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 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.

Requests for verification
add new English request | add new non-English request | history | archives

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

{{rfdate}} - {{rfd-redundant}} - {{rfdef}} - {{rfe}} - {{rfex}} - {{rfap}} - {{rfp}} - {{rfi}} -

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

Templates:

Shortcuts:

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

Contents

October 2016[edit]

..[edit]

Unsupported_titles/Double_period stands for "..", obviously.

  • rfd-sense: (computing) The parent directory.
  • rfd-sense: (programming) A range operator in some programming languages, including Perl and Swift.

Deletion rationale: Not in use to convey meaning in natural language; not used in running text, only in source code. One example in the entry is this: Type "cd PhotosWallpapers" to go to the Wallpapers folder. Then you can type "cd .." to go to back to the Photos folder.‎ That is not use in natural language. A similar deletion rationale was used in a previous RFD now archived at Talk:Unsupported titles/Double period. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete per previous discussion. Equinox 18:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Plenty more of these to be found elsewhere, e.g. # is "the ID selector in CSS". Equinox 18:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep and add more programming language symbols. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Do you think your keep in based on CFI? Do you intend the Translingual in the entry to mean trans-programming language? 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? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
That is a direly needed thing, for the world in general, you must admit. Especially for users of this project who have the questionable pleasure of acquainting Lua... Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Some people also need to know how to change a tire, but that doesn't make it dictionary material. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Let's add JOptionPane (Java), std::cin (C++), equ (Win Batch), foreach (Perl). Above all, let's add all symbols such as $, &&, ==. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
That is an insane thing to say. Are you saying we should include every class name in the Java standard library? DTLHS (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
That's no less than insane (I chose the same word before the edit conflict with DTLHS above). JOptionPane isn't even a keyword but an API/framework class. Extending this to .NET, to take one lone example, we would be creating (undefinable!) entries for many thousands of classes such as XmlSerializer, ToolStripSeparatorRenderEventArgs and AsymmetricSignatureDeformatter. And that's before we get onto the property, method and constant names within each of those thousands of classes — just in .NET, not C++, Java or any of hundreds of other frameworks! Equinox 22:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
There's endless variation between programming languages in exactly what a given token "means", with a lot of it coming from the architectures of the different languages. Even details of the implementation of languages on different operating systems and of different versions/builds on the same system can make significant differences. This is a massive can of worms that should be avoided at all costs. Besides, this looks like a matter of operating systems rather than programming languages. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. DCDuring TALK 03:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comments. 1. I suspect use as a range operator is attested in running English on Usenet and the like (derived from Perl or somewhere). If so, the definition can be broadened and the sense kept. 2. This is not only a range operator but also a flip-flop operator, and, if kept for its computing senses, is missing that sense.​—msh210 (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

.[edit]

  • rfd-sense: (programming, computing, networking)

This is in fact a heading for senses, the first of which is "Used as a space in e-mails." and example is "My email address is jon.smith@example.com"; for more of these senses, please see the entry.

My contention is that this is not "use" of the symbol to "convey meaning" in human language. In particular, my contention is that "point.x" in the C language to refer to member x of a structure is not a use for English Wiktionary's purpose.

A similar deletion rationale was used in a previous RFD now archived at Talk:Unsupported titles/Double period.

One way to phrase my deletion rationale is as a series of questions: 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? --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep and add more programming language symbols. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
IMO, delete all of these, for the reasons already rehearsed for .. (double dot). The only one that gives me pause is the domain-name separator, and that's only because of all the entries we have like .com, .mil, .tk: I personally think that such entries should not include the dot, since it is indeed a separator. Equinox 09:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Surely if we're going to have a sense for 'used in e-mail addresses' then we need a corresponding sense at a, b, c, d and so on. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Do you mean creating a new sense at a defined as "a letter used in e-mail addresses"? No, a is just a letter. There is as much reason to create that sense and separate senses saying: "a letter used in some names of people", "a letter used in some flavors of ice cream", etc. I'd oppose any of that. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I se your point. Delete sense: "Used to separate words in e-mails." --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

hot plate[edit]

Rfd-sense "A hot meal." This is hot + plate (the latter in a more figurative sense). --WikiTiki89 18:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Unsure but I think this is at least regional. To me it suggests the hotplate (some kind of portable stove maybe). I don't think UK English generally has "plate" meaning "a dish or prepared meal"; same goes for things like blue-plate special. Equinox 00:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Whether it's regional or not, it's surely SOP. I doubt that this sense is related to hotplate and I'm willing to bet it's pronounced hot PLATE (the SOP pronunciation) rather than HOT plate (the compound noun pronunciation). --WikiTiki89 15:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with Equinox in that a "hot plate of chips" is perfectly good British English, although "a hot plate" on its own wouldn't suggest food. Also "we're having pasta; do you fancy a plate?" clearly refers to a plate of pasta rather than just a plate on its own. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I have never heard of a hot meal being called a hot plate. DonnanZ (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it ever used to mean "hot dish", as in French plat chaud or Spanish plato caliente? --Hekaheka (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  • This seems to be a case for RfV. I have opened a discussion there. bd2412 T 15:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

enspection[edit]

A 2011 rare misspelling entry by Romanophile. Governed by WT:CFI#Spellings.

enspection, inspection at Google Ngram Viewer does not even find the spelling so no frequency ratio = count(inspection) /count(enspection) can be determined. Delete. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I suppose this should be an RFV. I recently changed it to a misspelling while checking plurals etc. I think Romanophile created a ton of en- forms for in- words at some stage and they might not all be legitimate. Equinox 10:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps we should just keep it as obsolete spelling like these two: enform, entention. All three are mentioned in this source [1]. --Hekaheka (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. Closed without prejudice to the opening of an RfV. bd2412 T 12:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

image satellite[edit]

French. Transparently SOP. Benwing2 (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

  • What is considered SoP in one language is not in another: compare with satellittbilde (Bokmål) and satellittbilete (Nynorsk). I find this entry quite interesting, I would say keep (providing it's correct) and create a corresponding entry in English for satellite image. DonnanZ (talk) 09:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Why? Please don't say that 'why' is an inappropriate question. By 'why' I mean what is your reason for wanting to keep it? Delete per Benwing2, nouns in French can be used as ad hoc adjectives. Satellite image seems unremarkable as an 'image from a satellite'. No entry for telescope image or camera image. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
That's one point that is not covered at French satellite, its use as an adjective. DonnanZ (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Because it isn't, it's a noun, and it is covered as a noun. Satellite is of course an ambiguous definition and needs improvement, but nonetheless this is just the word image followed by the word satellite. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Having said that, fr:satellite#Adjectif, it actually is an adjective. It agrees in number with its referent and everything. Much to my surprise. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Yesss, also in the external link at satellite, and here [2]. DonnanZ (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
French isn't a language I study, but I notice the plural seems to be either "images satellite" or "images satellites". Strange. DonnanZ (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Since a noun used attributively is invariable, if satellite is a noun the plural is "images satellite" and if it's an adjective it's "images satellites". That's how I was able to 'prove' that satellite is an adjective, because "images satellites" is attested. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

November 2016[edit]

social commerce network[edit]

How significant is this? Nibiko (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

social commerce make sense as an entry if the WP article thereon reflects the definition of the term in attesting use. DCDuring TALK 16:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

petits récits[edit]

See the (apparently unfinished as of yet) discussion in Wiktionary:Tea room/2016/October#petits récits. --Jerome Potts (talk) 03:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

องครักษ์พิทักษ์หี[edit]

Slang not widely used; not meet CFI. --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep in RFD: no RFD-relevant rationale was stated. If the term does not meet WT:ATTEST, it can be sent to WT:RFV. WT:CFI does not require wide use, and thus "not widely used" is irrelevant to both RFD and RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Protologism? --Octahedron80 (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
@Octahedron80: "Protologism" is a WT:RFV-relevant rationale, relating to WT:ATTEST. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

รัฐโอไฮโอ[edit]

Sum-of-parts. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it must delete. Think about this, we gotta deal with many terms lead with รัฐ มลรัฐ ประเทศ จังหวัด อำเภอ ตำบล ฯลฯ as well. --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
@Octahedron80 Would you agree that in general, words for "state", "country", "city" don't belong to Thai lemmas? Perhaps for "person", "language" as well? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
The complete terms are not lemmas; those just usually appear together. For example จังหวัดอุบลราชธานี is composed of จังหวัด + อุบลราชธานี, common noun + proper noun. We can understand just say อุบลราชธานี. Similar to รัฐ + โอไฮโอ, ประเทศ + ไทย, ภาษา + ไทย, คน + ไทย. For usage of ไทย we can describe in its definitions. IMO, I think about this for a long time for Thai Wiktionary policy not to include such entries and this should apply on other Wiktionaries too. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
@Octahedron80 Should entries เมืองไทย (Thailand) and ประเทศไทย (Thailand) be kept ("country" + "Thai")) or definitions should move to ไทย (tai, Thai, Thailand)? It may not be the best example, since some sources mention that "Thailand" is never/seldom used without the preceding word for "country" - ประเทศ (bprà-têet) and เมือง (mʉʉang).
What about คนไทย (Thai (person)) and ชาวไทย (Thai (person))?
And ภาษาไทย (Thai (language)? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Just asking for your opinion and if there are any dictionary policies. Other languages with no clear word boundaries face similar CFI (criteria for inclusion) challenges, such as Chinese or Vietnamese. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
As I said above, เมืองไทย ประเทศไทย คนไทย ชาวไทย ภาษาไทย etc never be lemmas in official dictionary, but ไทย (Thai/Thailand) is truely the lemma. Similar to เมืองจีน ประเทศจีน คนจีน ชาวจีน ภาษาจีน etc, the main entry should only be จีน (China/Chinese). And so on around the world. (Except only if they have special meanings.) Redirects may be an option. --Octahedron80 (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
For a similar reason, some animal- and plant-related terms should be considered for deletion too, such as แมวมาเลศ, แมววิเชียรมาศ, แมวศุภลักษณ์, แมวสีสวาด, ช้างแมมมอธ, ปลาพะยูน, ปลาโลมา, ปลาวาฬ, ลิงกอริลลา, ลูกหมู, นกอีกา, ต้นแอปเปิล, ต้นตาล, งูเหลือม, งูอนาคอนดา, ไม้ชิงชัน, etc. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
^ Converted some pages to redirects because others still have no target page. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

national average[edit]

SoP. Also easy to find "national total", "county average", and so on. Equinox 03:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Sidebar: clarity on "translation targets"[edit]

Could we have some clarity on when terms should be retained as "translation targets"? I looked at WT:SOP, and the only relevant paragraph seems to be the following: "In rare cases, a phrase that is arguably unidiomatic may be included by the consensus of the community, based on the determination of editors that inclusion of the term is likely to be useful to readers." However, it does not appear that "translation targets" are likely to be rare. Do we need to have a discussion and vote on the issue (@Daniel Carrero)? — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The translation target rationale is not in CFI. It is not clear that it is supported by consensus. I have seen a fair number of editors support translation target on a host of terms, but I do not know whether the supporters make up 2/3 or the like. I and bd2412 have been working on more specific criteria, the latest draft of which is at User_talk:Dan_Polansky/2015#Let's draft a vote for CFI translation criteria 2. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Great, keep us informed when it's ready for wider discussion. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I am basically an inclusionist but I don't like the idea of "translation targets" exactly. The way I prefer to think about it is that when lots of other languages have unexpected translations for a particular concept, it's a clue that the English term, however denotionally transparent, is nevertheless idiomatic, and should be kept on those grounds. Ƿidsiþ 13:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the existence of compound translations that use unexpected component words or patterns can be (strong?) evidence supporting English idiomaticity, at least if multiple language families or independent languages are involved. The argument would also support including terms like chalk and cheese, Mutt and Jeff, etc. DCDuring TALK 17:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I disagree that other languages' lexica can determine the idiomaticity of an English expression. English "be silent" is utterly unidiomatically SOP regardless of the existence of schweigen, zwijgen, taire, taceō, молча́ть, callarse, calar, and the rest. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Classes of words such as the one you refer to seem to me to offer little support for idiomaticity. In the case of those translated into English as be + an adjective, I'd favor exclusion. I'm sure that are other patterns that similarly are trivially rendered into English phrases quite predictably. We already have a great deal of trivial content and hardly need more. DCDuring TALK 18:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
But using an adjective to convey this idea IS idiomatic; most languages use a specific verb. (I am just talking about idiomaticity in an abstract way here; I agree that "be silent" doesn't need a dictionary entry.) Ƿidsiþ 08:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that "translation target" should be restricted to a few very common phrases that are commonly expressed as a single word in other languages, i. e. day after tomorrow/day before yesterday, last year or maternal grandmother. It shouldn't be used indiscriminately as an argument for keeping any number of SoP entries. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 10:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

whoop-de-doo[edit]

Adjective. The citations look like attributive use of the noun. I doubt that citations can be found supporting non-attributive, "true" adjective use. DCDuring TALK 18:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

  • It's not a term I'm familiar with. Is it American only? DonnanZ (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

lekker stuk[edit]

SOP (sense 2): lekker (hot, sexy) + stuk (hottie). Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

  • SoP in Dutch, but not for hottie in English. A possible keep. DonnanZ (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
    @Donnanz I'm sorry, but I don't get your reasoning. Do you suggest lekker stuk is kept because it translates hottie? If so, there are plenty non-SOP translations for that, and stuk is one of them. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
OK, you know better than I do. You're not proposing deletion of sense 1 though, and the hottie sense (no Dutch translation there, by the way), is that not placing emphasis on stuk, e.g. she's a real hottie? SoP terms can be a minefield, and I wouldn't propose an entry for brown cow. But for the sake of completeness, if that's another meaning of lekker stuk? DonnanZ (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
But on the other hand, if there are multiple meanings of lekker stuk, it may be better to delete the lot, and replace with examples under lekker and stuk. DonnanZ (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, if the figurative meaning is ruled SOP, I don't see how the literal meaning "tasty piece" couldn't be considered SOP. But I'll add that as well. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

SOP (sense 1): lekker (tasty) + stuk (piece). Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Both senses are SoP, delete the entire entry IMO. Lekker stuk as "tasty piece" is textbook SoP; lekker stuk as "hottie" might've been kept as being idiomatic had it not been for the fact that both constituent elements have the relevant romantic/sexual senses listed there as well: lekker can mean hot by itself, and similarly stuk can mean attractive person. In English an equivalent situation would be hot babe, which I think you will agree is SoP. — Kleio (t · c) 18:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The difference with hot babe is that at least babe is a literal use (or arguably its primary meaning), while stuk is used figuratively (just like lekker) and is more commonly used for its more neutral senses, making this an idiomatic phrase. The first sense (tasty piece) is the equivalent of hot babe to me. I'd support deletion of sense 1 and keep of sense 2 (not bolded since I'm not sure my opinion counts yet).
I can totally imagine someone (someone learning the language, or a native not having heard of it yet) reading a phrase (e.g. Ik zag een lekker stuk daarnet) and being stumped on the meaning, thus needing to look it up in our dictionary. They shouldn't have to do the detective work of noticing both of those constituent words can be used in similar senses and putting two and two together. --Azertus (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
That's how the SoP rules here work (AFAICT) though: if the meaning of a multiple-word entry can be understood without too much difficulty by looking at the individual entries that constitute it, it is sum-of-parts and should not be here. In this case, I don't think it's really detective work anyway: both entries list the relevant senses (both labeled colloquial, too, making the connection even more obvious), they are not difficult to find, and the combination of the two does not have any unexpected change in meaning. From what I've seen in other discussions on this page and from WT:SOP, the end user is in fact expected to be able to put two and two together: that's pretty much the crux of the SoP deletion criterion. — Kleio (t · c) 15:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
It's crucially different from, say, lekker ding ("sexy person") , which is clearly idiomatic and should have an entry: ding is, after all, never really used by itself to refer to a person at all; only in the common expression lekker ding does it acquire this meaning. Both lekker and stuk however have independent and quite common meanings that, when combined, make the meaning of lekker stuk entirely obvious and thus SoP. — Kleio (t · c) 15:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
ding however is used for persons (as far as I can tell exclusively for women) in combination with an attributive adjective: leuk ding, knap ding, lief ding, etc. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that makes lekker stuk idiomatic and certainly not according to WT:SOP; in any case both elements are also common with the meanings "hot" or "hottie". The most that can be said is that lekker stuk is a pleonastic epithet, which can be mentioned in both entries or included in a usage example. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I defintely think it's SoP. Including lekker ding, as proven by L.B.D. above. This is just a fairly rare sense of stuk/ding combined with a very normal though not perfectly literal sense of lekker. So delete. Kolmiel (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

ละครทีวี[edit]

SOP --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

It's SOP as much as TV series, TV show or TV program. Keep.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 20:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
"ละครทีวี" doesn't mean "TV series", "TV show", or "TV program" though. If "television drama" or "TV drama" is acceptable, then "ละครทีวี" should be kept.
P.S. in Thai,
  1. "series" is called "ซีรีส์" or formally "รายการชุด", or "ละครชุด" if referring to drama;
  2. "TV series" is called "ทีวีซีรีส์" or formally "รายการชุดทางโทรทัศน์", or "ละครชุดทางโทรทัศน์" if referring to drama;
  3. "TV show" is called "ทีวีโชว์" or "รายการทีวี", or formally "รายการโทรทัศน์";
  4. "TV program" is also called "รายการทีวี" or "รายการโทรทัศน์".
"ซีรีย์" is a common misspelling of "ซีรีส์" and may be included.
--หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

