Wiktionary:Requests for deletion

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
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


December 2015[edit]

these kingdoms[edit]


  1. (obsolete, figurative) the United Kingdom, considered as a union of the kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland

I'm not so sure that the presence of a non-kingdom in the list (Ireland) renders this idiomatic, so I thought I'd run it by everyone here. I especially wonder if this is a set phrase, or just a concept that could be expressed in various ways. I admit, this is borderline, so I'm willing to withdraw the nomination if no one else sees any problems with the entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

At the time that England and Scotland were separate kingdoms, Ireland was a separate kingdom too. However, the quotes date from a time when there was only one kingdom: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, so I would regard it idiomatic to use the plural "these kingdoms" to refer to a single kingdom. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
How is the phrase not equally applicable to any set of kingdoms elsewhere identified by the speaker (even if using the phrase to refer to a unitary set including the speaker, without naming them)? P Aculeius (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. How is the use in the citations different from these United States, this green and verdant land, this community? They all seem like simple deixis to me. DCDuring TALK 09:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • It's tricky to decide whether to have entries for these sorts of euphemisms. A little while ago, I considered creating an entry for "these islands" (a chiefly Irish term for the British Isles), but it's hard to argue that it's not just "these" "islands". If there are citations where "these kingdoms" isn't being used by someone in the UK, I'd keep. I tried searching for "these kingdoms" + America, but didn't find anything obvious. Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. In agreement with DCDuring and P Aculeius. Example from the Bible. Daniel 2:44 - It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it alone will stand forever. - I don't think Daniel was referring to the UK here. -- ALGRIF talk 11:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying it can't be idiomatic; just questioning whether there's any grounds for believing that it is. For instance, is there any way of knowing which kingdoms the speaker is referring to, other than "whatever kingdoms the speaker is standing in the midst of"? P Aculeius (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • If plural "these kingdoms" is referring to a single kingdom, that is idiomatic, like "these parts". The fact that the phrase may also be used non-idiomatically is perhaps grounds for adding {{&lit}} but not for deleting the idiomatic sense. "these kingdoms" would only be used within the UK, which makes it deictic but does not stop it being an idiom. (green and pleasant land is a quotation not an idiom.) Jnestorius (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete per DCDuring, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 18:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
From reading the above comments, I'm not sure the pro-delete voters understand the intended sense. That would be a reason for improving the wording of the definition, but not for deletion. I don't think a foreigner standing in England in 1870 and hearing someone say "blah blah blah these kingdoms blah blah" would be able to work out what was being referred to. Jnestorius (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Speaking for myself alone, I feel confident that I understand the intention. However, I think that a foreigner in England in 1870 would understand this kingdom to refer to England or the United Kingdom, and these kingdoms to refer to the same plus any others belonging to the same group identified by the speaker. Who could perhaps be referring to England, Scotland, and Ireland, or to the United Kingdom and Spain, or Denmark, or Belgium, or the Netherlands, or Norway and Sweden, etc. Which group the speaker intended would have to be indicated by context; even a native Englishman would have needed some context to be sure of which kingdoms the speaker was describing. Was "these kingdoms" generally treated as a proper noun? That would support the meaning in question. P Aculeius (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. If we keep this we need to point out that it can only be used when the speaker is physically located within the UK! That shows how silly it is. Equinox 16:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

  • How is the phrase not equally applicable to any set of kingdoms elsewhere identified by the speaker
    • applied to a set of kingdoms is {{&lit}}, but applied to a single kingdom is idiom.
  • these sorts of euphemisms
    • I think "grandiloquence" or "pomposity" would be a more exact description than "euphemism"
  • How is the use in the citations different from these United States
    • There are multiple states in the United States; there is only one kingdom in trhe United Kingdom. Referring to the USA as "these republics" or "these federations" would be analogous to "these kingdoms" in its unexpected use of the plural.
  • this green and verdant land, this community // it can only be used when the speaker is physically located within the UK! That shows how silly it is. //
    • Yes, it's deictic, but it can be deictic and an idiom. They are not incompatible characteristics. See for example yours truly, your man, in this day and age, here you go. In fact, if it was a simple deixis, one might expect "those kingdoms" to work outside the UK; the fact that it doesn't suggests something more subtle is going on.
  • is there any way of knowing which kingdoms the speaker is referring to, other than "whatever kingdoms the speaker is standing in the midst of"?
    • I'm not sure what you're driving at. In the given usage, the speaker is only standing in one kingdom and referring to one kingdom. Someone who was under the illusion that England and Scotland were separate kingdoms might arrive at the correct interpretation by accident. Someone who knew they were a single kingdom might guess that the speaker was using some kind of poetic licence, just as one might guess the meaning of any unfamiliar word from the context.
  • "these kingdoms to refer to the same plus any others belonging to the same group identified by the speaker"
    • but there are no others and the speaker has not identified any.
  • even a native Englishman would have needed some context to be sure of which kingdoms the speaker was describing
    • well, some context to be sure the speaker was not describing any group of kingdoms. True of any {{&lit}} expression. Or any expression at all really, for small values of "some" context.
Jnestorius (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. The nominator is "not so sure", and there are several equivocal commenters between the three clear "delete" votes. bd2412 T 17:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete basically because of deixis. Equinox 10:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Since no-one presented any useful quotes showing idiomatic use, delete. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have no interest in closing this again. Clearly the additional comments lean more heavily towards deletion, but perhaps someone else can address that formality. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Chuck, could you perhaps delete the entry as the nominator if you agree with me that the consensus is to delete? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

January 2016[edit]

do donuts[edit]

Surely this is just do + donuts (sense 3)? Keith the Koala (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd say so, although when I've heard this it's always involved sense 1 (doughnut). Let's do coffee and see if this phrase has sprinkles. P Aculeius (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah very strong delete. I have nothing to add, Keith's got it spot on. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
It is not quite sense 3 of donut, since it is a deliberate driving in circles rather than a skid. I suspect it also meets the fried egg rule, since it is only for a stupid driving thing, and not any other type of "donut". OTOH, I never heard this used before, and would like to see some verification of this use as common enough to warrent an entry. RFV? Kiwima (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I've heard this used. It is definitely SOP do + donuts, but a more appropriate sense of donut must be added. By the way, you're misusing the fried egg test. The fried egg test just means that the sum has features more specific than choosing the correct definitions of the parts. In this case do + the correct definition of donut is 100% accurate. --WikiTiki89 19:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
There's no implied knowledge here, it is just do + donut. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I'm pretty sure that you can "do" any shape or motion that a car can be driven in (figure eights, three-point turns, fishtails). bd2412 T 22:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The rationale that has been advanced about similar light-verb constructions (those involving verbs such as do, make, have, get, give, take, etc together with an adjective or noun [eg, donuts] that provides most of the specific meaning [See Wikipedia-logo.png light verb on Wikipedia.Wikipedia:light verb.]) is that we need entries for them because it is not always obvious which light verb goes with which noun or adjective. In this case perhaps make or give might seem appropriate to an English-language learner. See Appendix:Collocations of do, have, make, and take for a variety of such expressions.
I've rarely agreed with the rationale, but it is fairly clear that when we vote on such matters we often vote based on specific familiarity with and attitude toward the activity involved. In this case doing donuts is a red-state, blue collar, American thing, so it is easy to get disapproving votes. In contrast we approve the activities of making amends and having an affair and therefore, I believe, of the expressions. This seems like a hell of a way to run a railroad. DCDuring TALK 00:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
In this case "do" is just a coincidental verb. One can use "make donuts" to mean the same thing (see 2014, Jae Byrd Wells, The "Tail" Begins - Book 1, page 111: "One jeep, occupied by two male passengers, arrived and made donuts in the parking lot hoping to drown out any harsh sounds"; Nerd Girl, chapter 23, page 1 : "We still had a solid twenty minutes before they arrived so us being teenagers made donuts in the parking lot"; 2015, Krystal Callais, Benton, Ky Teen Arrested After Found Driving Recklessly: "The deputies said that the truck then continued to make donuts in the parking lot next to the church"). bd2412 T 13:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
With this sense of "donuts", either "make" or "do" would work (in fact, "make" would be more natural). But there's no requirement that one use either, is there? Any equivalent verb suggesting the creation of said would work, just like "making breakfast" or "baking pies" or "flying loop-de-loops" (or loop-the-loops, if you prefer). In the example "making amends", there's hardly anything else one ever does with amends than make them; and the use of some form of "have" in "have an affair" is the signal that tells one that a "love affair" is almost certainly the sense intended; if "there was an affair" it could mean any sort of occurrence. I'd say that "do donuts" fails the fried egg test because, however restricted the use of the phrase may theoretically be, the meaning of "do" is still obvious once the sense of "donuts" is known, while "do" could easily be replaced by other verbs without altering the meaning. P Aculeius (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 20:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


Sum-of-parts. This is just the regular negative imperative of 気にする ‎(ki ni suru, to mind something, to worry about something).

If we are not to delete this, the entry must at least be stubbified. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

  • The Japanese phrase isn't as idiomatic. Moreover, the Japanese phrase's structure makes it much more limited in its social acceptability: the plain verb form する ‎(suru, to do) + ‎(na, negative imperative) is a very informal form, and could be interpreted as extremely bossy and arrogant in a way that don't worry wouldn't be. I don't think the Japanese term is appropriate for a phrasebook. Shinji, what say you? Are imperatives (positive or negative) appropriate for a phrasebook? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 09:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
    I know the phrasebook project is based on usefulness, and a sum of parts can be accepted. In this case, as you clearly say, a bare imperative is not polite and you can use it only to close friends, children, lower people in hierarchy, or in cheering (行け!, がんばれ!, etc.). Having an entry for 気にするな is probably misleading. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • As mentioned above, besides not being the best analogue of "don't worry", this expression is indeed unsafe and cannot be recommended for people unfamiliar with the language or customs and who have distant relationships to their audience, or to put it another way, the type of people who use phrasebooks. --Haplogy () 05:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I struck my vote due to the arguments of the Japanese editors. Perhaps a more appropriate equivalent could be created as a phrasebook entry, though? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I've stubbified the entry and indicated that this is a verb form, specifically the plain negative imperative. We don't seem to have a template for this verb form (at least, there's nothing that quite fits over in Category:Form-of templates). If anyone is aware of a better template (or creates one), by all means please replace the call to {{n-g}}. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Strongly Keep though "気にするな" should be categorized in Phrase, not in Verb. All you guys in Wiktionary are so wise that you'd already know "気にするな is a phrase translated from English phrase "don't worry". Wiktionary is supposed to have an entry of those phrases. --Carl Daniels (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • If 気にする ‎(ki ni suru) is categorized as a verb, which it should be as it's a phrasal verb, then 気にするな ‎(ki ni suru na) is a verb form, as the plain negative imperative form of 気にする.
Also, did you read the thread above? 気にするな is extremely more restricted in appropriate usage than the English don't worry. The Japanese could come across as fucking don't worry about it, or depending on context, even as fuck off. This is enough of a divergence in meaning and usage that listing 気にするな as a phrasebook entry for don't worry could actually be dangerous to any poor schmuck attempting to use such a phrasebook in Japan.
The entry is being kept, as a verb form of 気にする. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC) 
  • I still believe "気にするな" should be categorized as a phrase. We can apply a simple analytic approach: <"気にするな"(ki ni suru na)> is <"気にする"(terminate form of verb)> + <"-な"(sentence ending particle)>. "-な"(- na) is additional and grammatically belongs to a group of sentence-ending particles(終助詞), like -よ, -ね, -か, -ぞ, -ぜ, ... . So, "気にするな"(ki ni suru na) is not a verb form, while "気にしろ"(ki ni shiro) is a verb form. (Plese refer Japanese conjugation table of "する" - a1:し(ない), a2:せ(ず), b1:し(ます), b2:し(て), c:する(。), d:する(とき), e:すれ(ば), f:しろ(。or !)) And, don't worry ("don't" is additional) is also registered as a phrase as I said before. I think we have some room to reconsider. In advance, Thank you.--Carl Daniels (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
    The な here is not a particle but an inflectional suffix. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry sir! it's a particle! 食べるな, 飲むな, 気にするな, ... All of these "-な" is a sentence-ending particle "な"(na)(禁止の終助詞「な」) it is clear as yo can see here ((禁止)「な」(例)二度と飲むな。)I suppose you are Japanese. You can see it.(私は日本語文法を日本語の用語で理解しています/ I understand Japanese grammar with Japanese terminology.) :) if you have an opinion, you can bring the reference. --Carl Daniels (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • There is also a recognition that this analysis of the plain negative imperative (and even of the plain imperative) may be problematic. See ja:w:活用#活用形の問題点 (“Conjugation#Problems with the Conjugated Forms”) for some discussion of this.
There are multiple possible analyses of Japanese verb forms. What we currently call the “passive” in English could well be analyzed instead as a kind of sum-of-parts, as the irrealis or incomplete verb stem + reru or rareru, with the latter element itself decomposable into ra (as a ligature element or sorts when the verb stem does not end in a) + reru (derived from the attributive form of passive / spontaneous base auxiliary verb ru via regular historical processes that applied to all lower bigrade verbs). But for practical purposes, we treat the passive as a single form. There is no real reason that one could not analyze the plain negative imperative similarly, and indeed some do, even some Japanese authors, such as at least a few of those appearing here on Google Books, using the term 禁止形 ‎(kinshikei, prohibitive form) to refer to this conjugation. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
@Carl Daniels: As Eirikr said, there are sources on the prohibitive form (禁止形), and it is totally up to you which theory you follow. “私は日本語文法を日本語の用語で理解しています” well, honestly speaking, it doesn’t help. In the traditional Japanese grammar (国文法), all phonologically-dependent non-inflecting morphemes are called joshi (助詞), and it doesn’t distinguish clitics and inflectional suffixes. If you analyze the prohibitive -na, you can clearly see that nothing can be inserted before it, which is a sign of inflectional suffix rather than a clitic.
Prohibitive な Exclamatory な
Don’t eat.
You eat a lot!
You have eaten a lot!
You eat a lot! No?
Anyway this is a digression. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • If we are to analyze this as not a verb form, then this is non-idiomatic SOP and not worthy of inclusion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • if you say so, why do we prepare an entry "don't worry" as a phrase? I thought we were able to have "phrase".--Carl Daniels (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm confused by your insistent reference to the English entry. Are we not discussing the Japanese entry? If so, 気にする is currently regarded as an integral idiomatic term that is treated as a verb. Hence, its plain negative imperative is regarded as a form of that verb, and we have therefore applied the template {{ja-verb-form}} in the 気にするな entry. The phrase-ness or non-phrase-ness of the English entry has exactly zero to do with the correct part of speech for the translation of don't worry into other languages.
This also fails to decide the question: if 気にするな is deemed to be not a verb form, then it is a non-idiomatic sum-of-parts, as 気にする + , and thus it fails CFI and should be removed. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


Unicode wedding symbol.png

I doubt that this is translingual (existing and having the same meaning in many languages). The cross is a Christian symbol. Further, do we have a policy of accepting non-alphanumeric symbols as entries? I thought dictionary is about words, not symbols. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

We need use in human language to convey meanings. It's a tough one, we have things like which I suppose is used in human language to convey meaning ("I ♥ Justin Bieber!"). There is the question also of where does language end and pictorial communication begin? Renard Migrant (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
We need to know where it is used, for one thing. I gather some of the emoji are used as markers on Japanese TV, in rather the same way that a tourist guide might show little knives-and-forks, toilets, and picnic benches next to each venue, indicating amenities. Others are now used in text messaging. How they'd be citable to meet CFI at this stage I can't imagine. Equinox 00:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
This looks like a job for... WT:RFV! --WikiTiki89 01:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Can I just say that on my computer, this doesn't show up as a cross, but rather a Christian-ish church - which is of course one problem with treating these Unicode entries as anything more than just pre-defined codepoints. The implementation is not consistent across systems; for example, 👮 shows up on some systems as an asexual police officer, and on others as a clearly male one. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
On my computer I also don't see a cross but what I would call a North American wedding chapel. I was under the impression that we had decided to give entries to all Unicode codepoints. I wasn't really in favour of doing so for non-language symbols but didn't mind if that was the consensus, especially given that you can't really draw the line between language-ish symbols and not-language-ish symbols. I would probably prefer such entries to be based foremost on the facts we know from the Unicode docs. Especially given that the actual image can vary greatly between fonts. — hippietrail (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
For reference, here is how this emoji appears in various fonts/systems. Smurrayinchester (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
On my system, I see two different symbols, one in the page heading, a different one in the entry heading (see right). I yearn for the good old days when all we had was punctuation :( Keith the Koala (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I used a Windows tool written by a friend of mine that searches all fonts for any given character on my system. Only two fonts have a glyph for this. In fact the two in the thumbnail up there, but without colour.
It's possibly time to have another discussion or several about whether and how to include support for all Unicode codepoints, all "symbols", and all emoji. — hippietrail (talk) 01:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

February 2016[edit]

common or garden variety[edit]

SoP: common or garden + variety. (common or garden should be created as an alternative form of common-or-garden.) This, that and the other (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

What are the other nouns common or garden modifies and what is their relative frequency compared to variety. DCDuring TALK 00:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I would say that it's common + garden variety, not common or garden + variety, and RFD common-or-garden at the same time. Just because two synonyms are often used together as alternatives doesn't make them idiomatic. P Aculeius (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
While I would initially have agreed about the common + garden variety, I have done some investigation, and common or garden does seem to be an idiom. There are a lot of quotes that use the term for plants, which is where the term probably comes from, but it is also used for things that have nothing to do with gardens and do not have 'variety' at the end. At this point, I think common or garden should be created as an alternative form of common-or-garden. In any case, common or garden variety is clearly SOP, however you parse it, so I say delete. Kiwima (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's a pondian thing: common-or-garden is used in the UK, but not in the US. The phrase "common or garden Sauine" can be found in John Gerard's herbal of 1597, and "garden variety" doesn't really show up in Google Books until the 19th century. Of course, that's not the metaphorical sense, which might have a different history. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
common or garden is more frequent than common-or-garden at BNC. 17 to 11. Also, though the expressions are used in the US, they are apparently ~25 times less common. (COCA)DCDuring TALK 01:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as per inclination; there's something about being a set phrase to it. Not in OneLook dictionaries. common or garden variety,garden variety at Google Ngram Viewer suggests the phrase forms a significant portion of all uses of "garden variety". --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


A rare misspelling. I can't actually find any durably uses; most Google Books hits are scannos of "anxiety" (appropriately) broken up by bad OCR, or "anxiously" merged across a line break with something else, again by bad OCR (this is the case with the "Whilst we gazed anxted by vales" hit on Google Books). - -sche (discuss) 22:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Aaaaand delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Misspellings can go, pronunciation and all. Delete. Donnanz (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Abstain for now. Rare misspellings should be excluded while common misspellings should be included per WT:CFI#Spellings. Per (anxt*2000),angst at Google Ngram Viewer, this would be a relatively common misspelling but google books:"anxt" shows these are scannos or occurrence that have nothing to do with angst. OTOH, I find some real occurrences in Usenet, e.g. "The ones that cause me a lot of anxt are the ones that are caused by the reckless and intentional behavior of a reckless and wild operator of a vehicle", which seem intentional; anxt - OneLook - Google "anxt" (BooksGroupsScholarNews Archive). A consideration is this cannot really be a typo (x instead of gs?); this can at best be phonetic spelling or maybe eye spelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • It doesn't seem hard to find apparently genuine uses in Google Books. E.g.:
That was just after a minute or so. 01:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
All of those are for the spelling anxst. - TheDaveRoss 01:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, I somehow misread it. 21:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm seeing RfV here, not RfD. Purplebackpack89 18:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
    We don't include uncommon misspellings even if they are "attested" (used in 3 books). You would have to demonstrate that anxt was used not just 3 times, but so often that it constituted a significant percentage of usage of angst. - -sche (discuss) 18:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

après moi le déluge[edit]

Supposedly English. Little proper formatting. No definition. (might belong on Wikiquote) SemperBlotto (talk) 10:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Nothing much on MW either. Should be in French if anywhere. Donnanz (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the formatting and changed the language to French. I'm neutral as to whether it belongs here at all, though. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Much better now. As it stands now, I wouldn't have nominated it. If nobody objects, I'll remove the RfD template. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, idiom or quotation? Renard Migrant (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Would quotes like "Naturally, Carson can afford to be fairly après moi, le deluge about all this." or "That Mourinho is politicking for Ferguson's job someday is no secret, but it is far from clear whether or not Ferguson wants him to have it (either in an après moi le deluge kinda way or the opposite), or whether or not Ferguson has even decided whether or not he wants him to have it." cite it as English? Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Pity it's not idiomatic in English, there's the Czech po mně/nás potopa, which translates quite literally, now I'll have to copypaste and copyedit this entry to create the Czech one instead of just making a link. Is there really no English "equivalent"? (Btw does it really only refer to "after one's death"? In Czech the meaning is broader, as in these cites from Smurrayinchester). --Droigheann (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure it can be broader, though Louis and Jeanne-Antoinette almost certainly meant after their deaths. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Provided one of them actually said it. But yes, that's how it's interpreted when presented as quoting (one of) them. --Droigheann (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


Is there any POS defineable for this entry? This reading isn't used. If the reading were used, you could define an affix for it, employing an "only used in" if it's rare. Categorisation handles the index for readings. Nibiko (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

  • I think this is a whole lot of bogosity, brought to us by poorly-vetted Unihan entries. I can't find any solid evidence of this purported reading.
Delete as bogus. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I clicked on a few of the kanji in the list, and the ones I tried go to Japanese entries for that character, where the でち reading is repeated. So, if the reading is actually wrong (or the characters are not used in Japanese at all) then these should all be deleted too, I guess. I'm not clear if this is the case though, or if the deletions at でち are proposed because that reading can only be used in compounds. By the way, the でち readings for a few of the characters that I tried are also listed at http://www.romajidesu.com website, and one of them also at wwwjdic.com, but I'm not saying this is definitive. 15:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Many of the less-visited kanji entries on the Japanese Wiktionary appear to be little more than a reformatting of information from the Unihan database, so inclusion there is not necessarily an indication of validity.
http://www.romajidesu.com clearly states on its About page that most of its data comes from WWWJDIC and KANJIDIC.
In turn, the KANJIDIC readings data appears to be partially sourced from the JIS X 0208 standard (search this page for the text "In April 1996 the readings of all the kanji"). That said, I cannot find the purported dechi kanji in the standard list provided at http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~AX2S-KMTN/ref/jisx0208.html, leaving me uncertain where these kanji came from. I cannot find them in my monolingual resources to hand, furthering my impression that these are vanishingly rare in Japanese.
Poking around more, I see that KANJIDIC was also based on a second dataset, where the Japanese ON and KUN readings are mostly from the file of Unicode pronunciations (Pronunciations.text) prepared by the Taligent company. This suggests that the similarity between the KANJIDIC listings and the Unihan database listings is because both derive from the same dataset. I don't know who this Taligent company is (possibly the Taligent of Apple's history?), but given the difficulties I'm having in verifying that these dechi characters are even used in Japanese, I suspect that they were shooting more for complete CJK character coverage, rather than lexicographically useful information.
Ultimately, though, we must hew to Wiktionary's descriptivist approach, by describing what is in use. And, so far, I cannot find any instance of these characters in use with the purported dechi reading. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
There's this thing with Sino-Japanese dictionaries where they recontruct on'yomi, so certain characters that never had a goon or kan'on get their goon or kan'on reconstructed anyway. Kan'on is the more modern reading, so if a rare character were to be used, it usually takes that - for example, searching "泆" "いつ" on the web shows use of this character with a gloss of its kan'on reading, but "泆" "いち" doesn't bring up any use. Unihan takes this a step further and gives heaps of weird readings that don't even show up in Sino-Japanese dictionaries. I've sorted out the on'yomi of all the characters that were listed as having a でち reading, but for the record, sometimes on'yomi are actually used, sometimes on'yomi are reconstructions, and sometimes on'yomi are weirdness from the Unihan database. Nibiko (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Could you comment on whether you think the characters in this list are used at all (with any reading) in Japanese? 18:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I think that Eirikr put it best when he said that these are vanishingly rare. 挃 appears to be used in a metaphor (Daijirin/Daijisen). 昳 appears to be used in the name of an hour, 日昳, the eighth hour, representing the time period from 13:00-15:00 (w:ja:十二時辰/w:de:Japanische Zeitrechnung#Tageseinteilung). 澈 appears to be used in some names (Japanese wikipedia). 瓞 appears to be used in a name (kotobank) and in 瓜瓞 (wikimatome). 絰 appears to be used in some obscure terms like 墨絰 (kotobank) and 衰絰 (wikimatome, jigen). 荎 appears to be used in 荎草園, which is the name of a temple (Google). 泆 appears to be used in 淫泆 (Google). The usage of all these is extremely rare and limited at best, and these are just the characters that I could find significant usage for. The characters that are encoded in JIS X 0213 are the same as the ones that I mentioned with the exception of 荎. Nibiko (talk) 10:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I see, thanks. 03:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


The third and fifth (second and third 'mathematical') senses. Follow-up to this discussion (as I hinted there, I'm not enough of a mathematician to meddle with the entry myself. --Droigheann (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I would leave only the first 'mathematical' sense and delete the other two. They are only exponents in the sense that they represent the same basic relationship (For example is equivalent to and is equivalent to . (BTW - I have a PhD in mathematics, not that it really matters in this case, because this is only high-school level stuff.) Kiwima (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
The fifth definition should be kept; before the 20th century, "index" and "exponent" were used interchangeably, each referring to both the power to which some expression was raised and the index of a root. It should probably be changed from "rare" to "obsolete", though. For example:
  • 1845, Encyclopædia metropolitana: "The notation by which the root is expressed, is the mark called a radical, placed over the letter, with an exponent to the left indicating the order of the root."
  • 1717, A Treatise of Algebra in Two Books: "the Exponent of the m-Root (or 1/m Power) is 1/m times the Exponent of the Root."
  • 1711, M. Ozanam's Introduction to the mathematicks: or, his Algebra: "its Exponent may be commenſured by the Exponent of the Root; namely for the Square Root by 2, for the Cube by 3, &c."
Vorziblix (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

year of the pig[edit]

I don't think that this is dictionary-worthy, and certainly not in this capitalisation. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Delete it as sum of parts, but can we have pig, dragon, etc. defined as Chinese zodiac signs? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
They're just the animal though. The fact that a pig is a Chinese sign doesn't give it a different meaning, just a different context of use. That would be like having "penguin" defined as "the emblem of Linux". Equinox 04:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I am not very familiar with the Chinese zodiac, but we define the English zodiac signs independently even though they are constellations. Are the Chinese symbols used in a similar manner? - TheDaveRoss 13:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Mmmaybe. For one thing, the Chinese zodiac signs are usually capitalized. (I'm a Monkey, but I'm certainly no monkey). For another thing, they have synonyms (due to vagueness in the original Chinese terms) that the regular nouns don't. For example, in zoology goat and sheep are not synonyms, and ram is but a hyponym of sheep, but in the Chinese zodiac, the three terms (capitalized) are synonymous. Likewise Rat and Mouse are synonymous, and the Chinese Rabbit is synonymous with the Vietnamese Cat. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
At least in Portuguese, some (though not all) of the constellations themselves use actual Portuguese words, only they are usually capitalized. Example: gêmeos = twins; Gêmeos = Gemini (both the constellation and the sign). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
As far as I know, constellation names are usually translated (and capitalized). English is an exception. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Rename to year of the Pig and create Rat, Ox, Tiger, Rabbit, Dragon, Snake, Horse, Goat, Monkey, Rooster, Dog, and Pig. See also Cochon on French Wiktionary. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep all, at this title or as alternate spellings of a capitalized title, whichever is more common. bd2412 T 20:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

March 2016[edit]

at the time[edit]

Sole definition: "Back then, at the time referred to in the past."

