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


February 2016[edit]


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)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

I feel like more expertise is needed for this one. bd2412 T 02:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I would keep the root sense (the one labeled obsolete)—I'm unfamiliar with that usage and wouldn't use the word that way, so if the usage exists, I think we should document it. I'm not sure about the logarithm sense. Pinging User:Msh210 for another opinion. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. The radical index sense seems cited by Vorziblix. The other ("The result of a logarithm") I'm unfamiliar with, personally, but that doesn't mean much. This is an RFV issue, no? Why is it here?​—msh210 (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Partly cited: the "degree to which the root of a radicand is found" sense is now cited; still waiting for consensus on the "result of a logarithm" sense. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I did a bit of rooting around, and agree with @Kiwima that the "logarithm" sense should be deleted. From what I gathered (see, for example, [1]), a logarithm is another way of expressing an exponent. Thus, if , then . In other words, , the exponent of , can be expressed as a logarithm. However, the word exponent here is still being used in the sense of "The power to which a number, symbol or expression is to be raised", and not some distinct sense. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Your argument seems to boil down to "exponent refers to a number independent of where in an expression it appears". By that logic, the radical-index sense should also be removed (and the sense we retain should be rewritten). In contrast, our current trifurcation of senses assumes exponent refers to a number as included in an expression. You may be absolutely correct. I don't know how we'd test whether you are.​—msh210 (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I only studied mathematics up to Year 12 so I'm no expert, but sense 2 and sense 4 seem to use the word exponent differently. It's not just that exponent means "a number independent of where in an expression it appears". Sense 2 defines it as "The power to which a number, symbol or expression is to be raised"; the exponent in the expression indicates that is being raised to the second power, i.e., . I assume this is the sense familiar to all of us. On the other hand, sense 4 seems to use the word to mean the nth root of a number; the exponent in the expression indicates the cube root of . On the other hand, sense 2 is merely using exponent in the same way as sense 1. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
If two senses are the same, they all are: In , 3 is the exponent of 2.​—msh210 (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
But the sense 4 quotations seem to use the word slightly differently. To take your example, 3 is the exponent of the root of 8 which is being calculated. , but in the latter case (sense 2) the exponent, 3, is the power to which 2 is raised. On the other hand, if you have a look at works talking about exponents in the context of logarithms, they just seem to be referring to sense 2. I should add, though, that the OED only states sense 2. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Can we resolve this by indenting sense 3 to present it as a subsense or specialized sens of sense 2? At this point, I am not seeing a consensus to delete anything, although we may need an editorial discussion to make sure that our definitions are as clear and precise as possible. bd2412 T 19:05, 28 August 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)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

I can't close this as it stands, as the outcome would hinge on my own involvement. bd2412 T 02:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Abstain: upon a quick glance, I cannot summon the energy to actually look into this any closer. What are the closests analogs of this that we keep? --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Signs of the zodiac, perhaps? bd2412 T 15:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Hmm... "year of [the] X" is a usual construction for indicating the year when something happened ("year of the coronation") and/or the year when it was prominent/relevant/whatever (from Google Books: "2015 was the year of the library"), and this is SOP as "year of [the]" + whichever zodiac sign is up that year by the Chinese reckoning.
I agree with Meta that "pig" etc should probably have a sense-line for the Chinese zodiac, though; compare Virgin. Vietnamese, etc can presumably be part of the same line; compare the alchemical sense of fire.
The Chinese zodiac also reckons other lengths of time to be ruled by the signs, too, e.g. google books:"hour of the rat". They have a better claim to idiomaticity, because e.g. "the hour of the rat" can be defined as always the time from 11pm to 1 am (whereas the "year of the rat" is every twelfth of an infinite list of years). (The mere fact that the "hour" isn't 60 minutes doesn't strike me as inherently problematic, since I think "hour" can refer to non-60-minute periods in several contexts, e.g. when speaking of European monks doing something at the ninth hour in the era before widespread precise timekeeping. But it probably helps the idiomaticity of "hour of the rat", etc. Whereas, the year of the Pig is indeed a year...)
- -sche (discuss) 20:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
So, delete this IMO. I am relatively more open to hour of the pig, and to Pig and/or pig having a zodiacal definition (although only one should house the definition, the other should point to it using {{altcaps}}). - -sche (discuss) 20:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete, but create entries for the zodiac signs, as suggested by Daniel Carrero. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Note: going by Wikipedia's example, these should be capitalized; see, e.g., w:Pig (zodiac). bd2412 T 03:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete but keep the capitalised entries for the constellations. Nibiko (talk) 05:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

March 2016[edit]

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)


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 ([2]). 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)
Meh... I have no strong feelings about this one way or the other, but have deleted it per the above discussion. - -sche (discuss) 23:46, 19 August 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. 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)


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: [3], [4]. —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)

No consensus to delete at this time. The question of whether this should be a phrasebook entry or some other kind of entry is an editorial matter, not a deletion matter. bd2412 T 04:06, 25 August 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)

it=handy4learnrs.. 17:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. RfV may still be appropriate. bd2412 T 00:31, 20 August 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)

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 [5], 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)

No consensus to delete after many months. bd2412 T 21:56, 28 August 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

First and third closed as no consensus to delete. It is not entirely clear whether there is a consensus to delete the second. bd2412 T 19:56, 9 August 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 [6] 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)


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)


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)

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)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
  • Weak delete: the definition is "to take the central part out" and the etymology is from เอา ‎(ao, “to take”) + ใจกลาง ‎(jai-glaang, “central part”) + ออก ‎(ɔ̀ɔk, “out”); thus seems to be a sum of parts. Thai does not use spaces to separate words. The nominator and Octahedron80 are native Thai speakers. I say weak delete since I know no Thai and am in no position to search for arguments that refute the stance just taken. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 15:43, 26 August 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)
Delete. It's just colored + person. It couldn't be more simple. Philmonte101 (talk) 09:46, 13 August 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)

Derived terms[edit]

I see sufficient consensus for deletion of the name sense, while retaining the "alternative form of city" sense. If the former is deleted, what (if anything) should be done about the following which are listed as "derived terms"?

SMUconlaw (talk) 20:31, 28 July 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)

So, has a consensus among Thai editors been reached? — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:36, 28 July 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): [7]. 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)

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)
    [8]. 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)

sigh-this+abuv=elpFULentryz(THAT=wotumakeDIC4!.. 17:28, 11 August 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)

Deleted. bd2412 T 04:07, 25 August 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)
Deleted; information moved to etymology section of writing on the wall. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:53, 18 August 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: [9]. — 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)

Since no one else is going to give an opinion, I agree to make it a redirect. The redirect must be linked specifically to the adjectival noun よう, not just the page よう. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:23, 19 August 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)
  • Keep this idiomatic sentence exists in English and its literal translation in French. I had heard that it came from the Siegfried legend as I've mentioned it in the article, but I can't find any serious reference for that today. JackPotte (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Soft is not essential, just commonly collocated with underbelly. Improve [[underbelly]] per Widsith. DCDuring TALK 14:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
    Would the "commonly collocated" part recommend a redirect? I mean, actually very commonly in this case, isn't it? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • There's a space in it, so someone who can't find "soft underbelly" will look up the two words separately anyway. They don't need a redirect to tell them what to try, and gain nothing much by being redirected to one of the two words from the composite phrase. Equinox 09:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
    A redirect implies this: we know that this is a lexical unit and here's where you can find out about it; the lack of a dedicated entry is not our omission but an intent. A redirect is user friendly: instead of implying "I won't help you, figure it out for yourself", it implies "here's where you can find the information you are looking for". Sure, too many redirects would seem to be a poor idea, like redirecting brown leaf to leaf, but for very common collocations, not so. This is very common per the ratio of only 5 in "underbelly,(soft underbelly*5)" for Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 15:59, 19 August 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)


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)


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)
  • Nelson's lists no hyoku reading.
WWWJDIC lists 16 characters with this reading, most of them rare. I don't have time at the moment to go through these and see if any are still in use, or, looking more deeply, if they've ever been used enough to meet CFI. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:53, 11 August 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)
Deleted. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:48, 18 August 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)

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)
Delete. What's next? British pronunciation? Philmonte101 (talk) 09:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, but a lot of terms link to these. Can someone run a bot to remove the links? — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
This should remove most of the links, though it make take a while to propagate to all affected entries. - -sche (discuss) 20:48, 18 August 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 [10]. 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)
Deleted. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:40, 18 August 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)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 21:35, 18 August 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)

Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
I feel the same way about this as about tron-, which see. Abstain. - -sche (discuss) 21:35, 18 August 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)