ເມົາເຫລົ້າ[edit]

SOP: ເມົາ + ເຫລົ້າ. Same situation as above. --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

รัฐแทสเมเนีย[edit]

SOP. See #รัฐโอไฮโอ above also. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

take a dump[edit]

This is covered by the appropriate sense at [[dump]], whither it should redirect. (It's also covered at [[Appendix:DoHaveMakeTake]], not that that affects this discussion. But the content of that appendix shows we ought not (and generally do not) have a page for every "take a [noun]".)​—msh210 (talk) 09:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

  • It could also be have a dump in British English, so the appendix is relevant. DonnanZ (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a job for Wikisaurus. bd2412 T 20:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
If I took a bath I would be taking a bathtub. I do enjoy having a bath though. DonnanZ (talk) 11:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Fallacious. The American (or whoever) could argue: "If I had a bath, I would own it; but I can take a bath at my friend's house." I don't suppose you consider yourself to be stealing when you "take" time, precautions, or a phone call. Equinox 16:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
If you really want it to be fallacious it will be fallacious. It would no doubt depend on context, e.g. "I have a dump nearby", meaning a rubbish dump. DonnanZ (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm reminded of the bit in Beavis and Butthead where one of them is parodying Andy Rooney by saying "Did you ever wonder why they call it taking a dump instead of leaving a dump? I mean after all, you're not really taking it anywhere!" —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
The only link that works is Merriam-Webster, an American lemming. DonnanZ (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep using the lemming heuristic: Merriam-Webster[3] has it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

ประเทศอังกฤษ[edit]

SoP. Ref. Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#รัฐโอไฮโอ above. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

non-Japanese[edit]

The entry has an rfd-tag with the comment "looks SOP" since 6 September 2016.
It might look like SOP but isn't the same true for several entries in Category:English words prefixed with non- and also for nonFrench, nonChinese, non-European (a derived term in European), nonAfrican (an anagram in Franconian)? -薫七 (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep, of course. Some users get confused, even bots. DonnanZ (talk) 09:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
This is the standard British form anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
It seems to be, to most adjectives anyway, whether it should be or not. DonnanZ (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

ภาษาไทย[edit]

See #รัฐโอไฮโอ above. A policy question too. Should Thai language names with ภาษา (paa-sǎa, language) + "ethnicity word" be included? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Octahedron80, หมวดซาโต้, Iudexvivorum, YURi The royal dictionary doesn't seem to include them. Many of the pages with prefix ภาษา will be affected if we decide to redirect them. Wyang (talk) 08:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Redirect. Sure, because language names ภาษา~ are always SOP. --Octahedron80 (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

ภาษาลาว[edit]

As above. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

December 2016[edit]

ISA 200[edit]

Do we really want to have an entry for every standard with an acronym in front of it? Whatever we decide, there's also the matter of a category the contributor created for it, which doesn't tie into our category structure (or any category structure) at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Delete, for sure. It's SOP: it's the ISA called "200".​—msh210 (talk) 09:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I created this. I would like to keep it. I think the term conveys more meaning than the sum of its parts. Apologies if I got categorisation wrong. John Cross (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes, but so do Saab 340, US 422, and 18 USC 1466A; we can't include every instance of an acronym and a number corresponding to some idea associated with that acronym. bd2412 T 22:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Why shouldn't we? Purplebackpack89 23:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Because it's encyclopedia not dictionary material? Mihia (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. We would end up offering a "definition" for every model of every product that chose to name their product with a model number, and for every road and route, and for every public or private standard combining an acronym with a number. bd2412 T 02:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I support us doing the second of those three. Purplebackpack89 18:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
We already have e-numbers in Wiktionary. See for example E333. So there is some precedent for including a codeconsisting of letters and numbers which has a specific meaning. John Cross (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC), edited John Cross (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
We also have M25 (but not every numbered road in the UK). If we can find a text that uses "ISA 200" in a natiral way, without being a definition, then we should keep it. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
OK. How about these examples? "ISA 200 makes it clear that the objectives in the individual ISAs provide a link between the requirements of the ISA and the overall objectives of the auditor." "Understanding the clarified and revised ISA 200 is now fundamental to understanding the challenge of implementing clarified ISAs." (https://www.icaew.com/-/media/corporate/files/technical/audit-and-assurance/practical-help/audit-planning-and-risk-assessment/publications-and-learning-materials/right-first-time-with-clarified-isas-module-1.ashx?la=en) John Cross (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
But couldn't such examples be found for, say, every numbered road, or every car model, or whatever it might be? Does a citation "I was driving down the A3062 in my Saab 340" justify inclusion in the dictionary of "A3062" and "Saab 340"? Where would it end? Mihia (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I think that the term I have added is a useful addition to Wiktionary - it is a term in regular use by a large number of professionals around the world and it is a term recognised by an international standard setting body. I know people are worried about the precedent this might set. I would suggest that as there is a separate policy for brands, any precedent set here should not extend to models of cars or other products or services. When it comes to road/route codes, some already appear in Wiktionary and I would suggest that those entries already create some form of precedent. I would like to keep the debate more focussed on whether names and codes for recognised international standards (auditing or otherwise) that are used in natural sentences can be added to Wiktionary. John Cross (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
This is also true of all of the RfCs, all of the ISO standards, and countless other standards which are domain specific. Unless the term has meaning outside of the standard I can't see value in keeping it. The "meaning" of the term is either "the ISA standard numbered 200" in which case it is SOP, or the actual standard itself, in which case it is encyclopedic and out of scope. - TheDaveRoss 13:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I echo TheDaveRoss's argument here. Even after looking at the entry, and the sample usages, the definition parses out to just ISO + 200. The long-form title and other information belongs in an encyclopedia article, which would go at Wikipedia and would ostensibly be found under [[w:Category:ISO_standards]]. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

חאג׳[edit]

Alt-spelling sense. The word (חג׳) that it's listed as an alt-spelling of is defined only identically to חאג׳'s other sense. Not speedying this in case there's really another sense of חג׳ that we should have and that חאג׳ is an alt-spelling of.​—msh210 (talk) 10:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

モジラ[edit]

"Mozilla". Mozilla#English has been deleted by RFD in the past. —suzukaze (tc) 11:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

アイブック[edit]

イーマック[edit]

アイポッド[edit]

アイマック[edit]

ロレックス[edit]

ボルボ[edit]

ヴォルヴォ[edit]

セグウェイ[edit]

ボブリル[edit]

ボヴリル[edit]

Special:Contributions/Jagnesuzukaze (tc) 11:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Sichuanese Pinyin entries[edit]

No consensus has ever been reached to allow Sichuanese Pinyin entries. The following pages have been made by User:Prisencolin:

— justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Delete. The user was told about the current policies for romanisation entries. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
No consensus was ever reached about allowing English entries either. Why does that require a consensus to be featured? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
In the past yes. Now you need to make sure the word exists and it is written in the right script. There are various romanisations (not proper language scripts). Only some standard romanisations are allowed by our policies.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
It's not the Sichuanese that's the problem, it's the pinyin. It may be found in some dictionaries, bʌt ðɛn, soʊ ɪz aɪ pʰi eɪ. If you really want to allow every script for every language, there are some German entries in Cyrillic that we deleted not too long ago... Chuck Entz (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Ду хаст рехт. Их бин айнферштанден! Шпрахен мюссен ден рихтиген Шрифт бенутцен! --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • You said some things, but haven't explained the issue to me, apparently because you assume that I know something I don't. (This is a bad habit on Wiktionary both in conversations and help pages. I'm pointing this out here because it's making us opaque and prolly factors into new editors being scared off.) Are you implying that we're using some other system to represent Sichuanese on which users decided? Because you haven't said so. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
    Sichuanese should only have entries in Chinese characters. The version of Sichuanese Pinyin we are using in the Chinese pronunciation template {{zh-pron}} isn't used other than in dictionaries. (The system is essentially the same as the one in 四川方言词典, but replaces ȵ with ny). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, but why is it that when Westrobothnian entries are made in a non-existent system without consensus, people basically vote to keep them without attestation and when Sichuanese entries are made in an existing system without consensus, they are deleted even before discussion in RFD? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
@Korn: I have no knowledge of Westrobothnian, so I can't comment on that. (Hmm, have you assumed that I know something I don't? :D) AFAIK, there has only been one Sichuanese Pinyin entry that has been deleted before discussion in RFD, so I'm not sure what you mean. Sichuanese is a variety of Chinese, and our current policy puts all Chinese varieties that are usually written in Chinese characters under the same umbrella. Since there is already a way to represent Sichuanese (Chinese characters), and most of the Chinese varieties are not allowed to have romanization entries (exceptions being Standard Mandarin pinyin, Min Nan POJ and Cantonese jyutping syllables), we should not have Sichuanese Pinyin entries. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
1. Sorry, I assumed the entries were deleted because they're shown as yellow links. 2. No, I'm not assuming anything, my comment was meant as an indirect question to Chuck, who's present in both discussions. 3. Why are only some varieties allowed to have Romanisations? That makes it harder to look up Sichuanese, what's the reasoning? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
1. I'm not sure how they're yellow links. They look blue/purple to me. If they were deleted, shouldn't they be red? 2. Alrighty then. 3. Standard Mandarin and Cantonese were allowed by votes (Standard Mandarin 1, Standard Mandarin 2, Cantonese). I believe Min Nan POJ entries were allowed because they're attestable, since it is sometimes written in POJ. From my understanding, other varieties are not allowed to have romanization entries because (a) the romanizations were made by Wiktionary (Gan; Jin; Xiang; Wu) or (b) they are not very common (?) (Hakka PFS and Guangdong Romanization; Min Dong BUC; Teochew Peng'im). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Fair enough. ps.: Yellow links are links to pages which exist but don't have the corresponding language section. I assume that square brackets link to English per default and that's the reason why the links are shown in yellow to me. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I see. You've turned on OrangeLinks. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Let's save the effort in other entries - this can be easily automated. Wyang (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't really have an opinion on this at the moment, but without knowing much about the procedures here, wouldn't it just be a lot more convenient to have page sorting characters by Pinyin, considering we're talking about a mostly non-written vernacular here? I guess I'd support deletion if this listing could be automated, but until that happens I'm not so sure. Sichuan Pinyin was not invented by any user here, so there shouldn't be conflict of interest. Regarding another point, is Hanyu Pinyin even used that much outside of teaching and Romanizations either? I've also heard that Jyutping is even more seldom used in those capacities.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
    We can definitely have page sorting by Sichuanese Pinyin if we allow Category:Sichuanese lemmas and such. That should probably solve the problem.
    Hanyu Pinyin and Jyutping are not used in normal writing, but they are much more common than Sichuanese Pinyin. Hanyu Pinyin is used by most (if not all) modern Mandarin dictionaries published in the PRC, and it is taught in all schools in China. It has also been accepted by the ROC government as the standard romanization. Jyutping, while being less pervasive than Hanyu Pinyin, is gaining popularity and is definitely outcompeting the other Cantonese romanizations, especially on the internet.
    BTW, a few more entries here:
    — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Justinrleung @Korn @Atitarev @Wyang How about Chinese terms without hanzi at all, what's the general concensus on how to create entries for these? For an extreme example I'm not sure if nɤ35, a demonstrative pronoun in Wuhan, meets WT:CFI but there's literally no other way to enter it.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
    Searching for ¹ at water#Translations may be relevant. —suzukaze (tc) 06:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
    I am not aware of any policy regarding these terms specifically for Chinese, but I don't think these would meet CFI (unless we consider certain varieties of Chinese to be languages with limited online documentation). You probably should have held off creating the entry for nɤ35 until we have consensus on how to deal with them. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I've sent the term to RFV. We can decide on the policy. It would fail the NORMAL inclusion test. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
The entry is referenced, though. What if it is represented that way in a proper scholarly work? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 09:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Any reference is a mention, not usage. It would fail the CFV for most languages in most cases but this may be a special case for a language with limited documentation, I don't know.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
It was my impression that this was one. We might turn it into a precedent for unwritten languages recorded solely in IPA by foreign researchers. There should be more than one. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
This is not a precedent. There are already entries like these, e.g. tɕʰɑ³¹ŋɑ⁵⁵. I'm a little unsure about this being a language with limited documentation since we have lumped all varieties of Chinese under Chinese if they are written in hanzi. It is certainly not unwritten. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

筶一下[edit]

Looks SOP. 筶 means "to try". 一下 is suffix/particle that indicates trying or a little bit. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure that 筶 itself is a verb? In that case I'll support deletion. Otherwise the impression I got from the Wikipedia entry 四川方言字 was that its used in the idiom 筶一下, rather than an independent part of speech.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure. I think the page is just giving an example. All the dictionaries I've checked use 告 instead though:
  • 《四川方言词典》
告 gao4 (动)试:妈喊快点~鸭儿胃口呢。(川文82·8·63)|这双鞋你来~一下,看穿不穿得。
  • 《成都话方言词典》
告 gào〔kau²¹³〕试:衣服合不合身,你先~一下。
  • 《成都方言詞典》
【告】kau˨˩˧ 試:你來~一下,看合不合適
— justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
The references you provided seems to indicate that in the "to try" sense it's only used in the phrase 告一下. That suggests that we just keep 筶一下 as a soft redirect.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I think it's just a common collocation. The first example sentence in 四川方言词典 shows that 一下 is not necessary. The same would apply to 試一下 in standard Mandarin. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

instant mashed potatoes[edit]

Similar to instant coffee, instant noodles, instant soup, instant meal etc. (which I also nominate). The sense of instant is covered (poorly) "An instant beverage or food, especially instant coffee." Which makes this SOP. - TheDaveRoss 19:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

But instant mashed potatoes are potatoes processed in a particular way- what the modifier "instant" means changes based on the particular type of food. DTLHS (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
In all of the uses I am familiar with "instant" means "pre-processed for quicker preparation times." - TheDaveRoss 19:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Cooked food is still "cooked" whether it's baked, boiled or fried. Instant food is still "instant" regardless of how it got that way. Equinox 19:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
We should determine which "instant" food came first, as this meaning of instant is probably a back-formation from that, so that entry should be kept. The rest I would delete except for instant noodles, which seems to embody some qualities other than its instantness. I believe coffee is the trend leader. See Rupert Hughes, Gift Wife (1910), p. 164: "In a small room opening off the hall the usual withered serving woman kept the coals of the kahve-ojak alive and water ready for instant coffee." bd2412 T 03:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
The cite doesn't fit the current definition, nor that of WordNet 3.0: "dehydrated coffee that can be made into a drink by adding hot water". Judging from the Google N-gram and inspection of cites in decades from 1900 on, through 1929 instant coffee referred initially to a liquid coffee concentrate, starting about 1921. At some point in the 1930s there is evidence of cubes and crystals. Sanka, which fits the definitions, appeared on the market around 1946. \
Of course, most dictionaries don't have an entry for instant coffee. None at OneLook, except for us, have an entry for instant mashed potatoes. DCDuring TALK 13:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
How can you tell what cite the definition fits? In any case, I am proposing that "instant" referring to a food prepared in such a way that a normally arduous process is reduced to adding water or the like, is a back-formation, which would render the originating term idiomatic whether other dictionaries now have it or not. bd2412 T 17:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I find the description of production process unessential. If someone found another way of producing instant mashed potatoes they would still be instant mashed potatoes. For comparison: paper is paper, no matter how it's been made. delete --Hekaheka (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Nobody seems to be querying the synonym instant mash, so maybe it should be kept for the sake of completeness. Even shorter is the brand name "Smash" which used to be owned by Cadbury's. DonnanZ (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Looking at it again, keep. DonnanZ (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • From my perspective, all of these look like SOP. But I also don't see much harm in keeping them. Meh.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • A thought. Instant coffee (respectively instant soup) is both coffee (soup) that has been dried out and, once reconstituted, coffee (soup) again. Instant mashed potatoes are mashed potatoes that have been dried out; once reconstituted, they're not mashed potatoes in the literal sense, i.e. potatoes that have been mashed, though they may be indistinguishable from same. I don't know that that's a reason to keep, and am tending to think not, especially because the reconstituted stuff is called "mashed potatoes" irrespective of the literal meanings of those words. But it's something to think about.​—msh210 (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
    If chicory coffee is a kind of coffee, then the constitution of something does not necessarily matter to the SoPitude of the term. (Chicory coffee drinks resemble certain roasts of coffee in color and flavor.) That is, I don't think the ingredients or process by which something of general familiarity is manufactured (out of sight of the great mass of language speakers) necessarily has any legitimate impact on RfD questions. In contrast, instant is meaningful to normal speakers because it indicates something that is within their experience. DCDuring TALK 00:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Isn't there a classic "philosphical" or "philological" discussion about the nature of adjectives like fake? DCDuring TALK 00:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
The keyword to search for might be alienans. Equinox 00:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
That's the ticket. Thanks. DCDuring TALK 12:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

vox clamantis in deserto[edit]

A valid biblical allusion, but we are not Wikiquote. Is there idiomatic usage of which I am unaware? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it can be idiomatic for John the Baptist. I can't speak for Latin, but it's sort of used that way in English (I say sort of, because it's debatable whether it's simply an allusion, or is an actually idiomatic name for St. John). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Hadn't actually heard of it being used to refer to John the Baptist, I always associated it more with Isaiah 40:3. The Hebrew equivalent (קוֹל קוֹרֵא בַּמִּדְבָּר (kol koré bamidbár)) is used to refer to a speaker whose arguments go unheard or unheeded. I believe that the English voice in the wilderness is used in much the same way. Anyway, how do you establish in cases like this where something stops being an allusion, and becomes an idiom worthy of inclusion in its own right? — Kleio (t · c) 18:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
In the Gospel according John 1:23, John the Baptist says that he is the voice in the wilderness of Isaiah 40:3, so it's conceivable that other people have used the phrase to allude to him. Maybe this should be moved to RFV. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I found this definition when looking up an idiomatic use of the phrase in Taleb's The Black Swan:
Seeing how superfluous his measure was, and how it squandered resources, the public, with great help from airline pilots, might well boot him out of office. Vox clamantis in deserto. He will retire depressed, with a great sense of failure.
I think it's appropriate for Wiktionary. Splintax (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I came to my computer to look up vox clamantis in deserto because I couldn't recall the referent. I was pleased to find it in Wiktionary.