It is possible to find uses with will, would and could that demonstrate that the definition is incorrect in excluding future deixis. That being so, the term is SoP. DCDuring TALK 00:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The fact that the definition uses the very phrase it's defining is not a good sign. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
As you know, the most basic time terms are hard to define. At least this definition conveyed to me that only half of the conceptual time line was supposedly referred to.
Obviously we have more to say about past events, so it would hardly be a surprise that much more usage (90+%) of this term is about the past. DCDuring TALK 11:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete, same sense of time as the future version, when the time comes or at that time and the present version at this time, hence SOP. - TheDaveRoss 12:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Hmm… the entry may be necessary for translations. Many related languages disagree on which prepositions to use for something, but perhaps that’s a sign that our definitions are inadequate. --Romanophile (contributions) 12:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
That's a very good point. I may be able to find one or two translations. This is a tentative keep. Donnanz (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
at that time is synonymous, and could be redirected to this entry. Donnanz (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
This term definitely has a different sense when compared with at a time and at times. Donnanz (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
As a non-native speaker I would be very glad if I could find at time whether or not I can use in the time synonymously. That done, I'd probably support deletion as SoP. --Droigheann (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The aren't synonymous because at refers to points (events) and in refers to spaces with extent (intervals). I would hope that our definition at those terms makes that clear. Learning that and similar mostly lexical things about English prepositions goes a long way toward constructing more native-like speech and texts, even helping with phrasal verbs, sometimes eliminating the need to look up their meaning. Determiners and articles are similarly worth studying to the same end. DCDuring TALK 18:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
That would be nice, but comparing our
2. (indicating time) Simultaneous, during.
at six o’clock;  at closing time;  at night.
with our in
1. 8. During (said of periods of time).
in the first week of December;  Easter falls in the fourth lunar month;   The country reached a high level of prosperity in his first term.
I'd never guess it. And comparing GoogleBooks results for at the time I used to and in the time I used to isn't convincing either. --Droigheann (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I find that substituting during for at in the usage examples leads me to expressions that I would never use:
At six o'clock
*During six o'clock
?During the six o'clock hour
Simultaneous is even worse, not even being the correct part of speech.
That is, I think it is not an accurate definition for the English I hear and speak. Perhaps in another time or far, far away....
But, the event vs period distinction is relative to the context and sometimes just PoV. I could say "During the arrival of the train I could see people running next to it" taking the arrival, normally a point event, as something with duration. I could say "at daybreak" when a daybreak clearly takes some time. At D-Day the outcome of the war was still in doubt vs. During D-Day there was not as much loss of life as feared. DCDuring TALK 21:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The "substitution" principle of definitions should not be taken too seriously. --WikiTiki89 22:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Au contraire, it is a powerful tool for rooting out carelessly worded definitions. It is a minimum condition for all except non-gloss definitions, though not sufficient to make a good definition. DCDuring TALK 22:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. It often forces you use really strange wording that is much less clear than it could be otherwise. --WikiTiki89 22:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  1. Would you rather have something that is clearly wrong (wrongly clear?) or something that is hard to decipher, but correct?
  2. The simplest, most common words in any language are often the hardest to define. What simpler or equally simple words does one have recourse to?
  3. They often require non-gloss definitions, which are rarely simple.
  4. Someone looking up such a simple word probably has a relatively subtle problem, so simplicity is not necessarily the principal figure of merit for the entry.
DCDuring TALK 01:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
This is all very nice (I can agree with the relativity of point vs interval), but it doesn't change one iota on the fact that a reader who doesn't come across this conversation has no way of telling the difference between "at the time" and "in the time" from what our defs say either at "at", "in" or "time", so Romanophile's remark about the possible necessity of keeping the entry for the sake of translations remains quite pertinent. --Droigheann (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Fixing the entries for grammatical terms like prepositions, especially the common ones is not to be undertaken lightly. DCDuring TALK 01:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
No. I didn't mean it as in 'go hurry and fix the "at" entry so we can delete the "at the time" one'. But as long as the former entry isn't fixed, and you admit it does need fixing, what harm does keeping the latter one? --Droigheann (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Entries for transparent (SoP) entries may (we have no statistics) lead to learners failing to consciously learn about the meaning and usage of the components.
What approach to EFL teachers and course materials take?
I think that they would offer this at their entry for time, at which various phrases, including prepositional phrases, would be available in close proximity for comparison. We don't offer that. At best we have alphabetical listings of derived terms without any clue as to meaning without clicking through to whatever of those have links. And once one has clicked through, one has lost the ability to compare. BTW, I have replaced the erroneous definition for at referenced above with a non-gloss definition more or less in line with LDOCE and COBUILD. DCDuring TALK 16:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I somehow forgot to add at on my watchlist. I apologise, my bad. --Droigheann (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


Reason for deletion request: There has never been such a spelling. --iudexvivorum (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Iudexvivorum, Alifshinobi: If you don't believe it existed, then WT:RFV is where this should go. If you both agree that it was created in error, though, I suppose we can just delete it. Nothing at google books:"มะฃาม" is relevant? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. As it is found at Google books, I hereby withdraw the request. I previously googled it but found nothing, except an alternative spelling (หมากฃาม) of its origin (หมากขาม) at a stele created in 1292/93. Sorry for any inconvenience I caused. --iudexvivorum (talk) 08:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

He said nothing at Google Books. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
There's something relevant at GB. So I withdrew the request. --iudexvivorum (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I just don't know whether the shortening of หมาก to มะ occured before or after obsoletion of ฃ. If มะ occured before ฃ event, so มะฃาม could have existed. --Octahedron80 (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Alifshinobi, Iudexvivorum I created this a long time ago (in 2008); so, I do not remember why I created it. I may have found this spelling from the Thai wikipedia article on ฃ. I have looked at the Thai article again and did not see that there were references for this particular word with this particular spelling. --A.S. (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

in process of time[edit]

"In the course of time; as time goes on; gradually; in due course."

The entry gives OED as a reference but the OED entry (at process) suggests that the expression is open with regard to what goes in the time slot, whether in or by is the initial preposition, and whether the of phrase is required at all.

Either the OED is in effect offering a model for how we should present such highly variable constructions or this isn't a well defined idiom. DCDuring TALK 17:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)



  1. This character does not exist

Chuck Entz (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there a place where this information can be placed instead that can easily be found by readers? (it seems like this "nonexistent" claim is even sourced—I bet no other character-centric website can currently say the same) —suzukaze (tc) 02:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
We could {{no entry}}-ify it like this. Let's do that rather than delete it altogether. - -sche (discuss) 03:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
That might be a good idea. I thought about just speedying it, but it was far enough from what we normally deal with that I felt I should get some other opinions- so I brought it here. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me this character does exist (!) however if it's not used in any human languages there's no reason to keep it. Being present in a couple of databases isn't enough. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
This reminds me of Category:Ghost kanji, although in the RFD discussion there it was brought up that the entries in that category were unsourceable rather than uncitable. Nibiko (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Do you look in GZJW = Yinzhou Jinwen Jicheng Yinde (殷周金文集成引得) yet? When it is sourced, so it is/was used. Looks like kinda ancient form. (I could say every CJK character are sourced so Unicode implemented it.) --Octahedron80 (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


It's the name of a book, so it probably shouldn't be here. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

But this term has strong etymological connection with a common noun utopia. Wouldn't it be a reason for Keep? --Eryk Kij (talk) 09:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
The etymology is already clearly stated in the utopia entry, though. I would say delete unless there is evidence that Utopia is used as an alternative case form of utopia, in which case the definition referring to the book should be removed and replaced with {{alternative case form of}}. — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep. There is no policy to exclude every single name of a book. The applicable policy is WT:NSE. Since the name of this book gave rise to a common noun, I'd keep it; so as per User:エリック・キィ AKA Eryk Kij. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect to [[utopia#Etymology]] (and change the link to this term in that section to a w:link). We already provide all of the relevant information there, so there is no need for a separate entry. bd2412 T 17:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect per BD. Though we already have automatic redirection of capitalized terms in search boxes to the lowercase form, in this case, there may be in the future a section for the genus Utopia (really!), in which case a user my not get the point. DCDuring TALK 17:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete: a topic for Wikipedia, a mere etymology for us. But we do already have a bunch of book titles (fairy-tales and Dickens, mostly, I believe) so nobody will listen to me. Equinox 14:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

fight tooth and nail[edit]

fight + tooth and nail! --Hekaheka (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Redirect to [[tooth and nail]]. DCDuring TALK 11:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep for translations, in which the verb fight is replaced with something else. Furthermore, I believe "fight" is by far the most common verb. Moreover, keep using the lemming heuristic: present in oxforddictionaries.com[1], dictionary.cambridge.org[2], and idioms.thefreedictionary.com[3], which cites American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Redirect. Equinox 06:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Posh and Becks[edit]

Per a previous comment at RFD, this may be SOP in its literal meaning (Posh + Becks, who are each known by those nicknames outside of this collocation). By the way, there's also a Cockney rhyming slang meaning that's currently at RFV and needs to be cited. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete. - TheDaveRoss 12:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, as before. bd2412 T 01:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. The alleged rhyming slang sense failed RFV on 17 May 2016: see "Talk:Posh and Becks". — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

arena para gato[edit]

Spanish: Just means "sand for cat". No more idiomatic than dog bone, chicken feed, cat blanket IMHO. --AK and PK (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Does arena mean litter in addition to sand/gravel? If English called the stuff "cat sand" we would keep that phrase, as that is not a normal meaning of sand. - TheDaveRoss 19:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Google Images shows it doesn't literally refer to sand. Also it's more commonly arena para gatos. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep per nomination. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


Discussion moved from WT:Requests for verification#antse.

It's actually non-lemma form whose structure is ants + -e ‎(phrase-final clitic). In Suárez (1983:117) we could find ant͜se with a gloss "woman" indeed, but the problem is that the term is a part of a sentence, whose detail is as follows: i-ˀakˀ-ba-t j-uˀun ti ant͜se. According to Aissen (1987:3) and Sk'op Sotz'leb: The Tzotzil of Zinacantán, -e often cooccurs with a definite article, i.e., ti, li, taj, i. I think that we don't have to spare a space for every such form. --Eryk Kij (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I've converted it to a "form of". entry pointing to ants. The form is attested (in the reference given above, which is sufficient for a non-WT:WDL language, per WT:CFI), and because Wiktionary is not paper, it has room to include any number of inflections of words, including e.g. all the conjugated forms of every Latin verb. However, if "-e" can attach to any word without changing the meaning, some might feel that no -e forms should be included (while others disagree; contrast e.g. the arguments at Talk:fasque with those at Talk:satisne): you could start a request for deletion. - -sche (discuss) 19:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I understand your attestation is right and Wiktionary could contain inflections of a word, then I should have used RFD as you advised me. I came up with the idea only after I submitted here. As you supposed, the clitic -e gives rise to no further change of a meaning itself without being definite, therefore we may have to delete this entry. I will move this discussion to RFD soon after posting this reply. Thank you for your attention and guidance. --Eryk Kij (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I've added the entry ([4]). Please note that there is an orthographic fluctuation between the letters ts and tz, which is explained in Moksnes (2013: Notes on Orthography). --Eryk Kij (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


A (correctly labelled as rare) rare misspelling; too rare for Ngram Viewer to plot. - -sche (discuss) 06:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Appears to be a variant, found 13,000 Google Books hits for the bare spelling, suggesting it's a regular spelling in German; and 18 GB hits for the English phrase "the seismogramme" suggesting it as a UK variant. P Aculeius (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I find it counterintuitive, but we do have angiogramme. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I did wonder if this was not actually a misspelling but just a rare alternative, like gramme. - -sche (discuss) 00:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
@-sche: it’s kind of difficult to determine what is to be classified as a misspelling and what’s simply an alternative. I was thinking that these forms would be justified by analogy alone, but a lot of misspellings arise that way. I suppose that if you can find any academics discouraging it, then it’s definitely a misspelling. --Romanophile (contributions) 01:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that you can base whether something is a misspelling solely on whether any academics discourage it. Many alternative spellings are discouraged by academics (not necessarily by all academics), without being "wrong". Of course, I suppose you could make the argument that all alternative spellings can be considered misspellings, or that the difference is always a matter of opinion. But without going to that length, I'd say that perhaps "misspelling" is best applied to unintentional spellings (typos), common blunders (sherrif instead of sheriff), or the like. In this case, I think you can reasonably argue that -gram and -gramme are generally interchangable, and therefore this difference is purely a matter of style, at least in British English. P Aculeius (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
My understanding is that -gram(me) are interchangeable in BrE for units (e.g. kilogramme) but not necessarily for other things (*telegramme; yes we have an entry but it's as dubious as this one). Equinox 13:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The fact that one variation comes to predominate (perhaps early on) doesn't make others incorrect. As for "other things", programme is actually the dominant spelling in UK English; telegramme occurs in English and in at least one company name, as well as in French (with or without acute accents on the first two e's); I find a number of English-language hits for audiogramme, cardiogramme, cryptogramme, encephalogramme, monogramme, phonogramme, sonogramme, and spectrogramme. There are certainly others, but these struck me as examples likely to be encountered. As a suffix, -gramme seems to be standard in French, so if Wiktionary is supposed to contain French words as well as English, then all these words and many others should still have entries. English usage varies from one word to the other, with some authors preferring the "French" spelling and others the "American" spelling. Obviously the "American" spelling is dominant now for most words, but it appears that a century ago the "French" spelling was more common in UK English; and some writers continue to use it even in cases where the "American" spelling is dominant. As a result, "misspelling" seems to be the wrong way to describe such words. P Aculeius (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


As above. - -sche (discuss) 06:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Even as an archaic spelling it's pretty rare and only seemingly goes back to 1815 on Google Books. The language was obviously standardized back then so it could been seen as a misspelling even in 1815. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete all. Sorry for the trouble. --Romanophile (contributions) 05:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


As above. Two other words are labelled "rare misspelling of" but are homographic to valid words and thus impossible to search for, so I'm not RFDing them: ша/ša, aptotic. - -sche (discuss) 06:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it is a misspelling. If it isn't, then 'rare' but doesn't matter at all. See in particular daddie. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Schengen Agreement[edit]

Encyclopedic. Or should we include Treaty of Versailles/Versailles Treaty, Peace of Westphalia, Westphalia ("treaty ending the Thirty Years' War 1648") [missing def.], Appomattox (the surrender that ended the American Civil War) [missing def.]? I could see us going either way. DCDuring TALK 19:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

A good time to break out the "slippery slope" argument, in either direction. It seems like we'd have to include an awful lot of entries like this. Many dictionaries do, of course, give simple definitions for common phrases like the names of important treaties or battles. Does it make any difference that the phrases "treaty of . . ." or "peace of . . ." and similar phrases are clues enabling the reader to look them up in an encyclopedia, while "Versailles" or "Appomattox" are used as shorthand, the meaning of which is not apparent without knowledge of the events that happened there? I don't see much harm in a definition that says something like, "Appomattox: a reference to the surrender of General Robert E. Lee's forces at Appomattox Courthouse, Virginia in 1865, often considered the most significant event marking the conclusion of the United States Civil War. Wikipedia has an article on . . ." So I think I'm leaning in favour of keeping. Not a burden on Wiktionary to keep it, and would explain the meaning of the word in the majority of contexts. Short definitions like this would suit most of the above examples, without becoming encyclopedic. P Aculeius (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
"Schengen Agreement" (name for a certain agreement), "Treaty of Versailles" (name for a certain treaty) et al are fundamentally different from "Appomatox" (name of a place, used metonymically for events which happened there) et al, IMO. We might decide to include both or exclude both types of term, but each type would need to stand on its own merits.
In a section further up, you mention US Supreme Court case titles; those are a third type of term; I've wondered if we should include some, but I can't find usage of any that is both not italicized and not referring to the court case in a way that is obvious in context (such that a reader wouldn't turn to us to find out what was meant, because they'd already know from the context). For example, all the uses of "before Roe" that I find are either italicized (alerting readers that it's a work title), or "before Roe v. Wade" (where it's obvious to readers that it's specifically a court case title), or both. - -sche (discuss) 07:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
One relatively simple rule would be follow-the-lemmings: If any works on a list of references, say, in English, OneLook+OED+any print dictionary (possibly with exclusions), have an entry/article for a term of a given type, then include automatically, subject to attestation, else, fight it out at RfD. The converse rule of automatically excluding unless there are lemmings and fighting out the inclusions is another option. DCDuring TALK 12:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

We have a definition in Schengen. That ought to be enough. delete -- Liliana 19:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC) (interestingly there is no definition for the "Treaty of Versailles" meaning in Versailles, that better be fixed!)

I agree delete and make sure Schengen covers this. 'Schengen' attributively covers this, Schengen area, Schengen zone and so on. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


Isn't verb definition 5 pretty much the same thing as verb definition 6? Purplebackpack89 23:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I think they could probably be combined, with the "admonish" sense coming first, since the comedic version seems to be a form of tongue-in-cheek admonishment. P Aculeius (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind either way actually. I agree entirely with P Aculeius's analysis I just think the thin distinction might be enough to keep them separate. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Admonish doesn't seem quite right to me. Most current dictionaries have criticize:
Eg, MWOnline has "to subject to severe criticism or ridicule <films have been roasted by most critics — H. J. Seldes>" AND
"to honor (a person) at a roast."
Century 1911 OTOH has "expose (a person) to scathing ridicule or jesting, as by a company of persons, or for the amusement of a company. [Slang.]"
OED has just one definition that combines these senses: "colloq. To severely ridicule, reprimand, or interrogate (a person); to criticize or denounce. Also (chiefly N. Amer.): to subject to good-natured ridicule or banter; cf. roast n. 4."
The wording of the first MW sense and the Century sense seem to be suggestive of metaphorical roasting.
What happens at a roast is not criticism: it is jesting at an honoree's expense, often involving hyperbole of traits (age, drinking, big ears, etc) of the honoree, but sometimes using more generic insulting jests. DCDuring TALK 22:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Merely because someone is being roasted good-naturedly or in jest doesn't mean that a different definition is being used, any more than pelting someone with verbal barbs involves a different definition from pelting them with stones or snowballs. P Aculeius (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Obviously it does to some lexicographers, if not to all.
We, like most dictionaries, distinguish between literal and figurative senses on a regular basis. To take pelt as an example, MWOnline:
"1a: to strike with a succession of blows or missiles <pelted him with stones>
  b: to assail vigorously or persistently <pelted her with accusations>"
For some uses of some words the metaphorical sense has become quite conventional. For others the metaphor is more live. The former we should address with a definition or, at least, some acknowledgement. DCDuring TALK 15:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

cave canem[edit]

Per the discussion at habemus confitentum reum, above. If this is deleted, it should be made an example phrase, but I don't think it merits an entry. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. One of the first Latin phrases people learn (and often one of the only ones people know). Famous in part because of the well-known and whimsical mosaic used to illustrate the entry. Often used humorously by English speakers as an alternative to the English, or out of context. P Aculeius (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • How is "One of the first Latin phrases people learn" a reason? How is being famous a reason? This is a dictionary. Let's keep being a dictionary and to try to become Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wikiquote and every other WikiProject.
  • Delete per the entry itself, which makes an extremely strong case for deletion. Not claiming to be idiomatic because it isn't. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The only way it might be worth keeping is in a phrasebook. A Latin phrasebook could perhaps include phrases that have little conversational value, but are typically learned by beginners. I think it's misleading to have it as an entry, as it implies that it is idiomatic/non-SOP, whereas it is clearly the sum of its parts. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
A bit like veni, vidi, vici, isn't it? For purposes of comparison, the Chambers English Dictionary has an appendix of famous classical phrases (Latin, Greek, etc.), quite a mixed bag. Equinox 16:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
At the moment veni, vidi, vici is only here as a famous quotation which is problematic but not hard to resolve. I seem to think it is used as an idiom. Possibly not used as an idiom in Latin though. Originally, at least, it was used entirely literally. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per Renard Migrant. I wouldn't argue that e.g. cs-wiki should have "this is a book" or "I am your English teacher" either. I also find it funny that we should have cave canum but not beware of dog/beware of the dog/beware the dog; OTOH if we found the latter worthwhile having, the former might merit entry as a translation target (provided it's actually commonly used, I've never seen it till now but then what do I know). --Droigheann (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Do we not have a Latin phrasebook? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • There does seem to be a little bit of usage of it, italicized, in English texts, so maybe it could be keepable as an English entry rather than a Latin one: [5], [6]. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
    I wanted to contest this being English, but I'm gradually finding out anything, just anything can be called an English term here, so why not? --Droigheann (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
    {{ping|Droigheann]}, thanks for pointing out burčák; its citations are not durable and the first two citations are mentions (of the Czech word, not even of an English word), so I've RFVed it. - -sche (discuss) 19:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: these common Latin phrases are found in most English-language dictionaries: for example, Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, Webster's New World Dictionary, the American College Dictionary, the Random House Dictionary, and Funk & Wagnalls. What is the rationale for making Wiktionary more restrictive? As has been stated for years, there's no concern about entries taking up too much space. Nor is the fact that there could be an encyclopedia article written about a word or phrase a justification for deleting it. That would simply mean that people wouldn't know what it meant when encountering it, if they looked it up here. Should Wiktionary define common phrases, or prevent people from understanding them? P Aculeius (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I think if you spoon-feed people meanings, it stops them learning. People need to be able to string two or more words together in order to speak a language. If you don't know what chat noir means in French, sure we could define it as a noun, but if they learn the words chat and noir and how to put them together to make chat noir they learn much more. A bit like how memorizing the times tables up to 12 * 12 like we did has its place but doesn't help you with 13 * 11 because it's not on the list and you haven't been taught how to multiply, just what some of the common answers are. In general the space argument isn't a very well liked one. As one person put it, we have plenty of space for pictures of kittens if that's the route we want to go down. This is a dictionary not Wikiquote or Wikipedia and I think we should stay being a dictionary. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
You call it spoon-feeding, I call it being a dictionary. Apparently most professional dictionary writers over the last century agree with me. There's a reason why common Latin phrases are found in dictionaries. They're found and used by English-speakers who don't know what they mean when strung together, or why anyone would bother. Under cave we have entries for seven languages, including nineteen senses in English alone. canem brings up Latin and Welsh; eliminate the "derived term" here and you're left with the not very helpful choice between "accusative singular of canis" or "first-person plural imperfect/conditional of canu". A trip back to "cave" under the assumption that both words have to be Latin, since one of them can only be Latin or Welsh and the other one can't be Welsh, and someone who clicks under the hidden "quotations" just might find the phrase defined there. So what exactly is the helpfulness of sending people to search two different words for two meanings that might just go together and make sense, as opposed to having one entry that says what the phrase means in English? Especially if you're already defining it in a "quotation" under one of them (I'll quickly point out that a bare attribution to Petronius is hardly a quotation, any more than you would cite "goodbye" to Anne Robinson)? And without the "derived term" or so-called "quotation" the reader would have to string together "second-person singular present imperative of caveō" and "accusative singular of canis" in order to derive a meaning for the phrase. Two more trips to two more pages, even assuming that the reader can keep all those grammatical terms in mind while trying to sort out what the phrase means in toto. All just in order to save the 432 bytes of space that "cave canem" takes up, distracting Wiktionary users with its blasted simplicity and ease of use! P Aculeius (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not disputing the English entry cave canem, I'm disputing the Latin entry. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep as phrasebook, delete otherwise. A dictionary isn't needed to understand this phrase, only knowledge of caveō and canis is sufficient. Aside, though, I think that mosaic is beautiful, please keep it. —CodeCat 23:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I would certainly reject PA's "one of the first Latin phrases people learn" as a keep argument. Reminds me of Daniel Carrero once creating a bizarre entry for some English-classroom phrase like where is the pencil (I can't remember exactly what it was); nobody was convinced by that one. Equinox 14:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)



