minimual results, mostly acronym lists/dictionaries, so, yeah, just delete. Pengo (talk) 08:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to RFV. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Moved to RFV; no RFD-applicable reason for deletion stated. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

передний топливный бак[edit]

Totally SOP. --WikiTiki89 15:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Campo Formoso[edit]

"Definition" is just the entry name (plus short non-wikified gloss). SemperBlotto (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep. I cited this entry both in English and Portuguese (Citations:Campo Formoso). For the record, I created entries for other municipalities in Brazil as well, see Category:pt:Municipalities of Bahia, Brazil. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
This entry is now OK. Similar entries are just red links to the same page - what's the point? SemperBlotto (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I know they don't look good this way the current link to the English section is kind of pointless. It's just that I am currently using a placename template which formats an entry as non-gloss if it's in English and as a link to English + gloss if it's a foreign language, (The red link becomes a blue link quickly.) so I suppose it's best for entries with have English in addition to the FL section. The current system could be changed by editing {{meta-place}}. I created a discussion about it: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/October#Place name format: English (non-gloss) vs. foreign language (translation + gloss). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

pasteurized egg[edit]

I just created this entry. However, we seem to be in the habit of RFD'ing all egg products. I personally find the arguments quite fun. --Zo3rWer (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The current definition unreasonably omits liquid egg that has been pasteurized. DCDuring TALK 09:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
In this case, it really does just seem to be "pasteurized" "egg" – any egg that is pasteurized, regardless of what else is done to it. (I also wonder whether the Spanish translation is accurate - Spanish Wikipedia says "La huevina es una denominación vulgar de diversos ovoproductos derivados del huevo y del propio huevo pasteurizado" – it's not just pasteurized egg, but a wide range of processed eggy things). Delete Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Yup. Pasteurized + egg > delete. --Hekaheka (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't pass the fried egg test (or any other, for idiomacity). bd2412 T 14:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I had never heard of "pasteurised eggs" but apparently they exist. But there's no entry for pasteurised milk even. I had heard of "preserved eggs" (kept in preservative for when the hens were "off the lay"); my mother used to do that, God bless her. Donnanz (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete SOP.​—msh210 (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

count to ten[edit]