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)
Deleted. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:36, 18 August 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)
On closer thought, ajaa karille might be idiomatic, insofar as ajaa is otherwise not normally used of sailing.
For other others compare though what we already have under ajaa. Sense 3, "to drive, chase", with tiehensä already given as a collocation; sense 9, "to shave, cut, mow", with partansa already given as a collocation. --Tropylium (talk) 18:09, 26 August 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)
Deleted. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:30, 18 August 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)


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)
Deleted. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:28, 18 August 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)

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: [11]
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)

Kept as to both. bd2412 T 01:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Why on earth was this kept? I don't particularly like this decision. Has anyone modified the definition of do to "to wash", or "to complete"? It seems that "do the plates" also means "wash the plates". Philmonte101 (talk) 02:02, 10 August 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)
@Philmonte101: Given the opinions you've expressed in this discussion, could you either mark with {{delete}} or change every transcluded instance of {{passive present participle of|word|lang=da}} to {{inflection of|word||pasv|pres|part|lang=da}} in the mainspace entries listed at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:passive present participle of, please? That way, {{passive present participle of}} will be orphaned and then I can delete it. Thank you. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

July 2016[edit]

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)
    • Deleted according to the nomination. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:26, 18 August 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)


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)

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)
    You could RfD it, but I suspect that there is a much stronger case for keeping it. Eg, Some OneLook dictionaries (eg, Collins and WordNet) have intercontinental ballistic missile, but none have submarine-launched ballistic missile. DCDuring TALK 21:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • RFD failed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:50, 26 August 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)
The structure is similar to "have to". Should it go as well? --Hekaheka (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
User:MackyBlue11, it says "without the que" because our verb templates are not able to include other words than the verb. It would be better to link the conjugation to tener with: Conjugation of tener que: see tener. —Stephen (Talk) 00:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

sexual attraction[edit]

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

Deleted. bd2412 T 23:52, 9 August 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[12], 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[13], 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)
  • Keep. Probably the most common, perhaps the originator, of a class of similar phrases, as mentioned above. Makes sense to have at least one of them, and the first or most widespread would be my choice. P Aculeius (talk) 00:02, 28 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)
    • They are worthwhile since they are not word-for-word translations: The translator cannot figure them out by translating the single words of the English original and stringing the translations together. Thus, they embody translation knowledge. Therefore, a translator benefits from such an entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:18, 31 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)
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. Three European languages seem good enough for me to justify translation target. Our readers will benefit from these three, won't they? I can't imagine any reader being better served by finding no entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
The entry for radio-controlled already has téléguidé as a translation. Voiture téléguidée is no less SOP than radio-controlled car. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Maybe so, but you can't make the same point about Dutch autootje op afstandsbediening, and Swedish radiobil. And you have to question the accuracy of radio-controlled, which says that "remote-controlled" is a synonym, which is not obvious; remote-controlled could include infrared-controlled. Thus, French téléguidée is possibly inaccurate as a translation of radio-controlled. Swedish radiobil seems most resilient against any sort of argument like you brought. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
What I believe Dan is trying to say is that, since the term has several non-literal translations as well as one compound, then this is a good translation target, and the fact that those non-literal translations are non-literal means that SoP doesn't matter as much. I disagree; though it is a valid point, my point about many SoP English terms not being used as translation targets still stands. Some examples from Spanish: tener sueño and tener frío are not in Wiktionary, because it simply means "to be cold", or "to be sleepy". However, you can't just translate word for word to find those English translations. Literally, they translate to "to have sleepiness" or "to have coldness". But does that mean we should have entries for be cold or be sleepy just because of this? No, and we don't, or else someone would have made these entries by now. Also, if Spanish has phrases like these for "to be cold" or "to be sleepy", I am almost positive that at least some other languages have non-literal en->__ translations for these as well, especially other Romance ones. So, according to your point, if Wiktionary did this for every entry like this, we would have entries for be cold, be sleepy, be sad, kill a pig, cut down a tree, and a lot of other obviously SoP terms, and that would be silly. Philmonte101 (talk) 10:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
If all these terms you redlinked above were good translation targets, we could have them; I do not know whether they are. As for tener frío, I find it in bab.la[14], spanishdict.com[15] and nglish.com[16]. We do not have be cold, but we have I'm cold as an ersatz. By the standards of a monolingual dictionary, translation target entries may look silly, but from the standpoint of a multilingual translation dictionary, translation target entries make sense. For those who really despise translation target entries, we have a template that can be put on the definition line that says the entry exists only for translation; I don't really like the template but if it reduces the opposition to translation targets a bit, I am fine with it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I think the solution is to have a designated section of the dictionary for SOP collocations, exactly for that purpose. I strongly agree that we need to cover those better, but I really don't like using the mainspace to hold them all, since it clutters it up. It's a pity that that didn't go through last time it was tried, but perhaps a few years down the road we will have a collocations namespace, if we push for it.... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:05, 12 August 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)


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)

  • Keep: please show me the policy you are referring to or at least a discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
It was a question, not a statement. I don't see a policy on entries in Min Dong romanisation (Bàng-uâ-cê) because there is none. Google books searches only return words in Vietnamese such as "ngưỡng siêu" (similar basic forms but different diacritics), so it won't pass RFV. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I looked at 元宵. Do you mean to say that while Mandarin romanizations are allowed via a vote, Min Dong are not and therefore should be deleted? For the reader, Min Dong is a branch of the Min group of varieties of Chinese, believing WP. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes. The Chinese terms 元宵 (yuánxiāo) contains various transliterations for Chinese varieties, which categorise them appropriately.
Mandarin pinyin entry yuánxiāo is allowed by a vote and is required to be a soft redirect only, no definitions, etc. Chinese Min Nan entry goân-siau is also allowed. Its romanisation Pe̍h-ōe-jī (POJ) is attestable as alternative writing system. For Chinese, only Min Nan's POJ and Mandarin pinyin entries are allowed. Cantonese monosyllabic jyutping entries are also allowed for disambiguation - e.g. jyun4 and siu1. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Wyang (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:23, 25 August 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)
It sounds like this might pass by WT:JIFFY. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Except that there's no clear pattern in Google Books of "stoga boots" preceding "stogas". In fact, "stogas" is attested a few years earlier- but it's hard to determine whether any refer to "stoga boots" rather than "stoga shoes" ("stoga shoes" is attested earlier than "stoga boots"). There's also a reference to a boot and shoe factory that started out doing "stoga work", before diversifying. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
stoga boots does seem to be earlier: 1830 Mechanics Press (Utica, NY) 9 Jan. 66/3: In six days they crimped and made forty-five pairs of Stoga Boots. Reminding us that although the Google Books corpus is very strong on 19thC material, it cannot be always trusted to give us the whole picture. As for stoga work from 1850 - this is a hapax (pace my last point!) which I believe this just means work on making stogas (footwear); in any case it is 1850, so two decades after earliest attestation of stoga boots. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 02:30, 2 August 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)
  • RFD failed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:47, 26 August 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 constructively delete the nominated sense; 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)
  • Keep. This isn't like something most people have never heard of. It's a phrase probably everybody has heard and understands, even when introduced out of context or applied to something else. There aren't a ton of brand-related phrases like this, though there are some. The fact that "the Pepsi Challenge" is still familiar forty years later (although I'm pretty sure it was still used in Pepsi marketing during the 80's) is pretty strong evidence that it's elevated above a transient marketing collocation. P Aculeius (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Remember I was challenging the sense "A marketing promotion by Pepsi...". If it's "applied to something else", as you say, then that might be different. Equinox 00:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete the proper noun sense and make it the etymology of the noun sense. Keith the Koala (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Sense constructively deleted by conversion to etymology. I love it when a plan comes together. bd2412 T 15:53, 11 August 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)
  • Redirect the larger ones to an appendix, per my comment at the discussion of "one hundred and twelve, one hundred and eleven", above. bd2412 T 20:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete: 1) We cannot accept the lack of space between 1, 0, and 5 as indicating that this is not separate enough for WT:SOP: we would end up with a huge number of trivial entries for no appreciable benefit to the reader. 2) We could make an exception for this item and keep it to show translations for this and thus number word formation in various languages. But then, I would sooner make that exception on 101; we don't need all of 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, etc. Or keep one hundred and one and redirect 101 to it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 101 has a separate, idiomatic meaning. I would keep everything up to 101, and everything idiomatic above that (404, 411, 747, 911, etc.), and redirect anything not having such significance. bd2412 T 20:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
      • I agree with BD2412 here. Numbers under 100 should all be kept because (among other things) some languages (e.g. Hindi) have idiosyncratic terms for every one of them. Benwing2 (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
      • I don't see why we would want to redirect a large number of trivial digit sequences. But maybe it does not harm. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
        • I agree with Dan Polansky, I think the numerical sense of 105 and 101 and 1231238.324123 are SOP. And surely the question then becomes where do we stop, since there is an infinity of infinities of numbers, we could fill the world's entire computing space writing entries for all the numbers without even scratching the surface of their totality? If 105, why not 1005, and why not 10005, and so one. There doesn't seem any reason to prefer one over the other. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
          • We could limit ourselves to just "interesting numbers" (See w:1729_(number)), primes being a good start, and initially limit our numbers to approximately the number of subatomic particles in the universe, or perhaps the limit should initially be the number in the galaxy. DCDuring TALK 02:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
            • This may sound over the top to some, but aside from numbers that merit individual entries, I think that we should have an appendix on number formation and redirect the first one million numbers there. If a flagged bot makes the redirects, the operation won't affect any of us. bd2412 T 15:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Keep all numbers that are either prime, or contain a three in the hundreds position. Equinox 20:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: We do not need to entirely reinvent the wheel here, since Wikipedia has already done some of this work. The complete list of numerals included in Wikipedia as numerals (i.e., not as years or for some other cultural significance) is:
−1, 0, all whole numbers from 1 to 260, then 263, 269, 270, 273, 276, 277, 280, 284, 290, 300, 311, 313, 318, 353, 359, 360, 363, 365, 369, 384, 420, 440, 400, 495, 496, 500, 501, 512, 555, 593, 600, 613, 616, 620, 666, 700, 720, 743, 777, 786, 790, 800, 801, 836, 840, 880, 881, 888, 900, 911, 971, 999, 1000, 1001, 1024, 1089, 1093, 1138, 1289, 1458, 1510, 1701, 1728, 1729, 1987, 2000, 2520, 2875, 3000, 3511, 4000, 4104, 5000, 5040, 6000, 6174, 7000, 7744, 8000, 8128, 8192, 9000, 9999, 10000, 16807, 20000, 24601, 30000, 40000, 50000, 60000, 64079, 65535, 65536, 65537, 69105, 70000, 80000, 90000, 100000, 142857, 144000, 10000000, 100000000, 1,000,000,000, 2147483647, 4294967295, 9814072356, 9223372036854775807
If we apply fence-post theory, we can assume that there is some good reason for these numbers to be included in an encyclopedia, and perhaps this translates to a reason for their inclusion in a dictionary. bd2412 T 18:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete per Dan. - -sche (discuss) 20:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