The 2008 Beijing Olympics mascots. Not dictionary material. —suzukaze (tc) 07:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it 'the name' that can be included? --Octahedron80 (talk) 05:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • This sounds like a case for WT:RFV. bd2412 T 15:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

go number two[edit]

I think this can be speedied on the grounds that the discussion has happened already for go pee (which was recently recreated and which I deleted). Perhaps folks want to have the discussion though. - TheDaveRoss 16:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

  • It iswould be nice to have the collocation at number two, though collocation space would probably be better. DCDuring TALK 17:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Redirect to number two. --Romanophile (contributions) 19:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Deletion and redirect are pretty much the same thing as if you search for 'go number two', it finds 'number two' as the first hit. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep. It's possible to say "went number two", so it's not just "go" + "number two". You can't say *"went drive", *"went talk", or *"went sit". —This unsigned comment was added by 2602:306:3653:8920:fd5d:6d3b:7783:13e (talk) at 18:26, 23 March 2016.
I have no idea what the connection is between went drive etc and the case at hand. I have no idea what the connection might be between "it's possible [] 'number two'." and your vote to keep. Could you explain? DCDuring TALK 23:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
You can say "go drive", "go talk" and "go sit". You can't however say *"went drive" *"went talk" and *"went sit". You can however say "went number one" and "went pee". "go number one" and "go pee" are therefore special cases and should have entries.
That's because "number two" is a noun, and "drive", "talk" and "sit" are verbs. Purplebackpack89 00:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Do we ordinarily put "go" before nouns? Or is number two a special case? Can you say things like "go house", "go car", "go TV", "go soda" etc.? I don't think so. Something special going on with number two. We have go potty. Such is use of "go" before a noun something that doesn't ordinarily occur.
No, we don't. But that's because this is only go in the sense of relieving oneself. There are a limited number of nouns referring to what one is relieving oneself of that can be used attributively after "go". The one thing they seen to have in common is that they're childish euphemisms: you can "go wee-wee", "go pee-pee", "go tinkle", "go number one", but not "go urine", and when you say "go piss", it's really the verb (shortened from "go and piss"), not the noun. What I think is going on here is that the construction is based on the way a child would say it, and if any part of it is something a child wouldn't say, it won't sound right. It's like there's an exemption from normal syntactic constraints that's granted because of difficulties children have with complex constructions, and if it's not the kind of thing a child would say, that exemption is revoked. Within those narrow restrictions, though, the parts are quite independent. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
In this case one uses the lexicon as follows:
  1. Try to make sense of the expression using the most common senses of go [[number and two, which would probably lead to combining number and two and skipping the next two steps.
  2. If necessary, one looks up the two two word combinations: go number and number two
  3. Since go number fails one reviews the meanings at number two
  4. From context one would select the meaning of number two {"Feces; the act of defecation."} and place it in one's working memory.
  5. One then proceeds to go#Noun (because it is shorter?) and determine there is no possible definition there that fits with context or.
  6. One then proceeds down the long list of definitions of go#Verb, discarding meanings until one comes to sense 40 (the last, though it probably should be higher based on relative frequency of use, especially in speech.)
  7. Then, if necessary, one can analyze the grammar and perhaps guess, based on similar cases like go home, in which the noun home is used adverbially, that number two is not functioning as a noun.
In all likelihood one would not have to complete all the steps even if one could not guess the meaning from context. Steps one and four would probably lead to the correct conclusion. It is always true that it is faster to have an entry for the exact item on is searching for. But it is also true that putting words together is the most basic element of understanding language. It's reasonable to expect folks to have the skill and to benefit from learning the pattern of combination which may be applicable to other cases, eg, "go Dior" (a red-carpet celebrity), "go Sanders" (a state's voters), "go bluegrass" (a musician), "go structuralist" (a lexicographer?). DCDuring TALK 02:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The algorithm is based on particular kinds of memory and processor. Human associative memory enables one to avoid the need for some of these steps, even when one must have recourse to a dictionary because the required information is not already in-brain or is inaccessible. DCDuring TALK 11:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

go number one[edit]

Renard Migrant (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

veni, vidi, vici[edit]

I think in Latin this is just a famous quotation. We're not Wikisource and other famous quotations like it's the economy, stupid have been deleted. No entry for when the president does it, that means it is not illegal either (Nixon). Renard Migrant (talk) 11:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure about this one. Would you support eliminating I came, I saw, I conquered too? --Romanophile (contributions) 15:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I think veni, vidi, vici is probably an idiom, just not in Latin. I came, I saw, I conquered I think is also not literal and not merely a quotation. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
The Latin entry could easily be rescued if somebody found citations of Latinophones using it independently and not as a quote. I didn’t find any examples of that type, but my investigation was far from exhaustive. So I’m going to say delete unless somebody can find independent uses of it in Latin. In any event, it would suffice as an example sentence. --Romanophile (contributions) 16:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm proposing, albeit implicitly not explicitly (until now) to create it in English and perhaps other languages (fr:veni, vidi, vici has a French section) delete the Latin as sum-of-parts and merely a citation (like when the president does it, that means it is not illegal) and link to Wikiquote and Wikipedia for the quotation-handling. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
So, it could be created in all the languages in which its use is attested? DCDuring TALK 17:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
That would be a lot. It probably passes CFI in a minimum of 5 languages. As well as English, French and Spanish, I'm seeing hit for it in German, Hungarian and Turkish, just I can't understand them. Isn't that what Translingual is for? Renard Migrant (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I would oppose labelling a Latin phrase "translingual" just because it is used in multiple languages, simply because the pronuncation would vary. I see pronunciation as being almost as important as spelling, but that information can't really be included in a translingual entry. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
There's something to that argument, OTOH couldn't you say the same about, for instance, chemical formulas? Surely H₂O is pronounced differently in different languages, isn't it? --Droigheann (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


Discussion moved from WT:RFV#erotica.

Rfv-sense (x2):

Literary works focused on sexual situations and intended for the sexual arousal of readers.
Sexual images or objects.

These do not seem to be very different from the primary sense:

Erotic literature, art, decoration or other phenomenon; sometimes encompasses only material that is not pornographic and has or is purported to have artistic or social value, but also can include pornography, depending on the context and speaker.

---> Tooironic (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you questioning the existence of these two definitions? The fact you consider them 'not very different from the primary sense' suggests you are not. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
To me, they seem to be all simply describing different manifestations of "erotic literature or art". The OED only gives one definition by the way. ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm taking that as a no, hence striking. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I would be inclined to merge all senses. Equinox 12:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Move this to rfd- it doesn't belong here. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

(now at RFD)

  • Sorry guys for putting this is on the wrong discussion page. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete, these are clearly covered by sense #1 and I can't think of anything else to say on the matter. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete. This is just a noun referring to various things of a subject, like Disneyana or memorabilia. The first definition covers it sufficiently, including the connotations. Nibiko (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

white sweet potato[edit]

Sum of parts. It's a "white" "sweet potato". SemperBlotto (talk) 03:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

(Replying also to the discussion at User_talk:SemperBlotto#white_sweet_potato SemperBlotto's talk page): I made the entry based on [7], which lists "white sweet potato" as a synonym of boniato (tropical sweet potato/Cuban sweet potato/white sweet potato/white-fleshed sweet potato/batiste/batata/batata dulce/camote), which it lists as a distinct vegetable, in a separate entry from "sweet potato". Both are of the species Ipomoea batatas, but white sweet potato refers to specific cultivars traditional in Cuba, not just any white sweet potato cultivar. Goldenshimmer (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The boniato is distinct, mostly because the origin of the name limits its reference to Cuba, but white sweet potato refers to white-fleshed sweet potatoes of various types from various parts of the world. In fact, the website's chain of synonyms ("boniato = tropical sweet potato = Cuban sweet potato = white sweet potato = white-fleshed sweet potato = batiste = batata = batata dulce = camote") includes batata, which is a general name for any sweet potato, as well as camote, which is a Mexican name for sweet potatoes. I should also mention that their picture of a yamaimo looks to me more like a nagaimo, which is referred to in Chinese using the same characters that the Japanese use for yamaimo (if you're not confused by now, you're not paying attention). People who make websites about produce don't necessarily know much about languages or about other cultures than the ones that happen to have produce markets in their area, so the websites shouldn't be used as sources for dictionary entries (not to mention that they have little standing in our Criteria for inclusion). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Yep, confused. I think I'll leave this one to the experts, I guess…. Goldenshimmer (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

one time only[edit]

Is it sum of parts? --Romanophile (contributions) 15:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
You could have asked that question wo creating the entry. wtf? --Dixtosa (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Having red links is wrong, it would seem. See here. --Romanophile (contributions) 18:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
They also serve who remove spurious redlinks. DCDuring TALK 21:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
This seems to be a good argument for not agreeing with everyone who comments on your talk pages. I think we can safely say I don't. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
If you means me, what are you talking about? DCDuring TALK 21:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, you (Renard M) must be referring to Romanophile. You can easily be ambiguous on our discussion pages. DCDuring TALK 21:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
"I think we can safely so I don't" is unambiguously undecipherable. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Naw. "I think we can (not agree with everyone who comments) so I don't (agree with everyone who comments)". Equinox 13:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
You beat me to it. --Droigheann (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
How about "I think we can (agree with everyone who comments on your talk pages) safely so I don't (have to add my comments there)."?
Sadly, I'm certain that my comments on these pages suffer from similar ambiguity. DCDuring TALK 14:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
You people aren’t making any sense. If you want to nuke the entry (or even both of them), go ahead. I won’t lose any sleep over it. --Romanophile (contributions) 14:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The obvious solution to Romanophile's redlink problem is to define one-time-only in a way that doesn't link to one time only Purplebackpack89 23:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)a
    The superior solution is to delete all of the forms of this as it is merely SoP. DCDuring TALK 23:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, would redirects to one-time be unacceptable? --Romanophile (contributions) 00:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete. --WikiTiki89 00:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


As a form of the above, this should go too. --WikiTiki89 00:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete, same thing just with hyphens instead of spaces. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Gagg (Korean Hangul)[edit]

See gagg —This unsigned comment was added by Johnny Shiz (talkcontribs) at 16:30, 2016 March 28 (UTC).

Have you ended up on the wrong page? There is no Korean entry (and none in the page history either). Renard Migrant (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • This section was apparently added by Johnny Shiz (talkcontribs). Johnny, please remember to sign your posts by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end.
I believe the page he meant to link to was (gak), which was marked for deletion by DolphinL (talkcontribs) way back in 2011 in this edit. DolphinL's last edit here was on 2011-11-05. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

mathematical realism[edit]

I'm confused how this term could be anything but a sum of its parts. There is apparently a philosophical position called realism, and there is a kind of this realism that pertains to mathematics, which happens to be called mathematical realism. I note there is a Wikipedia article at Mathematical realism, but the presence of an encyclopedia entry does not necessarily a term make.

I posit that mathematical realism, as a term, is wholly understandable from its constituent parts, and that this is therefore a sum-of-parts entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I could have worked out what this meant by just considering the two words. Equinox 13:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I think you would get it if you knew it was in the context of philosophy. DCDuring TALK 18:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I too failed to understood solely by its two parts. Having mathematical realism defined helped me understand. I vote to keep it. Amin wordie (talk) 09:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete per 言語学的実在論 and 科学的実在論. The Wikipedia article even mentions "mathematical anti-realism". Nibiko (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Dan Polansky (talk) I created the entry and found it useful. Since two other editors above also seem to find it useful, I post a boldface keep. The two definitions of realism with respect to which this could be sum of parts are probably these:
    • (sciences) The viewpoint that an external reality exists independent of observation.
    • (philosophy) A doctrine that universals are real—they exist and are distinct from the particulars that instantiate them.
    Based on them, I would not know that mathematical realism was "A doctrine that mathematical entities such as numbers and triangles exist independently of the human mind." --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • realism (in the context of this thread) can be boiled down to “XXX exists independent of the observer”; mathematics can be boiled down to “numbers”. Ergo, mathematical realism = “numbers exist independent of the observer” = the sum of mathematical + realism. I fail to see how this isn't SOP, but I'm also happy to concede that there is no burning reason to remove the entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    • That's not so clear since, from realism, "universals are real—they exist and are distinct from the particulars that instantiate them" is distinct and, being philosophical, could apply. In mathematical unrealism, numbers could exist outside of human mind but only in the objects that instantiate them; so number 5 could exist "only" in e.g. my hand that has 5 fingers, and it would follow, possibly, that many positive integers don't exist since no physical collection of items instantiates them. In fact, this should better be clarified, and I hope the present definition of mathematical realism is correct. (Leaving aside that math is very far from being only about numbers.)--Dan Polansky (talk)
Dan: I'm not certain that I'm saying keep. I'm just not qualified, perhaps. I remember Stephen voting to keep various comp-sci entries that were evident SoPs, I assume (i) because as a translator he values SoPs anyway but also (ii) because (judging by the I-wouldn't-understand-it-from-the-two-words argument) he isn't a comp-sci specialist. A non-programmer won't know what a "static volatile void function" is, but it is nevertheless (to somebody who works in that field) the obvious combination of those four things, like a "sticky wet brown leaf". So perhaps in this case I'm just not familiar enough with the field of philosophy. (Actually, I did look at our entries for mathematical and realism, but maybe our entries just suck. I'm in a foul mood.) Equinox 14:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

por qué no te callas[edit]

Would definitely be a useful example, but the meaning is obvious. This is just another famous quote. --Romanophile (contributions) 19:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Delete --AK and PK (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Yup! Renard Migrant (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
¿Por qué no te borras? -- Liliana 22:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@Liliana-60: where did that comment come from? Is there bad blood between you & Goupil? --Romanophile (contributions) 22:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
It was supposed to be a joke, but humor doesn't transfer well through Internet tubes. -- Liliana 22:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

April 2016[edit]

semper paratus, semper eadem, semper fidelis[edit]

Sum of parts (in Latin). As always, mere examples would suffice. --Romanophile (contributions) 03:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Motto should not be dictionary entries, if you want to know what they mean, look up the individual words and/or look them up on Wikipedia where of course they belong as they are topics of interest, not idioms. No Dieu et mon droit for example. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep the first and third: I also dissent from Renard's point that we shouldn't have mottos. Purplebackpack89 13:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
It’s not mottoes per se that should be eliminated. It’s phrases that are easily discernible to anybody with a competent command of the language. I don’t think that they merit entire entries, but using them within entries is a good compromise and a good idea (in my view). Renard Migrant (talkcontribs) would probably agree with me on that. --Romanophile (contributions) 14:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I think keep as well, possibly as English. I have seen the third used plenty of times in English texts in a manner that presumed understanding of the phrase. I am not as familiar with semper eadem, and the Coast Guard is just smaller than the Marines, so its motto gets out less. - TheDaveRoss 14:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    This is a de facto delete vote as the English entries aren't being nominated for deletion. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    Maybe I am missing something, but when I look at those entries I see only Latin sections. - TheDaveRoss 13:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Familiar Latin phrases found in English texts should be included in dictionaries (and usually are). You shouldn't have to be able to parse Latin grammar to figure out what English speakers mean when they use these phrases. P Aculeius (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Like you say, they are in English dictionaries. This is logic for keeping in English, not Latin. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
If we're thinking of creating all attestable ones, I suggest arte et labore which is Blackburn Rovers' motto. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Since we're not including these for lexical reasons, per P Aculeius, do we include them for notability? Do we need WT:NOTABLE to decide which sum of parts phrases are notable enough to be included, or do we just include all mottos in all languages? Do were merely need to show use as a motto for the motto to be included. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
How about All the News That's Fit to Print? Chuck Entz (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: I honestly have almost no idea what the hell that phrase is supposed to mean. What news is ‘fit’ to print? Rich gringos dying? Gringo children being kidnapped? The crimes that poor people commit to survive? --Romanophile (contributions) 21:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
@Romanophile: I'm guessing you're better educated than most. If you don't know what it means, that probably means most people don't know what it means, which it turn probably means we should have it. Purplebackpack89 14:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
What a particular newspaper deems to be fit (suitable) to print isn't lexical information, though: you clearly know what the phrase means in the lexical sense, just not which news it would apply to in the real world (which varies by newspaper of course). So not dictionary content. Equinox 15:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant: Seems kinda disingenuous to me to have an English definition for a Latin phrase, but not a Latin one. Purplebackpack89 14:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree. It is odd but it's a way of complying with CFI (and some people care about that). The only argument apparently for including it in Latin is because it's used in other languages which to be honest I find even more odd. A further question for P Aculeius. Is Latin a special case or should we include mottos in other languages other than Latin? What about English ones? Just Do It (Nike) Impossible Is Nothing (Nike or Addidas or something like that). Renard Migrant (talk) 12:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: it's absurd to have well-known Latin phrases defined as English, merely because English speakers use them, and not defined as Latin. Moreover, as much of the significance of these phrases is how, why, or by whom they're used; something easily explained in a single sentence, without the need for an encyclopedia entry. And that you can't get from parsing each word to figure out its function in the phrase. There's a difference between a well-known phrase that's been widely used for hundreds or even thousands of years, and a corporate advertising slogan that vanishes from popular use within a few years of the ad campaign that created it. I think that Wiktionary editors wouldn't have too much trouble distinguishing between them. If you want to create a notability guideline for phrases like this, go ahead, but it'll result in more "keeps", which clearly you're opposed to. P Aculeius (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • There's not a lexical distinction (as you freely admit), it's just which are more 'notable' than others. While it's absurd, surely including a Latin entry only for non-Latin speakers is even more absurd. Imagine an English entry aim only at non-English speakers like Just Do It because non-English speakers may come across it. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • In case anyone cares what WT:CFI says, an I do, believe it or not, this is as straightforward a delete as it gets. But a vote to have CFI trump voting failed, so it literally is just a vote. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep -- They are more than mottoes, and should definitely stay. A silly debate. 16:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
So what are they, then? Renard Migrant (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep: Any foreign language phrase that is frequently used in documents written in English should be documented in some glossary within the Wikipedia Foundation. If rigid rules prevent them from being documented here, then put them in a separate wiki. Also, having entries for these mottoes document prominent organizations using them is welcome information to find. Fred Holmes


Erroneous pinyin of 岃 (rèn). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Johnny Shiz (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Build-To-Order flat[edit]

Sum of parts. A "flat" that is built-to-order. Also bad caps. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Move to BTO (and make required text adjustments), which is what most of the numerous citations attest to. DCDuring TALK 23:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete and make a separate entry BTO. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Not sure about the delete, let me read it tomorrow. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah it's sum of parts, delete. Make BTO a separate entry to keep the page histories separate. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Note that this is build-to-order, not the usual built-to-order, so we should keep that bathwater adjective when throwing this baby out. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete: we have BTO, and this is SoP. It was one of the mass of dubious entries created by a Singaporean teacher's class as an exercise. Equinox 14:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


The entry has a PUA character "", which may be ⿸疒哥. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Is this character really not in CJK-C/-D/-E? -- Liliana 21:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Who knows? To really be sure what it is, you'd have to know what font the creator of the entry was using at the time, and possibly even which version of the font. You can guess, based on which character it was redirected to back in 2007, and on which equivalents there are to that in Min-Nan, but it would still be a guess. Given that different people may see different characters, depending on their font, I don't think it's safe to keep this as is. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 is U+E010, which is a PUA (private use area) character, which means 癩 needs to be deleted or moved, since  is not actually an encoded character. ⿸疒哥 (UTC-02663) is proposed for Extension G, as seen here and here (p. 127). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
A query for  in [8] suggests that it indeed is ⿸疒哥. —suzukaze (tc) 22:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
@suzukaze-c Are you sure you're not using  (U+F5E7) instead of  (U+E010)? I tried using  (U+E010) and it didn't work. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
(how the heck did i get f5e7) Please disregard, oops —suzukaze (tc) 22:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I think the creator of the pua meant 疒哥, but it ended up as ✊, due to font. I still want delete, after all, 赵孟兆页 got deleted. —This unsigned comment was added by Johnny Shiz (talkcontribs) at 22:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC).
This has nothing to do with 赵孟𫖯. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

赵孟兆页got deleted it was a meaningless frase. Johnny Shiz (talk)

It was deleted because it's a name with both given and family names, which violates WT:CFI, not because it's a meaningless phrase. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
This character shows as a fist on my iPad and a an up pointing arrow on my computer. Johnny Shiz (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
That's because it's a Private Use Area character, meaning that different fonts can have completely different things showing up. That's why this problem needs to be resolved. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I say Redirect to 癩⿸疒哥. Johnny Shiz (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


WT:CFI: No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic. For instance, Walter Elias Disney, the film producer and voice of Mickey Mouse, is not allowed a definition line at Walt Disney. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a figurative sense, I think ([9]). Wyang (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Figurative sense added. Should the proper noun sense be deleted? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I think it's fine leaving the sense there as long as it is not the only sense on the page. Wyang (talk) 03:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
No it's not, it should go in the etymology. -- Liliana 08:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted proper noun sense and moved the name to the etymology. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

jet impingement[edit]

Sum of parts. impingement by a jet of fluid. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Much of the usage has a noun attributively modifying jet rather than jet impingement. For example, flame impingement appears elsewhere in books that use flame jet impingement. In a book title Water Jet Impingement Forming of Aluminum Aircraft Skin Panels, water jet is a conventionalized nominal being used to modify impingement. Impingement cooling is used much more frequently without modifiers or with modifiers other than jet.
IOW, there seem to be a very large variety of collocations using the word impingement in various contexts of heat-transfer engineering. Jet impingement does not seem to be conventionalized. DCDuring TALK 14:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Jet impingement is a common method of heat exchangers, drying, heat treatment and more. It is used commonly in many journal articles for example:

1. Fitzgerald, J. A., & Garimella, S. V. (1997). A study of the flow field of a confined and submerged impinging jet. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 41(8-9), 1025-1034.

2. Zuckerman, N., & Lior, N. (2006). Jet Impingement Heat Transfer: Physics, Correlations, and Numerical Modeling. Advances in Heat Transfer, 39, 565-631.

3. Cho, H. H., Kim, K. M., & Song, J. (2011). Applications of impingement jet cooling systems. In H. H. Cho, K. M. Kim, J. Song, & A. I. Shanley (Ed.), Cooling Systems: Energy, Engineering and Applications (pp. 37-67). Seol, Korea: Nova Science Publishers Inc.

I have way many more sources that use jet impingement. —This comment was unsigned.

  • You have added a duplicate section (see above). [Now merged.] The term "black cat" is probably used even more times, but that doesn't make it dictionary material - you can figure out the meaning from the two words. We call it the sum of its parts. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not saying sources aren't useful, but nobody's denying the existence of this terms so these sources are merely confirming something we already though. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete per DCDuring. - -sche (discuss) 02:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


Along with 言語学的実在論 and mathematical realism, I think that this is SOP so I'm nominating this. Nibiko (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


5. The taking on of by a shipping company of special charges by another without price increase.
6. The natural lessening of radio waves due to atmospheric interference.

These both seem to be transparent uses of a more general sense, specifically the act or process of absorbing. Are these senses really distinct? - TheDaveRoss 13:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

#5 seems overly specific as I've seen it used about things other than shipping costs. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete per nom. As Renard notes, 5 is used about many more things than shipping costs: any business can (lexically, if not necessarily economically) absorb any type of cost, a government can absorb a cost, etc. - -sche (discuss) 00:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


How is this a chinese character? This is a kwukyel. —This unsigned comment was added by Johnny Shiz (talkcontribs) at 14:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC).