--BobShair (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I see that you put "Wikipedia" first and fixed it, and that you have never made any edits here before. It seems an absurd thing for a mere RFD, but am I witnessing meatpuppetry? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Editor-in-Chief[edit]

I'm unsure about this one, but couldn't a wide range of titles be used as "honorifics"? It doesn't seem particularly lexical to me. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

  • We similarly have President and King as honorifics. Are they any more lexical? bd2412 T 02:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Presidents and kings are heads of state, and far more important than a mere editor-in-chief. A hard redirect may be the answer. DonnanZ (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
"More important" is an encyclopedic consideration. We include words of even skating "importance" if they are attested. bd2412 T 00:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

さあね[edit]

さあ definition #4 ("dunno") + sentence-final particle ("asks for confirmation"). —suzukaze (tc) 11:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Great Successor[edit]

This is really just great + successor in a specific context, just as Dear Leader is dear + leader. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I hate to say this, knowing how detestable the person is, but it probably should be kept. DonnanZ (talk) 09:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Keep and create Dear Leader. DTLHS (talk) 00:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
And also all the honorifics in this list? Would you actually edit General to mean "Kim Jong-il"? -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

โบสถ์คริสต์[edit]

SOP --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thai entered to mean "Christian church". The indicated sum is โบสถ์ (church) +‎ คริสต์ (Christian). If one believes Google image search, what it refers to is a building, and maybe less so the organization; for some reason, the organization popped up to my mind first. OTOH, buildings are visual unlike organizations, so they may naturally pop up first. Sanook[4] does not seem to have the word. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

ヸタミン[edit]

As above. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I think this should be in RFV. A Google search finds at least one use of 二十四 「ヰ゛タミン」ノ要求 in the TOC of a book from 1871 (which should be viewable online but the link isn't working for me). —suzukaze (tc) 11:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
ヸタミン硏究の新しき進步, 一 ヰ゛タミンの供給 (click on the 詳細レコード表示にする on the left) —suzukaze (tc) 11:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
The third one is viewablesuzukaze (tc) 11:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree this and the one above should be moved to RFV. Rare doesn't mean made-up. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
(However, the one above, テレヸジョン, is made up as far as CFI is concerned.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 02:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

ทรงพระกรุณาโปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม[edit]

The entry's author tagged this for speedy deletion, but should it be kept? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I created the entry and I became uncertain if it's a lemma or SOP, as it can be treated as a mere combination of two phrases (ทรงพระกรุณา (song-prá-gà-rú-naa) + โปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม (bpròot-glâao-bpròot-grà-mɔ̀m)) or as a single, valid phrase (because it seems like the two phrases are always together). Anyway, since the meanings of the two phrases do not change when they are put together, I then requested deletion of this entry. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
@หมวดซาโต้: I know next to nothing about Thai, but from how you describe it, ทรงพระกรุณาโปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม (song-prá-gà-rú-naa-bpròot-glâao-bpròot-grà-mɔ̀m) certainly looks like an unidiomatic sum of ทรงพระกรุณา (song-prá-gà-rú-naa) + โปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม (bpròot-glâao-bpròot-grà-mɔ̀m), even if it is a common collocation. Would you be able to add a {{ux}} to both ทรงพระกรุณา and โปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม that uses ทรงพระกรุณาโปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Just added some citations to ทรงพระกรุณาโปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม (song-prá-gà-rú-naa-bpròot-glâao-bpròot-grà-mɔ̀m), in which ทรงพระกรุณา (song-prá-gà-rú-naa) and โปรดเกล้าฯ (bpròot-glâao) (shortening of โปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม (bpròot-glâao-bpròot-grà-mɔ̀m)) appear together. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
@หมวดซาโต้: Great, thanks. I've copied those citations, mutatis mutandis, to ทรงพระกรุณา and โปรดเกล้าฯ. Could you also add to โปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม citations that use ทรงพระกรุณาโปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม (song-prá-gà-rú-naa-bpròot-glâao-bpròot-grà-mɔ̀m) unabbreviated, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

ทรงพระกรุณาโปรดเกล้าฯ[edit]

The entry's author tagged this for speedy deletion, but should it be kept? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

It's an abbreviation of the above phrase #ทรงพระกรุณาโปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม (see its discussion also). --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
@หมวดซาโต้: I know next to nothing about Thai, but from how you describe it, ทรงพระกรุณาโปรดเกล้าฯ (song-prá-gà-rú-naa-bpròot-glâao) certainly looks like an unidiomatic sum of ทรงพระกรุณา (song-prá-gà-rú-naa) + โปรดเกล้าฯ (bpròot-glâao) [abbreviation of โปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อม (bpròot-glâao-bpròot-grà-mɔ̀m)], even if it is a common collocation. Would you be able to add a {{ux}} to both ทรงพระกรุณา and โปรดเกล้าฯ that uses ทรงพระกรุณาโปรดเกล้าฯ, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

mercy[edit]

Sense:

(phrasal) Subjugation, power; reliance upon the compassion, forbearance, or whim of another (at the mercy of)

This definition, unless anyone can show otherwise, seems to apply only to the phrase "at the mercy of", but I am not convinced that "mercy" in "at the mercy of" means "subjugation" or "power" at all. I think it has the usual meaning of forgiveness, compassion etc., as amply covered by other senses, and that "at the mercy of" means something like "dependent on the mercy of" or "subject to the mercy of". Mihia (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Any of definitions 1, 2, or 3 would fit with my understanding of at the mercy of, which I view as SoP, though several lemmings do not. See at the mercy of at OneLook Dictionary Search. DCDuring TALK 02:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

double as[edit]

SoP, redundant to double sense: "(intransitive) (often followed by as) To play a second part or serve a second role. A spork is a kind of fork that doubles as a spoon." Equinox 01:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Additional thought: can something just double, without an as: "this kind of fork doubles"? I suspect not. Even so, the as feels strongly like an external preposition and not a particle. Equinox 01:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Someone can double for someone else. Also see double as at OneLook Dictionary Search and double for at OneLook Dictionary Search, which show that some lemmings have both of these. DCDuring TALK 02:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Also note double up as (the definition of which seems slightly faulty actually). Mihia (talk) 10:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

male genital cutting[edit]

Defined as "the cutting of genitals which are male". Equinox 12:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Probably the definition needs to be improved as I'm pretty sure it refers specifically to circumcision, i.e. removal of the prepuce, and not to any old cutting. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I think female genital cutting is clearly in use as a synonym for female circumcision; the male version is less common, but seems to be in use. So keep. Ƿidsiþ 07:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep per the above. — Kleio (t · c) 17:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

いすゞ[edit]

Wiktionary:CFI#Company_names.—suzukaze (tc) 04:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2017[edit]

restroom break[edit]

Might this be SoP? I mean, there are many types of breaks, do we need entries for all of them? --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Robbie SWE Did you mean to take this to RFD rather than RFV? SoP is irrelevant at RFV. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mx. Granger Ah, I didn't know SoP issues were irrelevant here, my bad. I'll take this to RFD. Thank you for pointing this out! --Robbie SWE (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
we have coffee break and water break. someone doesn't necessarily need to be drinking coffee or getting water during those breaks, which is why they have entries. likewise someone can use a restroom break for something other than using the restroom, which is why it should have an entry. note that we have urinary break. that seems more SoP to me than restroom break. 99.101.56.68 00:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Could someone rewrite the definition of urinary break so that it looked as if it were written by someone who knew English. I'd just as soon see it deleted. DCDuring TALK 00:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It hardly seems like a set phrase in real use. Equinox 08:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
This or bathroom break are often used when a group is traveling, such as a number of motorcyclists, a carload of people, a squad of soldiers, and so on. There are also some less polite variations, such as a piss break. —Stephen (Talk) 08:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
In the UK, those of us who go on walking holidays have comfort breaks. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Is this an American term? It's not labelled as such. DonnanZ (talk) 09:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I found only one use of "urinary break" in BGC. Many Google hits are just mirroring Wiktionary > Agree with Equinox: hardly a set term. One more nail to the coffin: the entry was created by someone who is now blocked from all Wikimedia > delete at least "urinary break". --Hekaheka (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree about urinary break, which could also be deleted through RFV if necessary. If restroom break passes, the translations can go there. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

auge-[edit]

How is this different from the noun auge? —CodeCat 17:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

  • It's an example of how Nynorsk can be unbelievably complex. There are two words for eye; auga and auge. There are also two prefixes for derivatives of eye; auge- and augne-. There is also a verb augne, also spelt øygne, but no noun. I suggest that you read the reference in the Nynorsk Dictionary if you haven't already done so.
There are variants in Bokmål also, where øye in compounds can also be øyen-, from an old genitive plural, but it's not regarded as a prefix for some reason. DonnanZ (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
But why does auge- have to be a prefix? Why can't the words in CAT:Norwegian Nynorsk words prefixed with auge- be considered compounds of auge instead? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Probably because of the two spellings, auge is entered as the alternative form of auga, but that may have been the editor's personal preference. One could use the spelling auga, and in the next line use an auge- derivative I guess. DonnanZ (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
It's perfectly possible to change {{prefix|nn|auge|bryn}} to {{compound|nn|auga|bryn|alt1=auge}}, and from a semantic point of view it makes more sense. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
It may make sense from an English point of view, but not to a Nynorsk speaker. Another oddity is that the definite plural of auge is (guess what) auga, which can be highly confusing to us. DonnanZ (talk) 10:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Calling it a prefix doesn't make sense from a linguistic point of view, regardless of the native language of the observer. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@Njardarlogar, @Barend: Let's ask a couple of Nynorsk speakers. DonnanZ (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Hm, I had to think of that a bit. As so much in one's native tongue, I've never had cause to consider it before. I suppose the point is that the Nynorsk noun for "eye" can take the forms "auge" or "auga", these are not separate words, just different forms of the same word, meaning they are completely interchangeable in every context. Whereas if you use it as the first part of a compound word, you cannot use the form "*auga-", only "auge-" or "augne-" [Whereas *augne is not a valid form of the noun on its own]. So from a Nynorsk grammarians point of view, this makes "auge" and "auge-" two different... hm... lexemes(?) Donnanz writes "One could use the spelling auga, and in the next line use an auge- derivative I guess." Indeed, this true, in fact, one would have to' use an auge- derivative, because there are no *auga- derivatives. I hope this was comprehensible.--Barend (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't have much to add, but if auge- would be worthy of an entry if there was no such form as auge, then I think it would make more sense to keep auge- than to delete it, as it is still a distinct prefix form of auga. So for me, I think the question boils down to whether or not auge- is worthy of an entry if we only had auga. --Njardarlogar (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for your input. DonnanZ (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a somewhat similar situation in Finnish. Adjectives ending in -inen regularly change the ending to "-is" when they are used as modifiers in compound terms. We don't regard the -is -ending terms as prefixes but rather as adjective forms. But, as such, they still may merit their own "form of" -entry. For example, the word kreikkalaiskatolinen is not categorized as "Finnish term with prefix kreikkalais-" but as "Finnish compound term" or "Finnish compound term with kreikkalainen" if such category existed. --Hekaheka (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand Finnish, but "-is" seems to be something like a modified interfix between parts of words. But I guess showing it as a compound of kreikkalainen and katolinen (as has been done) is the best treatment. Different methods are needed for different languages. DonnanZ (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I would appreciate more input, particularly from users not familiar with Norwegian. Angr's question still hasn't been answered satisfactorily: why are the words in Category:Norwegian Nynorsk words prefixed with auge- not to be compounds of the word auge? I would also like to ask an additional question: How, in theory, could compounds of auge and those of auge- be differentiated? —CodeCat 20:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  • You should try looking from a Norwegian point of view. DonnanZ (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The way I see it, it's merely a historically grown form of the lexeme auga/auge and we should handle it thus: 1. Indicate prefix‐form in the head template for languages where they're applicaple. For example:
auga n (definite singular auga, indefinite plural augo, definite plural augo, compound form auge‐ or augne‐)
2. Create a form of‐entry for the prefix forms like we do for any other inflection. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be a combining form used for compounding, albeit a trivial one since it seems identical with the base noun. Combining forms that were deleted via RFD: barne- from barn and kraft- from kraft; tron- from trone; these were nominated for deletion by Donnanz. A combining form that was kept: jedno-. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Little Pakistan[edit]

Little Italy[edit]

This is little, sense 5: Used with the name of place, especially of a country, to denote a neighborhood whose residents or storekeepers are from that place. There are literally infinite ways to use little in this sense with countries (or even regions or cities), and they're all entirely transparent. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

  • On the other hand, if the area is marked on maps as Little (whatever) you would have to accept that it's been accepted as a name. This happens in London with Little Venice, which I think got its name because it's at a canal junction. The name appears in my A-Z Master Atlas of Greater London. DonnanZ (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Are we going to have every name in every map? --Hekaheka (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't honestly know. Try this [5]. DonnanZ (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I found a couple of stations with Little Italy in the name in San Diego [6] and Cleveland [7]. DonnanZ (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Little Pakistan is a little more doubtful [8]. Both entries have Wikipedia links however. DonnanZ (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • A parallel given place name is Chinatown, which is commonly accepted and listed by Oxford, and may not necessarily appear on maps. DonnanZ (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It's a bit weird, because "little" here converts proper nouns into regular nouns. "Italys"/"Italies" is a very weird word, but "Little Italys" is quite common. Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I was not aware of that sense at little when I created these. I think the OED has one or both. I'm not fussed about keeping them. Equinox 15:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Little Italy is in Oxford Online - chiefly North American; "any urban district inhabited predominantly by Italian immigrants or people of Italian descent". No entry for Little Pakistan however. DonnanZ (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep. NOT SOP. This is the actual name of the place and is well attested. PseudoSkull (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep definition as currently worded: Purplebackpack89 15:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

孫堅, 孙坚, 孫文臺, 孙文台, 文臺, 文台, 曹仁, 子孝, 孟德, 完顏阿骨打, 完颜阿骨打, 玄德, 橋玄, 桥玄, 孟起, 馬超, 马超, 孫逸仙, 元常[edit]

伯喈, 呂布, 吕布, 奉先, 趙雲, 赵云, 子龍, 子龙, 于禁, 文則, 文则, 趙子龍, 赵子龙, 張楊, 张杨, 孫權, 孙权, 仲謀, 仲谋, 滿寵, 满宠, 伯寧, 伯宁, 范滂, 孟博, 壽長, 寿长, 雲長, 云长, 樂進, 乐进, 文謙, 文谦, 衛弘, 卫弘, 張遼, 张辽, 文遠, 文远, 陳生, 陈生, 呂虔, 吕虔, 子恪, 孫乾, 孙乾, 許褚, 许褚, 仲康, 張儉, 张俭, 元節, 元节, 霍光, 糜竺, 麋竺, 子仲, 張紘, 张紘, 子綱, 子纲, 義公, 义公, 韓當, 韩当[edit]

Couple more, including some style names for deleted entries or entries to be deleted. Wyang (talk) 07:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete all "surname + given name" entries based on WT:NSE. Weak delete for style names (except those specified below). (Should 孔明 as a name be deleted as well?) After checking Guoyu Cidian and Hanyu Da Cidian, the following should be kept for having other meanings:
  • 玄德 ("高深、幽潛的德性", "天地玄妙之理", "佛教上指玄妙的功德")
  • 奉先 ("祭祀祖先", "宋代禁軍名")
  • 文則/文则 ("文章的法則")
  • 張楊/张杨 ("1936年12月發動西安事變的著名將領張學良、楊虎城的並稱") — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I tentatively propose that we allow all names which have inclusion-worthy derived terms. Wyang (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I advocating deleting names, while agreeing with Wyang that we should keep names that have derived terms. Surely we should keep style names (字) though, as they function basically the same as nicknames do in English (e.g. J-Lo, J-Law, K-Rod, etc.). ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Style names are not comparable to English nicknames or given names; they are more akin to English "first name + middle name" combinations, such as "John Michael". English given names (e.g. John) usually have interesting etymologies, but Chinese style names (e.g. 文謙) are simply a sum of parts. On the other hand, Chinese nicknames or certain stage names are certainly worthy of inclusion, such as 鳥叔, 成龍. Wyang (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

doon the stair[edit]