today is a good day to die[edit]

While it's a nice quotation, and I like it, it's just literal. Refers to today being a good day to die. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. Neither of the definitions provided literally mean just the SOP. bd2412 T 12:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Abstain for the moment. But since no day is, literally, a 'good day' to die, I guess it needs explaining, so is okay as an entry. But I would think the defs need to be RFV'd. The second one seems unlikely to me. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. A familiar quotation, although attribution seems very tricky. According to Wikipedia's entry on "a good day to die", that phrase (without "today is") was actually attributed to Low Dog, a companion of Sitting Bull, in 1881. It was then used in Black Elk's autobiography in 1931. I also found some independent uses.
  • From an issue of the Trans-Communicator in 1927: "I thought either day out of the seven was a good day to die".
  • In 1974, James Cameron's Indian Summer (about India) claims that the phase was found in a book of essays by Anthony Burgess, attributing it to Pope John XXIII, who supposedly said that "any day was a good day to die."
  • At some point the phrase seems to have become associated with Crazy Horse, but the first hits I'm finding are from the 1970's. It was the title of a novel by Jim Harrison, reviewed in The New York Times on September 9, 1973, but from the description this probably is related to Crazy Horse.
  • In 1975, Stephen E. Ambrose, in Crazy Horse and Custer: The Parallel Lives of Two American Warriors, quotes Crazy Horse: "Ho-ka Hey! It is a good day to fight! It is a good day to die!", supposedly spoken on June 25, 1876. But from what I'm reading, this may be an embellishment, since Crazy Horse doesn't seem to have said it, and there seems to be the belief that "a good day to die" is a colorful but not literal translation of "Ho-ka Hey!"
I suspect, but don't know, that the exact wording, "today is a good day to die" may have been popularized, if not originated, by Star Trek: The Next Generation, where it was said, perhaps on several occasions, by Worf. I haven't figured out when the first occasion was, but as the program started in 1987, I'd guess the first time was in the earlier seasons, between 1987 and 1991. I found quotes of this and variations from later seasons, but I think that the first occasion was before that. Perhaps the scriptwriter was half-remembering a misattributed misquotation of Crazy Horse, perhaps not. It could have been thought of independently, and I haven't found any earlier exact quotations. P Aculeius (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Earliest I can find is 1961 https://books.google.com.au/books?id=iuiF0LaKThoC&q=%22today+is+a+good+day+to+die%22&dq=%22today+is+a+good+day+to+die%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUra2J45nOAhXMto8KHfp5AEsQ6AEIPjAG . But 1961 is a long time after 1876. And indeed the Wikipedia article says this attribution to Crazy Horse is inaccurate. But still, none of the results I looked at meant that one should live life to the fullest, or anything other than a bravado warcry. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect: to good day to die. I don't think we need anything longer than that. Purplebackpack89 23:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't that be a "move" rather than a redirect, since there's nothing there yet? bd2412 T 00:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
      • It be a move without deleting the redirect. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Today is a good day to keep! Philmonte101 (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Delete, unless proper quotes are provided. To me the "senses" look dubious. --Hekaheka (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016[edit]


Neither a common misspelling nor variant spelling. This spelling is not verifiable in any of the following references for Taiwanese Hokkien: MoE, Tw-Ch, Maryknoll, or Tai-nichi Dai Jiten. Possibly a one-off from one author in one publication. Hongthay (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

(copy pasted from the talk page of the article) I understand your concern of it being found only in one entry. But for me, the thing is that 闽南方言大词典 is the most, if not the most, comprehensive dictionary/reference on Hokkien/Min Nan. It mostly contains words used in Mainland China (specifically Quanzhou, Xiamen, and Zhangzhou) while also elaborating on district-specific dialects in the latter part. It also has a section of Taiwanese-specific words at the start and that's where I got 捏居帶. I understand that Taiwanese don't use these characters in this context, but in my opinion, I would say that 闽南方言大词典 is really in the Top 3, if not Top 1, of possible references for Min Nan. Considering how few super complete dictionaries are in Min Nan, this is like a Min Nan Bible. I dare say that it's the most complete. Therefore, I think we shouldn't ignore its contents, specifically, 捏居帶. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Of course we can't overlook its contents, but we can't regard it as an authority since actual character usage of Taiwanese loanwords from Japanese differs from it significantly. We need to have evidence from other places, or else it probably wouldn't pass CFI. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Let me explain my train of thought in a series of statements.
  1. If the word has a Chinese character equivalent, then there should be an entry for that, and if there are many ways, only one of them should be the main entry.
  2. Taiwan doesn't use any Chinese characters to transcribe this word.
  3. Although Taiwan doesn't use it, 闽南方言大词典 has a Chinese character equivalent for it.
  4. There's only one way to write it using Chinese characters, so 捏居帶 should be the main article for the Chinese character entry, while we can still keep the POJ entry, like always.
That's how I thought about it. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I still cannot see how this spelling meets WT:CFI, especially if, as you said, people don't actually use it. Taiwanese does not have a strong written tradition, and some of our POJ entries may not meet CFI either, but at least POJ is reliable for transcription of the spoken vernacular. Hongthay (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

r-karaokeMINANsonglyrixUSEhanzi(thoV.unstandardizd)4subtitles<owcanlearnrfigure'm outIFnotinDIC?(minan=MOSTLYspokn,sure81.11.219.175 18:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you mean we should look at KTV songs for lyrics/subtitles for guidance with Min Nan Hanzi. We could use them to "cite actual usage", "in the wild" (WT:WFW)...as long as we establish "proof of usage" and do not violate copyright. As to using 闽南方言大词典, I am concerned we may well be violating copyright (in addition to falling short on sources) if we use unique Hanzi spellings that author 周长楫 created. Hongthay (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

crash space[edit]

I just feel like this might be SoP. I could've sworn I've heard the word space being used in the sense of "a place" (rather than just "an empty place"), though it doesn't seem that Wiktionary has that definition yet.

Here's an example: "This is my space, man." ("This is my personal place [of any sort].") I think.