This is not a valid reason for deletion. —suzukaze (tc) 01:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
It's plausibly an RFV rationale as kwukyel from what I gather are used in Korean not Chinese. I obviously have no opinion on it. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Well. The Chinese character means to the name of script; it does not mean it is/was always used in Chinese language. According to G-source, GK means GB 12052-89. Looks like it was referred in Chinese language once, with reading: hǎn (厂). --Octahedron80 (talk) 05:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
That's why I put {{zh-see|厂|v}} for now. But never trust the Unihan Database 100%. AFAIK, GB encodes all of the Chinese characters in the BMP, so it having a G source doesn't make it Chinese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
In Unicode, two unrelated characters may have the same code if they look identical. In this case, in Chinese is a variant of while in Korean it is a kwukyel for myeon created by simplification of . — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


Sum-of-parts. Not really a term. From เอาแต่ใจ ‎(ao-dtɛ̀ɛ-jai, self-absorbed; self-centered) + ตน ‎(dton, self). --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I suggest deletion.--Octahedron80 (talk) 04:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Like other Thai SOP's this is in SEAlang but only their TDP source which seems not to be a sufficient basis on its own. — hippietrail (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


Sum-of-parts. Not really a term. From เอาแต่ใจ ‎(ao-dtɛ̀ɛ-jai, self-absorbed; self-centered) + ตนเอง ‎(oneself). --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I suggest deletion.--Octahedron80 (talk) 04:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
PS ตนเอง is same as ตัวเอง --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

This is in SEAlang but only from the TDP source, which does seem to have a too relaxed policy on SOP terms. See my comments on other Thai SOP terms below. — hippietrail (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


It does not mean "to keep, to store, to save" as stated in the entry. It means "to bring/take to be kept/placed", from เอา ‎(ao, to bring; to take) + ไว้ ‎(wái, to keep; to place). For example, เอาไว้ไหน (ao wái nǎi) literally means "where to take [this] to be placed?" (= where should I take it to and place it?). เอาไว้ is not really a term and is not idiomatic. เอาไว้ is thus deemed SOP. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 02:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete. I defer to your judgement. Wyang (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I suggest deletion. --Octahedron80 (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Even SEAlang/TDP doesn't include this and it includes many SOP terms. — hippietrail (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

stesso pronouns[edit]

loro stesse, loro stessi, me stessa, me stesso, noi stesse, noi stessi, se stessa, se stesso, sé stessa, sé stesso, te stessa, te stesso, voi stesse, voi stessi

All sum‐of‐parts in Italian. They are definitely useful translations for foreigners, but they don’t really merit entries. --Romanophile (contributions) 03:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


Sum-of-parts. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 04:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletion suggested. --Octahedron80 (talk) 04:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@Octahedron80: A minor nitpick: you mean that you suggest deletion, right? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah yes what I meant. --Octahedron80 (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Handlanger Corps[edit]

Sum of parts: Handlanger + corps. (Oh, and feel free to update the etymology and definition of Handlanger, and to add a pronunciation.) — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

A name of a specific entity (Specialist Austrian troops of the Napoleonic Wars) and thus not really sum of parts. Governed by WT:NSE. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
A specific historical thing. But by consensus we seem to want to try to be a half-arsed atlas and encyclopaedia with things like World War II and Star Trek, so why delete this one? Equinox 14:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


"Adjective": The object of a costing.

This was a badly costed project.

This definition would be of a noun, though the usage example does not have it as a noun.

Further, I don't think this can be shown to be an adjective, which is probably why the OneLook references have it only as a redirect to their entries for cost (verb). The OED doesn't have it as an adjective either.

But perhaps someone here can use their superior lexicographic skills to show otherwise. DCDuring TALK 20:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

  • I can't tell if it's an adjective. But I've improved the definition pro tem. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Just wondering – is there a difference between an adjective and a noun used attributively? Or is the latter also an adjective, and so should be indicated as such? — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, there isn't a noun costed. Seems to end that debate. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
As long as we cover it somehow I don't mind whether the part of speech is adjective or verb. Note the existence of uncosted, which you heard a lot if you followed the 2015 UK general election coverage. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I suppose it is adjectival, but would only really occur in combination (hence the "badly-costed project"), like (two, three)-eyed or (big)-dicked. So at least note that. Fix the bad definition too. Equinox 14:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I think Equinox is right and hit the nail on the head: it is usually used in combination with an adverb. The same can happen with many other part participles; for example patronised - well patronised, poorly patronised or even reasonably patronised - a well-patronised train service. DonnanZ (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

colored person[edit]

Per Talk:white person. Equinox 01:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI: In Thai, คนผิวสี has roughly meaning of this. There is also คนมีสี that could have been translated into this. But they are not the same meaning. :) --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
When I was born, I was black. / When I grow up, I'm black. / When I go in the sun, I'm black. / When I'm cold, I'm black. / When I'm scared, I'm black. / When I'm sick, I'm black. / And when I die, I'm still black.
But you white people: / When you're born, you're pink. / When you grow up, you're white. / When you go in the sun, you're red. / When you're cold, you're blue. / When you're scared, you're yellow. / When you're sick, you're green. / And when you die, you're grey...
And you're calling me a colored person?
— attributed to a variety of people from several continents

However, polysemy of "colored" doesn't stop this from being SOP. Delete per nom; colored covers this. - -sche (discuss) 06:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

  • The reasons to keep fall under the head Pragmatics. I don't find WP's coverage of ethnic slurs to foreclose our opportunity to add value in this area. If there were nothing to say about the contexts, dates of prevalence, and meanings of this term to speaker and audience it would not merit inclusion in a lexicon. But there is plenty. Keep DCDuring TALK 10:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    So add it to colored. Delete. It's a person that's colored and no amount of discussion is going to change that. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    I will leave it to you to demonstrate how the use of colored in colored people, coloreds, colored person differs (or not), how the combinations of colored and various nouns differ in their referents and frequency regionally and temporally. DCDuring TALK 13:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    So just create colored + every noun where it's attested? Surely that makes things worse not better because it divides up the usage notes over several entries instead of one, so it makes understanding the word colored harder, not easier. Is that your intention, to make comprehension more difficult? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Colored isn't really a slur; in the early twentieth century it was a polite form of reference, avoiding the negative connotations of "black" and "African", hence the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Fashions change, which is why once-polite terms like "colored" and "negro" aren't used much anymore, except historically or by people who for one reason or another refuse to say "black" or "African-American". Some may do so because they find current terms too dignified, but that doesn't make the older words ethnic slurs.
The real argument here is that anyone looking up colored person will find colored, which already covers the usage in question. If we include colored person, then we would logically need to include colored man, colored woman, colored boy, colored girl, colored child, colored baby, colored folks, colored doctor, colored nurse, colored driver, colored servant, colored manservant, colored teacher, colored maid, colored singer, colored musician, and on and on and on, all of which use the exact same meaning of the word. Which, as the nominator points out, we would also want to do with white [whatever], black [whatever], negro [whatever], [whatever] of color, and a host of other terms used to describe ethnicity. Why do this, if the meaning of the phrase colored [whatever] is reasonably transparent? A previous debate over the same topic, linked at top, resulted in the rejection of this method for "white". Why should there be a different result here? P Aculeius (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
re: "Colored isn't really a slur". I never said it was. But what is it? It took @P Aculeius quite a few sentences to give even a partial explanation.
It seems to me that we never undertake to cover this kind of thing very accurately, let alone thoroughly. Our entry for colored has: "Of skin color other than the white; in particular: black." Black was not even linked to the entry [[black]] until I just added the link. Our entry [[black]] has: "Of or relating to any of various ethnic groups having dark pigmentation of the skin. / "(chiefly historical) Designated for use by those ethnic groups which have dark pigmentation of the skin."
To omit the generally understood reference to African Americans and to blacks in South Africa is one indication of a reluctance to tackle the issue squarely and completely.
Colored person is one of a set of nominals that have been used to label various groups of people. Users may find entries for nigger, nigga, negro, black, darkie, African-American, colored, etc as nouns, but not black person, African-American person, colored person]] even though these convey something different, less abusive IMO, that the corresponding bare adjectives used as nouns.
We have been increasingly deciding to keep entries of the form [ADJ + NOUN] that combine the most generic noun used with a given highly restricted sense of an adjective. This seems to be an expedient to elicit a more intuitive understanding of the term, of the special meaning of the adjective in such use, and to facilitate comparison of nominal terms-in-use.
When we follow the other course and delete such entries, we often don't take the opportunity to enhance the restricted definition of the adjective or noun. IOW we often justify deletion based on it being SoP given ideal definitions of the component terms, while in fact having only abridged-dictionary-level (or worse) definitions of the terms. DCDuring TALK 13:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
You could have said all that without complaining about all the reading you had to do to get to the part of my comment you felt necessary to criticize as a "partial explanation". But exactly what did you think you were implying when you introduced the subject of Wiktionary's coverage of ethnic slurs into the discussion? You could just make your point without trying to make other contributors wish they hadn't spoken up. P Aculeius (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Pippi Longstocking[edit]

Fictional character. Per Talk:Clifford the Big Red Dog... etc. etc. Equinox 14:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete, what in the world has this got to do with a dictionary? Why would the name of a fictional person be allowed but not the name of a reason person? Why not Tony Blair, Boris Johnson, etc., etc., etc. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I assume that the difference is that Tony Blair is the same in other languages, but fictional characters tend to get translated. I would probably keep it (and the translations). SemperBlotto (talk) 06:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the main reason I created the article was that: a fictional character has different names in various languages. IvanScroogeNovantotto (parla con me) 08:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
The names are not all that different: most seem to be word-for-word translations, in any case Czech Pipi Dlouhá punčocha, German Pippi Langstrumpf, Swedish Pippi Långstrump, Italian Pippi Calzelunghe. Winnie the Pooh had a much better case for translations with e.g. Polish Kubuś Puchatek or Danish Peter Plys. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: yes, but even there most translations contain the word for "bear" (e.g. the German, French, Japanese or Portuguese ones). In any case, though Pippi Longstocking's are mostly word-to-word, those words are put together, so if you don't speak a certain language you may not know how to say, in this case, "long stocking"; I don't see why we shouldn't keep it just because translations "aren't interesting": the name is translated and that's enough (at least in my opinion). IvanScroogeNovantotto (parla con me) 08:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@User:IvanScrooge98: For Pooh: yes, some are pretty straightforward, but interestingly many aren't. For Pippi, which are the translations that you find interesting and not straightforward?
As for whether a fictional character name is translated and that is enough, that will not find many supporters here, I fear. I for one support a much broader inclusion of names of fictional characters than is currently stipulated at WT:FICTION. I would like to see a proper Gollum entry and Shelob (Czech Odula). For Pooh, I provided a reasonably conservative rationale that stands a chance of appealing even to some fict-char-doubters. "Is translated at all => keep if attested" is too incusionist for many's taste, I think. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: I guess you're right, my argument may seem really weak to many users. So, as you proposed, I have to agree it'd be better to include it in the appendix rather than keep it as an entry.
I don't think that's a good idea. Appendix:Fictional characters was deleted, with discussion at Appendix_talk:Fictional_characters. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: oops, I'm sorry. I noticed there are still four pages in that Appendix which weren't deleted. IvanScroogeNovantotto (parla con me) 10:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: unlike most fictional characters, Pippi Longstocking carries a lexical meaning (like Pollyanna or Sherlock Holmes or Godzilla or Cinderella, only with different shades of meaning). People with traits resembling Pippi Longstocking are often described as Pippi Longstockings, which argues strongly in favour of keeping an entry, albeit with a different definition than the current one. This seems to be mostly an oral phenomenon, but there are dozens of references in modern fiction, where someone is described as "(just) a (regular, veritable) Pippi Longstocking" or something along those lines, with no further explanation required. Perhaps something along the lines of, (from the fictional character created by Astrid Lindgren): a person, especially a girl or woman, characterized by flamboyant red hair, especially in pigtails; or given to headstrong, wild behaviour, flights of fancy, or irrepressible optimism. It's true that many fictional characters could be treated this way, but relatively few actually are. P Aculeius (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I've attempted to fix it along lexical lines with citations. Better? P Aculeius (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@P Aculeius: I've made sone further fixes. BTW, thanks a lot for the quotations! IvanScroogeNovantotto (parla con me) 15:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, it does not make much sense to discuss fictional characters one by one, see the Category:en:Fictional characters, e.g. Care Bear. --Hekaheka (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you're getting at. However, the definition of "Care Bear" is the set of merchandised characters, and all three citations are references to the characters as characters and/or merchandise. In other words, they're all references to actual Care Bears, not to other people or things being characterized by referring to them as Care Bears. Nobody is being described as a Care Bear with the expectation that people will know what is intended. Maybe someone could do so (despite the fact that Care Bears all look somewhat different and have differing personalities, so it might be hard to convey much meaning in this way), but in the examples provided, they haven't; so there's no lexical meaning to the name as used in the entry. P Aculeius (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
So, what are we going to do? Now that there are two meanings as a noun, I suggest we should keep it. IvanScroogeNovantotto (parla con me) 14:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't see how having the names of fictional characters because they have translations is the job of a dictionary. All words and all idioms in all languages, not everything with a possible translation in any language. If we're going to do this, let's not pretend it's anything to do with being a dictionary. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
It's not being kept because it's translated into other languages. It's being kept because it has specific meanings that are used independently of references to the actual character. P Aculeius (talk) 04:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
If no one else has got anything against, I would consider this debate finished. In any case, let's wait until tomorrow. IvanScroogeNovantotto (parla con me) 17:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hồ Chí Minh[edit]

this is a proper nounJohnny Shiz (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Johnny Shiz Nobody said proper nouns are not allowed. Please carefully read WT:CFI. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Proper nouns are allowed, but names with surname and given name are not allowed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Well... it has a surname that's not his own, and a given name that's not a real given name. CFI does not cover this as far as I can tell, but I would not want George Orwell to be included, so by that logic of rejecting pseudonyms and noms de (plume|guerre), I vote delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Question - is Ho Chi Minh City ever just called "Hồ Chí Minh" in Vietnamese (as it often is English)? Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Wyang (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The sense "short name of city" would be fine, but that's not in the entry, and it's not what this RFD is about. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I have changed {{rfd}} to {{rfd-sense}} for the individual sense. Keep the city sense, if it's valid. The string "tôi (sống) ở Hồ Chí Minh" ("I live in Ho Chi Minh") gives a lot of hits in plain Google searches but nothing in Google books. A better method should be used for verifications. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Who's to say the Google hits weren't all written by bacteria in Mr. Ho's body? ;) I kid. The city sense is fine. - -sche (discuss) 02:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete (the biographical sense) per WT:CFI: "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic. For instance, Walter Elias Disney, the film producer and voice of Mickey Mouse, is not allowed a definition line at Walt Disney." That prohibition does not say "...name or patronymic that was given to the person at birth"; on the contrary, it bans a biographical entry at "Walt Disney" for the man whose legal name was not Walt but rather Walter Disney. I wouldn't want to include Bill Clinton, either, just because that is neither his birth name nor his legal name. - -sche (discuss) 23:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

As my little knowledge, Hồ Chí Minh is the designated name by Vietnamese people; it is not actually his birth name or family name at all. So it does not fall in as -sche said. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

You appear to have not read what I (quoting CFI) actually said... CFI does not require that the first or last name have been given to him at birth. - -sche (discuss) 06:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps I was misunderstanding. Your words made me confused. :) However, I stand for keeping. BTW, should we move the sense to Etymology instead?--Octahedron80 (talk) 06:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete the person as a sense; could link to him at Wikipedia I suppose. Equinox 07:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


rfd-sense: an organisation using specified programming languages or software, often exclusively.

An unnecessarily specific form of "Workplace; office. Used mainly in expressions such as shop talk, closed shop and shop floor." Similar forms can be found well before computer programming was a thing. For example, welding places that specialize in arc welding are "arc shops":

  • 1935, Welding Engineer
    It is bad enough when two shops of equal merit as to personnel and equipment cut prices to get work, but it is even worse when a gas shop tries to compete with an arc shop for arc jobs, or an arc shop competes with a gas shop for gas jobs.
  • 1979, Association of Iron and Steel Engineers, Year Book - Association of Iron and Steel Engineers
    The transfer of the Llanwern-type collection technology to an arc shop was relatively simple.

and a steelworks that uses the Bessemer process is a "Bessemer shop":

  • 1956, Great Britain. Iron and Steel Board, British Iron and Steel Federation, Iron and Steel Statistics Bureau, British Steel Corporation, British Independent Steel Producers' Association, Iron and Steel
    The next steelmaking plant to be laid down in the area was a Bessemer shop and rail mill at Moss Bay, Workington, in 1877.
  • 1971, Harold E. McGannon, The Making, Shaping and Treating of Steel
    In addition to the auxiliary equipment necessary for an open-hearth shop, much of the apparatus necessary for a Bessemer shop also had to be provided.

and so on. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

  • I think we should try to somehow define or at least illustrate the differences between seller/fabricator of certain goods or service (as in the welding example) and more-or-less-exclusive user of a given technology or brand (as in the Bessemer examples). The latter would be a despecialization of the sense under challenge.
The whole noun PoS could use some rationalization. Eg, why is there a special definition for car repair? DCDuring TALK 10:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


Sum-of-parts. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

This has an entry in Thai SEAlang originating in the [www.sealang.net/thai/tdp.htm "The Mary Haas Thai Dictionary Project" (TDP)]. There's always difficulties with compounding languages and languages that don't use word breaks. Since SEAlang has multiple sources but only one for this word we could infer that it might go too far in including SOP terms compared to other Thai dictionaries. We should probably go for a consensus among our Thai experts and multiple dictionaries in such cases. The same goes for Chinese, Khmer, Lao, Vietnamese. — hippietrail (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


Sum-of-parts. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

There are a lot meanings of จับตัว. Look for it in longdo.com. Please see if they are similar or distinct meanings from จับ (?) --Octahedron80 (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

As with จับได้ above, it's in SEAlang but the same caveats apply so as a class such terms need some thought by all our major Thai experts and the conclusions should apply to other scriptio continua languages and influence those of compounding languages. — hippietrail (talk) 02:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


"The concatenation operator in Lua." Not part of a human language; not used in running text, only in source code. Remember how the APL symbol entries were deleted. We don't include keywords like endif either unless they have entered English grammatically. Equinox 12:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

BTW, here is a list of the operators in just one language (Perl): [10]. Equinox 12:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
IMO, we should keep some symbols of programming languages like this. Other examples: = (assignment operator) and == (comparison operator). See also the multiple meanings of $. The full list of existing entries for programming/computing symbols should be at Category:mul:Programming and Category:mul:Computing.
Related discussions created by Equinox recently: User talk:Daniel Carrero#Entries like /* */ and User talk:Octahedron80#Programming operators. In the latter, @Octahedron80 asked: "why the mathematical symbols and emojis can be included here if they are not the human language?" (but, to be fair, emojis do feel like human language to me, as in, they're used in human text :) :p :/) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete or at least move to an Appendix. It's not a word and not in a language. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
    Shouldn't the "parent directory" sense also be deleted? --WikiTiki89 21:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep because operators are the symbols that have been used for decades like other deciplines' ones (such as mathematics, thermodynamics, engineering, linguistics, medicine, etc) and have been used in many textbooks. You might think that they are not read by human? No, they are actually read by human so we can write the codes meaningfully. (That is we call the high-level programming language.) Machines do not directly read codes; the codes must be compiled to binary values so they will understand in background. You should not just want to delete them because you do not know. In the contrast, there are many symbols out there that are generally not used in human languages (and sometimes we do not understand their specialities) still exist in this project. Additionally, there is also other meaning of .. as a range either, for example 1..5 mean from 1 to 5. I must admit that most of programming languages are from English but symbols are translingual. --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

  • I did not understand the part "You should not just want to delete them because you do not know." Were you assuming something about the nominator's knowledge of programming languages? That aside, I agree with most of what you said. I added the "range operator" sense now in .. per your comment. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I apologise if my message bothered you. My point is that we want to expand reader's knowledge who never know them before. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Your message didn't actually bother me, I just found it a little odd at first, but that's OK. Thanks for the clarification. That's a good point, too, IMO. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • A question to keepers: Shall we include JOptionPane (Java), std::cin (C++), equ (Win Batch), foreach (Perl) as quasi-attested in source code? All keywords and all APIs in computing languages, quasi-attested in source code? Why is the Equinox rationale "not used in running text" not good enough for deletion? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    • The very basic keywords like int, integer, short, long, double, real, bool, boolean, string, begin, end, if, else, elseif, endif, while, do, loop, for, foreach, try, catch, class, object, array, table, function, return, etc. and programming operators (might be symbolic or mnemonic) should be include because they reflect the basic concept of computer science. Note that same keywords and operators are usually used in many languages. (And I know many languages.) Other advanced classes and libraries (JOptionPane & std::cin) should not be included because they are language-specific. The string concatenation is an essential concept or we could not see wanted messages. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
      I don't have any strong opinion concerning terms like int, integer, begin, end, etc. Currently, endif is defined as English for "(computing) A directive, in several programming languages, that marks the end of an if statement, especially one containing multiple if .. then .. else statements". I don't particularly like when I see those defined as English entries, but that's just a gut feeling that I don't feel able to translate in rational thinking yet. I wonder if one could make the argument that, if the plural is attestable ("endifs"), then maybe it really counts as an English word, but then again, "There are 5 thes in that sentence." would not make "thes" attestable.
      I just wanted to create entries for some programming symbols because some already existed and they seemed a good idea to understand the syntax of programming languages. If anything, I don't think removing all computing senses from, say, + would turn out to be very helpful. Since there are math, genetics, electricity, chess and whatever other senses in that entry, it would feel incomplete (at least IMHO) if it does not have some computing senses too. (unless someone proposes a wider project of removing many Translingual symbols from various contexts) This discussion feels more about general policies for the inclusion of programming language terms rather than a request for the deletion of a sense of .. specifically so I wonder if there are any computing symbols that everybody would want to see in our entries, like perhaps @ (in e-mails) and logical symbols like &&. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    Consideration of the form "X should not be included because they are language-specific" is not related in any way to WT:CFI, AFAICT. Furthermore, in relation to that consideration, Perl ".." and Lua ".." are language-specific: multiple widely used programming languages do not have the operator. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't see why one sense is nominated and not the other two. Are any of the three used in human language? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom: "Not part of a human language; not used in running text, only in source code." In my words, this does not seem attested in use to convey meaning; "use" in the middle of computer code is not use in English. This could thus go to RFV, but there, a discussion could arise about whether various quotations count as attesting, so let us have it in RFD and handle it here. As for the other two senses, these should be deleted as well; the third one was added after this RFD nomination in diff. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


Seriously? Does anyone really use such a term in speech? Greats after a certain number start to get difficult to count. 2602:306:3653:8920:C531:D028:8E0:2504 00:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedied. I redirected it to great-grandfather. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone? Yes, they do:
  • 2012, Matt Chandler, The Explicit Gospel, page 119:
    Do you know your great-great-great-great-great-great grandfatherʼs name? It wasn't that long ago.
We established a rule specific to constructions like these by a vote some years ago, at Wiktionary:Votes/2014-01/Treatment of repeating letters and syllables. The rule is, if it is attested (which this one is), it is hard-redirected to the entry having three repetitions, in this case great-great-great-grandfather. bd2412 T 02:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Five greats is the most I hear outside of genealogical circles (which can go on indefinitely, but these days are typically abbreviated to the jargony "4th Great, 6 Great, 8G"). That's probably because few people other than genealogists know their genealogy back more than seven generations in any line, and also likely because it's increasingly easy to lose track of how many times you say "great" with each repetition. But I agree: as long as it's noted that one can keep adding more, there's no good reason for each repetition to have a separate entry. Even those famous genealogists and coiners of words, the Romans, stopped at three greats (avus=grandfather, proavus=great-grandfather, abavus=great-great-grandfather, adavus or atavus=great-great-great-grandfather), and thereafter resorted to other means of counting generations. P Aculeius (talk) 03:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • It basically becomes an RfV problem. You'd be amazed at how many greats get three attestations in print. bd2412 T 03:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Given my druthers, I'd have redirected to great- Purplebackpack89 03:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Another consideration: what do we do for translations of these terms? For example, Serbocroatian has a unique word navrndeda for great-great-great-grandfather, which is a redirect right now. In fact, it has terms like this up to the 11th generation, albeit we lack entries for some of them and they get harder to attest after the 8th. Vorziblix (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
If it's attestable in Serbo-Croatian, then there should be a Serbo-Croatian entry. But there doesn't have to be a corresponding English entry in order to translate it into English; if vasoflorbella means "beautiful flowers in a vase" in Broglish, that doesn't mean that beautiful flowers in a vase should have its own entry in English. P Aculeius (talk) 04:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Sure, the issues being that (1) beautiful flowers in a vase isn’t itself a word in English, in contrast to great-great-..., (2) probably few or no other languages have a word meaning beautiful flowers in a vase, so that having translations for it isn’t particularly useful, but a larger number of languages have extensive systems of kinship terms, and (3) we do already have entries that exist only for translation purposes, such as day after tomorrow, so current consensus seems to be that such an argument doesn’t necessarily hold. Vorziblix (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so quick to assume that few or no other languages have a word meaning "beautiful flowers in a vase". There is a language with a single word for "he had had in his possession a bunchberry plant". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
You’re right, polysynthetic languages entirely slipped my mind. At any rate, however the community chooses to deal or not deal with this is all right with me. Vorziblix (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • great-great-great-grandfather should be made a soft-redirect to allow entering the translation, IMHO. This is enabled by Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Repetitions via "The above treatment may be overriden by consensus, for example where a variation having four repetitions is more common, or where an additional repetition would cause the word to shift to a different pronunciation or intonation." --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I think that would make sense, especially given that previous consensus seems to allow for entries such as dark red, in the future, day after tomorrow, &c. for translation purposes. Vorziblix (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

戰爭之舞, 战争之舞[edit]

Sum of parts. Wyang (talk) 08:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