Scots. SOP? --Quadcont (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Maybe it should be an RFV. Are the books written by John Buchan any help here? If I remember correctly they contain a lot of Glaswegian dialect. DonnanZ (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Try this from Google Books [9]. Actually, if it translates to a single word in standard English it should be kept. DonnanZ (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Although sometimes it would be "down the stairs" [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. DonnanZ (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

pyramid entries[edit]

RFDing the pyramids separately, per BD's suggestion. The original discussion was at WT:RFD#Aztec pyramid (to be archived at Talk:Aztec pyramid). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Mesoamerican pyramid[edit]

Mayan pyramid[edit]

ancient pyramid[edit]

Egyptian pyramid[edit]

This one survived RFD quite a long time ago (Talk:Egyptian pyramid). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Some people don't give up. I don't see any real harm in keeping any of them. DonnanZ (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Delete. These are of course pyramids of distinct regional styles (except the very obviously SOP ancient pyramid), but then again, that doesn't mean they should be included. We don't include Hellenistic bronze, do we? Or Roman mosaic? — Kleio (t · c) 14:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep all but ancient which is SoP. The use and basic design is different and requires prior knowledge.--Dmol (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed -- the kind of knowledge which one would go to an encyclopedia for (like, for example, Wikipedia), not a dictionary. — Kleio (t · c) 00:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Delete per nom and KIeio. DCDuring TALK 00:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Delete all. Ƿidsiþ 12:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Delete them all per KIeio. The stated rationale for them is poor: "Terms that imply certain social knowledge that could not be derived from any of the constituents, nor from their combination. For instance, an Egyptian pyramid has a different shape to an Aztec pyramid." Well, a Japanese sword has a different design than a Roman sword, but they're still SOP... - -sche (discuss) 08:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Delete All sub-classes of a noun, they are not individual words. Khu'hamgaba Kitap ᐅᖃᕐᕕᐅᔪᖅ - talk 17:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep Egyptian pyramid.
  • 1947, Leslie V. Grinsell, Egyptian Pyramids
    An Egyptian pyramid may be defined as a sepulchral or religious edifice of stone or brick with a ...

police baton[edit]

SOP? --Quadcont (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

IMO,yes. No OneLook dictionary has an entry. The phrase merits inclusion only in a usage example at [[baton]], IMO. DCDuring TALK 23:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
BTW, isn't it bad practice to use a word like "short" in a definition such as that of billy club or baton? MWOnline defines nightstick as "a police officer's club", which seems much more to the point. DCDuring TALK 00:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

police batons[edit]

SOP? If the above is deleted, then also delete this.--Jusjih (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jusjih: You don't have to explicitly nominate the plural. If the singular is deleted, the plural will be too. --WikiTiki89 00:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

white smoke[edit]

White smoke could be used for multiple purposes. Also, the announcement isn't the white smoke itself, the white smoke is just the visible signal. DTLHS (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I could imagine the term being used metonymously to refer to the decision itself, but I don't see that as sufficient justification for inclusion. DCDuring TALK 00:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Take a look at these examples [15]. Would they be understandable to someone who is not aware of the origin of the expression? keep and add the figurative sense. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
On the second thought, I'm not sure if we need the concrete sense. I added a figurative sense and an etymology in which its origin is explained. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it's a signal and not an announcement, a smoke signal in fact. I think it's interesting enough to keep. DonnanZ (talk) 08:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I suppose that any signal traditionally associated with a decision could be used metonymously for the decision, but the essence of the matter is that it indicates a decision and is not the decision or the "event" of the decision. As Donnanz suggests it is "a signal". It seems like the scheduling of a press conference after some portentious meeting. All five of the hits for "white smoke" (in quotes) from Hekaheka's source read to me a "signal". Putting the encyclopedic sense in the etymology seems appropriate. We could still have {{&lit}} for the "smoke that is white in color" sense. DCDuring TALK 14:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
An afterthought: the white smoke only tells the outside world that a new pope has been chosen, his name would be given later in the official accouncement. DonnanZ (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per basic CFI: People might run across it and need to look it up. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

slovėnų kalba[edit]

retoromanų kalba[edit]

moldavų kalba[edit]

rumunų kalba[edit]

oksitanų kalba[edit]

afarų kalba[edit]

I thought we were deleting these "X language" entries. --Quadcont (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought we aren't. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I think all "kalba" -entries can be discussed together > grouped four headers together. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I am happy to weakly keep "X language" entries, especially if the open compound "X language" is more common than its single-word synonym. Thus, if in English, "English language" were much more common in reference to the language than "English", I would support keeping "English language". I do not know the relative frequency for Lithuanian, the language being discussed here, though. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I grouped the four headers now. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. Those are the normal terms to refer to the languages, as far as I'm aware. (And I think all others are ambiguous.) Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

From originally separate section of Afar:
I thought we were deleting all these "X language" entries. --G23r0f0i (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

yeah...delete. It's SOP. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

February 2017[edit]

ill manners[edit]

ill + manners -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

By what definition of ill? DCDuring TALK 16:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Sense 4, which even has ill manners as an example. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. Sense 4 looks like more than one definition to me. Of the ones offered "not up to reasonable standard" might fit. (MWOnline has "not meeting an accepted standard", with ill manners as its usage example.) What other nouns form an NP with that definition of ill? I can't think of any right now. Not that there aren't any. DCDuring TALK 16:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Ill prospects, ill health, an ill season... Equinox 19:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Perhaps we should mark the adjective sense as dated, btw? Equinox 19:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
ill health - def. 5. ("Unwell in terms of health or physical condition; sick.")
ill prospects, ill season - def. 4.1 ("Unpropitious").
I guess the definitions in sense 4 just aren't part of my idiolect, except possibly in ill-mannered. DCDuring TALK 20:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Delete. It wouldn’t hurt to redirect the page to that sense of ill, though. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

have a look-see[edit]

Seems to be merely "have" + "a look-see". I see no reason for this, any more than have a peek, have a snoop, have a gander, or anything else. Mihia (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Look-see works with take, get, give, allow, as object of prepositions such as for, etc. In addition, one can "have/take/get/give/allow oneself a look-see". There are numerous other collocations and grammatical roles look-see can play, all with about the same semantics. No OneLook source has the various verb+look-see combinations, though many have look-see entries. DCDuring TALK 07:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Delete. It might be nice to have some formal way to list the verbs and prepositions that a word "takes", but creating loads of near-cloned entries is not the way. For now we can at least include some typical citations or usexes. Equinox 10:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
We have Appendix:Collocations of do, have, make, and take, for a start --Quadcont (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Testificate[edit]

Only in Minecraft video game, so I doubt it can pass WT:FICTION. Equinox 15:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete.Kleio (t · c) 17:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

whip[edit]

As pointed out by @Amgine, sense #12 is a subset of sense #7. The context label may need to be expanded. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

keytone[edit]

This appears to be a vanishingly rare misspelling. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

This says the misspelling is common in relation to diabetes. If you search Google for keytone diabetes there are indeed quite a few hits. Mihia (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I have been thinking about creating a vote to get rid of the more egregious misspellings, but I mostly end up doing actual useful stuff, like creating words. I am happy to discuss such a vote by e-mail with anyone else who is annoyed by shit like this. Equinox
But why not discuss it on-project, why, why not do that? "Because of you" is the response to all those people. HTH. Equinox 22:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
My main problem with including misspellings is that they can end up on word lists or indexes appearing as valid words. Otherwise, I see no reason not to include the common ones. If someone reads the word "keytone" and comes here to find out what it means, isn't it more helpful to tell them? Mihia (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Ideally that's part of the work of the search engine. If someone types NAIT then they might mean night or knight, sure. That's an argument for having phonetic search suggestions. I don't think there's any good argument for having entire entries, on the same level as "real" word entries, that only serve to deal with people's spelling errors. Equinox 00:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I would advocate a more positive response than "did you mean?" for spelling errors that are commonly encountered. If someone types in a word that they have read, and believe to be a word, and they are told "did you mean ...?" then they might think, no, I meant what I typed, and then assume that their word was not entered in the dictionary. I do agree, though, that misspellings and errors being, as you say, "on the same level" as real entries is not very satisfactory. Mihia (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Personally, if I am looking something up which I read in a non-edited source and I cannot find it in any dictionaries, I assume it is not a word. I am in favor of paring back significantly the misspelling entries. - TheDaveRoss 13:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
So am I, in principle, but in practice, it can sometimes be very difficult to distinguish between a misspelling and a rare alternative spelling; and over time, something that started out as a misspelling can become an alternative spelling (often not a rare one), like lite, tonite, and barbeque. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as a common misspelling (WT:CFI#Spellings): (keytone*1000),ketone at Google Ngram Viewer suggests a frequency ratio of 1000, which is good enough for common misspellings by my calibration at User talk:Dan Polansky/2013#What is a misspelling. Since we expressly mark the item as a misspelling, any downstream reuser who does not want misspellings can easily filter it out. Editors who want to tighten the misspelling filter can consider a lower shreshold for the frequency ratio. I think common misspellings are a usability tool: I find it much more friendly to land on a page that expressly tells me that what I was searching for was a misspelling, and what it was a misspelling of. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
    @Dan Polansky: Please look at google books:"keytone". Most of the uses are not actually this misspelling, so the frequency you quoted is a gross overestimation. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
    @Μετάknowledge: GNV distinguishes capitalization, unlike Google Books: check e.g. keytone,Keytone at Google Ngram Viewer. Admittedly, when I ignore the uppercase occurrences in the Google Books search, I also find the likes of "The central tone in a key is called a keytone", but even if these would drive the frequency ratio to 2000, that would still be acceptable for a common misspelling by my lights. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

-proof[edit]

This has been RFD before, but didn't attract much attention [16]. Not listed as a suffix in Oxford Online, but it is in Cambridge [17]. I think it should be discussed further. DonnanZ (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

sapiens[edit]