Sum of parts? Seems more like a command rather than a verb per se. ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily, used as an expression it has the same meaning as "take a deep breath", and doesn't literally mean "count to ten" (although I'm sure many people do). So it seems to be idiomatic. P Aculeius (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Need not be ten, e.g. in Dickens' Little Dorrit an angry girl is repeatedly told to "count five and twenty". Counting to defeat anger is a cultural thing, not a lexical thing. Equinox 16:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. If it means something in particular other than the literal meaning of the words, it's idiomatic. It doesn't need to be the one and only form of the idiom. Just because there are variations with different numbers (five and twenty, one hundred, etc.) doesn't mean it's not idiomatic. The fact that it's often preceded by "close my/your eyes and" doesn't make it unidiomatic either. It's clearly a figure of speech and has been for over a hundred and fifty years, with some variations. P Aculeius (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Delete. How is this different from saying "sit down and have a drink of water". The fact that the action has the effect of helping you relax, doesn't mean that this effect is part of the definition of the word referring to the action. --WikiTiki89 17:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't actually mean what the words say. People don't necessarily count when they're "counting to ten". When somebody says, "count to ten", they're not asking you to count. They're asking you to pause and calm down. You can't get that meaning from the words alone; that's how we know it's idiomatic. P Aculeius (talk) 02:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
People might sit down, but not have a drink of water when told to "sit down and have a drink of water". That doesn't mean that that is what the phrase means. --WikiTiki89 15:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. The number is immaterial. We could add a sense to count for taking a moment to allow anger to pass. bd2412 T 01:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The exact number isn't invariable, but that's not the same as saying that it's immaterial. In point of fact, the number is important. Nobody says "count to eight" or "count to eleven" or "count to thirty-nine." There are at least five times as many Google hits for "count to ten" as there are any other number that might be used; I checked eight, nine, twelve, twenty, forty, and one hundred, and none of them came up regularly. Part of that may be the large number of hits for songs with this phrase in the title; but there are also poems and other works, and even trying to filter out all of these references it comes up a lot. Not to mention the fact that the reason why there are songs and poems with this in the title is because it's idiomatic. P Aculeius (talk) 02:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Attested: the phrase is included in The Oxford Dictionary of English Idioms, The American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms, and The Dictionary of Idioms by Martin H. Manser. P Aculeius (talk) 02:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Hmm... On the one hand, I can find citations where "count to ten" unambiguously means "pause and relax":
But on the other hand...
Annoyingly, it does seem to have some lexical meaning, but it's just not set enough for us to cover properly. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Per the Criteria for Inclusion, "Many phrases take several forms. It is not necessary to include every conceivable variant. When present, minor variants should simply redirect to the main entry. For the main entry, prefer the most generic form..." I'm sure that if you could do a quick survey of hits for various numbers (five, ten, twelve, twenty, twenty-five, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred) and excluded songs, children's books, references to hide and seek, and adults saying "don't make me count to three" or the like, ten would be far and away the most common version of this phrase. But the presence of multiple variations doesn't determine whether a phrase should be included, nor does whether its idiomaticity is annoying. P Aculeius (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per the quotes Smurrayinchester listed first. Even if ten isn't the only number counted to, it seems to be the most common one; entries for other amply attested numbers can be created or redirected to this one. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep IMO it means something like "control one's impulse to anger", ie, not SoP. DCDuring TALK 00:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Found in almost any book or article on anger management. Also found in advice for such things as "count to 10 before pressing "send"". It does not necessarily mean a literal count to 10. It means "wait and think things through before acting". I'm sure it would take only a short while to find examples of the type "Why not follow the advice to count to ten? Later on, or next day, when you have cooled down, you will probably see things more clearly." -- ALGRIF talk 13:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Delete, citations on the page show it to be literal. While counting to ten may make a person calmer, standing on one leg may make your leg stronger. So do we therefore make a page stand on one leg for 'to make one's leg muscles stronger'? No we don't. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Disagree about taking the phrase literally in most of the examples. People may or may not actually count to the numbers specified when the phrase is used in one of its variations. But it's clearly not required that they do so in order for the phrase to apply. Especially in hyperbolic examples where the speaker alters "ten" to some high number like "fifty" or "ten thousand". The person might or might not begin by saying "one, two, three..." but I very much doubt that anyone says, "...forty-eight, forty-nine, fifty!" and then begins to act, as if playing hide-and-seek. It's not a literal count to a specific number. P Aculeius (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep definitely idiomatic - imagine saying it to someone who is just learning English - wouldn't mean a thing (other than the literal)Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

quantum indeterminacy[edit]

Definition stolen from Wikipedia; this is poorly defined and not necessarily dictionary material. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Delete as per nomination. Yurivict (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

tong2nian2, tou2zi1, zhen1xi1, gui4hua1jiu3[edit]

"For pinyin romanizations of multisyllabic words, we have stub entries in only tone diacritics." —suzukaze (tc) 06:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedied as in contravention to our Chinese-language standards. @suzukaze-c: You can just put {{delete}} on pages like these in the future. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


"zhung" is not a valid pinyin syllable. —suzukaze (tc) 06:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedied as created in error. Created by a bot and edited only by bots until this nomination. The correct zhong3 already exists. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

classic country[edit]

Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The first definition would be obvious if it weren’t for ‘typically prior to the 1990s,’ and the third definition is excessively vague. I’m not certain yet, but I’m leaning delete for now. --Romanophile (contributions) 15:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Delete, not really accurate and anyway SOP. All genres have a "classic" era, and which era that is depends on who's speaking. I have a feeling most country aficionados would laugh at the idea that the country music of 1989 is "classic". If I encountered the phrase "classic country" without context, I'd guess it means the pre-outlaw country days of the Nashville sound, not the likes of Dwight Yoakam and Dolly Parton. Furthermore, country has never been "traditional" in any meaningful sense. WurdSnatcher (talk)
Yes, Delete. If it is even real, then it would be sum-of-parts. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

magic item[edit]

Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Basically fancruft. It's always tempting to add entries about things you like, but... Equinox 01:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Delete --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I assume this applies to computer games, which I'm totally ignorant of - but is there a category for that? Some sort of lexicon? Donnanz (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Delete, add to magic if needed. Also an item that is magic outside of computer games, such as in a book, a film, etc. could be a magic item. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

they two[edit]