By Tooironic. Is there perhaps a dictionary that has the term and would allow us to invoke the lemming heuristic? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
No Chinese-Chinese dictionary has this. Native speakers perceive this to be sum of parts. Wyang (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
This is the English Wiktionary, intended to serve a broad variety of audiences and a broad variety of purposes. Tooironic is a "professional translator (Chinese into English)", and if he considers the entry worthwhile, we should give it a thought. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
All opinions should be weighed by their persuasiveness not their origins. Wyang (talk) 09:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I was referring to your calling out "native speakers". My point is that what native Chinese speakers think is not the only consideration. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
And pointing out that the creator of the entry is a professional translator is not the fallacy of irrelevance ad hominem: it is perfectly reasonable to think that, in general, a professional translator has a better idea of what is useful in translation than someone who is not a translator. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
If a combination of words in a language is used only to render a foreign set phrase in translation, and is considered a non-word by native speakers, then it should be deleted. This is the case of a translation-only sum-of-parts non-English entry, which is not allowed on Wiktionary. Your proving the author's better judgement on translation usefulness would corroborate its deletion. You should perhaps argue that translators may have a non-inferior judgement of what is sum of parts and what is not, compared to native speakers. Wyang (talk) 09:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure I fully understand the above, but the above statement about what is "not allowed" is not traceable to a discussion or a vote, AFAIK, and therefore, is not obvious to be supported by consensus. For me, usefulness is key, including usefulness in translation. Excluding every and any sum of parts term is not supported by consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Usefulness in translation ({{translation only}}) is never a consideration in foreign-language entries, and you need to provide proof for your claim that translation-only sum-of-parts non-English entries are allowed on Wiktionary. WT:SOP states that sum of parts are generally to be deleted, unless you can show that inclusion of this specific term is beneficial, which I fail to see from your arguments so far. Wyang (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
To the contrary, the above claim that something is disallowed by consensus requires a proof. The reader will note that I have not voted yet; instead, I pinged the creator of the entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

可讀音性, 可读音性[edit]

Reraising the deletion request. Not a word; sum of parts. Unattestable. Wyang (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Entered to mean "pronounceability". The previous RFD discussion is at Talk:可耕地, where User:TAKASUGI Shinji and User:Tooironic voted "keep" on this term. Attestation is dealt with in WT:RFV rather than WT:RFD. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
No attestation could be provided on previous rfd. Not included in any Chinese-Chinese dictionary. Wyang (talk) 08:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
If you believe this term is not attested, please send the term to WT:RFV. Lack of attestation is out of scope of RFD. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
If a word is a non-word, sum of parts and unattestable at the same time, it should stay in RFD. Wyang (talk) 09:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

劉麟之, 刘麟之; 劉子驥, 刘子骥; 子驥, 子驥[edit]

Names. Wyang (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete 劉麟之 and 劉子驥; weak keep 子驥 since CFI seems to say that only names with family and given components cannot stay. —suzukaze (tc) 09:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    This is Chinese - given names are random combinations. We will have > 50000 + 50000 ^ 2 + 50000 ^ 3 = 1.25 × 1014 Chinese given names if we decide to keep all. Wyang (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    Are really so many combinations attested in use? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    [11]. Wyang (talk) 09:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    The above linked picture shows China population. In fact, it was obvious from the outset that the answer to my question is, no, there are not 10E14 attested Chinese names, and therefore, it is not true that we will have over 10E14 names if we decide to keep all attested person names. Furthermore, it is not all or nothing; the nominated entries are not names of some random people. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • These are person names. The applicable policy is WT:NSE. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete 劉麟之, 刘麟之, 劉子驥, 刘子骥 per CFI, as they are combinations of a given name and a last name. - -sche (discuss) 15:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Deleted the four combinations: 劉麟之, 刘麟之; 劉子驥, and 刘子骥. The two given names are still to be discussed. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


The given definition ("be deceived by a fox") is transparent ( (kitsune, "fox") + (ni, "passive particle") + 化かされる (bakasareru, "be deceived")). 大辞泉/Daijisen, 大辞林/Daijirin, and 実用日本語表現辞典/Jitsuyō Nihongo Hyōgen Jiten do include 狐につままれる but they give more than just a literal definition for that. Nibiko (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


RFD-sense: "a familiar way of calling someone whose given name ends with 山 (shān)". SOP: can be placed before any given name's last character to make a nickname. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

twenty-five past[edit]

Sum of parts. Similar constructions could be made with a wide variety of numbers. --Romanophile (contributions) 20:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete, but a series of appendices on the formation of numerical time words, in English first but in other languages as well, would be desirable. DCDuring TALK 23:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete. We already have this sense at past:
(postmodifier) Following expressions of time to indicate how long ago something happened; ago. [from 15th c.]
--Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
twenty-five past does not mean "twenty-five ago", nor does it mean "twenty-five (minutes or hours or seconds) ago".
It means "twenty-five minutes past an hour previously mentioned or otherwise derived from context. DCDuring TALK 23:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete as it stands. Possibly a full sentence would make a good example for the phrasebook, though, e.g. "it's twenty-five past ten". Equinox 10:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
There has been a pretty good usage note covering this at past. The problem with the Usage notes IMO is that it wants to link to SoP examples. DCDuring TALK 13:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The entry was meant as a translation target or a phrasebook entry or both. No-one says it's idiomatic. Convert to either of these and keep. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Are we supposed to keep these so someone can feel good because they think they are making a valuable contribution by adding a translation? Is there any evidence that anyone looks up such a term?
What makes this more of target than twenty past or twenty-two past?
Advocating that this kind of entry be retained as a translation target (a non-CFI argument to begin with) discredits the use of that argument for other entries, IMO.
Some things are better not treated as lexical items. This class is one of them. Perhaps it belongs at WikiTranslationDrill. DCDuring TALK 14:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Time expressions are common in phrasebooks and they introduced in the first lessons of most language textbooks. I just think they belong here. No, this particular expression is not better than twenty past or twenty-two past. A few examples about time is enough. Just my opinion. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 15:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Some languages have non-obvious translations, for example German would say "5 to half past". I would definitely like to be able to look this up. Siuenti (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

מנא מנא תקל ופרסין[edit]

It's a cryptic quotation (Daniel 5:25), but certainly not an idiomatic phrase. --WikiTiki89 21:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete. We're not Wikiquote. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
For the sake of full disclosure or whatever, this was discussed before, which I had forgotten about: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/July#the writing on the wall. --WikiTiki89 20:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

do God's work[edit]

I may be mistaken, but that looks SOP to me. do + God's + work; do the work of God. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

"God's work" might have some figurative sense, but yes, the "do" is redundant. It's like having "be black as night" instead of "black as night". (Update: that's a delete vote for this form.) Equinox 14:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Redirect to God's work, which is definitely idiomatic. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
BTW, I have created God's work Purplebackpack89 19:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Redirect per Metaknowledge and PBP89. DCDuring TALK 21:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. God's work looks wrong at the moment because it doesn't reference Christianity or any other religions. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Right. I've been looking for helpful citations for real definitions. One definition is something like "work in accordance with god's will". Another might be "the business of a religion or church". A third might be "work for good". It is the last that anyone, including secularists, might use in praise or encouragement. I find that last hard to cite, though I use it myself and expect people not to think that I have found religion when I use it. DCDuring TALK 22:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Same here, @DCDuring, hence why the definition as currently worded favors your third way of conceptualizing it. @Renard Migrant I do not believe that "God's work" is universally a religious sense. Purplebackpack89 22:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Can't find cites for it. We need cites when no dictionary (not even OED) has it as an entry. It may well be that the secular version is an echo of the first sense, but it could be that no print source wants to risk offense by using it. Maybe Usenet. DCDuring TALK 23:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


Some people think this is a sum of parts. See also Talk:accordion player.

As for myself, abstain. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete. I won't rehash the argument because we've had it so many times. Equinox 14:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


Someone seems to think this is a sum of parts.

As for myself, abstain. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete. I won't rehash the argument because we've had it so many times. Equinox 14:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


「ようだ」 is the Terminal form of the adjectival noun 様 (よう ). I have transferred the information that was on the page I am nominating to be deleted to the entry for 様, as is generally done for Japanese terms spelled with a single Kanji. I have also added a link with notes to the page 「よう」, which has multiple meanings. Since the page ようだ now contains no unique information and since it is merely an inflection of an adjective, it should be deleted and made to redirect to either 「よう」 or 「様#Japanese」. --Jln Dlphk (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Delete or redirectsuzukaze (tc) 20:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Goo Dictionary has an entry: [12]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with suzukaze on this one: delete or redirect. I know that many monolingual JA dictionaries list 様だ / ようだ ‎(yō da) as an entry, but this has always puzzled me -- in functional terms, this is a -na adjective, so why the special treatment? Other -na adjectives are listed with the bare term, minus the da or na on the end. I'd recommend similar handling for this term.
Because other monolingual JA dictionaries include 様だ / ようだ as a headword, I'm leaning more towards redirect. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
For me, ようだ and そうだ are single grammatical units. They are verbal endings rather than nouns. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I would agree that the よう () in 見よう (miyō, volitional of 見る, miru, “to see”) is a verbal ending. However, this よう is distinct from 様 () as discussed above: this volitional よう derives from 見む (mimu) → 見う (miu) → 見う (myō) → 見よう (miyō). The よう from the noun 様 () functions more as a distinct entity, as in その様な物 (sono yō na mono, “that kind of thing”), or そうする様になれば (sō suru yō ni nareba, “if it becomes that things are done in that way”) -- when this よう follows verbs, it follows the attributive form, not the continuative form, and thus it does not seem to be a verbal ending.
Or am I misunderstanding something here? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I’m not talking about the volitional よう. Speaking of ようだ, it looks just like a suffix. I think it is because adjectival nouns cannot be modified by a verb or by a noun.
Follows a verb
or の?
If followed by a noun Traditional
ようす Sometimes ようすの Noun
はず Always はずの Noun
たしか Never たしかな Adjectival noun
よう Always ような Jodōshi*
Jodōshi is an inflectional suffix in modern terminology. For me, よう has really lost a function as a noun. (Or the only noun with those features.) Goo Dictionary has entries for このよう, そのよう, あのよう and どのよう. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

ditch day[edit]

Sense 2, the "Caltech tradition". This seems like it is at the wrong capitalization, but the correctly capitalized form would be entirely encyclopedic. bd2412 T 01:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Delete. I'm sure you could come up with an analogous example sentence for any school that has a ditch day (I remember the term from high school, over 40 years ago). The practice at Caltech is only different in being a bit more institutionalized, not in anything lexically significant. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Delete per Chuck. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
"A tradition in which Caltech seniors leave the campus for the day and underclassmen attempt to break into their stacks." What sense of stack is this? Oh and delete obviously as a specific example of sense #1 not a different definition. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
This sense: "(US, slang) At Caltech, a lock, obstacle, or puzzle designed to prevent underclassmen from entering a senior's room during ditch day." Equinox 12:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I would delete that sense of "stack" too, or RfV it under standards comparable to WT:BRAND. bd2412 T 21:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Lexical significance is not in CFI. (Is this notability under another name?) I see no argument advanced that would lead to deletion.
Move to RfV. I wonder whether it appears in any publication except the student newspaper, for which multiple articles may be deemed not independent. DCDuring TALK 13:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, sense in question is not lexically distinct from sense 1. This would be like having a separate sense under Thanksgiving for each individual family's Thanksgiving traditions. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
If there was attestation for the name referring to ANY real or fictional supplementary tradition not a direct implication of the main definition, CFI would seem to warrant its inclusion as a subsense. That the absence of seniors should lead to some kind of vandalism is not an inevitable consequence.
That we are without good principles to apply is the inevitable consequence of having no specific criteria for inclusion of many classes of proper nouns. Perhaps we need some kind of notability criteria for such things, but we don't now have such criteria and are making unprincipled decisions not readily defensible to contributors. DCDuring TALK 14:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I think we would merely be conflating the event of a day when people ditch school with traditions incidental to such a day. Consider, by comparison, freshman orientation. Every college has this, and many colleges have specific traditions observed in connection with the day. In theory, we could have a thousand entries for definitions of "freshman orientation" with variations on a day when new students are oriented to their school combined with a tradition specific to that school. Or, as with Angr's Thanksgiving example, we could add to that definition, "and on which a meal of turkey is traditionally served"; but then needing a separate definition line for families who traditionally have a ham or go out for Peking duck. bd2412 T 21:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Delete per Angr. - -sche (discuss) 21:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Sense deleted. bd2412 T 20:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

artistic revolution[edit]

Sum of parts as currently defined: An abrupt change from one art movement to another. ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox 21:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Delete. I came across this whilst browsing the transwiki logs and I noted how it had even been identified as SOP on the talk page. Nibiko (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

weak spot[edit]

Testicles are one particular weak spot, but that doesn't make "weak spot" mean "testicles". (Similarly, we don't have an entry for "green fruit" defined as "kiwi".) Equinox 12:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Something like "a vulnerable area; a place that is more vulnerable than others". Donnanz (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as defined. No strong objection to a general definition of this term as a point of vulnerability. bd2412 T 21:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
    That's what I meant. Redefine and keep. It is probably a subject for the Tea Room. Donnanz (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Used in a sexual context (susceptible body parts) as well as for the Achilles heel in fights. Equinox 22:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Delete the above-mentioned sense. I'm not sure if a general definition would be idiomatic or not; Cambridge has an entry but defines it as "a weak part in something", which makes it sound perfectly SOPpy. Collins' definitions are as overspecific as ours. - -sche (discuss) 03:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that other dictionaries have the exact sense for spot in its use in the sense "a weak part in something". It is certainly not among our definitions.
Moreover, I don't think that spot is used with other adjectives (or alone) to mean "part". It is used to mean "place". It is indicative that an antonym of "weak spot" is "strong point" (eg of an argument, probably using a non-spatial sense of point) and that "weak location/place/region/setting/situation/venue/locus/locale" are not synonyms, being mostly spatial or relying on non-spatial definitions of the nouns.
That it is a small leap from "location" to "part" for some, especially native English speakers, is probably why other (monolingual) dictionaries don't usually have entries. I believe that we usually don't assume that all of our users are capable of such a leap, however modest. DCDuring TALK 10:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Redefine and keep per Donnanz and bd2412. There should be an entry, but not with this definition. What constitutes a "weak spot" varies depending on what it's applied to. People in combat can have various weak spots, but so can walls and other inanimate objects. P Aculeius (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Redefine and keep the entry with the new definition, deleting "(fighting, slang) the testicles". As for lemmings, present in Collins[13] and in Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary & Thesaurus[14]. I added definition: A location where the defenses are weak or the vulnerability is great. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ƿidsiþ 08:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Kept as redefined. bd2412 T 21:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

soft underbelly[edit]

I restored this; it was deleted in September 2008, seemingly speedy deleted. I find attestations like this:

  • "Exploring the soft underbelly of adaptation decisions and actions ..."
  • "... effort to slit the soft underbelly of Europe ..."
  • 'The Caribbean was America's “soft underbelly” near its strategic Panama Canal sea link.'
  • "This issue is the soft underbelly of the adoption industry in America."
  • "It is the soft underbelly and Achilles' heel of FOREX."
  • "These examples reveal the soft underbelly of global health regimes ..."
  • "In the American historical context, the fear is embedded in the soft underbelly of the isolationist movement during the thirties."
  • "Critics of climate change research assert that uncertainty about variability is the soft underbelly of the consensus warnings of the scientific world ..."

If it is sum of parts, then of which parts? Is definition in underbelly missing, then? And even if we add definition to underbelly, should this be kept as a set phrase? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete and improve underbelly. "Dark underbelly" is also pretty common. Ƿidsiþ 08:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
If a word is used in a metaphorical sense, the adjectives and subclauses suited to the literal sense can still be used with it: e.g. a pit of despair (not a literal hole in the ground) might be dark, bleak, etc. simply by way of extending the metaphor. That would still not recommend entries for dark pit or bleak pit. So delete this. Equinox 14:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

white cloth[edit]

Sum of parts? SemperBlotto (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Sense 2 is redundant to sense 1. Sense 3 requires more detail, at least: which profession wears it? Equinox 12:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Move to RfV. DCDuring TALK 12:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
The original senses 1 & 2, now 2 & 3, are SoP. It is only the third sense that needs an RfV. Also, no OneLook reference has an entry. I wonder whether it might be an idiom in India. DCDuring TALK 14:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

A bunch of wrongly lemmatised entries[edit]

The following entries represent the normalisation of the respective words but were not actually written like that:
afwölteren, wölteren, fögen, vögen, andrücken, köke, spöden, mür
They're æquivalent to Latin words being lemmatised to forms with macrons. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Korn: If these aren't the lemma spellings, then can't you just move them yourself? If you want consensus first, the correct venue for this would be WT:RFM. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, I created the respective lemma entries and want these pages gone. (I can remove those which have other languages on the page as well, but I figured I'd run them through here all at once.) Doesn't removing erroneously created pages belong here? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Was there an explicit policy or decision (either favorable VOTE or BP (or WT:AGML) discussion resulting in consensus) that has led to the entry you have created, with the no-umlaut form as headword but the umlaut form on the inflection line, being deemed the standard way of presenting such words? If so, was this particular matter addressed? I hope it was, so that this kind of thing could be cleaned up systematically and completely without RfD and without any further discussion. If not, there might need to be some discussion somewhere, probably not just on this page. DCDuring TALK 22:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

A discussion was had and the participants were unanimous. So I would like to restate my wish to have these entries removed. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Deleted per above. - -sche (discuss) 04:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


Just the name of an amulet. Unfit to be included in a dictionary. Not to mention that it is a misspelling (the correct spelling is องค์จตุคามรามเทพ). --YURi (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep but correct. It's not just the name of a single amulet, it's apparently a common type of amulet. Belongs here. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
องค์จตุคามรามเทพ is quite rare. A more, and the most, common name of the amulet is จตุคามรามเทพ. --YURi (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


The creator of the entry possibly took the phrase from the name of an article on the Thai Wikipedia. And the person who created that article might have taken a "definition" provided by Lexitron Dictionary to be the name of the article. But, as I said, it's a "definition" rather than a "term". การที่ผู้ชายมีเพศสัมพันธ์กับเด็กชาย literally means "an act in which a male person has sexual relationships with a male child" or "an act of a male person having sexual relationships with a male child". As for the Thai Wikipedia's article, I will have it properly renamed later. --YURi (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


SOP: From 秦州 (Qínzhōu, “Qinzhou”) + (, “district”). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 07:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I say Redirect. Johnny Shiz (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


SOP as above.--Jusjih (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


An insignificant typographical variation. --Romanophile (contributions) 21:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Refer to #auec (to be archived at Talk:auec). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Keep, it's attestable Leasnam (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I feel almost certain that we had a policy somewhere saying that variant letters like this u/v should not get separate entries. Did I dream it? Or is it in a tentative non-official policy? Or...? Equinox 03:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not aware of such a policy. WT:About Latin says to prefer v in Latin, but practice/precedent has been to keep entries like this as alt-forms, both in English (Talk:vp, Talk:euery) and in Latin (Talk:dies Iouis, Talk:uacuus). The argument for deletion and the argument for keeping seem to be summed up well in this exchange, IMO:
I just reject the idea that vp is an obsolete spelling of up. The spelling is identical, the difference is encoding, not spelling. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
And you don't think it's a problem that the ‘encoding’ happens to be in the form of a different existing letter of the alphabet? Ƿidsiþ 16:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep per precedent. Alternation of two separate, still-used letters is not something that can be predicted accurately by human users (especially non-native speakers) or by the site functions we use to software-redirect things like diſtinguiſh. - -sche (discuss) 04:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


This reading is only used in 皕宋楼 (Hyokusōrō, "Bisong Hall"), and I think that that's encyclopedic, and as such, I find no affix to define for this hyoku reading. Nibiko (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I can't find anything either. I'll double-check my dead-tree copy of Nelson's later tonight; it's not exhaustive, but it covers most of the bases. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
If it helps (probably not), GlyphWiki lists these kanji with an on reading of hyoku sourced from the Koseki Tooitsu Moji website/database/character encoding/character set/whatever it is. —suzukaze (tc) 02:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

one hundred and twelve, one hundred and eleven[edit]

We hardly need these. Besides, the translations seem to be for 110 in both entries, except in the case Hungarian which a user kindly fixed. --Hekaheka (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Striking, as nobody else seems to have a problem with writing out every number. --Hekaheka (talk) 06:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Unstriking. Someone may want to delete this; admitted, people are busy creating the dictionary. These are sum of parts entries; the question is, do we make an exception for numbers and how high can the numbers be? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
They should go up to four hundred and seventy-three. Equinox 07:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
The anon is hard at word at adding more. Recent additions to Category:English cardinal numbers are two hundred and two, two hundred and one, one hundred and ninety-nine, one hundred and ninety-eight, one hundred and ninety-seven, one hundred and ninety-six, one hundred and ninety-five, one hundred and ninety-four, one hundred and ninety-three, one hundred and ninety-two.
Delete. This has to stop somewhere. I am ok with some sum of parts terms to show the compound number word construction but having the full set from 100 to 199 and beyond seems an overkill to me, and in any case, these are SOP so there is a CFI-based rationale for deletion. I have notified the anon at User talk: --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete anything higher than four hundred and seventy-three. Equinox 07:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Why 473? Purplebackpack89 04:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep: certainly at least keep to 200. Purplebackpack89 04:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Aren't these SoPs anyway? four hundred and twelve, or any other number in the hundreds. Although, I don't know where my stance is on these, because there are a lot of languages it can translate to where their words are not SoP. Philmonte101 (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect all numbers over one hundred to an appendix describing how names of numbers are formed by stating the number of thousands, then the number of hundreds, then the numbers of tens and ones. bd2412 T 19:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
    I think that would be a good solution. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think we need all individual numbers above two hundred at the most, and round hundreds thereafter. There may be a case for nine hundred and ninety-nine and thousand and one or one thousand and one (why is there an entry for thousand one and not the others?). DonnanZ (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


Not dictionary material. DTLHS (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep-ish, I think. I'm not sure about that. WT:CFI#Names of specific entities lets us debate those, and we do find names of specific spacecrafts in running text. But then again, Talk:Curiosity has a few terms that failed RFD. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't consider the names of specific individual vehicles to be dictionary content. Something for Wikipedia. Delete. Equinox 22:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Equinox. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • IF Stardust is not merely the name of a single vessel of which similar models with other names exist, but rather the name of a unique kind of vehicle, I'd say we keep it. Otherwise I agree with the above. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. See also Talk:Columbia. - -sche (discuss) 04:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Abstain. I support keeping attested single-word names of specific entities except for those that are capitalized versions of common nouns; there are probably other exceptions. Here, stardust is a common noun. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as author --J19idf (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

fried ice cream[edit]

This was deleted under the claim that it is "SOP". If anyone read the definition provided, it clearly is not just ice cream that has been fried. There are more components to this dessert than just ice cream, so clearly is not a sum of parts definition. The deletion is unjustified under that criterion. -- 05:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

For those who can't see the deleted entry, it was defined as ice cream briefly deep fried in pastry. Equinox 21:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Batter/dough to keep the main food to be fried together is regular and expected, and thus doesn't suffice to eclipse regular frying, if you ask me. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I think we should add the sense "deep-fried in batter or dough" to our entry for fried. --WikiTiki89 19:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Recursive — and not in a good way. DCDuring TALK 22:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Deep-fried itself can also be used this way (look up "deep-fried ice cream"). Therefore, I've added a subsense like Wikitiki suggests to deep-fried, wording in a way which I think addresses the issue of recursiveness. "Fried" defines itself as a short form of "deep-fried" (as of this edit by a helpful IP), and I've added a gloss; I think that is probably sufficient to cover "fried ice cream". - -sche (discuss) 04:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, fried ice cream has an outer layer, but so do fried chicken, fried clams, fried mussels, fried candy bars, etc. Breading or batter are the best way to keep fragile things from burning, overcooking or melting when fried, so there are many things that are only fried that way. As this text says, "if it can be breaded, the fair will fry it". Chuck Entz (talk) 05:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

volente o nolente[edit]

I'm willing to be convinced, but isn't this just as SOP as willing or unwilling? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Only if nolente also means "unwilling"; we currently list it as meaning only "unwanted". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Also take note of the phrases given as translations at willy-nilly, many of which are analogous cases to this. Vorziblix (talk) 05:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


"Friends; a popular American television show." This doesn't belong in a dictionary. —suzukaze (tc) 07:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete, at least this sense. Of interest, the Chinese word for "friends" is 朋友们; the subject of this RfD literally translates as "six people in a row (in descending order)". The TV show started airing in 1994, but a Google Books search for uses before that date yields a number of hits. However, I can't tell if these are SOP, or if there is a set phrase in there that could justify an entry. bd2412 T 15:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not very sure, but it seems like the entry has the wrong pronunciation. AFAIK, it should be read as liùrénxíng, so "six people in a row (in descending order)" doesn't make sense. 六人行 generally means a trip with six people. 六 could be replaced with any number. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
    Do we need an entry for 人行, then? bd2412 T 11:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
    No. means "six people", and modifies . This just uses another sense of . Chuck Entz (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Akademio de Esperanto[edit]

Encyclopedic, and not appropriate as a dictionary entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Kill. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I created this entry when I saw the entry Académie française. Shouldn't that entry also be deleted then for the same reason? Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contributions) 16:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Keep this and Académie française. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