sapiens#Translingual. The content, including descendants, of such an L2 section for a taxonomic epithet that is the same as a Latin lemma (adjective, participle, genitive form of noun) should appear under the Latin L2 section of the Latin lemma. DCDuring TALK 13:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep: it is a specific epithet, like platanifolia, gingivalis, lividans, etc. (these three were created as Translingual but you moved them to Latin), also guatemalae, livadus, laherparepvec, etc. They are presumably citable in taxonomic names in multiple languages other than Latin, and therefore I believe they are Translingual. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Your argument rests on missing or faulty premises, faulty data, or inappropriate considerations:
  1. Why should it matter who the author of any particular entry or move of an entry is? The treatment of taxonomic epithets is, in any event, an unsettled matter. I was hoping that a case like this would help us reach consensus about which taxonomic epithets clearly best presented as Latin.
  2. laherparepvec is part of the name of a drug, not a taxonomic epithet.
  3. Some of the terms in question are epithets for subspecies, varieties, forms, etc, so "taxonomic epithet" (which is SoP) is a bit more accurate than "specific epithet".
  4. The matter in question is more how to present terms rather than whether they "are" Latin or Translingual, the kind of question that only a linguist could love. We certainly don't bother attesting the Translingual nature of CJKV characters. We show almost no medical and legal Latin terms as Translingual. And we fail to show as Translingual many classical Latin terms that are used in many languages as set phrases (eg, "cave canem", "post hoc, ergo propter hoc"). IOW, there is no reason to assume that the fact of Translingual use is at all compelling of presenting something as Translingual. Translingual is essentially a residual category for terms otherwise without a language to call home.
  5. There seems to be evidence for many taxonomic epithets that they were in use in Classical, Medieval, and New Latin, not just in taxonomic names. Do you really want to do the work of creating all the duplicate L2 sections or do you want someone else to do it? Personally, I'd prefer to do the much lesser amount of work to eliminate Translingual L2 sections where a Latin L2 already exists and participate in the effort to document post-Classical non-taxonomic use of other taxonomic epithets, for which [[lividans]] is a good example.
DCDuring TALK 15:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • 1. One could abuse the moving like this: (a) Move or change all entries to a personally preferred form (like placing the taxonomic epithet "sapiens" in an Latin entry). (b) Claim that something is common practice or even consensus (like claiming that it's common practice that taxonomic epithets are Latin).
    (I'm not saying that you did this or are doing this, I'm just saying that one could do it like that.)
  • 2. Just like talimogene laherparepvec is English, laherparepvec might be English and not Translingual. Searching for "laherparepvec" on google books only had English results and two German results. One German result had "Talimogen Laherparepvec" and the other had "Talimogene laherparepvec" in italics, so it should be the English term. As German is not a LDL three cites are required. Thus with google books it's not attested in German.
  • 4.
    • CJKV: I don't know CJKV languages and their writing and encoding good enough, but from what I've read, not all characters are necessarily Translingual. The communists in mainland China simplified some characters, so these characters could be simplified Chinese and not Japanese, Korean or Vietnamese, and so they maybe aren't Translingual.
    • Medical and legal Latin terms and Classical Latin terms as Translingual: (a) Wiktionary is not complete, so a lack of something doesn't necessarily mean anything. Maybe many Translingual terms are simply missing. (b) It could be a matter of attesting terms. Attesting one term in one language is one problem, but attesting one term in several language is a harder task. (c) It could be a problem of current usage and understanding. At least in German, Latin terms became rarer and often aren't understood anymore. So even a simple "per definitionem" isn't so simple anymore and it's rather an elevated term. (d) BTW: In case of German there could be the matter of spelling: "cave canem" could become "cave Canem" as canem/Canem is a substantive.
    • "Translingual is essentially a residual category for terms otherwise without a language to call home.":
      • As of Wiktionary:Translingual#Other languages, terms can be Translingual and also, for example, English, so terms can be Translingual and can have possible languages to call home.
      • Many Translingual terms could be English, French, German etc. instead of being Translingual, that is they could have languages to call home. E.g. H2O and E numbers are used in English and German. So Translingual might contain terms attested in multiple languages and also terms which could hypothetically be used in multiple languages. If E100 is used in English and German, then it's used translingually and thus Translingual. As E101 could be used similarly in English and German, it's also Translingual, even if might ATM be unattested for English or German. But that "could hypothetically be used in multiple languages" has to be restricted and is restricted: Wiktionary:About Translingual#Accepted.
  • 5.
    • If "lividans" was never used in Latin but just in other languages, it shouldn't have a Latin entry as that's incorrect and misleading. So it could be English ("Streptomyces lividans" is attestable in English texts) or Translingual.
      Also compare with pseudo-anglicisms which are considered to be French, Italian, German etc. and not English. If lividans would be Latin, even if it was never used in Latin, then French tennisman should be English.
    • The "duplicating" maybe could be used to differ between earlier taxonomic terms and taxonomic terms accepted or once accepted by ICZN (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature). ICZN claims to only accepts terms invented in or after 1758: "3.2. [...] No name or nomenclatural act published before 1 January 1758 enters zoological nomenclature [...]". In fact, ICZN violates this by accepting some slightly earlier terms from 1757. So if older terms were never used in other languages, they could be Latin, while younger terms are Translingual. Homo sapiens for example is used in English and German, so it's used translingually and thus it's Translingual. But well, if older terms were also used translingually, one can't differ like this. And it might be likely that older terms were used translingually.
    • As there are Translingual entries like Streptomyces, it's more consistent, if lividans is Translingual too.
      Also it's easier to state that taxonomic terms are Translingual than to state some taxonomic terms are Translingual while some are Latin or English.
    • "much lesser amount of work": The amount of work doesn't determine the better or correct solution. Instead of doing RFVs/RFDs, it's easier to simply delete questioned entries. But this easy solution would be nonsense.
    • Regarding the work question: I was already considerend to move or duplicate some of them (as the WT:RFV discussions seem to have stopped). Problems I had: (a) It maybe wouldn't be consensus. (b) I was and am somewhat busy. Holiday time (like Christmas time) for me is a better time to do such things. (c) Proper Translingual templates could be missing. And some people do have problems with IPs creating or even just editing templates. Semi-solutions I saw: (a) Posting in the WT:RFV discussions again. (b) Starting a WT:BP discussion. But because of a lack of time and as IPs not rarelly get mistreated, I hesitated.
      So how about having a WT:BP discussion regarding the placement of taxonomic terms?
      Possibilities and some arguments:
      • Putting taxonomic terms under a Translingual header.
        • It's consistent.
        • The Latin origin is irrelevant, like pseudo-anglicisms also aren't English.
        • By attestation some terms would be Translingual, while younger onces would just be English ATM. So placing them under Latin is misleading and incorrect.
        • This is what Wiktionary:About Translingual#Accepted should already state or at least imply. -- Annotation: The about page could be changed.
      • Putting some taxonomic terms under a Translingual header and some under a Latin header.
        • Con: It's inconsistent, and thus might also irritate users and might lead to new incorrectly created entries.
        • It might be easier as it doesn't need new templates or anything.
      • Putting taxonomic terms under a Latin header.
        • It's consistent.
        • It might also be easy.
        • It orginated in Latin and has some Latin features. -- Con: But it's used or also used in other languages, and some terms might be unattested in Latin.
      • Putting taxonomic terms under the languages they are attested in.
        • It's consistent.
        • It might also be easy.
        • In this way one can provide more information like pronunciation and inflection. -- Annotation: In case of other choices, the information could be generalised and put on a about page.
        • Con: E.g. Homo sapens would than have an entry in several languages which is redundant.
@Daniel Carrero:
  • "They are presumably citable in taxonomic names in multiple languages other than Latin, and therefore I believe they are Translingual": In case of modern terms (like donaldtrumpi) it should rather be a problem to cite them in Latin than in English (or French, German). With google books I could attest iroquoianus only for English and not for another language (compare Wiktionary:RFV#iroquoianus). As it could be used in French or German as well, it might however be Translingual.
-84.161.53.36 21:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC) (And sorry for being a TL;DR text writing guy, but not giving arguments as well as ignoring other persons' arguments or concerns, wouldn't be good too.)
@DCDuring: I'll reply now to all your five points. I'll copy your questions below, between quotation marks.
  1. "Why should it matter who the author of any particular entry or move of an entry is? The treatment of taxonomic epithets is, in any event, an unsettled matter. I was hoping that a case like this would help us reach consensus about which taxonomic epithets clearly best presented as Latin."
    • It matters because of this reason: you had said that sapiens "should appear under the Latin L2 section of the Latin lemma" which might give the impression that it's a settled regulation. The page moves are evidence that, while we have some Latin entries for specific (or taxonomic) epithets, there is still some disagreement. Some people have created Translingual entries for epithets. That said, naturally I'm OK with discussing and seeking consensus.
  2. "laherparepvec is part of the name of a drug, not a taxonomic epithet."
    • Point taken, sorry for the mix-up.
  3. "Some of the terms in question are epithets for subspecies, varieties, forms, etc, so 'taxonomic epithet' (which is SoP) is a bit more accurate than 'specific epithet'."
    • Point taken, "taxonomic epithet" sounds great to me.
  4. "The matter in question is more how to present terms rather than whether they 'are' Latin or Translingual, the kind of question that only a linguist could love. We certainly don't bother attesting the Translingual nature of CJKV characters. We show almost no medical and legal Latin terms as Translingual. And we fail to show as Translingual many classical Latin terms that are used in many languages as set phrases (eg, 'cave canem', 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc'). IOW, there is no reason to assume that the fact of Translingual use is at all compelling of presenting something as Translingual. Translingual is essentially a residual category for terms otherwise without a language to call home."
    • I disagree with the "Translingual is essentially a residual category ..." and I'd suggest using Translingual for medical and legal Latin terms. I believe at some point you supported the idea of using Translingual for medical/legal terms too, if I'm not mistaken.
    • Here's a proposal. (I actually intend to propose it on BP eventually.) Whenever a taxonomic name is attestable, let's be allowed to create a Translingual (and not Latin) entry for the specific, and possibly other taxonomic epithets. These may probably be automated by bot. Reasons for this proposal are in my next answer, below.
  5. "There seems to be evidence for many taxonomic epithets that they were in use in Classical, Medieval, and New Latin, not just in taxonomic names. Do you really want to do the work of creating all the duplicate L2 sections or do you want someone else to do it? Personally, I'd prefer to do the much lesser amount of work to eliminate Translingual L2 sections where a Latin L2 already exists and participate in the effort to document post-Classical non-taxonomic use of other taxonomic epithets, for which [[lividans]] is a good example."
    • Admittedly, I basically never work on taxonomic names, whereas you work on them a lot. Still, nobody needs to create duplicate Translingual/Latin sections for specific epithets. To be fair, sometimes duplication seems to be OK, like creating multiple language sections for pizza, sushi and place names. But for specific epithets, what I proposed above is just using Translingual. Why duplicate? We don't need to create an additional line of text in the Latin section meaning "specific epithet".
    • If sapiens is used in Latin to mean "discerning, wise, judicious", "discreet", "(substantive) a wise man, sage, philosopher" then we probably are going to find quotations with these senses in latin running text. This is completely separate from the use of "sapiens" in specific epithets, which exists in multiple languages, and therefore Translingual is appropriate it in my opinion. Translingual taxonomic names have different quotations, uses and possibly pronunciations in different languages. Plus, they are going to have a list of all taxonomic names that use that epithet. I'd rather find it in one place (the Translingual section) rather than search the Latin section and discern the actual Latin from the specific epithets.
    • If specific epithets are Translingual, it's consistent with the practice of keeping taxonomic names as Translingual. If someone wants to use Latin for specific epithets, they may as well do the whole job and move all taxonomic names to the Latin section, too. (I'm not proposing that, I'm only saying that using only "Translingual" or only "Latin" would at least be consistent.)
    • In fact, even if a taxonomic name is only attested in Latin texts, I'd still propose using only the Translingual section for it, because it fits a group of Translingual entries. If "Homo erectus" (or another taxonomic name) were used only in durably-archived quotes in Spanish, I'd still support creating a Translingual section for it, not a Spanish section.
    • If we create new sections for specific epithets by bot, then it's actually less work, as opposed to the current labor of creating senses manually in the middle of the Latin section. Admittedly, probably the bot could work equally well to create Translingual or Latin sections for specific epithets. (Heck, the bot could even create duplicate sense lines meaning "specific epithet" in both Translingual and Latin, which you mentioned above as one thing you apparently don't want.) Still, I'd use it only for Translingual, not Latin, for the reasons I said above.
--Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is stupid, and a bad practice — if there's consensus for Daniel's idea, then it has to be gotten from the community and done on a broad scale. In the mean time, the Translingual entry should go. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
    Currently, a few senses about a "specific epithet" exist in both Latin and Translingual. Do you think they should all be deleted until we have consensus to add them in a broad scale, or are you OK with using Latin? To repeat what I said, I think using Latin is a bad idea, because it's inconsistent with the practice of using Translingual for taxonomic names. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
    What is the point, beyond one kind of "consistency", of having both Translingual and Latin L2 sections for a term like albus? If there is a point, eg, "Wikidata would need it that way" or "Tabbed Languages needs it that way", then let some bot add the duplicate sections, that being an automatable task, perhaps requiring manual review. DCDuring TALK 12:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
    The entry you mentioned (albus) does not have any sense like this: "A specific epithet." You don't have to create that sense if you don't want, but senses like this can probably be created en masse by bot as I mentioned. As long as that entry doesn't have that sense, it can have only the Latin section. But, I insist, if we want to add that sense, it must be Translingual, in my opinion. Consistency is important. That sense is simply not restricted to Latin only; it is used in multiple languages. It is, therefore, Translingual. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    @Daniel Carrero Does your personal opinion about the importance of of consistency connect in any way to any purported importance to Wiktionary and its users of this particular set of instances of consistency? DCDuring TALK 17:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    Yes. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@Daniel Carrero (12:20, 9 March 2017): Regarding 5 (2), "Translingual taxonomic names have different quotations, uses and possibly pronunciations in different languages.": They have as seen in Homo sapiens#Pronunciation.
@Metaknowledge: It's not a matter of anyone's idea. A voting like "delete until there is some concensus" would mean that many taxonomic terms under a Translingual or Latin header have to be deleted as there is also no concensus to put the taxonomic term iroquoianus under a Latin header. But with WT:Translingual#Accepted one could argue that there is, or maybe was, concensus to place taxonomic terms under a Translingual header.
@DCDuring (12:57, 15 March 2017): Consistency is a good point. Proper categorisation is another, compare Category:mul:Taxonomic names: Translingual sapiens can be put into a Category:mul:, but Latin sapiens would be misplaced in it. Furthermore, sapiens might be attested in Latin as a taxonomic term - but Translingual iroquoianus isn't, so it fails WT:CFI as a Latin entry and has to be deleted as a Latin entry. But ok, this leads to the argument consistency. Then there's the matter of declension. Translingual taxonomic terms aren't declined as in Latin in many languages as seen by the wrong accusative "Homo sapiens" in a German example in Citations:Homo sapiens or by the wrong English singular Homo sapien.
Another argument could be this: Translingual taxonomic terms might miss macrons (or macra) which are used in Latin dictionaries and grammars. So Latin macrons for a Translingual taxonomic term could be hypercorrect.
BTW: Taxonian might rather be a constructed 'language' similar to Klingon, New Ancient Greek (as e.g. used in Asterix comics), etc., for which maybe compare WT:CFI#Constructed languages, WT:ID#What's the language?. I used ' around language as it's maybe not really a language like Klingon which has a grammar or New Ancient Greek, but just something else similar to a language.
-84.161.63.142 20:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete. It's simply wrong. Alone, this word is not translingual, it's simply Latin. Even very modern such words should have a Latin entry (modern Latin, but Latin nonetheless). But complete scientific names should have their Translingual section as well as other language sections when needed to mention pronunciation in the language, quotations in the language, gender in the language (very important), etc. Lmaltier (talk) 08:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The argument "Alone, this word is not translingual, it's simply Latin" may work in this case. But: 1. There are many species epithets where it doesn't work, that is, the species epithets are not attestable in Latin but only in non-Latin taxonomics. 2. For Latin one could argue that "(New Latin) Used as a taxonomic epithet" is not a specialised sense but just the meaning wise. Even for Translingual taxonomics one could argue that they simply use the Latin word meaning wise to form species names like Homo sapiens. So one could delete both, the Translingual entry and the taxonomic epithet sense.
Compared with Wiktionary:About Translingual ("Accepted [...] taxonomic names"), Category:Translingual taxonomic eponyms (which contains some epithets) and Category:Species entry using missing Translingual specific epithet ("that are missing entries or L2 sections for the species name, presumed to be Translingual, ie, [= i.e.] not Latin"), one could argue that a Translingual entry sapiens is justified. -84.161.12.4 06:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@DCDuring: dahuricus was moved to Latin Dahuricus and a thereafter created Translingual dahuricus got deleted. What do you think of not having Translingual dahuricus, fleischmanni if there is a Latin Dahuricus, Fleischmanni? If Translingual sapiens should be deleted because there is Latin sapiens, then Translingual dahuricus, fleischmanni maybe should be too. -84.161.22.20 12:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't care very much. I already incur the keyboard overhead in species entry creation of directing links from species epithets to the appropriate lemma and L2 (See {{epinew}}.) because I despaired of us reaching an easy-to-implement uniform policy concerning L2 placement of specific epithets. I hope that those who move a epithet definition or section also make the appropriate changes to the inflection line in species entries that link to them. DCDuring (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

sectary[edit]

I think I have succeeded in making "A sectarian" redundant by adding "A member of a particular sect of thought or practice, school, party, or profession."

breakfast in bed[edit]

Both the noun and the verb seem SoP to me and also to all the lexicographers who failed to provided entries (even redirects) at breakfast in bed at OneLook Dictionary Search. DCDuring TALK 00:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep, per your and DAVilla's comments in the last RFD discussion. If one said "I was served breakfast in bed," it would be an SOP expression, but it's usually used with "have": "I had breakfast in bed," which makes it at least somewhat non-SOP. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as SoP. — SMUconlaw (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Try as I might, I cannot perceive any meaning of "breakfast in bed" that is different from "breakfast" + "in bed". Mihia (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    It's mostly the fact that it heavily implies that one was served breakfast in bed rather than simply eating it there. I'm not strongly opposed to deleting it, but it feels like it's more than SOP. Now, if we had a collocations section, I would be fine with relegating it to there... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Andrew, being served is not inherent to any component term. bd2412 T 04:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete; having it served is not a necessary part of the definition. Here's a case of someone saying "I had breakfast in bed" when they were alone and had to get it themselves. There are other similar cases. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Along the same lines many of the instances in this Google Books search are examples in which the server/preparer of breakfast and the one served are the same. The logistics of the situation (How often would I want to get out of bed, make breakfast, then return to bed to eat it?), not the meaning of the words seems to be what makes breakfast in bed normally involve a situation in which someone else is preparing and serving it. DCDuring TALK 18:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Grabbing a bagel and eating it in bed in the morning would not be referred to as "breakfast in bed" (except perhaps humorously). Even if someone brings you a bagel while you're lying in bed, that probably wouldn't count. It implies some sort of fanciness; whether someone is serving you, or you're serving yourself, there is still the idea of service and luxury. --WikiTiki89 20:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe in your idiolect, but other people's usage seems different, eg:
  • 2014, Mr Ceri Carpenter, Megan and the Mayoress:
    Megan could not just lie there any longer, so she got up, boiled three eggs, made some tea and toast and took her parents and herself breakfast in bed
  • 2015, Pat Warren, ‎Carol Ericson, Obsession and Eyewitness, page 96:
    He'd shed his jeans last night and hadn't expected breakfast in bed this morning. Not that he minded. She poured a cup of the steaming brew and carried it to him along with a sliced bagel on a plate.
  • 2015, Terrence Benjamin Samuel Jr, Strange Luv: Twisted Fate:
    To show her appreciation, she decided to make her auntie breakfast in bed which consisted of a bowl of cereal (75% milk and 25% cereal).
I have this feeling that there may be other entries, including for true idioms, that need work more than we need to cover every collocation, especially those not covered by any other OneLook reference. DCDuring TALK 22:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I may be misunderstanding you, but it looks to me like these support WikiTiki and my position. They all seem to support idiomaticity, especially the third one. It's clear that she didn't actually make her aunt breakfast while in a bed, but rather prepared her aunt's breakfast to be eaten in bed. In the first quote, "Megan" isn't taking breakfast while in bed, but rather taking breakfast in bed to her parents and for herself. Between those three quotes, I'd say there's an even stronger case for idiomaticity than I had thought. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Wikitiki made the point that point that there was some connotation of fanciness and being served (though he backed away from both elements, in the end merely claiming that the term implied luxury even when the service was by oneself and the food was simple).
There is some kind of connotation, but only because of the pragmatics, the situations in which one is likely to have breakfast in bed. But many collocations have some kind of connotations, often, as here, simply because of the situations in which they are used.
Should romantic dinner have an entry? For that matter, should oyster have a separate definition because of its connotational association with sex (It's a supposed afrodisiac.). DCDuring TALK 15:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't really understand what you're trying to say. What I was trying to say is that it has a specific connotation of luxury and/or service or something like that. When in reality there is no luxury or service, the use of this phrase is ironic. Oysters may sometimes have an association with sex, but when they don't there is no irony. --WikiTiki89 20:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that cases like these would be easier to resolve if a "set phrases" exemption to the SoP rule could somehow be framed. Mihia (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: per Andrew, BD and Wikitiki Purplebackpack89 04:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

same old-same old[edit]

Um I don't know what to say about this except that it's inherently incorrect. If everyone disagrees then we'll keep it. Just drawing attention. Equinox 22:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

We'd need it as a redirect anyway. Keeping it as an entry is just a matter of attestation IMO. DCDuring TALK 00:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
After I put this to WT:RFV#same old-same old, attesting quotations are now in the entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I vote to keep. It is a reasonably common variant. Kiwima (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Lima[edit]

Translingual entry. I don't think ICAO is truly translingual - it's English. English has been chosen the language of international aviation, but that does not make English aviation terminology translingual. AFAIK, most languages have a spelling alphabet of their own for their national use. --Hekaheka (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I've noted that some letters are under English and some are under Translingual, but they should all be under English. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Not only aviation though, it is used internationally on amateur radio, along with all the other letters. I have the callsign Golf Zero Echo Zulu Lima. DonnanZ (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Keep, these terms are used in all languages. It's no more English than Canis is Latin. Moreover, the pronunciation is prescribed in IPA and notably does not match the regular English pronunciation in several cases. —CodeCat 21:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Nope. It is clearly an English set and it is used only in a context where English is the assumed language of communication. ICAO set does not even contain all letters of all languages. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so sure about that. The alphabet involved has various names, depending on what organisation is using it [18], a key sentence in this article says "critical combinations of letters and numbers can be pronounced and understood by those who exchange voice messages by radio or telephone regardless of language barriers or the quality of the communication channel", which I can well believe. In fact the alphabet has a multilingual flavour anyway, Alpha, Bravo, Delta, Echo, Hotel, Lima, November, Quebec, Sierra, Tango, Zulu and maybe others all come from other languages in the first place. I suggest making them all translingual if not already done - I notice that Hotel has two entries, one with a small "h". DonnanZ (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
"ICAO set does not even contain all letters of all languages." I think compromises are found - Ü as UE, ß as SS (which it is in capitals anyway), Æ as AE, Ø and Ö as OE, Å as AA (which it used to be anyway), and so on. DonnanZ (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Spanish has its own phonetic alphabet (e.g. jueves), as does Italian (e.g. Quarto). Is the ICAO alphabet used in those languages? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I found a table written in Danish, giving letters that are probably used internally. Other letters are the same.