If anyone else noticed, it's User:Equinox's first ever contribution to Wiktionary. Not that it matters at all, just an interesting thing. That's how I found this in the first place. Philmonte101 (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


Neither a common misspelling nor variant spelling. This spelling is not verifiable in any of the following references for Taiwanese Hokkien: MoE, Tw-Ch, Maryknoll, or Tai-nichi Dai Jiten. Appears to be a one-off from one author in one publication. Refer to article talk page. Hongthay (talk) 04:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

(copy pasted from the talk page of the article) I understand your concern of it being found only in one entry. But for me, the thing is that 闽南方言大词典 is the most, if not the most, comprehensive dictionary/reference on Hokkien/Min Nan. It mostly contains words used in Mainland China (specifically Quanzhou, Xiamen, and Zhangzhou) while also elaborating on district-specific dialects in the latter part. It also has a section of Taiwanese-specific words at the start and that's where I got 米汝. I understand that Taiwanese don't use these characters in this context, but in my opinion, I would say that 闽南方言大词典 is really in the Top 3, if not Top 1, of possible references for Min Nan. Considering how few super complete dictionaries are in Min Nan, this is like a Min Nan Bible. I dare say that it's the most complete. Therefore, I think we shouldn't ignore its contents, specifically, 米汝. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

away from[edit]

away + from. Going through all of User:Osbri's edits now and seeing which ones we should take out. Philmonte101 (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, if this is to be deleted, we should also contact the Chinese Wiktionary about their allegedly SoP entry. Philmonte101 (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Why might it be deleted? Osbri (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2016
@ User:Osbri Hi. I appreciate your contributions here, as they seem to be in good faith. But you must keep in mind that in Wiktionary we generally don't allow SoP entries. Please see WT:SOP for more information, and I really suggest reading it before creating another entry that contains more than one word. I would have speedied this, but I wanted a community discussion since users like User:Dan Polansky may argue about it being a translation target, or another user might argue about people not being able to find the definitions at our entries for away and from. But since no such discussion has come up yet, this entry will probably be deleted when the one month period is over. My reasoning specifically for deletion is that people could say "away from" as well as saying "away to". They're both SOP, as you can find the definition at away and from, away and to. Philmonte101 (talk) 02:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I see now. Osbri (talk) 02:27, 13 August 2016
Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

behave towards[edit]

Seems as SoP as look towards or sit beside. Equinox 03:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Delete per ṅom. DCDuring TALK 05:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, transparent SOP. bd2412 T 15:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Strong delete - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Not a set phrase just a common verb followed immediately by a common preposition. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


Created by User:DTLHS. It was a move from chernozemic, which he converted into an alternative form entry. Some previous discussion can be found at Wiktionary:Tea_room/2016/August. To sum it up, though the majority of sources he found were used with the capital letter rather than the lowercase, I still think it's inappropriate to have an entry for it. I feel that this is an improper capitalization, and it happens a lot. As I said in the tea room, a lot, and I do mean a lot, of English speakers will capitalize common noun, adjective, or other POS words that they find complex, rare, or unique in some other way. This is nonstandard, however, and a misconception of what is supposed to and not supposed to be capitalized. I've seen this happen so much in all sorts of documents; on Wikipedia (especially), in books, essays, various websites and blogs, signs, and heck, it even happens here on Wiktionary definitions sometimes, in which case I try to change it so that it has the correct capitalization. It isn't more commonly done by "just some guy on a chat site or blog" either, I've seen this capitalization misconception done in so many professional documents by people of so many expertise levels, so this chemistry-related documentation case doesn't surprise me. What I'm telling you right now is what seems to be happening here at the sources that use "Chernozemic" rather than "chernozemic" which I believe would be the proper capitalization, since chernozem is not supposed to be capitalized at all, especially since it's not an eponym. I find this case interesting, since it doesn't seem to happen here often, and I feel like we should make some further guidelines on the capitalization policies as a result of this discussion. Philmonte101 (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

This is not a reason for deletion. You can clearly see the widespread use of the capitalized form. We're not in the business of saying what is and isn't nonstandard. DTLHS (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
So, giving a hypothetical situation, should I add Lexicon as an entry, for example? Since this term has, I can almost guarantee without even looking, been improperly capitalized many times in the past in many documents. If I dig around enough, I could find 3 sources and add them, so it would be verifiable. But do we really need this kind of thing here? It's not proper English. You can find hundreds if not thousands of documents and webpages online that tell when it is and isn't appropriate to capitalize English words. I'd say, in the case of a common adjective that is not based on an eponym, that it is not appropriate to capitalize. Philmonte101 (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
On another note, you could say somewhere on the existing chernozemic entry that it is more often seen to be improperly capitalized. I feel like that would be appropriate. Philmonte101 (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you can find citations of Lexicon being used in the manner you described. And if you can I would consider it worth having an entry since it seems unusual. DTLHS (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
And writers commonly capitalized common nouns before the 19th century, so modern citations please. DTLHS (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm. I'm not retracting my claim about Lexicon, but I'm just saying that maybe I gave a bad example, since the word lexicon is in much more common use than chernozemic. However, I'll add in another example. I'll see what I can find with these too. Antiliberal, Technophobia. Since these seem to be just a little bit less common, so people would consider them more exotic and have the urge to capitalize them. Perhaps I should look at some old entries I created for rare words as well. I remember a lot of sources improperly capitalized those words, so I feel it would be inappropriate to have an entry for those at all.
What I'm trying to say here is that if we included these improper capitalizations in Wiktionary even as "miscapitalization entries", then we would have tens of thousands of miscapitalization entries for the (estimated, not backed up by anything) estimated tens of thousands of rare words added here. One could even say the same thing as User:Equinox said about typo entries; "ridiculous clutter in a dictionary." Sorry to be so frank. Philmonte101 (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
So I'm going on a dumpster dive through Books, Groups, and News documents for modern uses of Lexicon, Technophobia, and Antiliberal, and capitalized forms of entries I've created in the past. I'll try to especially find ones that are used in the way I said rather than as parts of proper nouns. Be back in a few hours, likely, or maybe tomorrow! Philmonte101 (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I've decided that, since it will make a lot of clutter here on this discussion, I'm going to put my usage examples all on User:Philmonte101/Improper capitalizations, collectively, so check back there from time to time. Philmonte101 (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@ User:DTLHS and anyone else who wants to comment, I've thrown in the towel for the night on User:Philmonte101/Improper capitalizations. You might wanna look these usages over, even though all except one example was from Groups. I'll probably add more examples later as I find them, but it drives my point to the ground about miscapitalizations being used for a great variety of terms; in the context of animals, mechanics, careers, medicine, etc. I found only one so far that is definitely attested (under our current miscapitalization entry standards); Chickadee. And that's unfortunate because that's one of my favorite words. Once I find enough examples of words used this way under our current standards, I should probably bring this up in BP. But for now, it's not enough for that. Although, it does give you a great view on common miscapitalizations and why they probably should or shouldn't be here as entries. Philmonte101 (talk) 02:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
It is cool that you tried to do some research but your reasoning about what you found seems to be totally arbitrary and made up. I don't think your page proves anything. Equinox 20:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
What is "made up" about it? I give example quotations; those are 100% real. All I did was give my personal comments on them; those aren't what you should be relying on. The quotations themselves are more important than my own comments. In other words, I'm asking what the community's interpretations on quotations such as these are? What do you think about them? Philmonte101 (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
You suggest that miscapping is a result of (i) copying a book title or (ii) some kind of typo or error, or (iii) things you're "not sure" about. You don't seem to address the idea that there is a difference in register between informal Usenet slang, possibly typed in a hurry, and technical books about soil science. If I had to come up with a random hunch, I would think that perhaps some people are under the mistaken impression that "Chernozem" is a place or a person, and therefore "chernozemic" needs capping like "Parisian" or "Einsteinian". But that guess would offer no more evidence of any kind than you have. Equinox 20:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
In particular, bear in mind that scientific and academic texts are usually proof-read by editors in a way that Usenet postings are not. Equinox 20:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I found a quotation from 1944 that suggests there is a "Chernozemic region". DTLHS (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
It looks to me like they're talking about a region that is chernozemic, not to a specific entity called "Chernozemic" or "Chernozeme" or whatnot. But good find. Philmonte101 (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't know, I've seen miscapitalizations of industrialization in my history textbook that I had a few months ago. And "Industrialization" was in two places at least in that book, I remember it clear and well. (If only the textbook were archived somewhere online where it could be viewed by anyone or if I had it on hand I could take a picture and show you on imgur). Plus, I gave an example from a video game manual, which was, as I'd say, supposed to have been proofread. They capitalized medical terms that don't need to be capitalized, and literally started capitalizing every word after the commas.
Why did I scratch that out? Well it seems that that is actually an okay thing to capitalize in some senses, since it was described as "the Industrialization era". Historical eras are generally capitalized. I retract my claim about Industrializaton. Philmonte101 (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay in that case, since I haven't driven my point across, I'm going to do some Wikipedia-like research, and write an essay/article for you on my user namespace with references from external sources about capitalization standards in the English language. I'm telling you guys, there are standards for capitalization, at least that many would agree upon, and I'm gonna get to the bottom of this. Once I find enough examples of miscapitalization, and complete the essay, I'm bringing this issue up in BP. You can find my essay later at User:Philmonte101/English capitalization standards. Philmonte101 (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@Philmonte101 I think I know what's going on now. "Chernozemic" capitalized is the name of an "order" of soils (page 3), analogous to a biological taxonomic order. That's why it's capitalized. DTLHS (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
@DTLHS Okay. That's very good, and very informative. I'd originally thought that this was a miscapitalization such as ones you find in manuals, like falsely capitalizing disorders such as tendonitis. Is it okay to take off the deletion tag now? (Though I still think we should discuss further the issue of miscapitalizations on Wiktionary, preferably on BP) But if there's a standard of capitalizing this adjective to distinguish it from the uncapitalized form, I think it should be kept. Philmonte101 (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