I'm feeling SOP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I don’t know if there’re any senses that make this construction redundant. I’ve certainly never seen these used together like this. Why is it sum‐of‐parts? --Romanophile (contributions) 00:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Evidently SOP. This construction can be used with other numbers ("they three" and "they four" are attested, for instance) and with other pronouns: "we three" is famously used by the witches in Macbeth, "we two" is well attested, and "you two", "you three", etc. are very common even in non-literary contexts. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 00:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I can’t remember the last instance in my life where I heard somebody say ‘they two.’ It just doesn’t sound right to me, like an amateur mistake. Normally people would say ‘those two’ rather than ‘they two’ (at least in my area). I think that it merits a usage note at they, if nothing else. --Romanophile (contributions) 02:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
It's either archaic or obsolete, but it's a syntactic construction, not an idiom. I just spent some time looking for the same construction with other numbers: "they three", "they four", "they five", "they six" and "they seven" all have at least 3 CFI-compliant examples in Google Books, in spite of a substantial number of false positives. There are probably others, but I didn't want to waste any more time looking for them. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 01:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agreed, sum of parts; no special meaning and not a familiar phrase. P Aculeius (talk) 02:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Syntactically archaic, lexically current; transparent. We should no more have this than have the two of them. DCDuring TALK 02:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not even necessary as a translation target, since third-person dual pronouns in other languages can be accommodated at they. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
And delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleted per consensus and arguments here. Cf. talk:us two and WT:Tea room/2012/February#they two.​—msh210 (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

contemporary gospel[edit]

The definition as it stands wouldn't be SOP, but I suspect it is inaccurate, so this is more of a fact-finding mission. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - as above. If real, it is sum of parts. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - this is a fairly clearly defined term as far as music genres go. For example, see this 1980 article from Billboard magazine: It wasn't too many years ago that contemporary gospel music was hard to find -- this would be meaningless if it were SOP, and is clearly referring to a distinct genre. Similarly: one of the oldest forms (sacred Harp) to the newest (contemporary gospel) (it wouldn't be worded like that if all "contemporary" gospel was "contemporary gospel"). Now as to whether this definition is accurate, I'm not sure it's how I'd word it but it isn't really wrong I think. I'll try to look for more info later. WurdSnatcher (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Also I'll note that sacred harp and other forms of gospel music exist in the contemporary era, but no one calls them "contemporary gospel". WurdSnatcher (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. As the nomination notes, this isn't SOP as defined (and thus is an issue for RFV, not here); as WurdSnatcher notes, that definition is likely correct.​—msh210 (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Bad-faith nomination, no RfD grounds, and I'd vote to keep nonetheless as it's unclear whether gospel refers to religious music or Biblical texts about Jesus. @Metaknowledge, if you want to go on a "fact-finding mission", do it on your own time, and probably at RfV, not here. Purplebackpack89 19:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, @Metaknowledge, I used Google Books and found a number of sources that support the definition as worded, one of which I've added into the article. You could've easily spared us this RfD or RfV if you'd taken the couple of minutes to do that yourself. Purplebackpack89 20:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

extrasolar planet[edit]

Bad definition, clear SOP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe a definition isn't needed if it's a synonym. There is also exosolar planet, which is also asserted to be a synonym of exoplanet. If so, both of them should be kept as synonyms. I won't vote "keep" yet. Donnanz (talk) 12:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

we two[edit]

SOP, as #they two above. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Agreed with Mr. Granger. No special meaning. P Aculeius (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, by same arguments as for they two. DCDuring TALK 00:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
And delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

go-ahead run[edit]

This should be, and is, at go-ahead. Go-ahead home run, go-ahead homer, go-ahead single and go-ahead hit are all attested (go-ahead double and go-ahead triple seem to fall short on Google Books). Renard Migrant (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

empty space[edit]

Not sure whether every sense will be deleted, but to me, sense one is "a space that is empty", sense two is "space that is empty", and sense three is "space that is empty" (but maybe idiomatic enough to survive?). Doesn't seem to have any value for translations, since they are already at space. Was RFD'd a decade ago. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