I Norden anvendes Æ/Ä, Ø/Ö og Å, som har fået tildelt lokale navne:

Bogstav Dansk Norsk (civilt) Norsk (militært) Svensk
Æ / Ä Ægir Ægir Ærlig Ärlig
Ø / Ö Ødis Ørnulf Østen Östen
Å Åse Ågot Åse Åke
DonnanZ (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
@DonnanZ: It's said that ICAO has alfa or Alfa with f.
German has its own spelling alphabets and has names for German letters including the umlaute and ß.
At least Danish also had other ways of spelling, like "aa" instead of "å".
I would generalise and extend Andrew Sheedy's question: Is the ICAO alphabet used in other languages than English (and, of course, is it attested in other languages than English)? Do Spanish pilots etc. speak Spanish and use ICAO, or do Italians, Frenches or Germans speak their language and use ICAO? If Spanish pilots use ICAO's alphabet and speak English, then it's English. If they speak Spanish and use ICAO it's also Spanish and thus Translingual. So this could be a RFV instead of RFD. -84.161.53.36 17:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Keep : I already heard these ICAO letters used in French (not by pilots; and no English was used at all). There is a standard pronunciation, but usual pronunciations in each language should be given in each language section. Lmaltier (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I just heard a use of Kilo in Dutch by the police in a documentary. I'm unable to post a link because the spam filter blocks it. —CodeCat 22:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

-/-[edit]

-_-[edit]

-*-[edit]

These three entries (-/-, -_- and -*-) contain only one sense:

POS section: Interfix

  1. (neologism) Used to separate multiple gendered inflections in gender-neutral writing.
    Freund/innen; ein/e Beamt/er/in
    friends (of any gender); an officer (of any gender)
  1. (neologism) Used to separate multiple gendered inflections in gender-neutral writing.
    Freund_innen; ein_e Beamt_er_in
    friends (of any gender); an officer (of any gender)
  1. (neologism) Used to separate multiple gendered inflections in gender-neutral writing.
    Freund*innen; ein*e Beamt*er*in
    friends (of any gender); an officer (of any gender)

I don't speak German, but I believe these are just punctuation marks (/, _ and *) that can be used inside words, not interfixes. The first one looks like just the punctuation mark found in "I want to meet him/her." It's used like this in Portuguese, too. We already have a couple of senses like those at /, though I'm not sure why they are marked as "proscribed" and "sometimes proscribed".

  1. (proscribed) exclusive or (used to link mutually-exclusive alternatives)
    I think she/he writes very well.
    I think s/he writes very well.
  2. (sometimes proscribed) inclusive or (used to link compatible alternatives or joint items)
    He's an actor/model.

These uses also resemble a sense currently in ( ) with multiple examples:

  1. Expands a word into another word, inflection or spelling.
    Go get the dog(s) - Here, s is a shorthand for the plural dogs.
    You should (re)write that story. - Here, re is an optional prefix re-.
    Blue is my favo(u)rite colo(u)r. - Here, u is an alternative spelling (color/colour).
    A variable with persistence that is currently above (below) its mean will tend not go below (above) its mean for some time.

Plus if I want to know the meaning of the slash in "Freund/innen", I guess it's more intuitive to search for / than -/-.

If that / were an interfix, then by that logic I believe ! would be a suffix and ( ) would be a circumfix. (which they aren't) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete per Danliel's reasoning. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Aah, please can we change the entry into cute smilies instead of deleting them. The first one could be for Two-Face. The second one a sleeping dude, and the third one perhaps for a Hindu with a dot on the forehead. I vote for being Cute. --Quadcont (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
    Creating emoticon entries for -/-, -_- and -*- sounds plausible (especially this, IMO: -_-) iff they are citable. This is separate from the idea I proposed above of deleting these specific German senses. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
-/- in "ein/e Beamt/er/in" is different from / in "his/her" or German "sein/ihr": While "his/her" could be rephrased as "his or her" and "sein/ihr" as "sein oder ihr", "Beamt/er/in" would be, but with change of meaning, "Beamter oder Beamtin" and "ein/e" would be "ein oder eine" (bold part has to be added when -/- is used). If one would incorrectly treat a -/- like a /, one would get "ein oder e" which doesn't make sense.
  • "We already have a couple of senses like those at /": Well, one could move some of the senses from / to -/-.
  • "I'm not sure why they are marked as "proscribed" and "sometimes proscribed"": It could depend on the spelling, and not necessarily on the meaning. "she/he" could be "sometimes proscribed" like "actor/model" while "s/he" is "proscribed".
  • "Plus if I want to know the meaning of the slash in "Freund/innen", I guess it's more intuitive to search for / than -/-.": It is more intuitive, but intuitions can be wrong. One could add -/- in an {{also|}} or mention it like / / in / ("See also: / / for the use ..." and "See / / for uses of ...").
  • "! would be a suffix": ! is not added to a word, at least in usual English words or German. In English words like !Kung and in African languages ! might be a prefix or suffix when originally representing some click sounds, but that's something different.
    "( ) would be a circumfix": Aren't circumfixes only added at the begining and at the end like [circumfix part 1][word or stem][circumfix part 2]? ( ) instead is added elsewhere like in "dog(s)", "(re)write", "colo(u)r". So if ( ) would be some affix, it would be of another type.
    But well, the POS "Punctuation mark" might be more fitting and then / might be the proper entry. However, one has to differ between "ein/e" and "ein/eine": 1. In case of "ein/e" something has to be added (a single "e" makes no sense there). 2. / in "ein/eine" has the meaning of or and so "ein/eine" is bi-gendered (like "a man or woman"). "ein/e" on the other hand is said to include various sociological genders and is multi-gendered (like "a man or woman or possibly other"). 3. / meaning or as in "ein/eine" can be used elsewhere like in "und/oder" (= and or or, i.e. an emphasised inclusive or).
-84.161.53.36 16:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep (as creator) "Freund/innen" is a good example of why -/- isn't simply a slash. It's not "Freund"/"innen", nor is it even "Freund [singular]"/"Freundinnen" - it's "Freunde [plural] and Freundinnen". The slash specifically draws attention to the fact the use of the -innen suffix does not necessarily mark the gender of the friends (It makes more sense for words like Mitarbeiter/innen where the masculine plural is the same as the singular). Similarly, in "Beamt/er/in", it's not "Beamt"/"er"/"in", it's "Beamter"/"Beamtin". It's doing something unique that it only does when inserted into words. All of the examples given by the OP, with the exception of the slash in s/he, are punctuation marks with the same meaning both inside and outside words. (There's also the fact that, for -*- and -_-, you can't use these symbols any other way: you couldn't write "ja/nein" as "ja*nein" or "ja_nein". They only work as interfixes). Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    • For people who believe this should be kept, but that it's not an interfix, would you say it's an infix? eg in "für eine/n andere/n", where it's inserted into the middle of the -en suffix? (e.g. in 1, 2, [3)? Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: I'm still not seeing why this usage can't be explained within /. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, but move the information, as I don't think it's a true interfix, but it needs to be covered more thoroughly at /, *, and [[_]]. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

病臥中[edit]

Sum of parts (see etymology). —suzukaze (tc) 05:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

rub off[edit]

RFD-sense "2. To clean by rubbing." Undoubtedly true, but this is just unidiomatic "rub off" for a specific purpose. We don't include senses like "to deface by rubbing" either. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Our entry for rub#Verb doesn't have an appropriate definition for rub, IMO. Juding from the usage examples the "cleanse" definition is not appropriate. DCDuring TALK 15:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed: if the example was "I rubbed the dirt off the old lamp", it would be SoP, but "rubbing off" a toy rabbit (cleaning it) seems a phrase of its own. Equinox 19:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't rub in "I rubbed my glasses" imply cleaning in a similar way, with the thing being cleaned as the direct object? [19] [20] Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
A couple of on-line dictionaries 2 1.4 3 1 a include a (sub) sense involving cleaning for rub, usually under a sense corresponding to Wiktionary's sense 2. It does seem an existing sense not limited to rub off. [21] [22] Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

national airline[edit]

I was going to fix the definition, which is for "flag carrier". When trying to formulate a better definition it began to look more and more like "an airline that is national". --Hekaheka (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The corresponding definition of flag carrier doesn't convey that the term often refers to a carrier/airline that is typically the sole airline that provides some class of international service and may be government owned or have a special charter giving it a monopoly. I think that the meaning of the term has changed where "open-skies" regulatory regimes now govern. DCDuring TALK 15:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017[edit]

deadwrong[edit]

This seems deletable as a rare misspelling of dead wrong or dead-wrong. The regulation is WT:CFI#Spellings. deadwrong, dead wrong, dead-wrong at Google Ngram Viewer does not even find "deadwrong", and therefore, frequency ratio cannot be determined with the use of GNV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Recently raised at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#deadwrong. Mihia (talk) 04:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, and in WT:RFV#deadwrong, Kiwima found attesting quotations so this is going to pass RFV. It can still be deleted as a rare misspelling per WT:CFI#Spellings. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
What makes it a misspelling rather than an emergent spelling or a pronunciation spelling? DCDuring TALK 13:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Consistent with my long-term stance, a spelling whose frequency ratio to its alternative spelling is very low (or very high, from the other direction) is likely a misspelling. For the above spelling, no frequency can even be determined in GNV. What is your criterion for a misspelling? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't have a criterion or criteria. I'm glad I don't because it seems that your plausible criterion has gotten this one deadwrong. DCDuring TALK 16:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Delete per nom, as a rare misspelling. Of the relatively few books that use "deadwrong", many also use "dead wrong", which suggests that the use of the rare nonstandard spelling is an unintentional error rather than deliberate. Other books only use the term once, preventing such an analysis. - -sche (discuss) 05:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

e-#Etymology_1, "out of"[edit]

Delete [as English] or reclassify as Latin like ec-; and probably sug- et al should be recreated as Latin; for the same reason as Talk:sug-: it seems to me that Etymology 1, the prefix supposedly meaning "out of", is describing a Latin conditional variant prefix and not an English one. Looking at the "derived terms", "evict" is borrowed whole from Latin, it is not "e-" + *"vict"; "egress" is from Latin, not "e-" + *"gress"; etc. - -sche (discuss) 16:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Looking at Category:English words prefixed with e-, there are a few words that look like they are examples of productive use of Latin-derived e- (but some have a sense that is more accurately described as non- rather than out of): ebracteate, enucleate, ecostate, elamping, elocation, enodal, etypical, evacate. Maybe they are actually borrowings from scientific New Latin terms, though; does anyone have more info?
Even if this is enough to keep the section, we ought to add information to describe the real situation (that nearly all words with this e- are Latin borrowings). — Ungoliant (falai) 16:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster says ebracteate is from New Latin ebracteatus and enucleate is from enucleatus, and I can find ecostatus and elocatio and enodalis as (New?) Latin words which would account for ecostate, etc. In all of those cases, e- looks like "sug-": like the prefix only existed in Latin. The invocation of "e-" in our etymology of "elamping" seems to be someone's guesswork, qualified by that question mark at the end. "Evacate" seems likely to also have a Latin or other etymon like "evacuate", or perhaps it is a variant of that word. I can't find a reference that explains the etymology of "etypical"; can anyone else? - -sche (discuss) 21:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Are there any cases where English uses e- where Latin would use another allomorph of ex- due to the initial sound(s) of the word? Any examples of the suffix being used in an "un-Latin" way would be evidence of it being thought of as an English prefix. —CodeCat 21:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

ef-[edit]

Probably delete [as English] or reclassify as Latin for the same reason as Talk:sug- and #e-. "Efform" and "effranchise" claim to have been formed using this suffix, but I suspect they were borrowed whole or represent unusual phonological alterations, since the norm when attaching "ex-" to "f"-initial words is not to switch to "ef-" ("exfranchisees sued the company"). The only English dictionaries which have this also have sug- and hence seem to have different inclusion criteria than us. - -sche (discuss) 16:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@-sche: The OED states that efform derives from ef- +‎ form, though I suppose it could derive from the Latin efformō instead. Isn't this an RFV issue, though? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I find older dictionaries with derive efform from Latin efformo, which is an attested Latin word; ef- form seems like a superficial analysis like in some dictionaries' entries for "suggest" which say it's "sug- + gest". As for RFV, some have argued that the question of deleting an affix (even on the grounds that it does not occur in a given language) is an RFD matter; cf the discussions of -os. Sug- was discussed at RFD rather than RFV. - -sche (discuss) 21:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

ล้อรถ[edit]

SOP --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 04:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

quasi mai[edit]

SOP? Also, I find it very odd that an entry for hardly ever has never been created. --Quadcont (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

More Chinese names (characters from Romance of the Three Kingdoms)[edit]

(WT:NSE) All of these are surname + given name:

李典, 李封, 龔景/龚景, 伏德, 黃劭/黄劭, 胡邈, 胡敬才, 閔貢/闵贡, 楊彪/杨彪, 楊密/杨密, 薛蘭/薛兰, 吳匡/吴匡, 趙萌/赵萌, 楊琦/杨琦, 宗寶/宗宝, 薛禮/薛礼, 范康, 檀敷, 龐舒/庞舒, 王邑, 韓融/韩融, 孔昱, 伍孚, 呂伯奢/吕伯奢, 胡赤兒/胡赤儿, 黃琬/黄琬, 孔伷, 蘇獻/苏献, 潘隱, 應劭/应劭, 關純/关纯, 王匡, 蒯良, 臧霸, 荀諶/荀谌, 桓階/桓阶, 武安國/武安国, 張虎/张虎, 馬宇/马宇, 左靈/左灵, 紀靈/纪灵, 呂公/吕公, 麴義/麴义, 區星/区星, 曹德, 蔣雄/蒋雄, 荀正, 宋果, 范成, 胡才, 祖郎, 王昌, 岑晊

Sigh. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Collect these to an appendix page instead? These names are somewhat useful. --Octahedron80 (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

McClain County[edit]

SOP, McClain + county. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. Those two parts don't tell us where it is. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
delete it's probably not SOP because it refers to a specific administrative entity, but in any case it's not dictionary material. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Not a fan of us being an atlas, but we do do place names, and this is one, and not SoP (as explained by Blotto). (P.S. Why did I create it if I don't like the place-name entries much? Because it was in one of Ungoliant's word lists, and I tend to be thorough...) Equinox 14:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • But the names of counties should not be added in such a way. I think the info for "McClain County" would be better off moved to McClain. As said above, it's not dictionary material, and I've actually NEVER seen an entry with "county" at the end of it that wasn't in the deletion log until now. This baffles me. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
It's part of the name, like city in New York City. Equinox 15:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Then why don't we have names for every county? Do you think we should include the other tens of thousands of US counties with the name "County" at the end of them? How is that dictionaric? PseudoSkull (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
We don't have them because nobody has added them yet. Consensus and the place-name policy say that yes, we should have them. Personally I don't care much. Equinox 15:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
We have quite a few US counties. Many, but not all have been added to Category:en:Counties of the United States of America. We should probably have them all, but it would be mind-numbingly boring to add them all. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Keep. The "County" part doesn't necessarily come after in English, so I think it's useful to include it. For instance, in Alberta, one can find the "County of Two Hills" and the "County of Vermilion" (neither of which can be shortened) but "Sturgeon County" (which can be shortened to "Sturgeon"). "County" is part of the name (at least in Canada), and it's not always predictable whether it precedes or follows the rest of the name (again, at least in Canada). Thus, it is as useful to have as "New York City," IMO. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Also in County Durham. Former counties like Middlesex are also represented, although this discussion is centred on US counties. Keep them all anyway and expand, there must be hundreds of them. DonnanZ (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't see why this should be included any more than tens or probably hundreds of thousands of other minor place names. Is a dictionary really the place for all these? I think they belong in Wikipedia. Mihia (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't see any harm in what is in most cases a one-line entry. A link can be added to Wikipedia where an article exists; Wikipedia is of course the place for an in-depth description. DonnanZ (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the question is less about "no harm" and more about what is the purpose of a dictionary. I do not personally think that the purpose of a dictionary is to list potentially hundreds of thousands of minor place-names. Mihia (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
We recently voted on and passed a policy to include counties (see the fifth bullet of CFI#Place names), so if you oppose their inclusion, you'll have to get enough support to overturn that vote. I find etymologies of place names very interesting, so I don't see any good reason why we shouldn't include them in Wiktionay. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, place name etymologies are very interesting. Do these belong in a dictionary? I would say no. It does not bother me enough to campaign to overturn that vote, however. Mihia (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
They may not belong in a regular dictionary, but I think they are perfectly appropriate for a dictionary with unlimited space, a goal to be comprehensive, and no expenses to worry about. As long as someone wants to add them, I say go for it. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Not dictionary material and uninteresting. Wyang (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
What you find uninteresting may be of interest to other users; personally I am interested in place names. How places got their names can also be interesting, and etymology is included in some cases. When creating Mascot I found that the original preferred name was Ascot, but the postal authorities weren't in favour for some reason, so the name was changed. DonnanZ (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
It is Wiktionary policy to include counties. See the fifth bullet of CFI#Place names. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't know about Wyang, but my objection is solely to the listings with "County" in the name. I have no objection whatsoever to including county names under their "simple" names, such as McClain in this instance. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
"Uninteresting" isn't part of CFI Purplebackpack89 21:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I am leaning keep because from what I know (as a non-Usonian) county names in the US are always named with the word "County" included, it's a fixed part of the name. Would McClain County ever be referred to as just McClain? If someone asked which county you are from, would the answer likely be McClain or McClain County? —CodeCat 22:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
@CodeCat:: If the question was "What county are you from?" I'd say "McClain", because it would be clear from the question I'm answering that I'm referring to the county. But if the question were "Where are you from?" I'd say "McClain County", because "McClain" alone would be interpreted as the name of a city or town. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Should we also delete West Virginia as "West + Virginia" and move the definition to those two? —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
    • That's a pretty massive straw man. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
      • @Angr: I don't see how they are different. Or South + Africa, New + York, etc. We just had a discussion on place names and unless I misread that somehow, all first-level subdivisions were considered legit as were cities, towns, and villages. Is that incorrect? Are second-level administrative divisions not included according to your understanding? —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Purplebackpack89 21:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