Only 彷彿 or 仿佛, not 彷佛. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

We seem to be getting Chinese entries for deletion every day. Is there a particular user or group of users who are making these SoP entries? Shouldn't we warn them on their talk page or something to stop doing this? I don't know the situation, I'm just asking. Philmonte101 (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
This particular one is not SOP. The two above aren't SOP either. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Then did you mean to take this to RFV, rather than RFD? —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 16:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe that's more appropriate. Here. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • There are hits on the Chinese Text Project, have you seen them? ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

agglutinative language[edit]

The definition is nonsense, and even if it weren't, I think this is just agglutinative + language. Pedrianaplant (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Delete. I've replaced the nonsense definition with an accurate definition, but the accurate definition is SOP. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Kind of, yes, but "sticky language" would make no sense and the relevant sense of "agglutinative" has the "linguistics" label attached. Thus, delete. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete. There's a difference between a semantic association between two words and their being lexically a compound: one can talk about agglutinative morphology, or about how Proto-Indo-European was more agglutinative than most of its descendants, or about how Turkish is agglutinative, but Chinese isn't. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete. "That language is agglutinative". Same meaning; components separated. Equinox 10:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
What about "keep it up" and keep up, where components can be separated? In fact, the possibility of separation is typical of the talk:free variable items. But many are not convinced by the free variable argument. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I see the phrasal/prepositional verb area as quite a different area from the attributive/predicative adjective distinction. Equinox 16:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. But let me still point out that the separability and attributive-predicative convertibility of the adjective component are typical of talk:free variable items (see there) such as algebraic number, bound variable, or imaginary number. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Straightforward delete. Topically interesting but lexical not so. Agglutinative not only or mainly used with language so that's not a defence either. It's more like green grass than imaginary number. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete; the linguistic sense of agglutinative is not limited to this phrase and can be found also in environments such as "agglutinative suffix", "agglutinative character", "agglutinative derivation"… --Tropylium (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete: there is nothing to this other than agglutinative + language, literally. The literal definition is "a language that is agglutinative". Lmao. Philmonte101 (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to add a few more:

agglutinierende Sprache[edit]

German. A translation of the term. Seems to be the same deal, doesn't have any meaning other than "a language that is agglutinative". Philmonte101 (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

eklemeli dil[edit]

Turkish. Same as above. Philmonte101 (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

.htaccess file[edit]

A .htaccess file is a file called ".htaccess". Anything beyond that is encyclopedic information and not inherent to the meaning of the term. An EXE file typically denotes an executable and a TXT file stands for plain-text data, but we don't have EXE file or TXT file (or even EXE or TXT). -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 08:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox 08:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete per nom: sum of parts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete. In fact, I'd say this one should be a speedy, but I guess a discussion still has its benefits. Philmonte101 (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

mentally retarded[edit]

The definition is more or less verbatim quoted from retarded. Does mentally retarded mean anything beyond mentally + retarded? -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I would oppose a request for deletion. Mental retardation is a very notable and important mental disability, like dyscalculia, dyslexia and autism. So it has a noteworthy, particular meaning. So I think we should keep the entry. RandomScholar30 (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
We're not talking about mental retardation though. That might indeed be a set phrase, but the same can't be said about mentally retarded. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Mentally retarded would be a set adjective to describe a person with the condition, just like autistic, dyscalculic and dyslexic are adjective describing people with those mental disabilities. RandomScholar30 (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The two terms have very different meanings and uses and styles. Retarded is offensive, whereas mentally retarded is still widely used, and even by professionals, although there are efforts to replace it with intellectually disabled. --Espoo (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Isn't that by itself a reason to keep? If the adjectival form of a noun means something very different from the noun? bd2412 T 20:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, definitely keep. --Espoo (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
It tends to be used just as an insult where there's no hint of mental retardation. Hence, keep the literal sense along with it to avoid confusion (or else people will think it doesn't mean [[mentally]] [[retarded]]). Renard Migrant (talk) 11:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. A technical term with a specific definition. I believe the non-technical use of "retarded" to mean "mentally retarded" is a later development. P Aculeius (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. As per the previous editor, it is a "technical term with a specific definition". Historically, it was effectively the only such term available for professional use for several decades in the middle of the last century, at a time when the previously correct technical term idiot had become seen as too offensive to use. yoyo (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


I'm pretty sure the definition is totally wrong, but in any case, this is not a set phrase by any means. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Delete I wish we could set it up so anyone who tries to use that "Wortschatz-Lexikon" as a source gets an electric shock... Chuck Entz (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
My German is not good, but if (as it appears) this is an everyday SoP construct like two-litre bottle or five-bedroom house, then delete. Equinox 09:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes. The problem is the reference cited: it uses an automated process to assemble frequent collocations and presents them as if they were terms in a dictionary. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Instead of giving users an electric shock :) could a bot automatically produce a message on their user page warning them that many or most of the entries in that lexicon do not belong in Wiktionary? Going thru such new entries and deciding which to delete is much more work. I wrote a warning on the user page of the creator of this entry and the one below.
Is there an automated way of finding which entries an editor created using that lexicon? If someone created one nonsense entry like this, they're likely to have created many of them if no one warned them when they started. --Espoo (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
We could, obviously, set up a filter that would warn users who tried to add entries citing that dictionary, and tag the additions... - -sche (discuss) 00:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