Rare misspelling of ne'er-do-well. Never does not become ne're when the 'v' is elided. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Seems less rare than some of our misspelling entries. (I suppose people mix up the ending with words like they're.) But at least change it to a misspelling from "possibly nonstandard". Equinox 21:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I think "ne'er" is a corruption of "never", if so "ne're" is glaringly wrong, but anyway I have never come across the spelling in question. Donnanz (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Looks to me like a simple transposition typo: er --> re, though for some people it may be interference from the pondian -er/-re distinction or it may be trouble believing that the sequence "e'er" exists because it's archaic and not used much anymore even in poetry. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • For reference: ne're-do-well,ne'er-do-well at Google Ngram Viewer. I don't know how to put a multiplication formula in the search since once I use multiplication (*), the dashes are interpreted as minuses. This might be a common misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't get a graph, either, but it says "ne're-do-well" (which has only been common enough to register since 1965) peaked in 1972 when it constituted 0.0000000311% of all phrases in the corpus with that number of words. "Ne'er-do-well" is older; it peaked in 1928 when it constituted 0.0000163387%, and in 1965 it constituted 0.0000107765%. When each was at its peak, "ne'er-do-well" was 525 times more common than "ne're-do-well". Comparing "ne're-do-well"'s peak of 1965 to "ne'er-do-well"'s data from that year (a non-peak year for it), "ne'er-do-well" was 346 times more common. However... paging through, there are ~50 Books hits that contain "ne're-do-well" alone (before the search results stop actually containing the word), whereas there are only two that contain both "ne're-do-well" and "ne'er-do-well". If "ne're-do-well" were a misspelling, or especially if it were a typo, I would expect more books to use both spellings. Hence, it might just be a nonstandard intentional spelling, at least for some authors. - -sche (discuss) 05:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary[edit]

Name of a specific Web site. Equinox 05:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

As is Wiktionary, arguably a lesser known website--Giorgi Eufshi (talk) 06:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I could RFD that too, but one thing at a time. Equinox 06:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Keep. It meets WT:BRAND. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 06:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
How has it "entered the lexicon"? What proofs can you bring? AFAICT, the existing citations are no better than an academic paper saying "Street (1984) believes such-and-such", or a review saying "Grand Theft Auto is a violent game". Being mentioned, as a proper noun, doesn't automatically make you part of the lexicon, dictionary-wise. Equinox 07:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Wiktionary’s traffic.
UD’s traffic. --Romanophile (contributions) 07:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
More people watch MTV than read any kind of book at all. Your point? Equinox 08:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
This sounds like an RfV issue, not an RfD issue. Here's a cite:
bd2412 T 14:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Yet "a" is used, implying a common noun, not a proper noun usage (though it is capitalised). Perhaps we should have a definition at urban dictionary. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
This is merely an antonomasia. — Dakdada 11:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Antonomasia is probably on one path to commonness for a proper noun. DCDuring TALK 11:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't see how the citations show that this has entered the lexicon. And that is in WT:BRAND so it's not optional. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


@ baking, it says there is an adjective meaning intended for use in baking foods, and gives this example: Here is a baking tray for the cookies. Isn't this just the attributive use of the noun (compare driving school), and not an adjective ? Leasnam (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that, having just added Norwegian. I agree with you in that sense, but the second definition is probably acceptable; "It's really baking out there" referring to hot weather. DonnanZ (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the second sense I would leave as is Leasnam (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I certainly agree with a delete of sense 1.
As to definition 1, consider the usage example in sense 5 of bake#Verb:
"(intransitive, figuratively) To be hot."
It is baking in the greenhouse.
I'm baking after that workout in the gym.
IF one accepts the validity of definition and its the usage examples, then definition one is redundant to the "present participle of bake" definition of baking.
But IMO, it is verb definition 5 that needs to be removed because I don't think that one can say anything like "The day/car/room baked/will bake/had baked/has baked" and convey sense 5.
Here is a headline I found: 'Melbourne on the Murray' as city bakes in record heat – 'It's stunning. --is this sense 5 or 4 ? It's not literally baking, or is it ? Leasnam (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Sense 4 is "figurative" enough for me. I think it includes the headline you found, which doesn't seem strange to me, so I must have been wrong in my earlier assertion. Some "unabridged" dictionaries have an adjective sense for baking, though many do not. I haven't seen a definition like our definition 5 for bake in any dictionary. DCDuring TALK 22:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Also definition 2 of the noun, countable sense, seems wrong. Shouldn't it be something like "the bread, cakes, etc, cooked at one time"? I think that is a UK usage. I don't think I've ever heard it in the US. DCDuring TALK 22:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Noun def 2 doesn't really tie in with the quotations, all over 100 years old, and I wouldn't say it's particularly British; maybe it can be removed too. And that damned plural: can more recent usage be found? DonnanZ (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
It may be relevant but I recently cleaned up the entry for cooking for which I added the countable sense with citations (two more recent and one by an American author), and I added a rare label in that case. cooking and baking are semantically similar, so they may both need further editing in terms of the definitions and how they are separated out. Tulros (talk) 10:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • There are now 11 citations of the countable noun baking at Citations:baking. I don't think they match the definitions well and will try to provide substitute definitions. DCDuring TALK 12:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

British spelling[edit]

American spelling[edit]

See tea room discussion.

Delete. The content is encyclopaedic, as "British flora" would be. The fact that the topic of spelling happens to relate to a dictionary doesn't save it, IMO, any more than it would for an entry called "French spelling reforms". Equinox 03:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
It looks pretty SOP to me. If you delete this, you should also delete American spelling. Kiwima (talk) 03:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I've just RFDed that and added its header to this page section. Equinox 01:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. - -sche (discuss) 08:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. bd2412 T 20:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


This prefix was queried five years ago (see Discussion). Having looked at it, I can see no reason for keeping it. It is not listed as a prefix by The Bokmål and Nynorsk Dictionaries, nor by Bokmål Wiktionary. Similarly in Danish it's not recognised (trone is also a Danish word), nor in Swedish where the spelling is tron (for throne). Perhaps Danish and Norwegian follow the Swedish pattern and chop the "e" off in compound words. DonnanZ (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. It isn't a prefix, it's just the form of a noun used in compounding. We don't list those things for German (which has thousands of them) and I see no reason to list them for the Scandinavian languages either. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
This has a stronger claim to being a prefix than barne- does (see my comments on it). Barne- is covered by our entries for barn and the infix -e-. In contrast, the removal of letters down to a stem seems harder to cover with a single infix entry the way the addition of -e- is covered by -e- — what would it be called, [[-removal of preceding letters-]] ? — and it also seems close to the definition of a prefix. Abstain for now. - -sche (discuss) 08:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
We have Appendix:Repetition, which covers cases of reduplication (and should probably be renamed Appendix:Reduplication), so we could also have Appendix:Truncation to cover cases where a morphological process deletes sounds from a word. There are a few cases where French plurals, for example, are formed by truncation, such as œuf /œf/ → œufs /ø/ and ours singular /uʁs/, plural /uʁ/. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


Another one in the same category as tron- (above). In this case an "e" is added rather than subtracted. The derived terms can be moved to barn (Bokmål) and barn (Nynorsk), some are there already. DonnanZ (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

On second thoughts, there may be a case for keeping it, as it is often used in terms as barne- og (whatever), and non-native users may not be aware that it is derived from barn [15]. DonnanZ (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Again, considering the parallels in German, I'm leaning toward delete. I don't want us to have entries like Gesellschafts- on the basis of "Gesellschafts- und Wirtschaftskommunikation". It's simply part of knowing the language to know that a phrase like that is short for "Gesellschaftskommunikation und Wirtschaftskommunikation" (both of which are valid entries). I don't think it's a dictionary's job to spell that out explicitly, and I expect the lemmings (for Norwegian as well as German) will agree with me. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
    I know what you're saying, but with barne- being much shorter it may not be as obvious as Gesellschafts- and other examples. Anyway, we'll see. DonnanZ (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
    Using specific forms for compounds is a general part of Germanic grammar. We could consider to treat the compound-form as just another inflected form of the words, like plural or genitive forms and what have you, which then might warrant an entry for all of them. But as it is right now, I don't see them deserving entries themselves. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete this and other forms like it that add letters or merely add a hyphen. The average reader should be able to figure out that "barne- og dagbok" should be looked up as "barnebok" and "dagbok", and on a technical level (to satisfy robots and linguists), we cover this with entries for barn and the infix -e-, like "Gesellschafts-" is covered by Gesellschaft and -s-. Forms that remove letters, like tron-, have a stronger claim to being prefixes. - -sche (discuss) 08:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


There shouldn't be any argument about this one. Derived terms can be transferred to kraft (Bokmål) and kraft (Nynorsk). DonnanZ (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


Another one like tron- (above), used in words like kronprins, but can be entered as derived terms of krone (Bokmål) and krone (Nynorsk). DonnanZ (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

educational technology[edit]

The current definition is shitty, but a more accurate one would be completely SOP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete DCDuring TALK 00:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Unless one can find value in a definition like the following: "the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources." I can't. DCDuring TALK 00:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 15:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. bd2412 T 20:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I need a compass[edit]

I admit I created this in 2010, but "I need a compass" does not sound like an entry very likely to be used, even though people added translations in multiple languages. Maybe the entry could just be speedied. We do have "I need ...". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. Easily constructible from I need ... and compass, which will even make it possible to determine which sense of "compass" is meant. (As it stands, I don't know whether to use the entry when I need a little watch-like thing with a needle that points north or when I need a pointy thing to draw a circle with.) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Weak delete. I think that having "I need" + noun is generally sufficient: even if someone gets the gender or case wrong somehow they are still very likely to be understood. OTOH I've seen worse phrasebook stuff. Hah! Equinox 08:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete - along with most of the phrasebook. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete. How many people actually need a compass these days? Or, more to the point, how many people need to ask for one in another language? Chuck Entz (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
lol, I want Chuck logic to be applied to all the sexy phrasebook entries. Equinox 12:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Apparently I need a GPS would score more phrasebook points than I need a compass. (but I'm not suggesting we should have the GPS one) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I need a battery[edit]

Meh. I need ... + battery --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

As it stands, I'd like to think it means an electrical battery. Could it conceivably be any of other meanings of battery?
More to the point, I don't think many people would want to use that specific phrase and translate it into other languages. I'm afraid they would want to be more specific like "I need 2 AA batteries" anyway. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Nowadays, people are more likely to say I need a charger anyway. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I need a razor[edit]

I need ... + razor --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

There are probably some "I need" phrases that I'd like to keep because they sound more serious and useful than most: in my opinion, I need a doctor and I need a lawyer seem good enough to be kept.
By any standards, not only "I need a razor" can use I need ... as I said above (and other people said in other discussions), it does not sound like an emergency or "special case" if that makes sense, unless we want to have many separate "I need" phrases for nouns related to hygiene, household objects, etc. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


RFD-sense "A shop where bread and other baked food is sold." (synonymous to bakery). I think that this is just a feature of the -'s clitic in English, and not lexically significant as it appears in this one case, but instead something you could do with many nouns. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete for the reason given. — SMUconlaw (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment: is this usage adequately explained at -'s? — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This principle can be applied to every profession. bd2412 T 14:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
    For example "I'm off to the drycleaner's". Siuenti (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd be inclined to keep these, just as translation targets. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
    Wouldn't translations simply be the same as they would at entries like "bakery"? Or if not, I imagine the constructions in other languages would be similarly transparent (e.g. "the baker's" = "chez le boulanger" in French). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep at least as a soft redirect to bakery so people can find those translations. Siuenti (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's peculiarly British. If I go down to my local parade of shops I find the newsagent's, butcher's, chemist's and greengrocer's. DonnanZ (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The adjective entry is rather silly, maybe that should be deleted instead. DonnanZ (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 22:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Shrug... etymology 2 of -'s covers this. Equinox 08:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep of course. This is a word, and contrary to claims above, not all professionals can be morphed into shops simply by adding an 's (for example, a native speaker wouldn't say "I'm going to the shopkeeper's, police's, barista's, craftsman's, musician's, model's, prostitute's, firefighter's, farmer's, tattooist's, etc..."). How these terms are used in the English language are not always intuitive or predictable; thus their inclusion on Wiktionary would be useful for users. I remember us discussing these terms a long time ago, and approving their inclusion on similar grounds. ---> Tooironic (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Keep as per Tooironic. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Keep as per Tooironic Leasnam (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • RFD kept as no consensus for deletion; 6 keeps. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


Sense: "A Gatorade sports drink." Self-referential AND fails BRAND. Recently created another definition for generic use. Purplebackpack89 05:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Move to RFV, I created WT:RFV#Gatorade. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

anomalous phenomenon[edit]

"That which is not sufficiently explained by science or inferred knowledge." Seemingly SoP. Wikipedia does not have an article on this exact term. Equinox 01:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

That definition doesn't even seem to cover most use. In other contexts it would other definitions, similarly SoP. DCDuring TALK 01:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

technology optimist[edit]

Sum of parts. Poor, encyclopedic definition. Wrongly formatted. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I have fixed the formatting and cut down the wordy def. It still says "accelerating" technological change but does it have to accelerate, or merely continue linearly? Sounds SoP; probably delete. Equinox 16:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Yep, 'delete.--Hekaheka (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

second language acquisition[edit]

Hi all, just added this, and don't believe it is SOP. Basically, SLA studies people learning a third language, or a fourth language, etc., as well as just a second language. There is no "third language acquisition" as a subject, etc. Taking a strictly SOP view of the word, it would only ever apply to the acquisition of a second language. But, as it was speedily deleted first time around I have RFD'd it. Voting open. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

It's second language + acquisition. Note that second language already covers things like a third or fourth language. Equinox 09:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete per Equinox. DCDuring TALK 10:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete per Equinox. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, point noted about second language. Nevertheless, second language acquisition in the def I have given it is not simply SOP second language + acquisition. There is nothing in the term itself that indicates that it is a field of study, thus it is not in the same class as first language acquisition, or foreign language acquisition, or mother tongue acquisition which are indeed SOP and are not fields of academic inquiry. I can't really see how it is not in the same class as discourse analysis (clearly the analysis of discourse), or physics or chemistry or environmental science or philosophy of science etc., all of which we have entries for the semantic field of academic discipline. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
First-language acquisition is a field of academic study, but it's usually simply called language acquisition. That said, I agree that this is a set phrase or term of art, so we should probably keep it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete. We keep idioms, not terms of art (i.e. collocations that someone likes). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
If it's SOP, we need to add a sense to acquisition and/or acquire, because at the moment none of the existing definitions of those words cover this sense. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
That we lack a definition that would be required to make an MWE SoP is not evidence of anything, except that we need to look at entries for the word at dictionaries we didn't copy from. Sometimes we omit a current sense, sometimes we deleted a sense that MW 1913 or Century 1911 had, sometimes our wording is excessively narrow. There are other possibilities. DCDuring TALK 19:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
The problem is, I don't know what other words besides "language" this sense of "acquire"/"acquisition" is used with. We could add a sense "experience" to kick and a sense "death" to bucket and then delete kick the bucket as SOP too, but I wouldn't recommend it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
But it doesn't matter, because it is used with any language acquisition, not only with the phrase "second language". You can say "first language acquisition", "during the early period of acquisition", "acquisition of Chinese", etc. --WikiTiki89 20:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Skill/expertise/fluency/taste and hyponyms thereof can be acquired.
Some collocations in which acquisition follows an attributive modifier:
  1. audio lingual acquisition
  2. data acquisition
  3. first language acquisition
  4. infant language acquisition
  5. knowledge acquisition
  6. language acquisition
  7. ontology acquisition
  8. blood unit acquisition
  9. sample data acquisition
  10. source data acquisition
  11. speech acquisition
  12. talent acquisition
  13. target acquisition
  14. vocabulary acquisition
  15. windows image acquisition
DCDuring TALK 23:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Some of those examples seem to be just SOP (e.g. talent acquisition, blood unit acquisition), which are well covered by the defs of those individual terms if they were to be looked up in isolation - however, if you look up second language and then look up acquisition you do not find out that second language acquisition is a field of study. Thus it is an idiom (in Wiktionary's sense of that word). As in this quote
2008, Susan m. Gass and Larry Selinker, chapter 1, in Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course, ISBN 978-0-8058-5497-8, page 1:
Additionally, second language acquisition is concerned with the nature of the hypotheses (whether conscious or unconscious) that learners come up with regarding the rules of the second language.
...obviously the acquiring of a second language is not "concerned with hypotheses" - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@Sonofcawdrey Are you saying that the sense of acquisition in collocation with skill, fluency, vocabulary, speech, and knowledge is completely different from its sense with language? To me they seem virtually identical. DCDuring TALK 00:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@DCDuring No, I'm not saying anything about the meaning of acquisition. What I am saying is that in some terms of which the word forms a part are idiomatic, not SOP, or rather, specifically in the compound noun second language acquisition - which means more than the acquisition of a second or other language. I can't really see why environmental science is not SOP while second language acquisition is. Can anyone explain the difference? - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not the one to best defend having an entry for environmental science. I think the underlying logic is that there is an institutional reality to it, such as that underlying ESL. Perhaps it is also that one says "The science involved is environmental science." rather than "The science involved is environmental.". But just as we don't have entries for titles of books, we don't have entries for titles of courses or groups of courses or headings in course catalogs, which classes of uses would seem to be the best support for the entry.
I don't see what additional meaning there is to second language acquisition other than second language + acquisition or acquisition of a second language. (Note that the commonness of the latter alternate demonstrates that second language acquisition is not a set phrase.) DCDuring TALK 12:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for you comments DCDuring. What seems clear to me is that you cannot substitute acquisition of a second language into the sentence "Additionally, second language acquisition is concerned with the nature of the hypotheses" - it just wouldn't make any sense. However, you could substitute the name of another field of academic study, e.g. chemistry, environmental science, etc. Then the sentence would make perfect sense. Thus we can conclude acquisition of a second language is not equivalent to second language acquisition ... in this case (i.e. for this meaning). Originally, I wrote two defs, the first being "the acquisition of a language other than one's primary language or mother tongue" (or something along those lines) and the second being, "the field of study ..." - I don't deny the first is SOP, it most assuredly is, but I maintain that the second is not SOP. SLA is not just the name of a course (or book, or chapter), though there are many courses named SLA, since it is commonly studied. There are many courses named Philosophy of Science, Environmental Science, etc., but this doesn't preclude those words having a dictionary definition. Finally, a set phrase can have a synonym (that is either a set phrase or not) - so I don't agree that the existence of a synthetic synonym demonstrates that a lexical item is not a set phrase, as a general rule, that is. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete per Equinox and Wikitiki89. - -sche (discuss) 01:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Wouldn't argue to keep this, but either way we should have language acquisition. Ƿidsiþ 08:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I would say keep - it is a term that crops up quite often, more so than language acquisition. DonnanZ (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi all. Umm, not looking good for keeping this (despite my entirely logical arguments, heigh ho). But, if the entry does get removed, then, what will become of this discussion? Where will it be archived? Also, if someone else tries to add the same entry in the future, will they be provided with the info amassed here? - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It should be at Talk:second language acquisition. DCDuring TALK 02:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

ajaa karille, ajaa partansa, ajaa takaa, ajaa ylinopeutta[edit]

All SOP (though the third may be debatable). Probably should rather be in a collocations section. --Tropylium (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Ajaa karille (to "run aground"): the Finnish phrase is not more sop than the English one.
Ajaa partansa (to "shave"): A sop if you want, but could also be considered an idiomatic expression. The meaning of the literal translation "to drive one's beard" may not be intuitively clear for everyone who comes across the expression.
Ajaa takaa (to "chase"): Ditto, although "to drive from behind" is not as cryptic as "to drive one's beard".
Ajaa ylinopeutta (to "speed"): This is probably understandable from its parts, but then again, this is how we say "to speed" in Finnish > fixed expression, like e.g. "speed limit"?
--Hekaheka (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I am inclined to keep but do not really want to override Finnish editors on this. Hekaheka is a Finnish editor who seems to argue pro-keeping. Taking ajaa karille, how else can you say in Finnish, to strand, run aground? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Ajaa kiville is a slang expression, but I don't think YLE newsreader would ever use it. If the vessel merely touches the ground but is unharmed from any practical point of view, one might say saada pohjakosketus. --Hekaheka (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
As a person who knows only a bit of Finnish, to me ajaa karille literally just means "drive into a rock", which might mean all kinds of things, but you can sort of infer the right idea even if you might get the details wrong. So perhaps a weak keep? ajaa partansa is certainly not obvious, not even close. ajaa takaa does not necessarily carry an implication of chasing to me, so if there is one then I'd say that's idiomatic. ajaa ylinopeutta is the most obvious one to me, once you know each word, so that one can probably go. —CodeCat 13:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


The second sense should likely be merged into the first one while meaning nearly the same thing. There is no difference when translating to Mandarin.--Jusjih (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the salient difference is def 1 is based on an intransitive verb sense (becoming), and def 2 on a transitive verb (converting to), dunno if these can be combined neatly in one def. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


sum-of-parts + nonexistence --YURi (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

If it is not attested (does not exist), WT:RFV is the best venue, IMHO. I always prefer RFV to RFD. But if people want to delete it via RFD as sum of parts, that is also an option. By the way, thank you for your Thai contributions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete. We only say เหงื่อ. --Octahedron80 (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • If deleted, be sure to also remove the links from the three entries which link to it. The entry is probably due to it previously being added as a translation on the English entry. — hippietrail (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


SoP? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I need sunblock[edit]

I need sunscreen[edit]

Use I need ... + sunblock, sunscreen. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I need a drink[edit]

Use I'm thirsty.