And all of Category:en:Counties of the United States of America[edit]

That is, to move them to their proper names, for example, Orange County's definition would be moved to Orange, and Orange County will be deleted. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

There's no less than eight counties named Orange County, so that entry kills eight birds with one stone. DonnanZ (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Keep per my statement above. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Keep (oppose blanket deletion) per Andrew, and New York City: sometimes a place name includes the nature of the name (like city or county), and removing that word gives you a name that isn't what human beings use to describe the place. I think this is coming from a misguided idea about what SoP means (and I say this as a deletionist!). Equinox 20:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
The category is seriously underpopulated, I think. DonnanZ (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think the title of the category is far too long, and should be shortened to say "US counties". This would make addition of the category to entries much easier. DonnanZ (talk) 09:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Following up on what was suggested here, I created the shorter name you mention (with language prefix: CAT:en:US counties) as a redirect. Entries that get placed in the shorter-name category can be moved to the longer-name category periodically by bot or AutoWikiBrowser. :) If you use Hotcat, adding even the longer name is not hard, btw. - -sche (discuss) 04:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Not dictionary material and uninteresting. Wyang (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Keep all. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Keep all. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
About placenames: note that there are placename paper dictionaries e.g. Dictionnaire des noms de lieux (Le Robert), which are purely etymological. Etymological information belongs to the Wiktionary project. Placenames should be welcome, even very minor ones (but not including placenames which cannot be considered as words, such as Excelsior Hotel or 4th Street). Another important reason to include them is demonyms. Lmaltier (talk) 07:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems that in Louisiana they are called parishes, not counties. I wonder why. DonnanZ (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Louisiana was French until the Louisiana purchase.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, apparently it comes from French paroisse. Cheers. DonnanZ (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete. These are inherently encyclopedic, as are all of the newly CFI-compliant place names. At least when the bar was at the state and primary administrative district level there wasn't the potential for hundreds of thousands of worthless entries, only hundreds. - TheDaveRoss 12:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I haven't said it before, but keep this category. The subject has become of interest to me. DonnanZ (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep all. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep all CFI says keep these, and it should. Purplebackpack89 21:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The category has been emptied by Koavf in order to satisfy a personal whim. It has to be refilled. DonnanZ (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Its contents have merely been put in subcategories. Whether or not it would be useful to double-categorize, so that Virginian counties were in both "Counties of Virginia‎" and this big category, I'm not sure. One day it'd be nice if the site software itself allowed users to easily get a clickable list of everything that is in the subcategories of any given category. - -sche (discuss) 04:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I miss the parent category badly and found it very useful, so something has to be done. DonnanZ (talk) 07:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

be above[edit]

Should be handled at "above". (Never mind the mess that "be" makes of our inflection template. "is", "was", "were", "been"?) Equinox 16:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete, merging any useful material into above#Preposition, perhaps by enhancing definitions or add usage examples. DCDuring TALK 17:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Many Thai language names[edit]

Per #ภาษาไทย above. These are SoPs, and should be converted to redirects with content migrated to the base articles (without "language"):

Wyang (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Redirect all to lemmas, per the above link. Inclusion of usexes would be helpful but not required for this RFD to go ahead. Also, converting to translations, e.g. French#Translations from ภาษาฝรั่งเศส (th) to SoP ภาษาฝรั่งเศส would also be helpful but not required. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Redirect all to lemmas --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I've been shot[edit]

If you heard a gunshot & somebody yelping or screaming, you can safely assume that somebody’s been shot. If you see a bullet hole on somebody, you can likewise assume that they’ve been shot. Why bother stating the obvious? — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 00:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

They might be on a 911 call, or talking to a blind person, or discussing a shooter video game. Equinox 00:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
And they might be trying to feed an elephant a delicious mango. But our phrasebook entries don't need to cover any and all situations. Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Keep I've been shot, like I've been raped and I've been robbed. Don't create I'm trying to feed an elephant a delicious mango. Most conceivable phrases don't merit phrasebook entries, and some do. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

อะนาโตลี[edit]

Not a word in Thai (even person name). --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, the entry was created by a native Thai speaker. @Atitarev, any thoughts? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with Octahedron80 but it's not my entry and I don't think the entry is important, even if it's a transliteration of my name.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

tinkling[edit]

Rfd of the adjective sense: this strikes me as redundant to the present participle sense

  • Dunno about that. Tinkling bells springs to mind. I think it's an attributive adjective. DonnanZ (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
IMO "tinkling" in "tinkling bells" is probably not a true adjective. I doubt that "tinkling" is ever a true adjective. Mihia (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
It looks like an adjective to me. Even the OED has two entries as an adjective (1 - that tinkles, 2- that works as a tinker). SemperBlotto (talk) 05:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
"The piano is very tinkling"?? It doesn't sound right to me. I think the required adjective would be "tinkly". I don't know anything about OED sense 2. Mihia (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
That's why I said it's an attributive adjective, before the noun. "The wind chimes are tinkling" is a present participle, "the tinkling wind chimes" an attributive adjective. That's how I see it. DonnanZ (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I would draw a distinction between what I called a "true" adjective, and the fact that any present participle can be put in front of a noun to modify it, as a regular feature of the English language. I do not believe that participles in the latter cases need separate "adjective" entries where they mean no more than "X doing Y". Where there is a special or extended meaning, yes, but I don't see that with "the tinkling wind chimes". Mihia (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

inter alios[edit]

This seems SOP: inter means “among” and alios means “other people”. — Eru·tuon 09:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure about inter alios by itself, but res inter alios acta is a legal doctrine. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Another link for that: res inter alios acta (Wiktionary and not Wikipedia).
Maybe the language - and BTW maybe the POS too - is once again wrong? Too often English phrases and abbreviations are created as Latin entries here. This GBS result has "inter alios" in references and is English. So does this GBS result though it uses italics. This GBS result has "[...] a verdict inter alios may [...]". dictionary.com knows "inter alios" too. So maybe it's an English phrase? -80.133.103.6 13:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Convert to English. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017[edit]

I can't hear you over the sound of[edit]

SOP.​—msh210 (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you implying that "stupidity" and other such things have literal sounds? Because that seems to me to be the only way it could be SOP. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Why does everyone always think SOP means "literal"? --WikiTiki89 12:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Should there be a figurative sense at sound instead? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Not really even idiomatic. You can use any similar sentence. --WikiTiki89 12:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
The current definition is very inadequate, not indicating that the phrase is incomplete as it stands, nor what needs to be added to finish it. Equinox 12:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

១០០០០០០[edit]

For the same reason that 1000000 doesn't exist. The IPA doesn't belong here anyway, but should instead go to the actual spelling of the term, whatever that may be. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

1000000 apparently doesn't exist for the same reason 994,020,440,101,954 doesn't exist. If you figure out the actual spelling of the term, what would be the harm in redirecting to it? Siuenti (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
One good argument is that the software automatically redirects you to ១០០០០០០ if you search for 1000000. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
The reason 1000000 doesn't redirect to million appears to be that because there are an infinite number of SOP numbers, NSOP numbers, which are nearly, but not quite, as infinite, must get the same treatment. Siuenti (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep I am assuming the "actual spelling" target is NSOP. That makes it a legitimate search term and synonym for a Wiktionary entry. We should make it as easy as possible for people who used the term to find the word. If there are no other possible NSOP targets for the title, redirect it. If there are possible targets, which seems unlikely in this case, make a page like 1000. If people think this should be deleted I would like to know if 1000 should also be deleted, and if not why not. Siuenti (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

adjacent to[edit]

This smells like SOP, but I'd like to see what happened to any other compound prepositions that have gone through RFD. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Redirect to adjacent. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 19:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

政治的広告[edit]

SOP: 政治的 + 広告. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

文學學士學位[edit]

SOP: 文學學士 (Bachelor of Arts) + 學位 (degree). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

1000000[edit]

It seems to me that it would be a good idea to redirect 1000000 to million because it's a plausible and unambiguous search term for an NSOP word. However I know that a great deal of thought has gone into the deletion of redirects to NSOP words in English, possibly related to their near-infinite number, so if you wouldn't mind I'd like you to explain Barney-style why the harm of these redirects outweighs any possible benefit of people being able to find what they were looking for. Siuenti (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you should read the previous discussions about it rather than asking us to rehearse it all again for you. As noted elsewhere, searching for 1000000 already finds million as the first search result, so users will not be harmed. Equinox 21:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok let me go look. I guess this is only tangentially related but the first search result for 1,000,000 appears to be

Creating 1,000,000

Wiktionary does not yet have an entry for 1,000,000. To start the entry, type in the box below and click "Save page". Your changes will be visible immediately. If you are not sure how to format a new entry from scratch, you can use the preload templates to help you get started. If you are new to Wiktionary, please see Help:Starting a new page, or use the sandbox for experiments. Also make sure your entry meets our criteria for inclusion. Warning: You are recreating a page that was previously deleted. You should consider whether it is appropriate to continue editing this page. The deletion and move log for this page are provided here for convenience. Note that administrator comments older than one year may be inaccurate, as explained in Deletions. 13:37, 17 May 2008 SemperBlotto (talk | contribs) deleted page 1,000,000 (Bad entry title)

Siuenti (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

OK sorry I can't find the previous discussions and I'm not sure how to look. Can you give me a clue? Btw I did find seven hundred and fifty you might want to delete that. Siuenti (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
For a related discussion see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#1000 Siuenti (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
The plot thickens... now I get a different search result for 1,000,000 which looks like User:Siuenti/1,000,000 Siuenti (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I wonder why the discussion to delete 1000000 and 1000000000 (which Equinox tells me totally did happen and I believe him implicitly) didn't link to those entries. These are the smallest members of the set I believe, and people typically link to examples in deletion discussions. Maybe they just didn't in this case. Anyway although I haven't still found this discussion, which totally totally does exist, because Equinox is not the kind of person who would send people on a wild goose chase due to not having a clue what he is doing, I will keep on searching and eventually, without doubt, I will find it. Or the people at the help desk where I asked in good faith will find it for me. Siuenti (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I have deleted the redirect that was created. Either it deserves a full entry, or it deserves no entry. A redirect misleadingly implies that only English and the few other languages at the entry for million use this number. --WikiTiki89 17:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Restore: We obviously don't need an entry for every possible number, but this is one that I believe an entry is acceptable for. Purplebackpack89 17:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • So how about an entry like the one for 1000 ? Siuenti (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
The term has been deleted, so I guess the matter is resolved for now. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

safe, sane and consensual[edit]

Tagged in March (as SoP), not listed. See Talk:safe, sane and consensual. Equinox 22:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. There isn't much of a "definition" to it. Equinox 22:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Apparently crazy people like me are incapable of having good sex. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 09:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as SoP. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • If it is an established set phrase used in the stated context, I think it should probably be kept. The fact that it has an acronym, SSC, at least according to the Wiktionary article, might support this. Mihia (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

dynamically-typed language[edit]

dynamically-typed + language. Converting the page into a redirect is an option. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a good case for a safe redirect to dynamically-typed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

de schone schijn ophouden[edit]

SOP, de + schone schijn + ophouden. — Kleio (t · c) 18:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Which sense of ophouden? —CodeCat 18:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
The one that should've been there and I just added. — Kleio (t · c) 18:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

er voor spek en bonen bijstaan[edit]

See above, voor spek en bonen + bijstaan. — Kleio (t · c) 18:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Btw, should entries like geen kind hebben aan and geen boodschap hebben aan be with or without the aan? — Kleio (t · c) 18:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Can they ever be used without? —CodeCat 18:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
It's sometimes used with voor as well, though aan is more common (by far). Saying it without either does sound unnatural. — Kleio (t · c) 18:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I guess one could be called an alternative form of another, but I'm not sure what the usual practice is. Ask in BP maybe? —CodeCat 18:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

alt-[edit]

neu-[edit]

This is just alt, neu used in compounds. -84.161.43.183 10:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Technically you're right. But the compound form tends to have a different meaning than the adjective. The adjective means "old, of high age", the compound means "not used anymore". Like altes Holz is "old wood", while Altholz is "wood waste" or "wood to be disposed of". It's not clear-cut because the adjective could have that sense as well. Still, I'm tending towards keep, but with a better definition and some notes. Kolmiel (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
There does seem to be a difference in meaning. Dutch oud- is used similarly. — Kleio (t · c) 21:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

刺斜裡[edit]

SOP: 刺斜 + — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this may be keepable. Hanyu Da Cidian has this word. Wyang (talk) 10:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

nature preserve[edit]

nature reserve[edit]

natural preserve[edit]

natural reserve[edit]

wildlife reserve[edit]

wildlife sanctuary[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong. I believe these are all SOP. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

  • They appear to be SoP, but they are all synonyms or semi-synonyms. I would say keep. Cambridge has nature reserve at least. DonnanZ (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep. They don't feel like they're entirely SOP. I'm not sure they can really be fully understood by their constituent parts. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
But preserve for one has the sense "A reservation, a nature preserve." If this word alone means that, doesn't it follow that at least nature preserve and natural preserve are SOP? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Not if it passes the in a jiffy test. If it doesn't, however, then I'm inclined to agree. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I have never heard of "nature preserve". I think it is AmE. I would have taken it as an error for "nature reserve". On that basis I vote keep, at least for that one. Mihia (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
M-W says it is AmE [23]; I have added a label. Mihia (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Natural preserve also proved to be AmE when I googled it. DonnanZ (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Would the good old "translation target" -justification fit here? --Hekaheka (talk) 09:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I would say so, yes. DonnanZ (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

fer cryin' out loud[edit]

"Eye dialect spelling of for crying out loud." Doing this with entire phrases, rather than single words, does not seem wise. Equinox 19:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep as it is attested. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Can you read? I'm not challenging it on attestation grounds and this isn't RFV. Equinox 22:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I know. But it is simply because it's attested that it should stay. I don't believe in deleting eye-dialect alternative forms just because there are too many of them, unless of course it's something like having Elephant with a definition like # Alternative capitalization of elephant, used at the beginning of sentences. Attestation is key here. I'm not saying that you challenged its attestation; I'm saying rather that because it's attested it should stay. All words in all languages that are not SOP and are attested with 3 valid durable citations should stay. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

heavy machinery[edit]

Isn't this just SOP? Kiwima (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep, I think. Reference added. It doesn't necessarily mean static machinery, but can refer to heavy items such as bulldozers and earthmovers. The definition needs tweaking. DonnanZ (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

It can refer to static machinery as well. I have added a quote that illustrates this. And how would you change the definition - it is substantially similar to the def in the reference. Kiwima (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep. But yes: rewrite definition. Kolmiel (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The reference should be to the Cambridge Business English Dictionary, not the Cambridge English Dictionary.
"Heavy" agricultural equipment seems to be frequently mentioned, and also mining equipment, rolling mills, printing presses, rotary kilns, etc. General-purpose transportation equipment, plans, ships, locomotives and railroad carts, and cars, buses, and trucks are almost always excluded. For example, a very common warning refers to "driving or operating heavy machinery", which I take to mean "driving (cars or other vehicles) or operating heavy machinery", NOT "driving (heavy machinery) or operating heavy machinery".
No OneLook reference has an entry for the term. DCDuring (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

intelligent life[edit]

This def isn't SOP, but it's not a particularly accurate or consensus view of what the term means. In general, the debate boils down to what we consider to be intelligence or an unmistakeable sign of the same — but that doesn't necessarily mean that every interpretation of that deserves a definition. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

It definitely can and often does refer to terrestrial beings. So that must be corrected. I'm not sure if it'll make it SOP, though. Kolmiel (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
It certainly would. Basically, the best definition I could come up with was: "Life that is intelligent." Delete! PseudoSkull (talk) 04:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

testosterone-fueled[edit]

Unnecessary if fueled is adjectival and testosterone is understood to overpower rationality. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 02:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

  • It's an American spelling, so I've labelled it, whether it survives or not. DonnanZ (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Common collocation, but it does feel somewhat SoP to me, like a booze-fuelled party or a hate-fuelled rant. Equinox 17:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Neither fueled nor fuelled are entered as adjectives. I don't see any harm in keeping this. DonnanZ (talk) 08:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Fueled/fuelled is a part participle. All past participles are potentially adjectival in English. DCDuring (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I came across an interesting one this morning - "railway-fuelled building", referring to development spurred by the building of a railway in the 19th century. DonnanZ (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • To me this is a keep as a single (hyphenated) word. Ƿidsiþ 06:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

avoir la pouasse[edit]

Tagged several months ago, but I haven't found any discussion here. I personally think it should be deleted. --Barytonesis (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete as a rare misspelling (WT:CFI#Spellings). avoir la pouasse,avoir la poisse at Google Ngram Viewer does not find avoir la pouasse, so no frequency ratio can be calculated and it must be rather rare. Furthermore, google:"avoir la pouasse" finds less than 40 hits when you click to the right multiple times. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
    The infinitive isn't a good form to use for measuring usage: it's used more as a citation form for mentions than in sentences conveying meaning. It's hard to say anything meaningful about relative frequency when there aren't a lot of hits for any form. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

pouasse[edit]

Same as above. --Barytonesis (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: this has been RFD'ed before; see Talk:pouasse. MG found that it was sufficiently common to keep; what makes you disagree with his assessment? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: 8030 hits for "la pouasse" (397000 for "la poisse"); 3150 hits for "quelle pouasse" (30900 for "quelle poisse"); 307 hits for "une pouasse" (11800 for "une poisse"). It's not that common (+ at least some hits concern the word for a kind of chemical, so they aren't misspellings); so no, I don't think it warrants an entry. --Barytonesis (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Abstain. It could be deleted a rare misspelling (WT:CFI#Spellings). pouasse,poisse at Google Ngram Viewer does not find pouasse, so no frequency ratio can be calculated and it must be rather rare. However, going by the web counts posted by Barytonesis above, I would say it could be a common misspelling, but I prefer to use Google Ngram Viewer for frequency ratios since it is a tool designed for frequency statistics. A frequency ratio calibration is at User talk:Dan Polansky/2013#What is a misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

oldest occupation[edit]

oldest occupation in the world[edit]

world's oldest occupation[edit]

Sure they're used, but are they idiomatic enought to have their own entries? --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

oldest occupation looks like a prime example of an idiomatic expression to me. Starting with the fact that prostution is, of course, not the historically oldest occupation. (That's hunter-gatherer.) So definitely keep. One may consider deleting the other two versions, though. Kolmiel (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, keep oldest occupation, delete all others. Similarly for variants of "oldest profession". SemperBlotto (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, the first one should in this case be kept. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep all three. They're all idiomatic. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep "oldest occupation": it is not a semantic sum of oldest and occupation, in which regard it is like oldest profession. The other two items can be argued to be sums of parts with respect to oldest occupation; hard-redirecting them would be an option other than deletion. If I were arguing as a devil's advocate for deletion, I would say that "oldest occupation" is obtained from "oldest profession" by synonym replacement, which makes it a certain kind of summation, meaning the idiomatic semantics would be taken from "oldest profession", but I do not find that argument convincing enough. Interestingly, oldest occupation at OneLook Dictionary Search finds nothing, whereas oldest profession at OneLook Dictionary Search finds Merriam-Webster[24] and en.oxforddictionaries.com[25]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

hür yazılım[edit]

Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Requests for verification#hür yazılım.