SOP Chuck Entz (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't we usually consider compounds joined by a hyphen to be single words? Surely this is no more SOP than above-water, battery-powered, or bear-whelp. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
No, we don't. Those hyphenated entries that are there are either 1. idiomatic or 2. can stay because of COALMINE. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
German spelling uses hyphens differently and can even make do without them. In any case, Vierzylinderbenziner and Vierzylinder-Benziner have as little right to entries as four-cylinder gasoline motor and four-cylinder gasoline car and as three-bedroom house, four-bedroom house... three-bedroom apartment... etc. --Espoo (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
If Vierzylinderbenziner is attestable, it unambiguously meets CFI (as compounds written together are always considered single words) and should be included, and if it's less common than the hyphenated version, then Vierzylinder-Benziner is also to be kept by COALMINE. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
P.S. I can find Vierzylinderbenziner without a hyphen in the online versions of several print newspapers. Presumably the print editions use the same spelling, making it attested in permanently archived sources. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Then we obviously need to change the CFI for German because otherwise we'd end up with many more German than English entries. In the CFI, we need to take into account that different languages have different writing systems. It's obvious that it makes no sense to include concepts in one language that are obviously excluded in others. I don't see anyone suggesting we start adding entries for four-cylinder motor and four-bedroom house. --Espoo (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I see no problem in having many more German entries than English entries. We aren't paper. We are a dictionary of words, not of concepts, which is why we allow entries like schweigen but not be silent. If German has many more words than English, so be it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
The whole point is that German obviously doesn't have many more words than English, so the current CFI's definition of what is a word is badly designed and too much based on English to be useful for a global dictionary. More specifically, it's obvious that a rule that would allow 8 or even more entries in any language for the expressions one-bedroom apartment, two-bedroom apartment, etc. would simply be a bad idea because it would cause completely unmanageable amounts of articles that need to be maintained.
These expressions and an almost unlimited number of similar groups exist in all languages irrespective of whether they are written with spaces or hyphens or nothing between the parts, and they all need to be banned.
I just checked and the German Wiktionary only has Ein- and Zweizimmerwohnung but not Dreizimmmerwohnung etc. The current CFI would produce an unmanageable and almost unimaginable flood of German words if anyone started to automate the creation of new lemmas. --Espoo (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Note that Zimmer has a specific meaning in this context; it counts bedrooms and living rooms but not e. g. kitchens or bathrooms. That should be mentioned somewhere. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 10:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
The number of entries our policies might permit simply isn't an issue. There is no maximum permissible number of German entries at Wiktionary. CFI won't allow one-bedroom apartment because it's not one word, it's either two (one-bedroom + apartment) or three (one + bedroom + apartment), but it will allow Zweizimmerwohnung because that's one word. (It is not immediately relevant to this discussion, but nevertheless interesting for an English speaker encountering German, to know that Zweizimmerwohnung means "one-bedroom apartment", not "two-bedroom apartment".) The only limit CFI puts on the German words is attestability: if we can't find three independent cites in durably archived sources for Neunzehnzimmerwohnung, we're not going to include it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
The number of entries CFI permits is most definitely an issue because an unmanageable flood of entries would make it impossible to ensure the quality of Wiktionary. There would simply be too many terms at some point for the number of editors to ensure that large amounts of low-quality or incorrect information is not added and to make it possible to maintain the quality of such a large number of entries in case a similar change or improvement needs to be implemented in all of the variants of a term like <N>zimmerwohnung.
So the problem is not Neunzimmerwohnung or other extremely rare variants but the large number of similar groups of multipart terms with "only" rare or trivial variants.
Just like "high school" and most other compound nouns in English, "one-bedroom apartment" is most definitely one word. It's simply a convention in English to write compound modifiers together or with a hyphen and to write compound nouns in parts separated by spaces. "High school" is a concept whereas "big school" is not. If it became a concept, it should obviously not be a CFI whether or not the name for this possible new school type is written "big school" or "big-school" or "bigschool". --Espoo (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I think we're going about this backwards. We should first determine if an unhyphenated form meets CFI; if so, we should include it and include the hyphenated form if it also meets CFI. By using CFI-worthiness as a throttle, we can substantially limit the introduction of these terms. bd2412 T 19:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
There's actually no protection for single words in WT:CFI anyway, we just never delete them if they exist. Hyphen forms are generally a gray area but are I think rejected by most as always being single words. Faster-than-light for example, in my opinion, is not a 'single word' just several words linked by hyphens. It's one of the functions of a hyphen. Widsith always maintains that the OED considers all hyphen forms to be single words, but I've literally asked him about 20 times for supporting evidence and he's never produced any. Which makes me think he might have simply misremembered. He could have read whatever it was 30 years ago for all we know. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

trivialism Sense 2[edit]

Sense 2 of trivialism: 'The theory that every proposition and its negation is true.' I don't think this sense of the word is ever used except by a few crackpot ivory tower philosophers. Since there are no trivialists, I don't think it is a topic discussed often, its not even refuted often because nobody believes in the idea anyway. I believe this is a very rare use of the word. RandomScholar30 (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

This should be an WT:RFV, not an RFD; but I've just added three citations to ensure it would pass. Equinox 15:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
P.S. There are no unicorns either, but that isn't an argument against having the entry! Equinox 15:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Keep per nomination and Equinox. Rareness isn't a reason to exclude something unless it's so rare it can't be shown to exist. And this can. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


A virtually never occurring spelling of זרתוסטרא. The creator also seems to be confused regarding Hebrew transliteration and created erroneous entries before, which makes me doubt their proficiency in Hebrew. — Kleio (t · c) 14:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

This would be better off at WT:RFV. --WikiTiki89 02:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Not if it's a rare misspelling. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Look at the entry I rfded below, and at the "IPA" they added to Mandaeism (for that matter, look at every entry they've edited)- when it comes to confusion, they're quite multitalented... Chuck Entz (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

ethnic religion[edit]

The current definition is:

  1. A religion that appeals primarily to a specific group of people from a specific place, compared to a universalizing religion which attempts to appeal to a wide number of people throughout the world.

It looks to me like a more accurate definition would boil down to ethnic (sense 1) + religion. If we keep it, the definition needs to be fixed. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I have cleaned up the definition, but it still looks like sum-of-parts to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Unless it has a specialised meaning amongst say theologists it seems SoP to me. — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 18:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete per all. Unless we're missing something (and nobody's saying that we are) it's just a religion that's ethnic. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

azoxy compound[edit]

azoxy + compound DTLHS (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

  • True, but it (or its plural) seems to be the normal lemma in chemical dictionaries e.g. [17]. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Yankee spelling[edit]

I presume this is as unidiomatic as American spelling was judged to be. - -sche (discuss) 21:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

  • There's something about that makes me think it is less so, but not enough to object to deletion. bd2412 T 15:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
But then why is no sense of Yankee glossed as derogatory? Equinox 17:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps some sense should be labelled pejorative; at a minimum, the entry should note that Yankee is more informal than American. Does a word have to be pejorative on its own in order for some constructions using it to be pejorative, though? No sense of "transgender" or "agenda" is labelled as derogatory, but "transgender agenda" has been meant and received as derogatory in every instance I've seen, and the sense of "gay" used in "gay agenda" is also not inherently derogatory, but the full phrase is derogatory (and both are SOP, IMO). For another example, "foreign" and "worker" are not labelled as derogatory, but referring to "foreign workers" rather than another synonym is controversial / pejorative in Germany (including in English-language media). Also, I suspect "Yankee spelling" is not always pejorative, but is only sometimes pejorative in the same way that "Yankee" is only sometimes pejorative. - -sche (discuss) 18:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
To accuse someone of an "agenda" (when it's really probably just a set of opinions) is more semantically than lexically derogatory. People don't get accused of making rulings. Equinox 21:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Bosman ruling[edit]

Name of a court decision. Not dictionary material. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 11:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hm, not sure. The first comparable thing I thought of was Anton Piller order, but that is a countable type of thing (and so are e.g. Elvis sandwich and Kanye glasses), whereas this is one specific historical ruling. Equinox 12:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I recently considered adding entries for Roe, Plessy and other major US court cases that are often mentioned by only one word in sentences about e.g. women dying "pre-Roe" / "before Roe", on the basis that such sentences are opaque without an understanding of what "Roe" means. However, I decided against it because even in cases where the word wasn't followed by "ruling" or "case" or "decision" to make clear that it was a ruling, it was almost always still italicized (unless the book was e.g. typewritten and had no italics at all), another way of making clear that it was the name of a thing that might need to be looked up in an encyclopedia of books etc rather than in a dictionary that appropriately covers Roe (and should cover Plessy) only as a surname. Here, I think "ruling" makes clear that this is a court or other body's ruling that should be looked up in an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. So, delete. "Bosman transfer" has a better claim to being idiomatic. - -sche (discuss) 15:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Or even just "Bosman" - the phrase "on a Bosman" is in use, e.g. [18][19]. Keith the Koala (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Bosman may or may not merit an entry but we shouldn't decide about this entry based on that one. Equinox 16:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
There are plenty of usages of this term. We should keep it. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
On further consideration, delete: discussing "the Bosman ruling" seems like talking about "the Johnson book" or "the Smith paper", a particular textbook etc. known from more or less immediate context. Equinox 09:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
It would seem to me to be like Chilcot enquiry (WP) where of course the person's name isn't going to tell you anything about what it is. But it's not an English idiom. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was thinking this might be like "an Alford plea", but I can not find enough references to "a Bosman ruling" to justify an entry. bd2412 T 14:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


SOP --YURi (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

delete --Octahedron80 (talk) 07:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


Discussion moved to WT:RFV#swind.

good law[edit]

Maybe this is a term of art, but it looks to me like it's SOP. I can see this construction applied with other modifiers: bad law, better law, worse law. It may be that we need to improve the definitions at good or law to cover this usage: this seems to hinge on an uncountable sense of law. Not that it's unique to law: other disciplines can be referred to similarly- good writing, good acting, good lexicography. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