Or: I need ... + drink. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Abstain. I wouldn't usually bother posting to say that, but (i) this seems like a fairly useful thing to know how to say, (ii) God knows what kinds of idiom or case inflection might in theory be required to say it in certain languages, (iii) if we are going to have a phrasebook at all, which seems to be the consensus, then I don't see why it should be whittled down. Let it be known that I'm not in love with the phrasebook but either we're going to do it properly or we aren't. Equinox 01:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep: Per Equinox and Nathaniel Rateliff Purplebackpack89 13:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. A person can say "I need a drink" (of the alcoholic variety) when they are not actually thirsty. DonnanZ (talk) 08:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


SOP --YURi (talk) 04:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, delete. I only edited the entry to conform to current standards.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete. --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

so yesterday[edit]

This is kind of interesting because we don't have "yesterday" as an adjective, and I suppose you couldn't just say something was "yesterday". It does seem very much a composite construction, though; I can imagine someone saying that a music track is "so eighties", or a painting is "so Picasso". (I bet there's a grammatical term for this, but I don't know it.) Equinox 06:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes, I was wondering about this entry as well. I suppose the forms are contractions of "so characteristic of ...". SemperBlotto (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • That reminds me of a commercial here in the US a while back where a teenager says "that was sooo 15 minutes ago" as if she were talking about the last ice age. The construction can be used with any time in the past with the same meaning, and with just about any time/place/person/style/etc. with a somewhat different meaning. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Here’s a somewhat older example that in my opinion shows that this is a property of so and that so yesterday isn't idiomatic. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
      • For that matter, it could be interpreted as forcing nominals to act as adjectives by putting them in a syntactic context where only an adjective could be used (in this case as a predicate)- think about phrases such as "that dress is you". If so, there's no real lexical place to hang this, except perhaps the copula. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Maybe wiktionary should have the syntax for some composite constructions, like so %%NOUN%% with explanation that %%NOUN%% is always naming some time or period in the past? so last year is actually used even more than so yesterday. 23:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    In fact, it can even be used with times in the future: google "that's so next year" and see the examples. - -sche (discuss) 22:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the use of so forces it to be understood as an adjective, as without it, it would carry a totally different meaning Leasnam (talk) 01:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The trouble with including the syntax at a special entry is that no one is likely to find such content except at so, not that we are very good at including such content. Nor is a time period the only possibility. For example, so inside baseball has 102 (raw) hits at Google Books. We could make the more common of these hard redirects to a specific appropriate definition at so. DCDuring TALK 18:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    html has keywords meta tag that tells search engines what the search terms are. But this is probably too much of a stretch for wiktionary. I came across several idioms that are "flexible" in that they can accept a variety of words inside of them, but these things aren't describable in wiktionary. 21:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    We use "one", "someone", "something", and their possessives as placeholders because they are accepted, ie, usable by normal dictionary users. We have tried to have Appendices with snowclones, a type of construction, but it doesn't seem to have gained much traction. DCDuring TALK 21:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree that this isn't idiomatic. It also doesn't seem to be exclusively a property of "so", since one could say "that's very last year" as well as "that's so last year". One could even delete the copula: "What do you think of the dress?" "So last year." / "Very last year." / "Very you." / etc. IMO, it's covered by the existing entries for "you", "last"+"year", etc, and the understanding that "...characteristic of..." is implied. Delete. - -sche (discuss) 22:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with User:Leasnam that certain adverbs and force nouns to be treated as adjectives in this way. I don't think that the list is very long (so, too, very, kind of, a bit, somewhat, quite, etc), though the expression seems to be most useful as hyperbole, using the more extremal degree adverbs. If the list of words that do this is long, then I suppose we should leave it to the grammarians. DCDuring TALK 23:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree with -sche. Actually, this is not a function of adverbs so much as a function of nouns, which in colloquial English can be used adjectivally whenever one pleases. That's very "English language". Ƿidsiþ 08:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
This analysis is spot on. Ergo, delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


SOP --YURi (talk) 04:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep: entered to mean bookcase. If this is the single Thai word used for bookcase, I'd like to keep it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


SOP --YURi (talk) 06:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep: now entered to mean "stupid person" but before short entered as "fool, idiot". Entered by User:Atitarev. If this is most common Thai word used for that, I'd like to keep it. What are other Thai words to refer to "idiot"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not easy to decide, for a language like Thai, what should be included and what should not. The etymology is very straightforward คน ‎(kon, person) + โง่ ‎(ngôo, stupid).
คน ‎(kon) is used to form words, like the English -er: คน ‎(kon) + งาน ‎(ngaan) = คนงาน ‎(kon-ngaan, worker)
Nationalities and ethnicities: คนไทย ‎(kon-tai, Thai (person)) = คน ‎(kon) + คน ‎(kon, ไทย)
Other uses of adjectives with nouns: ภาษาไทย ‎(paa-sǎa-tai, Thai (language)) = ภาษา ‎(paa-sǎa) + คน ‎(kon, ไทย), or fully qualified words for Thailand: ประเทศไทย ‎(bprà-têet-tai), เมืองไทย ‎(mʉʉang-tai). Both are formed by adding a word "country". My small dictionary only includes "คนโง่" in the Thai-English section but includes other similar words formed with คน (คนงาน - worker: "person" + "work", คนไข้ - patient: "person" + "sickness").--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

uterine microbiome[edit]

Sum of its parts: one could come up with a similar construction for any part of the body that has microorganisms. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox 03:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Delete. Simple sum of parts. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete per nom, no matter how trendy the "microbiome" concept is. DCDuring TALK 10:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

do the dishes and do the laundry[edit]

Sum of parts. Similar to do the cleaning, do the cooking, do the windows etc. 2602:306:3653:8920:E528:3163:2220:5AA6 17:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Please use the templates instead of copying their contents to each page. DTLHS (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm. Do we need some kind of table of collocations of this form, perhaps in an Appendix? DCDuring TALK 17:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
At the moment we don't have a sense of do that covers these phrases, so unless one is added, I can't accept the argument that they're SOP. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
What are the collocations that are like this? I think that almost any -ing form (mostly effortful or purposeful processes or activities) and many nouns (both process/action and result) can be used after do in this sense, and with many, if not all, determiners and adjectives. Our definition "perform, execute" covers the process/action portion of this. This would correspond to do the laundering and do the dishwashing, which are often habitual. I think that the usage example "You haven't really done the laundry until it's ironed, folded, hung up, and put away" exemplifies usage in my idiolect. Perhaps something like "To complete (a purposeful activity)". In contrast I don't think one can say "He did his perspiration" (not a purposeful activity). That in these expressions laundry and dishes are metonomic uses of the nouns may create an illusion that there is an idiom, but there are an endless list of nouns that can follow do in this sense: "He did the drawings I asked for", "I've done underwritings", "They've done all 18 holes". DCDuring TALK 20:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Keep. do the dishes - lemmings: [16]
Both are single word terms in other languages, especially the latter. Keep as translation targets only, if they fail as idiomatic. IMO, they are also idiomatic. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 14:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Should we also have do their own dishes etc. for "They only do their own dishes, never ours."? After all, there might be a different translation or it might require some language exposure to pick up the structure/pattern. DCDuring TALK 23:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
No. Just the lemma is fine. No point being sarcastic with me. I'm not interested but if you are, you can send your questions to Collins dictionary authors. :) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Create a sense of do that involves completion of a task: When this is DONE, I'm still not sure if these should be kept or deleted. Purplebackpack89 19:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
    @Purplebackpack89 Most would interpret DONE in your example as done#Adjective. DCDuring TALK 23:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
    Unless they're counting "is" as an auxiliary, of course. If you're counting "done" as an adjective, I could say, "when we DO this." Though it looks like it already has been DONE (again, either adjective or "been" is auxiliary), since a definition of "do" already exists for both "completed" the verb and "completed" the adjective. I still am not sure if "do the dishes" and "do to the laundry" should be deleted, though, in light of their use as a possible translation target. Purplebackpack89 23:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - very useful for the translations, though there may be some fancy linguistic argument for keeping them regardless. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just what is it that you're doing with the dishes or the laundry when you do the dishes or do the laundry? It's implied that you're washing them, not doing something else with them. 2602:306:3653:8920:6113:2548:B14E:8BCF 03:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
    And when one makes breakfast, makes a car, makes a left turn, or makes a speech, one is doing very different things as well. Do, make, go, set, get, have, take, and other basic verbs have a vast range of complements that imply different specific activities. DCDuring TALK 11:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
    You can also begin, start, finish etc. the dishes. The point is that "the dishes" here is a task, not the physical object. You can't "do the plates" or "do a mug", really. Equinox 11:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Really? "Can I help with the washing up?" "Well, you can do the plates." But of course do the plates is not really a set phrase like do the dishes. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Are these "set phrases" or just NPs more common than those with other determiners and adjectives? DCDuring TALK 15:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


I don't think this can be considered a hot word. I don't see any reason to believe people won't forget about this word within a year. --WikiTiki89 19:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Why not? It's no more unpredictable than any other hot word. DTLHS (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Hot words are supposed to be things that are almost certain. Like official new names for species or chemical elements, or perhaps the nicknames given to an event itself (Brexit could have been a hot word if it weren't already attestable for several years), but a feeling about an event does not have any momentum behind it. --WikiTiki89 20:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I think Brexit has a lot of momentum behind it, and people are certainly going to keep talking about their feelings and regrets about it for many years. DTLHS (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Of course Brexit itself is going to be talked about, but people aren't necessarily going to use the word regrexit for their feeling of regret. Brexit itself has become the accepted name of the event, so whenever people talk about it, they are likely to use this name, but the feeling of regrexit can easily just be called regret. Of course it's possible that regrexit could become a more politically significant feeling and phenomenon like, I don't know, glasnost or something (not an exact equivalent, but close enough), but I don't see any evidence of that yet. --WikiTiki89 20:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
We adopted the "hot word" idea to allow Wiktionary to include topical terms that our "spanning one year" rule allowed. One benefit is that once we have three citations that demonstrate usage of a term in current use, we don't have to argue about whether its conditional inclusion will become permanent. We just wait and see. DCDuring TALK 20:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is an abuse of hot words. We can't allow protologisms in that even the media are not using in a widespread way. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Not used in a widespread manner? It's been used by all the major English language media outlets [17][18][19], print, TV and radio. I suppose that would not not even used by the media if all the English language media were considered to not be the media. -- 03:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Is it citable now? (3) from our usual sources, News and Usenet being the ones that are timely? DCDuring TALK 00:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
No, since it was only invented last week. DTLHS (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep The Guardian used it 24 June. There have been a flood of uses in durably archived print media since. IOW, it is the very model of a hot word. DCDuring TALK 00:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    This seems to have an aroma of censorship prescriptivism dyspepsia? DCDuring TALK 10:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • We adopted the hot word policy to allow premature inclusion of words that we agree are likely to remain in use for over a year since the first attestation. Not to allow any neologism that happens to have been used recently in durably archived sources. This isn't about censorship, this is about whether we are confident that we won't have to delete it in the future, and I am not confident. --WikiTiki89 16:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, from a technical standpoint, if we allow such terms as "hot words" and categorize them appropriately, it's very easy to find such "hot words" that are now one year old, and then systemically go through and see if they're still in use / still citable.
Put another way, if correctly categorized, we can fix any potential problems easily enough once the one-year time limit has come due. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
See Category:Hot words older than a year. DCDuring TALK 20:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
But that's not the point. That enables us to verify that we didn't make any mistakes, but that doesn't give us the right to be careless. --WikiTiki89 20:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • What is careless about adding these "hot words"? Do you mean that we shouldn't be careless as we gaze into our crystal balls, attempting to discern if a given term might still be in popular use one year from now? I'm more interested in lexicography than prophecy. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    If you're not interested, then why are you discussing this? We're not attempting to predict the future, we're attempting to evaluate whether there are any objective criteria that would make the term likely to survive. Not every neologism can be added as a hot word. I nominated it for deletion because I don't think there is anything about this term that makes it more likely to survive than any random neologism. If you disagree, you can state your reasons and vote keep, but there's no need to scream about censorship and crystal balls. --WikiTiki89 18:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
    Suppose we establish some baseline of sources that make it reasonable to proceed with a hot word for some set period? bd2412 T 19:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
    It's not about sources, it's about reasoning. Hot words started with the word olinguito, which was announced as the new of a newly discovered species. It was almost certain that the word would survive, because it was officially announced. There is nothing (yet) about the word regrexit that guarantees its survival. I'd appreciate it if we would go back to talking specifically about the word regrexit and not about the process in general. I have seen no one explaining why it is likely to survive. --WikiTiki89 20:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • after edit conflict: @WikiTiki89, it seems my tone did not come across as I intended. I'm more puzzled and querying than screaming. And I haven't said anything about censorship...? Re: regrexit specifically, I counter that I see no reason for it to completely disappear -- it's a useful enough portmanteau of regret + exit that I can more easily imagine that it will find some use, perhaps sporadic, than that it will fall into complete oblivion. Beyond our respective opinions, however, we have nothing to go on -- we are attempting to divine the future, which I believe to be both not lexicography, and not particularly fruitful.
That aside, @bd2412, that proposal sounds good to me. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Well it was DCDuring who was screaming about censorship. And I'm sorry, but I couldn't hear your tone through the all those cyberwaves. --WikiTiki89 20:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't understand the motivation for singling out this particular term or, for that matter, any particular term. I often wonder about my own visceral, usually negative, reaction to new terms. Eg, I hate almost all blends, unless they are funny. DCDuring TALK 22:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I would suggest that it is likely to survive for at least a year since the subject is of such broad significance and since the press will be talking about the process of Britain leaving the EU for at least the next two years. It is certainly not a foregone conclusion that this will be around for more than a year, but I would put money on it surviving our CFI after a year has elapsed. - TheDaveRoss 20:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Our normal standards for attestation seem adequate for this purpose. So, relaxing only the "spanning one year" requirement should give us attestation in durably archived sources, probably mostly newspapers, UseNet, and scholarly journals. I see no reason to limit sources. DCDuring TALK 22:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I would prefer a limitation to higher-level sources (professional, peer-reviewed) for "hot" words. I do think regrexit is covered in those, so a imposition like that would be of no moment to this particular discussion. bd2412 T 10:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
This suggestion is an excellent bit of evidence supporting my intuition that there is an academic/intellectual-elitist bias among many here. Such a requirement would cut us off from the vital living edge of language, while it was in its earliest, but popular and visible, stages. DCDuring TALK 10:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Such a requirement would also cut us off from the vital living edge of people abusing the process and literally making up words that will never see use by the public and throwing them on internet forums in order to get them in Wiktionary. bd2412 T 11:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Do any two people want to WP:GAME and collude with me in a Usenet thread where the three of us use the same word? Equinox 11:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I regrexit to inform you that I will not be able to participate in such deceit. Did I do that right? - TheDaveRoss 11:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @bd2412, regrexit is used extensively in major media. "Gaming the system" appears to be a red herring, at least with regard to not requiring peer-reviewed sources. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I have noted above that I don't think this objection would apply to regrexit; however, precisely because the word has been used in professional publications. Don't put it past people to try to manufacture words into the language, particularly where there is some political or commercial angle to exploit. We have seen a share of those come through here. bd2412 T 17:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • But, @BD2412 words get "manufactured" all the time, by corporate entities or by people. Just because a word is "manufactured" doesn't mean we shouldn't have it. It does mean it will eventually have to pass RfV, though. Purplebackpack89 14:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Right now, however, we are talking about the special case of "hot words", which need to offer some exceptional reason to believe that they will be used for years into the future. bd2412 T 21:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep: This is another one of those RfVs that's pretending to be an RfD. Nominator has provided no reason why this violates SOP (which it clearly doesn't) or anything else we address at RfD. We can mark it as a hot word now, and if it really dies out, we can delete it in a year. Purplebackpack89 13:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I am inclined to Keep, agreeing with PBP although I don't feel super strongly. Regrexit is all over the news, to such an extent that it seems likely it will still exist in a year, and if not we can always delete it. My one beef is that most uses of the word appear to capitalize it so we should probably do so too. Benwing2 (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
It does seem that this word is catching on and I no longer feel as strongly about it as when I nominated it. However, I do think think that at the time it was added, it was a bit too early. --WikiTiki89 20:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. It seems to me that this word is likely to catch on enough to make it past the one-year mark, and even if it doesn't, there's no harm done. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 17:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Abstain: I am not too happy about the whole hot word concept, but many seem to like it, and it does not seem really harmful, merely an avoidable increase of complexity. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
    [] in pursuit of increased relevance of Wiktionary to new, ordinary users, which may be a vain pursuit, given the greater attentiveness to such users by commercial dictionaries, like Collins and UD. We could be more inclusive and responsive that Collins and more discriminating than UD, but only at the price a avoidable complexity. DCDuring TALK 10:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't seem to qualify as a hot word to me either, especially as it still isn't clear whether this term or bregret/Bregret is going to be the dominant term. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
    So now we're picking winners in a language chock full of "duplicate" words. Are we trying to be the English version of one of the language-protection organizations? We have a simple procedure for dropping "hot words" that don't keep their traction. DCDuring TALK 12:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
    We're following our own rules: three attestations in permanently archived media over the course of more than a year. "Hot words" are meant to be exceptions for blatantly obvious cases where it's clear that (1) people are still going to be talking about the concept in a year's time, and (2) people are still going to be calling it by this name in a year's time. It's not at all clear that either of those conditions are met for "regrexit". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Is ever really crystal-clear that something is going to last a year? Is it clear this isn't? It seems to me that a lot of the arguments for deletion here boil down to either a) guessing about something you can't know for a year, but WILL know then, or b) disdain at the process of hot words altogether. Purplebackpack89 14:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
    • There are cases like olinguito that are a lot clearer than this one. For olinguito, there was little doubt that the animal would continue to be talked about and that olinguito would continue to be its name. It isn't clear that this isn't going to last a year, but that's not a high enough bar to break the rules over. The point is, it is entirely possible that no one will be talking about "regrexit" in 13 months' time, and even if they are, it is entirely possible that they won't be using the term "regrexit" for it. That possibility says to me that this isn't a "hot word" and needs to wait 13 months before being entered into the dictionary. In the meantime, citations for it can be added to Citations:regrexit. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think it makes perfect sense to create words as soon as they become "hot words" and keep them until people stop using them (assuming they fail to meet CFI), since that's when people are going to be encountering the word and looking up what it means. It doesn't always make sense to wait until we're fairly confident they're going to stay, since people are going to be looking them up before then. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
    There you go again, bringing up points like utility to normal users. I suppose you think "A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means."
It might be reasonable to exclude UseNet as sole source of attestation unless the "spanning one year" standard were met. That way we could remain elitist and yet include new terms that PLUs might be interested in. DCDuring TALK 12:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what Andrew's position on utility is, but what you've said in quotes sums up mine. Purplebackpack89 13:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I thought you'd recognize the quote as being from WT:CFI. DCDuring TALK 17:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. My crystal ball tells me that people - including academics - will be writing books about the whole Brexit event and who voted for it and against it and why and what the consequences were for a long time to come - and the regrexit part of the even will find a place in such texts - esp. as it will be interesting to see if regrexiters sustained their regret as the true outcomes of the vote eventually eventuated. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Everything with {{passive present participle of}} and {{passive past participle of}} on it[edit]

These templates seem to have been made exclusively for Danish; however, no such forms exist. I request that all entries transcluding one of these (past, present) and containing no legitimate content be deleted. I intend to subsequently nominate the templates themselves.__Gamren (talk) 10:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

So you're saying none of the forms listed at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:passive present participle of and Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:passive past participle of actually exist? That's pretty embarrassing if we've been listing nonexistent forms all this time. We'll also need to remove the relevant parameters from {{da-conj}} and {{da-conj-base}}. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
They do not exist as "passive participles", but they may exist as other forms, see this conversation with @Pinnerup. Past participles can also be declined in the genitive case, but then the -t becomes -de- or -te- or something similar. Including these forms in a conjugation table seems like a bit of a stretch. {{da-conj-reg}} has been modified, and {{da-conj}} is unused. I don't see why we need more than one conjugation template, but perhaps @NativeCat would like to explain this, and also why {{da-conj}} has code for categorizing entries in Category:Swedish strong verbs and its subcats.__Gamren (talk) 08:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not surprised at all. NativeCat's edits at the time showed an oversupply of youthful enthusiasm and energy combined with an undersupply of caution and awareness of her limitations. As much as I like her personally, that always made me nervous. I'm sure she converted the templates from Swedish ones without realizing the full extent of the differences between the languages. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@Gamren & @Chuck Entz: The forms listed at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:passive present participle of _theoretically_ exist, but not as "passive present participle forms", as they're called there. No such thing exists in Danish. Instead they're theoretically existing possessive/genitive forms of present participles (e.g. one could say "en gående" in the sense "someone walking, a pedestrian" and then coin a genitive "en gåendes", meaning "of someone walking, of a pedestrian"), but they are all exceedingly rare – I wonder if you'd ever come across them. For the forms listed at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:passive past participle of the claim to existence is even more tenuous, and the label is wrong here as well (in so far as they exist, and they don't all, they'd be possessive/genitive forms of the past participle). I'd advise that both templates are deleted and that lemmas defined only using these templates are deleted as well. —Pinnerup (talk) 23:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
BTW there are already {{present passive participle of}} and {{past passive participle of}}, which should be used instead for these concepts. Benwing2 (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I am NativeCat's new account. I just wanted to tell you all that I am very sorry about this. I agree, it is ridiculous and extremely embarrassing. 2 years ago, I don't know what I was thinking trying to make a template for forms I didn't know. I was told by another Danish person that those were all verb forms, but he wasn't interested in linguistics as the rest of you are, so it wasn't reliable. Plus he couldn't tell me what the forms were. And so I assumed that they were passive just like -es. But I was wrong. What I suggest, as I am the author of those pages, is we just go ahead and delete the 30+ pages created by me using those templates, perhaps using a bot to speed up the process. The way I see it now, I think we should add the "genitive" or whatever forms later and split that into a different discussion. I totally support adding those "genitives" or "possessives" to a conjugation template, so people in the future know what they are, since Danish is a very complex language. The good part is that when I looked through the list of verb forms in the WhatLinksHere, that the templates were used a lot but not THAT much, I mean 30+ isn't really a lot compared to you know some of the French verb templates and such. And most of those if not all were created by me anyway. Anyways, please forgive me for doing that 2 years ago. I really should've asked someone knowledgable to help me make a template like this, such as someone from the Danish Wiktionary. I also should've asked what these "s" forms were. I should've done that to begin with, really I don't remember why I didn't and it baffles me. Philmonte101 (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Additionally, I am going to keep away from creating any verb entries until this is resolved. Philmonte101 (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Alright, that's it. I've waited enough. In order to partially compensate for what I've done, I'm going to go one by one through all those entries of "passive past participle" and speedy each and every one. It's gonna have to happen anyway, so might as well go ahead and get this mass deletion over with. Philmonte101 (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

carbon monoxide detector[edit]

Sum of parts. We may need to add a sense at detector for devices that sound an alarm when the detector detects something, but the existence of figurative uses such as BS detector shows that this element is quite independent of individual phrases. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

July 2016[edit]

oriental food[edit]

SOP, we don't have and probably don't want Chinese food, Finnish food, kosher food... --Hekaheka (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Both words used in the normal sense. Equinox 10:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not even the most common collocation for what it describes; if there is to be a translations target, let it be "Asian food" or indeed the generalized sense of "Chinese food". - -sche (discuss) 20:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Is there some reason this is still here? It's pretty rare to get something as clear cut as this. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

wait for a sale[edit]

Not idiomatic. DTLHS (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. DCDuring TALK 17:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep and edit This is meant to be applied when it comes to movies or video games getting negative reviews. Tedius Zanarukando TALK
    I see no citations from durably archived in the entry that show the term being used in that sense. Perhaps if there were some.... DCDuring TALK 21:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
It's written in poor English which means I'm struggling to understand what definitions are intended. For example "To wait until it catches on" what is 'it' in this sentence? "To put off a plan for a long time" seems dubious. How is it used? "I didn't have everything I needed so I waited for a sale" (I didn't have everything I needed to I put off my plan for a long time)? A few answer might help. The 4th one looks like SoP because it involves waiting for a sale. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. It may be commonly used when referring to video games, but it is just literally "wait until the item is going for a reduced price (a sale)" - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

最新專輯, 最新专辑[edit]

最新 (new) + 專輯 (album). Doesn't mean more than the sum of its parts. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Siuenti (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Wyang (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Deletesuzukaze (tc) 02:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

бронирование кабины[edit]

Russian entered as "cockpit armor". An editor thinks this is a sum of parts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Delete. To me, it's an obvious SoP. Sorry to say but this is also a mistranslation. It's "armouring of the cockpit" (action). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Deleted on 16 July 2016 by Anatoli T.. That is a poor process, IMHO; there should be at least one another delete as evidence of consensus. I would be even inclined to require at least 3 deletes in total, but 2 would be the very minimum, IMHO. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
FWIW I'm OK to delete it too. What Anatoli looks right to me including the mistranslation but I don't know Russian well enough to say for sure. Benwing2 (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

крыльевой топливный бак[edit]

Russian, entered to mean "wing fuel tank". An editor thinks this is a sum of parts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

SoP. Delete. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 14:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

native metal[edit]

SOP: native (Adjective sense 7: "(mineralogy) Occurring naturally in its pure or uncombined form; native aluminium, native salt") + metal Chuck Entz (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Weak delete. I note we also have native element, which really strongly feels like a term of art to me, despite being somewhat SOPpy. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

say yes to[edit]

And say no to. The construction seems wrong for a dictionary; we don't have agree to or disagree with, etc. The preposition is properly something extraneous. Equinox 21:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow, we do have disagree with, but in a figurative sense... Equinox 21:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Few OneLook references have an entry (even a run-in) for disagree with. Usage examples like "They disagreed"/"They disagreed with each other"/"The adults disagreed with the children." seem to me to be instances of the same sense of disagree and to be most informative when juxtaposed. DCDuring TALK 23:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What I'm wondering is that we have these, but not say yes and say no. Purplebackpack89 23:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
What is a little different about this is the use of the expressions in "say yes to life", ("commit to" [not in entry]), and "say no to drugs", which is the second sense of say no to ("reject"). We once said yes/no to people and to propositions. Now we also say yes/no to things and abstractions without any oral or written expression. DCDuring TALK 23:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep but with appropriate defs, i.e. DC's "commit to" and "reject" - in other uses it is just a way of answering a yes-no question ("Would you like a cup of tea?" "I'll say yes to that"), not dictionary material. And add a "Used other than as an idiom" redirect, as in the disagree with entry. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Bear in mind the 'say' isn't actually required. 'No to racism' and so on. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

automatic weapon[edit]

SOP: automatic (Adjective sense 3: "(of a firearm such as a machine gun) Firing continuously as long as the trigger is pressed until ammunition is exhausted") + weapon Chuck Entz (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. But we are a bit deficient in the vocabulary of firearms, especially in light of the extensive discussion in the US of firearms regulation. DCDuring TALK 23:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not all weapons are firearms, but all automatic weapons are. bd2412 T 01:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Is that a matter of definition, or just a consequence of the fact that only firearms are normally capable of unassisted repeat fire? Let's say that you had a crossbow with an automatic reloading mechanism, and keeping the trigger pressed caused it to keep firing as long as it didn't run out of bolts- wouldn't that be an automatic weapon? Chuck Entz (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
      • You mean like this? bd2412 T 03:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Close enough. My point is that it all follows from the "automatic" part, not from the combination of the two (I think "automatic" is short for "automatic-firing": something that emitted a continuous stream, like an energy weapon or a water gun, wouldn't be considered automatic just because it kept going as long as you kept the trigger pressed). It's sort of like the phrase "feathered biped": 50 years ago one could have made a similar argument that "not all bipeds are birds, but all feathered bipeds are". I said "50 years ago", because nowadays it's pretty certain that big, meat-eating theropods like Tyrannosaurus rex had feathers. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep: per BD Purplebackpack89 05:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • What about the various other actions (semi-automatic, burst mode, selective action; bolt action, lever action, pump action) for various specific firearms, like pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc. Isn't it in the essence of language to combine a relatively small number of individual words to make more numerous multi-word expressions? Keeping these trivializes English and misleads users who might take our whimsically included MWEs as being better expressions than the whimsically excluded ones. It's hard enough to include economical, intelligible definitions of individual words and true idioms without squandering effort on misleading MWE entries. DCDuring TALK 05:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Let me approach this from the opposite direction. Suppose you heard on the news that a gunman was at large, and was carrying an automatic weapon. What image would come to mind? I would bet for most people, they would immediately picture a person with a machine gun. I think that it is also useful to define terms that have technical meanings that are broader than what people might expect, even if this broadness is precisely because the definition is closer to being SOP than common usage would entail. bd2412 T 15:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
      Context: Gunman ⇒ firearm; automatic could mean machine pistol/automatic pistol or automatic rifle, very unlikely machine gun, generally too heavy for a lone gunman. DCDuring TALK 17:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
      Maybe I also have a different image of what a machine gun is (e.g. "Machine Gun Kelly"), and am thinking of an automatic rifle. I don't think people would picture an "automatic pistol" (or, obviously, an "automatic" crossbow or other such weapon). bd2412 T 19:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
      Machine Gun Kelly had a WWI-surplus Thompson submachine gun (a Tommy gun). The uzi machine pistol is a staple of the high-violence TV we real Americans like to watch. DCDuring TALK 20:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
DC speaks wise words. Delete. --Hekaheka (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete because automatic sense 3 makes it laughably redundant. Equinox 14:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete or delete sense from automatic. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