My first thought on seeing this was that it's always taken literally, and therefore should be deleted in toto. But after thinking about the examples, I note that in most cases the word "empty" is redundant; it didn't need to be there in the first place. So why did the speaker feel the need to use the phrase "empty space"? It's pretty common, and common in referring to particular situations where "space" may mean completely different things; i.e. a parking space, outer (or inner) space, negative space. So I'm leaning keep on the grounds of an unusually tight association of the words to describe a particular condition, although I'm not sure what that condition should be called. I'm thinking that in this phrase, the word "empty" has the specific meaning of "unoccupied" (as in a parking space, one of the examples) or "devoid of matter" (i.e. a vacuum, one of the current definitions). Which is more specific than "empty" in general. Just barely, perhaps. But even so, the tight association of the words in situations where they oughtn't to need to be if taken literally, suggests that the phrase is independent of the literal meaning, and thus idiomatic. P Aculeius (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The irony is that empty space, when used to refer to a vacuum, is not actually empty because of quantum effects. So in that sense, it's not literally empty + space. —CodeCat 20:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

delete defs 1 and 2 - merely SOP - keep def 3 as is for the time being (the term seems to be used in astrophysics and needs a def (or a number of defs) similar to current def 3... though I am not knowledgeable enough to know how to define it accurately) Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm Hindu[edit]

No value. --Hekaheka (talk) 03:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: is there a particular reason why you don't think this phrase has any value, although you haven't nominated any other statements of religious belief for deletion? [[33]] shows that Wiktionary includes similar phrases for a variety of religions, presumably because they're useful phrases for people who may not speak English well, and so meet the criteria for inclusion. If those phrases are suitable for inclusion, then so is this one. P Aculeius (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I tried I'm Christian, I'm Muslim, I'm Buddhist, I'm Greek Otrhodox, I'm Sikh, I'm Pagan and concluded that this is the only one in this category. I failed to check I'm Jewish, and I'm nominating that and all similar statements of any religion or ideology that can be found. --Hekaheka (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not, click on the link above, and you'll see why. These exist because they're useful phrases for those who don't speak English well. If anything, they're likely to acquire more variations. P Aculeius (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
How is a person who does not speak English enough to understand what I'm Hindu means supposed to understand what is given as explanation for those particular words? The "explanation" indicates that the speaker is a follower of Hinduism requires better understanding of English than the sentence that is being explained. Contrary to what you say, this entry - and the others like it - is not at all useful for those who don't speak English well. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I doubt most people use phrasebooks to translate phrases into their own language. The idea is to show how to express an idea in another language. Passive understanding of a second language is generally much better than the ability to say things in that language. I can figure out the meaning of texts in dozens of languages, but I'm only really comfortable speaking English. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Category:English phrasebook/Religion, check these then. They all use "I am". Aryamanarora (talk) 12:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, the translations into other languages make them easier to understand, even if the reader doesn't speak English. Aryamanarora (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


Bad entry title. Looks like it needs splitting into two separate words. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it does, but it's a symptom of a much bigger problem: {{grc-decl-3rd-ln-prx}} at least, and maybe other Ancient Greek declension tables as well, actually lists and links the dative plural like this, so that a person or bot creating an entry on the basis of an inflection table will create entries like this one. That's what need to be fixed. Personally, I'd prefer just listing the -σι forms, with the -σιν forms listed as Alternative forms in the entry itself, but other options would be to list both in the inflection table, or to have the table show something clever like [[Ἕλλησι]]([[Ἕλλησιν|ν]]). But certainly not the current state of affairs where users and bots are tempted into creating entries with parentheses in them. I've gone through Category:Ancient Greek noun forms and can't find any others, so that's good. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
We now have separate entries for Ἕλλησι and Ἕλλησιν, but the problem in the table(s) remains. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

buttock cleavage[edit]

SOP. DTLHS (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  • None of our current definitions of cleavage covers this. (If you'll pardon the expression.) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
That it seems SoP just shows that metaphor is effective for communication. DCDuring TALK 23:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
cf toe cleavage, foot cleavage, leg cleavage, ass cleavage DTLHS (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I think we're going to need an additional definition of cleavage. I'll get right on it. Purplebackpack89 00:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Have added the definition to cleavage. It reads, "(by extension) Any similar separation between two body parts.", with the antecedent being the boob cleavage definition. Purplebackpack89 00:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I also agree with deletion. At least it served some purpose, cleavage definition was improved. Yurivict (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, can now be deleted. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)