If there's a legal definition of good (or any definition for that matter) that means 'still valid' then you have a point. The definition isn't 'a law which is positive and beneficial' but 'a law that's still valid' which is completely different. This is a clear keeper. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I can't see any usage of this term with this meaning. If OK, why should it be uncountable? SemperBlotto (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
As a law academic, I'd say that good law and bad law are terms in use in legal circles. Perhaps we should add to good the sense of "valid". I note that we have the sense "useful for a particular purpose; functional" (with the example "the flashlight batteries are still good"), which is rather close in meaning. Perhaps it can be expanded to include the "valid" sense? Apart from good law, this sense of good arises in other contexts, such as "these coupons are still good" (they haven't expired yet, so are still valid). — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Keep. See, e.g., David Hricik, Law School Basics: A Preview of Law School and Legal Reasoning (2016), p. 100: "Verify that your cases are good law". If a citation is valid, it is good law. If fifty citations are valid, they are good law.
Further examples:
  • Suzan D. Herskowitz, ‎James E. Duggan, Legal Research Made Easy (2005), p. 96: "How can you be sure that these cases are good law? How do you know that these cases have not been overruled or reversed?"
  • Warner v. Sickles, (Ohio), Wright, J., in ‎John Crafts Wright, Reports of Cases at Law and in Chancery: Decided by the Supreme Court of Ohio (1835), p. 82: "Both cases are good law, and if here, the husband were dead, and the title remained in the wife, and the bond was sought to be enforced against her, it would be held invalid".
Cheers! bd2412 T 16:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
To modify Renard's example, I think good law may be uncountable because the term doesn't mean "a law which is positive and beneficial" but "law [in the uncountable sense] that is still valid". Roe v. Wade is still good law (not a good law) as it has not been overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
This certainly seems SOP, using the uncountable sense of "law" (also used in e.g. "...is settled law") and a sense of "good" that is also seen in the example above of "the coupons are still good", and (from Google Books) "it is still good dogma that the leadership should not merely hold onto the coattails of society but must...", "it is still good principle to use a pattern in dress rehearsal before cutting flaps in reconstructive rhinoplasty or anywhere else". - -sche (discuss) 20:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a distinction between "settled law" and "good law" - "settled law" generally refers to a principle (e.g., it is settled law that you can't walk up to a stranger in the street and punch them for no reason"), whereas "good law" generally refers to a specific statute or precedential case. A specific case can be good law in an area that is not at all settled, a circumstance exemplified by the fact that two cases offering conflicting outcomes can both be good law. There is also an issue of lack of antonyms. Law that is not "good law" in the sense of the definition is generally not called "bad law"; it is referred to as being "not good law" or, even more frequently, "no longer good law". bd2412 T 13:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, this nomination makes no sense. "Good law" does not mean "a law that is good" (the sum of its parts), it means law that is "current and still applicable" (to use the reference's terminology), as opposed to that which has been overturned or otherwise invalidated. Please read the definition before nominating for deletion next time. Augurar (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @Augurar: please read the discussion before accusing others next time. :-p You'll notice that we did read the definition, and found that the relevant senses of "good" and "law" are commonly used elsewhere, e.g. "the coupons are still good", "settled law". - -sche (discuss) 20:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
The OP's examples ("better law", "good writing") are unrelated to the phrase "good law" in the legal sense. But as you say, the discussion has raised some more coherent objections which need addressing. This passes the WT:SOP test because "its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components". I would compare this to phrases like legal tender, statutory rape, etc., in that its meaning is derived from its constituent parts, but when used in a legal context it has a more precise and specific meaning worthy of its own entry. Augurar (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
See also the "prior knowledge" test Augurar (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Keep. It doesn't seem to be SOP, not least because it is used without an article, which seems to indicate that it is a single unit, not two used in conjunction with each other. In other words, I don't think it is simply "a law that is good" because one would then expect it to occur as "a good law." Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I am forgetting, however, that the verb "to be" which precedes "good law" in all the above examples may be copulative. My first impression remains the same, however. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't agree that there's a sense of good that covers this; coupons that are still 'good' are good in a different sense, for one thing that sense of 'good' only ever seems to be used after 'to be'. 'Those coupons are still good' is ok, 'those are good coupons' is not. Even not taking that into account, it's a slightly different sense of 'good' that the one in the entry good. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
But isn't good law also invariably preceded by a form of to be as well? See the quotations mentioned by BD2412 above. The common sense seems to be "functional; in force, valid". — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
That's not what I meant (I do see the ambiguity though). I was contrasting 'the coupons are good' and 'the good coupons'. 'Good' to be mean valid does not come BEFORE the noun, but with good law it does. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: The phrase does not necessarily follow a "to be" verb; e.g.: Stanley Chodorow, ‎Hans Wilhelm Gatzke, ‎Conrad Schirokauer, A History of the World (1986), Volume 1, page 221: "Judges were often stymied in settling cases because both parties could cite good law"; Practicing Law Institute, Tax Strategies for Corporate Acquisitions, Dispositions, Financings, Joint Ventures, Reorganizations, and Restructurings (1999), Volume 11, page 971: "It has been strongly suggested, however, that the cited cases may no longer reflect good law, particularly when considered in light of the 1984 changes to Section 707(a) governing certain transactions between a partner and a partnership". bd2412 T 21:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Last Prophet[edit]

Isn't this just a SOP description of Muhammad as (according to Muslim belief) the last prophet? In addition to being described as the last prophet (or with honorific caps, the Last Prophet) he is also described as the final prophet / Final Prophet (google books:"Final Prophet" Muhammad), the ultimate prophet, "the last and final Prophet", etc. I can also find him and other religious figures referred to by many other SOP descriptors, e.g. "[the] Holy One". - -sche (discuss) 21:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. Do Jews use this phrase, capitalized, for Malachi? Do Christians use it for Jesus or John the Apostle? If so, then I think it should probably be deleted. If not, then it might have some claim to idiomaticity because it only applies to the Muslim last prophet. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
The idea of one last prophet who will be followed by no other is peculiar to Islam. That doesn't mean it can't be SOP. I can come up with lots of snippets from Christian religious texts that would be unambiguous references to any Christian but meaningless to anyone unfamiliar with Christianity: "the baby in the manger", "the man who walked on water", "the man who turned water into wine". Of course, that doesn't rule out idiomaticity, either- it just means you can't use it as a shortcut to avoid all the regular tests. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@User:Chuck Entz Some branches of Christianity refer to Jesus as "the last prophet". Not that I'm any religion at all, but I've been dragged to several different churches in my life, and I know I've heard this used before in the Christian sense. Still SOP, not to mention that it is Islamocentric, and doesn't abide by our guidelines of general neutrality, so even if it were to stay, it needs a better definition. Delete. Philmonte101 (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any POV problem. The context is labeled as "Islam", so we know it's not in general use with that definition. Simply describing usage isn't POV: it's only when we get into slanting that description one way or the other, or when we give usage pertaining to one view of a religion disproportionately more or less coverage that we get into trouble.
Notice I said "disproportionately". Simply treating all religions exactly the same gives undue weight to minor religions that the vast majority of English speakers have never heard of, let alone talked about, or even to major religions such as Islam that most English speakers are ignorant about. Historically, most English speakers have been Christians, so there's more usage of terms typical of Christianity- to be neutral, we have to reflect that when describing usage. This is something Pass a Method just couldn't comprehend: making up terms to fill in gaps in usage isn't being even-handed- it's fraud perpetrated to advance an agenda.
That's not to say we shouldn't cover what usage there is by adherents of all religions- just not disproportionately. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

thank you so much[edit]

thank you + so much

thank you very much (the literal sense)[edit]

thank you + very much

thank you so very much[edit]

thank you + so + very much

There's a lot/a bunch/a ton/a million/loads/heaps/much/so much/very much/so very much more, but let's start with these. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Strong keep for thank you very much — we need it to host translations! I abstain re the others, as I have no problem with deleting them but see no reason to do so. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

multiple o's[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm... There's currently no "orgasm" definition at o#English. Therefore, if this term is the main or only expression used to refer to orgasms using "o's", then we should keep it as idiomatic and slang. Otherwise, we should extend the definition of o to cover the orgasm sense. Philmonte101 (talk) 02:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as SOP and add a sense to o. This can be used with any adjective modifying the noun - big o's, little o's, noisy o's, quiet o's, crazy o's. bd2412 T 04:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Please be careful with "big-O" and "little-o" (sometimes without hyphens) as these are technical mathematical terms: big-O notation describing the orders of magnitude of measurable quantities, and little-o notation something similar (I forget the details of that, having last encountered it decades ago ...). In this sense, "big O" is definitely more than the Sum of its Parts ("SoP"). yoyo (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
We have big O notation. Equinox 13:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


you wouldnt delete god

I fixed it, but it should really be an alternative form of air hose. Siuenti (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
why are you deleting god
We are trying to make something useful. Siuenti (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
god is useful
god, see? Not deleted. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
not god. i am god
  • Siuenti is correct, an alternative form of air hose would be better. This was struck too soon (undone). DonnanZ (talk) 10:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    If you don't want to delete it completely just edit it as you see fit. Siuenti (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
It was struck out because as far as I'm aware, nothing's being nominated for deletion. IP it saying "you wouldn't delete god" (and the entry nominated is airhose, not god). Renard Migrant (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy closed as kept; the nomination is trolling. bd2412 T 19:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