Is this SOP? It's the only entry like it that we have, AFAICT; the only entry in Category:English words suffixed with -year-old. - -sche (discuss) 19:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
(I was unsure at first and hence posed this as a question, but I'm persuaded that deleting or redirecting is the appropriate course of action here. - -sche (discuss) 22:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC))

  • Didn't we have a run of these a few months ago? bd2412 T 01:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
    • And didn't we all redirect them someplace? Redirect to that place. Purplebackpack89 01:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
      • The discussion was about twelve-year-old, and there was no consensus for deletion – as you can see, the entry is still in existence. — Cheers, JackLee talk 02:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
        • I revert to my answer to the previous discussion. Keep those at round numbers that are attested. Redirect the rest to them. bd2412 T 03:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete or redirect. Equinox 03:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete or Redirect. DCDuring TALK 10:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete or redirect to -year-old. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Keep I'm afraid, at least I see no justification to delete it assuming it had three citations. Ƿidsiþ 15:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I think the basic issue is that not all hyphens are the same: there's the hyphen that connects the parts of a compound, and there's the hyphen that's used as an orthographic convention to show that a phrase is being used attributively. It's not as obvious as Chinese, where you can have a whole sentence transformed into a subordinate clause modifying what follows by adding in between, but it's basically the same thing. There's no real limit but unwieldiness to what kind of verbiage can be shoehorned into such a clause: do we really want to have entries like oh-so-predictable, or sexy-as-hell? Just randomly picking up something from Google Books, I can see evidence on a single page for twenty-eight-foot(-long), thirty-four-foot(-long), thirty-six-foot(-long), forty-foot-long, forty-two-foot, fifty-five-foot, and then there's "thirty-five- to forty-five-footers"- however you want to split that up. Or how about 13-foot-four-inch-by-56-foot-six-inch? The existence of things like thirty-four-and-three-quarter-year-old further points to this construction being a phrase with hyphens and not a single word. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, even if this is kept, it seems clear that "-year-old" is not a suffix (as the entry currently asserts), any more than "-silly" is a suffix in other equally-silly constructions. - -sche (discuss) 22:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I would keep all of these, and generate the ones that are missing (that meet CFI). SemperBlotto (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Keep. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Does this not feel a bit like the E1S1 (episode, series) that you were eventually convinced against? Equinox 21:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. Delete, per you and Chuck Entz. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete or redirect. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I would have said keep as I'd consider it as a single word not as three words simply connected by a hyphen. But I hate to spoil a clear consensus so put me down as no opinion. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Abstain. In Talk:twelve-year-old, I invoked the translation target as a rationale. It might probably be invoked here as well, but I think we should stop somewhere for these <number>-year-old entries, and 71 is a pretty high number. As for whether it is a single word, it is my guess that the putative principle that all CFI-attested space-free hyphenated strings are automatically included as idiomatic will not find consensus, and not even a plain-majority support; more on this by Chuck Entz above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    "We should stop somewhere" sounds more like an oppose... Equinox 18:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    Well yes, but I have a tender heart for entries :). And I have some sympathy for the include-all-attested-hyphenated-compounds position. My abstain should be sufficiently conducive to deletion or redirection. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

gay rights[edit]

Lots of things can have rights: men's rights, women's rights, animal rights, fish rights. The translations are also linked in parts, so there's no translation target argument. DTLHS (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. The definition could be tweaked a bit, but the specific set of rights typically asserted is distinct. No one debates whether men should have the right to marry women, whether women should have the right to marry men, or whether animals should have the right to marry. bd2412 T 14:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. Unsure. Compare gay pride, civil rights. Equinox 14:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I would say delete, but it may be considered an abuse of gay rights... DonnanZ (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, it would be an example of microaggression, I think, as is your comment. DCDuring TALK 20:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Having thought about it more, I'm voting keep. Although I am not in favour of the concept and I don't consider it to be a God-given right, only gays do, I realise it's a controversial topic and that gay rights are non-existent in some countries, like Mr. Putin's Russia. It's a combination of social, political and religious issues, I guess. DonnanZ (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Nibiko (talk) 09:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Thought about it more. Delete. Equinox 14:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

submarine-launched ballistic missile[edit]

Sop. --Hekaheka (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

How am I supposed to tell which sense of "submarine" applies? Was this missile launched from a naval craft or from a hoagie? j/k, delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 22:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Or maybe just from underwater somewhere (an underwater hoagie?). Or maybe it's fitted with an underwater boat... or not. Delete. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • We could, however, have an entry for submarine-launched. There is a distinction between things launched from a submarine (noun sense 1), a vessel able to launch things whether the vessel itself is underwater or on the surface, and things that are launched submarine (adjective sense 1). bd2412 T 15:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Though isn't the point is that it always means one sense of submarine, either as in the vessel or as in underwater. Hence the reader can refer to submarine in any case. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
gak! Delete. Equinox 23:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete as SOP. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • There is an abbreviation for this - SLBM. DonnanZ (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    And of course that should be kept, without question. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    The existence of such an abbreviation is evidence supporting keeping the spelled-out term, according to Pauley, though I've never thought it sufficient and Pauley doesn't say it is and doesn't have a list of sufficient conditions at all. DCDuring TALK 12:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    While I'm aware of this, I just don't agree. Initialisms are for convenience rather than a representation of lexical setness. That's my view, anyway. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    Yes. A good example is PTO. —CodeCat 18:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I take it that intercontinental ballistic missile is OK? DonnanZ (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Pizza Hut[edit]

Doesn't belong in a dictionary. Belongs in an encyclopedia. 2602:306:3653:8920:B5CF:D32F:7F21:D1E4 01:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I suppose it could meet WT:BRAND, in being casually and non-commercially mentioned without saying what it is, but it's pretty clearly a restaurant from the name (unlike McDonald's). I don't like this kind of entry. Equinox 13:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Still, send to RfV to determine whether it does, in fact, meet WT:BRAND. If the citations supporting this are not forthcoming, it will be deleted. bd2412 T 15:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

tener que[edit]

I feel it is unusual to have tener que as a separate lemma. I'd prefer it merged into tener --P3459rgo0 (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

It's more like have to than think that since since the que is not optional and changes the meaning. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Renard Migrant, then why does the conjugation template say "(without the "que")." I feel we should just extend tener with this definition, and say {{qualifier|used with que}}. MackyBlue11 (talk) 01:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

sexual attraction[edit]

For the same reasons as Talk:physical attractiveness, which previously failed. Equinox 18:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Author of Eternal Salvation[edit]

Jesus Christ. This was probably created to win points in a stupid game --Turnedlessef (talk) 23:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe it's called Christian Evangelism. If you get enough points, you win a free pass to heaven...
Seriously, though, this is just one of a huge number of set phrases in Christian literature that are SOP in older English, but seem idiomatic to people who only know that they sound "Biblical". Chuck Entz (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Comment: If "Author of Eternal Salvation" is a proper noun, doesn't it not count anymore if it's an SoP pretty much as long as it's attestable? Since a proper noun is a literal name of something, rather than just a regular common noun like "brown leaf"? Philmonte101 (talk) 03:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Comment: We Christians have countless titles for God, and I think that in the context in which they're normally used, most of them are fairly self-explanatory. I'm not sure whether they're SOP enough to delete, though, so I'll let others decide. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, but consider creating an appendix of nicknames of religious figures. I seem to recall having similar discussions over something like "god of this world" and "prince of the air" as nicknames for the devil. bd2412 T 11:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
If this entry is unsuitable, there are probably plenty more to be removed here and here. - TheDaveRoss 12:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hmmm. I agree with Andrew that this can easily get out of hand, as one can find books about the various "names" of God and Jesus Christ in Christianity, of God in Islam, and so on. Some may be attestable epithets (e.g., Jehovah), but others are likely to be allegorical and based on passages of scripture (e.g., "The Door", "The True Vine"), in which case it is unlikely that they are actually used regularly to refer to the deity. I think the epithet under discussion is of the latter nature, so on the whole I'm leaning towards delete for this one. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, as a proper noun cannot be SoP, since it is the literal name of something, rather than a common noun like "brown leaf". Philmonte101 (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
    • It is a quotation from Hebrews 5:9. Is there sufficient indication that the term is actually used as a proper noun to refer to Jesus Christ, rather than simply referring to the fact that, according to the writer of Hebrews, Christ is the saviour of humankind? Note that capitalization of the term alone may not indicate it is a proper noun – in early works, capitalization was rather idiosyncratic. — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
      • This isn't a proper noun! The guy literally said in the edit description "points galore". 'Author of Eternal Salvation' is just used to describe that Jesus is the "author of eternal salvation". MackyBlue11 (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. - -sche (discuss) 15:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete... couldn't find any cites where this wasn't used predicatively, e.g. "he became the author of eternal salvation", "he is the author of eternal salvation", except as a name of an album. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

cult film[edit]

Bringing this up again. Though I created it, that was years ago when I didn't fully understand the concept of "SoP". This is SoP. See how cult video game, cult movie, cult TV show, cult comic, etc., can all be used as "something that has acquired a cult following." Though "cult film" is the most common one, that does not mean it should be kept, if we can find the definitions at cult and film. Philmonte101 (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Among OneLook dictionaries Collins has this. But cult#Adjective has this covered and even cult#Noun conveys the idea. The ambiguity between "a film that has a cult(-like) following" and "a film about a cult" (eg, about Manson or Jonestown) remains. [[Cult film]] needs {{&lit}} if it remains. DCDuring TALK 16:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
    I think there's a better case for an entry for cult classic, which failed RfD (See Talk:cult classic). DCDuring TALK 17:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • English contains many SoP terms, even compound words are sums of parts. No grounds for deletion, therefore keep. DonnanZ (talk) 09:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    WT:CFI#Idiomaticity disagrees with you. I don't quite see your point. Nobody's denying that English contains things like I have a black car, so why bring it up? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Why not? I don't expect anyone to agree with me. DonnanZ (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Collins has it[20], and while one such dictionary is not much, this is still an appeal to the lemming heuristic. I said more at Talk:cult film in 2014. SOP is a ground for considering deletion; x is SOP => redeeming qualities should be sought and if none are found => delete x. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
    Wow, the linked Collins definition seems to be written for children or idiots: is that their normal edition? Anyway, I would ask: do you think that cult + film does explain the meaning (same for cult video game, cult musical, cult rock hit, etc.): if so, would you not at least think a redirect to cult appropriate? Equinox 17:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
    The lemming heuristic is really just a heuristic, letting us focus more on expanding the dictionary and less on regulating it. I posted more substantive arguments in the original discussion at Talk:cult film. The arguments include the Talk:free variable argument. The adjectival sense at cult really seems to originate from the existence of the "founding" terms "cult book" and "cult film", and I would keep the terms as founding. On the talk page, I mention a "red drawf" argument. A related note: I don't think "cult" can be used predicatively, but I may be wrong. To the question, yes, I think cult could explain the meaning, but so could red if it contained definition "Of a dwarf planet, being relatively cool and of the main sequence". Even so, I am not sure the definition "Enjoyed by a small, loyal group" is accurate; Collins seems more accurate and seems to match Macmillan:cult[21], but I don't know. As for the Collins definition, I like it. I love clarity and simplicity, even excess clarity and simplicity. One has to realize that the definitions are often more important to non-natives and fresh learners than to natives who already know what a cult film is anyway, and that English is the lingua franca which people around the world hurry up to learn. A redirect would be better than nothing, but cult film entry is certainly more convenient since the task of picking the part of speech and the definition line from cult entry has been already done for the reader. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
    Hmmm. 1. I was a little snobbish about Collins (although I do genuinely think that their def sounds dumbed-down, which doesn't make much sense unless it's a foreigner-facing dictionary). 2. Your point about "founding terms" is sensible and interesting and reminds me of prime number (I think we argued about that one too! Obv my position is that "17 is prime, and 17 is a number", but then again a mobile phone was a thing before a mobile was, and yet they are the same entity and it would be a historical loss to delete the former, which was once the only name). I don't think I agree about "red dwarf" because I can't see it taking any other noun ("red star"???), whereas at least we can have a "prime factor", a "prime integer", etc. I would still prefer an ety at "cult" that explains "it was originally cult film, used by John McFilmReviewer [can we source this?]" but whatever, I like your insightful post. Also I can't be bothered to read all the links again. haha. I'll leave it alone. Equinox 19:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

radio-controlled car[edit]

A car that is controlled by radio (signals). Philmonte101 (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. It was RFDed in 2014 and survived then. We shouldn't have to go through this rigmarole again. DonnanZ (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • So was cult film, but sometimes consensuses can still be in error. There's no rule about recontesting. Philmonte101 (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, there seems to be a screw missing somewhere. DonnanZ (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete SoP and no OneLook Dictionary has this. DCDuring TALK 23:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep We've been down this road already. Purplebackpack89 04:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
"Down this road already" with a no consensus. No consensus doesn't seem good enough for me for this one. Philmonte101 (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Note there was a majority delete vote last time, and one of the keepers wanted to convert it into {{translation only}} as a non-idiom. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
There is no reason why {{translation only}} or similar can't be added, if that helps in keeping the entry. DonnanZ (talk) 09:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Still think it should be deleted, but it seems wrong to reopen the RFD so soon without a new argument. Equinox 11:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
It's the easiest delete ever if you apply WT:CFI. But of course, it is just voting. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Not just voting; the voters are supposed to provide a rationale for keeping, and once a rationale is provided, it is not "just" voting. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per what I said in Talk:radio-controlled_car: "Keep as a translation target and possibly per fried egg argument via the tendency to refer to toy cars. ...". Reopening this RFD seems like a waste of time but les us see. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Why keep it as a translation target? It seems very pointless to me. Even German doesn't use a compound to describe this word. The only translation in the box that uses it in one word are Chinese, Japanese, and Swedish, and the first two are scriptio continua languages. If we applied terms like this as translation targets, we'll soon be having "anthropomorphic animal" and other extremely SoP terms that only are compounds in like one or two languages. Because in the rest, they're just translated SoPs. Philmonte101 (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I case you have not read Talk:radio-controlled car, let me quote myself from there: Translations that I find worthwhile include Dutch autootje op afstandsbediening French: voiture téléguidée, and Swedish radiobil; by contrast, German funkgesteuertes Auto seems pretty word-per-word. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • You say that you "find them worthwhile", but what is worthwhile about them? voiture téléguidée is an SoP, for example, because it just means "remote-controlled car", "a car that is controlled by remote control." All the examples you just named, except for Swedish radiobil, are two words. I am not going to speak as if I know for sure about Dutch and German, since these aren't languages I even began to learn, but even if these aren't SoP (which they probably are seeing how most of the rest seem to be), then that's only two examples of non-SoP terms described in multiple words (with spaces). I honestly don't see how this argument applies as a reason to keep radio-controlled car (which just means "car that is radio-controlled") as a translation target. Like I said before, if we kept terms like this because of that, we'd have police officer home (the home of a police officer), car joke (a joke about cars), monkey breath (breath that smells like a monkey), and countless more, (those were just off the top of my head), just because they are compounds in a few languages (namely just a few Germanic ones), and may just happen to not be an SoP two-worded term in one language. Philmonte101 (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Completely SOP. Keeping as a translation target is a pretty weak argument in this case, as few of the translations appear to be non-SOP. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


SOP --YURi (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

If it's SOP, where's the space? Wiktionary allows compound words. Philmonte101 (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Philmonte101, you have to read more about Thai before commenting, it'll save you a bit of embarrassment;) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 20:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  1. Thai is scriptio continua (no spaces between words).
  2. As for "จำได้", it's not really a term. It's from "จำ" (to remember, etc.) + "ได้" (to be able, etc.). "จำได้" can be translated as "can remember" or "to be able to remember". Examples:
    • "จำเราได้มะ" = Can you remember me? (Have you forgotten me?)
    • "จำชื่อเขาไม่ได้" = I can't recall his name. (I've forgotten his name.)
--YURi (talk) 04:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Converting the above to {{th-x}} to make it easier to decipher/understand the individual words and how จำ ‎(jam) and ได้ ‎(dâai) are positioned:
จำเราได้มะ  ―  jam rao dâai  ―  Can you remember me?
จำชื่อเขาไม่ได้  ―  jam chʉ̂ʉ kǎo mâi dâai   ―  I can't recall his name. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


RFD sense 6 only: "A familiar way of addressing a female dog."

Well let's look at it this way. "Girl" could be used to "address a female {anything}." This same sense can be applied to humans, cats (a little more rare, but still), birds (much more rare even than that), or even gorillas. With humans, for instance, (in this I'll use an infant): "'Good girl! You used the potty!' the mom said." Girl is already a familiar way to address a female, especially a young one, so applying the female dog sense doesn't make much sense. I mean, I can see why the user did, since it is very often used in the case of dogs, but still is just a slight extension of the original meaning. If we have this definition, should we also have under it "A familiar way of addressing a female cat.", "A familiar way of addressing a female gorilla.", "A familiar way of addressing a female rabbit.", etc.? Philmonte101 (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Removed. I expanded the first definition to cover animals. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "Clever girl". Jurassic Park (1993). bd2412 T 12:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

peanut butter and jelly[edit]

SoP, though it is common. ham and cheese, turkey and cheese, or even macaroni and potato (lol) could potentially be used the same way. I hear the first two all the time. Philmonte101 (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, added by a Wonderfool sock. Philmonte101 (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Wonderfool has often made good contributions, which is why his sockpuppets are no longer blocked on sight. I'm pretty sure that he has been contributing under his most recent sockpuppet, whatever that may be. DCDuring TALK 13:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Keep: PBJ/PB&J, always a sandwich. DCDuring TALK 10:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Keep per DCDuring. Benwing2 (talk) 13:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Not just a sandwich, also e.g. ice-cream flavour. It's just the two things. I knew a kid who liked ketchup and mustard sandwiches (sick bastard) but it was just "ketchup" + "and" + "mustard". Existence of abbreviations is no keeper argument either, and During knows this as he has pointed it out himself before! How two-faced. We have PTO but not please turn over. Equinox 14:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The uses that are not a sandwich almost always are the noun used attributively to modify some hypernym: PB&J ice cream; PB&J cookie. Peanut butter and jelly alone almost always refers to the sandwich. DCDuring TALK 15:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't see what you are getting at. If you're saying that it's a noun meaning a sandwich (perhaps you can order "two peanut butter and jellies"? I have no idea, since I refuse to visit the US) then surely you can see that the challenged entry doesn't say that at all. If not, then what are you saying that is relevant? Equinox 17:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
These uses are a metonymic exploitations of PB&J, especially of the well-known flavor. I think they are supportive of an entry for peanut butter and jelly. BTW why not challenge mac and cheese AND macaroni and cheese, the former reduced form being evidence supportive of the idiomaticity of the latter. DCDuring TALK 14:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • We had a similar discussion recently didn't we? it was "man and wife", or "knife and fork", or something. Question was whether to include these things as entries simply because they tend to be listed in a certain order. I think not: Crystal has written about the natural ordering of adjectives ("a little green man", never "a green little man") and that's linguistically interesting but not really dictionary-able. Equinox 17:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • It is clearly a set phrase when used to describe something other than actual peanut butter and jelly. bd2412 T 23:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. For the record, I say "peanut butter and jam," so I'm not convinced it's even a set phrase. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    The jam version seems like an alternative form or synonym. Perhaps regionally differentiated. DCDuring TALK 14:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    Possibly, though I also say "peanut butter and honey." In my idiolect, it's entirely SOP, but I guess I can't speak for everyone. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    It obviously started as SoP. When I was young I preferred cream cheese and jelly, which remains SoP IMO. I don't know what evidence would be definitive for this, which forces us to rely on voting and the non-definitive evidence we find. DCDuring TALK 13:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as a set phrase. --Dmol (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not SoP. This may be said differently in different dialects, but I created this entry upon the fact that it the term is used most of the time to refer to the sandwich. MackyBlue11 (talk) 04:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as per creator. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


I know it's a very old entry but is there a policy on Bàng-uâ-cê (BUC) entries? Min Dong entries are currently with their Chinese spellings. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

stoga boot[edit]

This is a type of boot that was commonly known as a stoga. It isn't like moon boot, where the meaning doesn't reside in either part, but stoga with boot tacked on for clarity. It's perfectly ordinary to have a specific noun followed in this way by the class to which is belongs: just in footwear, you can find usage for oxford shoe, plimsoll shoe, pump shoe, loafer shoe, sneaker shoe, brogan boot, waffle stomper boot, etc. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. It is not stoga with boot tacked on for clarity. Rather stoga is a shortening of the original term stoga boot. In any case, "clarity" is not a reason to delete a term. We have entries for oak tree, pine tree, etc., but these can all be shortened to just "oak" and "pine". The terms are synonyms, not SOP. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I think we can explain it like this. SOP is a case where x+y = x+y. What we have here with stoga and stoga boot is x = z and x+y = z. They are synonyms, hence x = x+y. But you need to have both entries because Wiktionary doesn't concatenate entries - like print dictionaries do. That is, you see a lot of dictionaries list, say neem tree as a variant of neem, all in the one entry, but they do record both nouns. OED for instance has entries for Wellington and Wellington boot. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


Flavored with ginger. Seems attributive like the 'tomato' in tomato soup. The color adjectival sense is not being disputed. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes, delete this sense. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
    Keep; it looks like cookbooks on Google Books have recipes for very ginger glazed carrots, very ginger snaps, and very ginger curd. DCDuring TALK 22:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
    Recipe names, like poetry, tend to play games with language, as seen with very berry and very cherry recipes. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
    As Widsith recently pointed out, all nouns can stand in for adjectives, like "that's so 1990" and "that's very David Beckham", but not adjectival entries for 1990 or David Beckham. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Renard Migrant and Chuck Entz. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete the sense, but what about the translations? Move those to the noun as an attributive? DonnanZ (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep very common in attributive/adjectival use. We do have these type of defs for other nouns used in the same way, e.g. brick, bush, iron, chocolate. These types of defs are standard dictionary fodder. Macquarie Dict., and Dictionary.com have same adj definition for ginger. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    I think a lot of these definitions we have by mistake because of people not knowing what attributive use of a noun is. Chocolate of course is a color hence is an adjective (chocolate-skinned for example). Renard Migrant (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    Even better, bush#Adjective claims to be a noun. Which it is of course. Anyway those examples you gave apart form chocolate were blatant enough to be removed. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


SOP: 福州 (Fuzhou) + (city). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Pepsi Challenge[edit]

"A marketing promotion by Pepsi..." Equinox 09:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Delete with that definition. DCDuring TALK 10:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Not a word or an idiom, hence, delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Do we have a policy on what proper nouns are proper to keep? I'd lean towards delete for this, but am undecided. Under what rule/reason should it be deleted? - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Note that I added a second definition now. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I would keep the second definition, and convert the first one into an etymology section. bd2412 T 17:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Me too. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I'd like to keep the "A marketing promotion by Pepsi..." sense if there are citations where authors use the term in this sense without explaining what it is. I think this would be in line with the spirit of WT:BRAND. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If that were the criterion for keeping proper nouns, which attested ones wouldn't be includable? DCDuring TALK 21:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not talking about a criterion for keeping any proper noun. Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/Brand names and physical product 2 gave us criteria for "a product or service". A marketing campaign is not a product or service, but IMHO it is somewhat related. I suggest we use the same criteria from WT:BRAND to see if that marketing campaign is attestable. I found a couple of quotations like what I was thinking, and placed them on the entry now. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
We need a line so that we don't keep stuff like Sae1962's entries of "Java JDK Specification Document Manual" and what not. In general, specific things (people, buildings, space rockets, wars) are for Wikipedia, while general terms are for us. Equinox 12:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


And so on. Numbers are not words in any language so do not meet CFI. Can someone please nuke these? Renard Migrant (talk) 11:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I would say numbers are words in every language, just with a separate orthographical system. But, they seem pretty useless as dictionary entries, esp. given the definitions, and the general infinitude of them. So I'd say delete. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't mean numbers like one, two, three or 1, 2, 3 just combinations of numerical characters like this. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, clearly we keep those. But 105 is still a word as far as I can see. Just one that doesn't need a dict definition or entry. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that we figure out a comprehensive list of numbers which do merit entries, create those, then create an edit filter which prevents the rest from being created again. Seems like these shouldn't have to be discussed on a regular basis. - TheDaveRoss 12:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think any string of symbols that has meaning can be called a word. I mean like a reference number for a training or flight booking, FL05YH60D or something. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't have any great objection to these. But I have got better things to do with my time. Some of them (e.g. 1066, 1943 etc) are also dates, so might have additional definitions. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Have added a def to one hundred and one in it idiomatic use = "a great many". There a number of numbers that need such defs. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)