To justify BD's comment: the IP who kept complaining also created four or five totally ridiculous joke entries before I had to block him/her. They were quite funny. Equinox 02:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Great, thanks for that, it saves me a job... DonnanZ (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

raw data[edit]

Question: did this previously fail RFD? There's nothing on the talk page, but if you look at the history you can see that Msh210 RFDed it some years ago. Equinox 15:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Seems to have been speedied: [20] Keith the Koala (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay. I'll nominate as SoP, as in "raw numbers", "raw figures", "raw file". Equinox 16:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I didn't know what raw data is. Keep. DonnanZ (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep This is IT & statistic jargon. For Thai would be ข้อมูลดิบ. [21] --Octahedron80 (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

It is claiming to be SoP. "Coined in the 1910s, from raw ‎(“unprocessed”) +‎ data." Then the definition "Data that has not been analyzed or processed." raw backs this up therefore I'm going to believe it and say delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Delete per Renard Migrant. As an IT worker for many years - even before it was called IT! - I acknowledge that the phrase was in common use, but required no special definition, since we all knew that our task involved (either Automatic or Electronic) data processing, whence the once-common contractions ADP and EDP for the field now known as information technology - "IT". "Raw data" is purely SoP: the Sum of its Parts. Only in jest could its antonym be "cooked data"! As for the statement by DonnanZ that they "didn't know what raw data is", why is that pertinent? Since the meaning of "raw data" can be ascertained using raw + data, we don't need a head entry for it; tho' it could still be used to exemplify the "unprocessed" sense of raw. yoyo (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

propaganda war[edit]

SOP. See sense #3 at war (any conflict). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. Entry created at 19.37, RFD applied at 19.41. This seems to be a knee-jerk reaction. DonnanZ (talk) 08:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    I don't see the relevance, I managed to read the entry in a few seconds so if anything why did it take Metaknowledge so long? It's clear a delete, it is a war of propaganda and all the discussion in world isn't going to change that. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    My internet was being slow. And DonnanZ, you don't seem to know what a knee-jerk reaction is. It's not about it being fast, it's about it being without thought or reasoning — like your knee-jerk vote for your own entry without considering that it's clear SOP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I will treat that comment with the contempt it deserves. DonnanZ (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Why does it say "as opposed to war propaganda"? The two phrases evidently have different grammatical heads. Equinox 14:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Obviously that should go as not part of the definition. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
If you don't like the wording, by all means change it (like you normally do). DonnanZ (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done ;) Equinox 02:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

lots of[edit]

Redirect to lotsa. It's SOP. Why would one think that most people who searched "lots of" would want to get lotsa? Actually, I was looking to see if lots of had an idiomatic meaning of some sort. It's totally SOP too, and doesn't merit an entry at all. The entry for lotsa itself even separates lots from of in its contraction template. Delete. Philmonte101 (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

This is obviously related to the lot of ("all") and a lot. Ostensibly our first sense of lot#Noun covers this. In that sense, though, it is a funny noun, not accepting most adjectives (or attributive nouns). I think it does not normally accept anything other than intensifiers like great and fucking. The existence of lotsa, lotta, and alot suggests that many speakers don't think of this as a noun. I think the purported synomyms (load, pile, mass), which are only a subset of all the words (eg, ton, heap, ocean) that can be used to quantify uncountable (and countable?) nouns retain more noun characteristics. Load is the one that seems to behave almost exactly the same as lot, except for the merging with the indefinite article and with of/a, but others like ton and heap are similar to load.
We could redirect all of the lot of, a lot of, and lots of specifically to sense 1 of lot#Noun.
One thing we shouldn't do IMO is redirect to lotsa, which is in the wrong register and sometimes considered non-standard. DCDuring TALK 04:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with DCDuring, no redirect to lotsa. Keep as is. DonnanZ (talk) 08:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • This entry has already been redirected to lotsa, which is highly informal. Shouldn't the redirect be undone? It's a kind of preposition. See usage notes in Oxford [22]. DonnanZ (talk) 10:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't see how it could be a preposition; maybe a determiner. Equinox 10:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
It does behave a lot like a determiner, as do the lot of ("all") and a lot of ("many, a large quantity"). But the other terms like tons/a ton (of) and loads/a load (of) behave in a very similar ways. OTOH, those expressions wouldn't work replacing a lot underlined above. DCDuring TALK 15:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Change redirect target to lots. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
What Angr said, per a lot of. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I scream, you scream, we all scream for ice cream[edit]

Some people may quote this song title when they're having ice cream, but it's just a song title. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep - I've most certainly heard it being used otherwise. A good example is its usage in ice cream advertisements, which seem to use it as a catchphrase, and one of the Pokémon movies, just to name a few examples out of many more that I'm sure are out there. Perhaps you should've sent this to RFV, where I could find citations that explicitly use this phrase for what it says in the definition. Philmonte101 (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Also I must mention that a source is not "quoting" the song title unless the phrase is in quotation marks, the term is found in its capitalized form ("I Scream, You Scream, We All Scream for Ice Cream"), or if the speaker/writer is specifically talking about the song in that context. If we find three citations that are not like this, then we're good to go. Like I said, it's more of an RFV thing. Is it okay if I move this to RFV? Philmonte101 (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't care if you call it quoting, repeating or recapitulating- it doesn't have anything to do with my point. Basic English comprehension tip: when someone says "x, but y", you can be pretty sure that "x" isn't the point of the sentence. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
My point was that it's not "just a song title". That's why I suggested RFV; so I can prove that it's more than that. Philmonte101 (talk) 01:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Leaning keep. I am dubious about the phrase being "coined" in the song title. My hunch is that it is more likely that the song writers co-opted an existing phrase. I also tend to think of "scream" as an action more associated with terror than with fun. For example, I get over 5,000 Google Books hits for "scream for ice cream", but only 24 for "scream for candy", only two for "scream for cake", and only one for "scream for pie". Is there any other food for which people are most commonly described as "screaming"? bd2412 T 18:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I added this entry not because it's "I scream for ice cream", but more because it is a common catch phrase, especially, like I said, found in ice cream advertisements, etc. scream for cake I would guess would be SOP, see scream + for + cake. However, the definitions of all the terms linked in the header of I scream, you scream, we all scream for ice cream do not altogether define the catchphrase. For instance, I don't think someone would say "I scream, you scream, we all scream for beer." (except maybe as a jocular reference to the ice cream catchphrase). It's a rhyme, and "I scream" sounds like "ice cream". That's the catchy part. "Scream for cake" doesn't have that same feel, you know. Philmonte101 (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I am aware that the meaning goes beyond the phrase itself. I was merely pointing out that the phrase itself has some unidiomatic characteristics. bd2412 T 19:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per BD2412. Benwing2 (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Regardless of its origin, it's a cool pun, but it doesn't have any actual meaning. I'm not sure I agree with the definition or that this phrase even has a definition beyond its transparent (double) meaning. --WikiTiki89 19:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Isn't that an RfV question? bd2412 T 03:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. It would be an embarrassing inclusion and of no use to anyone. Punning, rhyming, frequency, and allusiveness are all mere makeweights vainly attempting make up for the evident lack of any good rationale (not even one from Pawley's capacious list).
Almost any useful collocation that has rhyme or alliteration is likely to get higher counts than a comparable phrase without.
What's next, punning riddles? Why not have the punning political slogan of 1960, 1968, and 1972: "We can't stand Pat (stand pat)." (Pat = Nixon's wife)? DCDuring TALK 00:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. It seems like a rhyme rather than an actual interjection that anyone actually uses. Moreover, how are "ah, mmm, mmmm, mmmmm, mmm-mmm, yum, yummy" really coordinate to it? — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

ert þú[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion, but this has been there since September 14, 2005 (last edited 9 years ago), so shouldn't be speedied. Still SOP, though. It claims to be a phrasebook entry, but it's incomplete: it literally means "are you", and is supposed to be followed by the name of the person you're addressing, as in "Are you John?". Aside from being SOP, it's also a bit of a fossil, with no templates and no categorization except for Category:Icelandic phrasebook. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

There's a contracted form ertú though. —CodeCat 18:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@ User:CodeCat It doesn't matter. Take a look at do not's deletion, for example, and that was just a redirect. Strong delete; SOP. We don't have an entry for are you either, and it just means the same thing as that. Philmonte101 (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

frá Bandaríkjunum[edit]

I don't speak Icelandic, but this seems to be purely formulaic. DTLHS (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I know a little bit of Icelandic, enough to know this is just a regular prepositional phrase, nothing special. —CodeCat 18:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, SOP. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Can't even believe this is here in the first place... Philmonte101 (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

tveggja ára[edit]

Same reason, I don't see any other Icelandic entries for x years old. DTLHS (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)