People's[edit]

Just people's with a normal orthographic capital, like the capital U in United Kingdom. Equinox 21:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

final frontier[edit]

Sense "outer space". Currently at WT:RFV#final frontier (closed as passed) and soon to be archived to Talk:final frontier. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. Without previous knowledge of Star Trek, there's no guessing what people are referring to when they call outer space the "final frontier". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Could equally mean time, for time travel, but doesn't. Equinox 16:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

compulsive streak[edit]

Not the usual meaning, but this one seems equally SOP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

come to the fore[edit]

SOP: come + to the fore. (Or come + to + the + fore...) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete or redirect to to the fore. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 04:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

किसी के लिए काम करने की अपेक्षा में उससे अपने आप करने सिखाना बेहतर है[edit]

SOP. Literally means "it is better to teach someone how to do something than to do it for them". —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 15:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

It could potentially be used as a proverb, but it sounds like a clunky explanation of the English proverb. Also, no hits on BGC. Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as probably SOP, but this should have better been nominated at RFV for non-existence, where it would probably fail, per Metaknowledge. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's an explanation, not a translation, of the English saying. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Lindon[edit]

“The land beyond the Ered Luin in J.R.R. Tolkien's Legendarium”

Doesn’t pass WT:FICTION. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox 16:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

kop of munt, kruis of munt[edit]

Both SOP. —CodeCat 18:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it still used when tossing Euros, which have neither kop nor munt on them? If so, it's idiomatic. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
It would still be SOP, because there is still one side called kop and one side called munt. For Euro coins, munt is the side that's the same for all countries, kop is the side specific to each country. The kop side does have a head on it sometimes, depending on the country. For Dutch and Belgian ones it does. —CodeCat 17:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
And these usages are found outside of these specific phrases? When you ask someone to do a hatching (nl. arcering) of a coin, you ask him to use the 'mint side' and not the 'number side'? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Iran–Iraq War[edit]

There are many wars in human history, why should we include this one? --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep. Dictionaries often consider wars and other historical events to be under their purview. Why did you nominate this and not World War Two? If you accept that we should keep that one, then you accept we should keep this as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I chose not to nominate World War Two mainly because of notoriety. I mean, just skim through the list of wars on Wikipedia. For instance, there are hundreds of wars and battles which have taken place on Swedish soil alone. Keeping the discussed term sets quite a dangerous future standard. PS: who can forget the War of the Golden Stool? We definitely need to add this one! --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
The Iran–Iraq War was an important conflict, even if it didn't happen to affect you. But notoriety is not the standard by which we judge these things. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge Hold on a minute, who said it didn't affect me? I never downplayed the seriousness of said war. It wasn't my intention to bring this up for discussion in order to evaluate the severity of wars and make anyone around here feel bad. I just wanted to bring this to the attention of the greater community before we had a user who intended on adding a list of wars and other conflicts which might be pushing POV. --Robbie SWE (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
delete not dictionary material. If there is a dictionary that includes specific wars as terms I'd like to see it but I haven't come across such a dictionary yet. World War II was not nominated so far and "we have this, so we must keep that too" has never been a valid rationale for keeping any term. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Dictionaries including at least some wars can be found in World War II at OneLook Dictionary Search, including Merriam-Webster[26]. Inductive or extrapolative arguments certainly are used for names of specific entities, governed by WT:NSE, and I don't see why they should not. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Transformer[edit]

WT:FICTION. Equinox 22:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Jesus, already? I bet anyone here could find three citations from sources that have nothing to do with the Transformers franchise. This is like Beyblade. If I could find citations for that, we can certainly find citations for this. Did you even bother to look? PseudoSkull (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Plus this isn't even an RFD thing. It's an RFV thing. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
It's your entry. You cite it. Children's toys fail WT:FICTION even if it's your favourite. Equinox 00:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Then do Beyblade too because no one has opposed it thus far except you. And Transformers is not just a favorite toy of one person, but an extremely popular franchise that has been mentioned throughout books and the media. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Easily attested, at this capitalization. E.g., 2015, Steve Berry, The Patriot Threat: A Novel, p. 304: “It's like a Transformer today,” Stamm said. “It appears as one thing, then becomes another.” bd2412 T 02:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
    • * However, I don't think we need separate senses for the toy and the character. The character is just an animated version of the toy. bd2412 T 02:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
As above, keep! PseudoSkull (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but how is that sense any different from the senses found at transformer? Delete if you ask me. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Because the toy is rather specific, and others refer to the toy in many sources external from the franchise. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
We certainly don't have a sense at transformer of a mundane appearing object, usually a vehicle, capable of turning into a giant robot. bd2412 T 01:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

merci[edit]

"(French, colloquial) thank you". Yes, it's actually glossed as French. I think we had a similar case with Russian da or nyet once. The fact that French may jokingly be used in English doesn't make French words English words. Equinox 12:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

There is voilà and bon appétit, among many others, so why not this one?Julien Daux (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
The fact that it's glossed as French as stated. An alternative option would be merely to remove that gloss and say "okay, merci is English". Equinox 15:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I removed the gloss. Now why exactly is this at RFD? It's certainly attested. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Plenty of alien interjections already have entries, like gracias, arrivederci, ciao, oui, shalom & similar. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 04:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep if attested in unambiguously English sources. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Odtaa[edit]

Spelt like this, with a capital letter, nope. --G23r0f0i (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

thick as shit[edit]

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

In the light of thick as pig shit and other similar expressions, I'm not sure, but isn't it just thick + as shit? Can we say "as thick as shit"? --Barytonesis (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Barytonesis: Did you mean to take this to WT:RFD rather than RFV? Is your concern that the phrase is not used, or that its meaning is sum of parts? If it's the latter, the discussion should be at RFD. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
If you really mean this as RFV, it is cited. As for the SOP issue, I would be more inclined to consider thick as pig shit and alternative form of the same expression. That said, I found a few other quotes (which I put on the citations page) that use "as shit" as an intensifier for other meanings of thick, which lends credence to the SOP viewpoint. The fact that it almost always refers to stupidity, however, makes me think that the "fried egg" rule applies and those few quotes are an anomoly. (BTW, I was unable to find any other meanings of thick when looking up "thick as pig shit") Kiwima (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, my concern was indeed about whether it's SOP or not. Shall I copy-paste this discussion to RFD, then? --Barytonesis (talk) 10:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Moved to RFD. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: I am in favor of keeping common similes in general. Without this entry, how would a non-native speaker know one actually says this in English to indicate someone is stupid? With entries like this, I enter Czech blbý jako tágo, and find how to say this in English. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Excrement is not, in fact, stupid, so this is no tautology or SoP. Delete as DCDuring has pointed out the existence of a single entry for as shit. Equinox 22:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete: as shit is just an intensifier (not a simile) that can occur after many adjectives, like as fuck, as hell, as all get out, etc. Whether we need as pig/dog/cow shit I leave to others. DCDuring (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

klonken[edit]

A Quaffle in Swedish Harry Potter. --G23r0f0i (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

There's English quaffle, and maybe klonken could pass WT:CFI and especially WT:CFI#Fictional universes too? So maybe this should be a RFV instead of RFD. -84.161.7.226 21:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

feel up to[edit]

Isn't it just feel + up to? --Barytonesis (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, delete. Equinox 23:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep Several dictionaries have entries for it. OTOH is|isn't|seems|doesn't seem up to (doing something) are pretty common too. DCDuring (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep with the help of Lemming heuristic, credited to DCD; in Collins and Macmillan. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

tíminn er eins og vatnið[edit]

"time is like the water" in Icelandic. Is it dictionary-worthy? What does it mean? --G23r0f0i (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete, Wiktionary is not Wikiquote. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete, it doesn't seem to be as idiomatic as, say, the die is cast is in English. Still, it might be useful to get an Icelandic native's opinion on whether it might be idiomatic enough for inclusion; @Krun? — Kleio (t · c) 17:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete. I don’t really think it is idiomatic. It would generally be understood as a reference to the poem by Steinn Steinarr, and I don’t think it has any other general meaning. – Krun (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

shower on[edit]

SoP. Not a phrasal unit. Equinox 19:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Hmm, dunno, its usually separable with an object. From Oxford (shower):

1.4 (shower something on/upon) Give a great number of things to (someone)

‘the government showered praise on the young volunteers’
  • More example sentences:
‘The sane people of the world saw it purely as a piece of comic genius, and showered awards upon the badly-drawn comedy.’
‘He also recognized me, congratulated my brother and showered his blessing upon me.’
‘The functions were not rituals to merely shower gifts on the birthday boy.’
‘By showering favours on Elizabeth's relatives, Edward began to build up a faction to counter Warwick.’
‘Pupils from the Harwich School and five primary schools joined in the custom, which represents the newly-elected mayor showering his blessings on the children.’
‘Hillary forgives him and then Bill showers gifts upon her in gratitude.’
‘It must have certainly helped him to shower benefits on his beloved city.’
‘But his language mistakes were no barriers as kids and elders alike wanted to hear the man as he showered gifts on them.’
‘He showered praises on the union parliamentary minister saying he enjoys the full support of Congress men in the state.’
‘She consumed lavishly herself, showered expensive gifts on her dealers, and promoted Tupperware as part of an affluent suburban lifestyle.’
‘The preposterous image of a benign West showering its goods on a grateful Africa / India / Indochina/wherever would surely have no purchase in a society where informed debate was the daily order.’
‘Muthuraman, who has over 100 films behind him, set the tone for the function, showering praises on Balachander, and the superstar Rajnikanth rounded it off.’ DonnanZ (talk) 09:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
This uses the same sense of shower (to bestow liberally, to give or distribute in abundance) as shower with. It seems SoP to me. DCDuring (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
On the contrary, shower with and shower on have different objects (you shower [praise] on someone, but shower [someone] with praise), so the verb’s meaning is not the same. – Krun (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

riskantne ettevõtmine[edit]

Sum of it's parts. Strombones (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete assuming that riskantne means "risky" and ettevõtmine means "venture". They're both red links, so I hope someone who knows Estonian will remedy that before this gets deleted. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Created those pages. Strombones (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

-ment[edit]

RfD of the German sense only

This suffix simply does not exist. It exists in Latin where it was used to form some words borrowed into German, but it can never be used independently from those words. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, definitely delete. — Kleio (t · c) 16:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Dictionaries or grammars could mention a -ment, cp. canoo (there it's now -ament, -ement, -iment) and de:Vorlage:Neoklassische Formative (Deutsch). But well, "can never be used independently" chould still be correct. -84.161.7.226 21:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Within a loaning language such as German these are formants, not suffixes in their own sake. Not changed by the fact that word-derivation appendices can describe what function they had as suffixes in the loangiving language. --Tropylium (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

take a bite[edit]

"To eat a light, quick snack". Algrif intended to send this to RFD in 2009 but evidently never got around to it. Note to closer: though this is an RFD-sense, if it fails, the whole entry should be deleted, as this is the only idiomatic sense presently. @Chuck Entz, KiwimaΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I say delete as SOP. We have "a small meal or snack" as a definition of bite, and people also say "have a bite", "stop for a bite", etc. Kiwima (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep. The only sense of 'take' we have that would somewhat fit this is 'to remove'. This phrase is not as self‐explaining to a foreigner as it might seem to native speaker and it would benefit our users if we kept it. I edited the entry. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 09:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, there's a sense for "eat" in take. That would sort of apply. But I am still sympathetic to your point of view that it isn't self-explanatory. — Eru·tuon 00:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete. But perhaps we need a sense at take to cover this and other things like "take a look", "take a swim", "take a guess", etc. --WikiTiki89 11:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Isn't this an Americanism? If so, keep. DonnanZ (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with Korn. There's ambiguity as to what "take" means because there are so many different definitions of "take". Keep Purplebackpack89 19:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti[edit]

Finnish for fair + trial. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion, but maybe we should consider adding fair trial instead. I wrote this entry back in 2012, because it seemed to me that this term might have a well-defined juridical meaning. I admit that I have not done a good job in writing the definition. See: . --Hekaheka (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Merriam-Webster has "fair trial"[28]; it has interesting "Additional Notes on fair trial". Very cool. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

State of New York[edit]

Sum of parts. —suzukaze (tc) 19:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. The example sentence isn't even for the State of New York. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Similar to Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, etc. I don't see why multi-part formal names of entities that have the legal status of these should not be inclusion-worthy under our rules or lack thereof. DCDuring (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Some of the states of the US have formal names like Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Commonwealth of Virginia, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Commonwealth of Kentucky, State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. IOW, the formal name is not guaranteed to be State of (informal name). DCDuring (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
There is another entry for New York State. I guess both are considered necessary to avoid confusion with New York City. I would say keep. DonnanZ (talk) 09:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Flash[edit]

flash[edit]

Is this a valid Chinese word? The anonymous editor who added it mentioned this website in an edit summary, but I do not see the use of isolated English words in Chinese text as necessarily indicating that the words are regarded as Chinese. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Precisely. Delete. Wyang (talk) 07:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep as being the only word the Chinese use for the concept. If the Russians used флаш (flaš) no one would bat an eye, but the Chinese are more familiar with the Latin alphabet and didn't want to transcribe it using Chinese characters and here we are. —suzukaze (tc) 07:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
There is no Chinese word the Chinese use for the concept. Wyang (talk) 08:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
While I agree with Wyang, Suzukaze-c asks a legitimate question - how we deal with this type of words, which don't have a Chinese equivalent (yet) but apparently are used in a Chinese context by Chinese. We need a CFI for Chinese. It happens every now and then. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Anatoli that it would be useful to have a discussion of this issue. Perhaps editors with some linguistic background can explain how experts regard a foreign word as having been incorporated into a particular language. I can't help thinking it is a bit strange that a term in language B can be regarded as part of language A when it is not even rendered in the usual script of language A. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

liberal Republican, conservative Democrat, and Conservative Democrat[edit]

From Requests for Verification:

Rfv-sense: Does this term exist with this definition except as an alternative form of SoP liberal + Republican? DCDuring TALK 15:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

       I had a final look, and all quotes I found with this capitalization refer to the Liberal Republican party (or movement) of the 1870s. As no one else has produced citations with this capitalization in over a year, I am calling this RFV-failed. Kiwima (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Conservative Democrat

Analogous to above. DCDuring TALK 15:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

   DCDuring, these two terms have a set meaning, which encompasses parts (but not all) of the two words they are composed of. Liberal Republicans tend to be liberal on certain issues; conservative Democrats tend to be conservative on the same issues. I can produce stacks of Google Books citations that use the term (for example, search for "Liberal Republican" and civil rights); and I believe the terms should be kept, SoP or no. Purplebackpack89 15:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
       I doubt it. Facts before arguments. Let's see the citations. DCDuring TALK 16:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
           This isn't even an RfV, @DCDuring. This is just and RfD pretending to be an RfV. I will cite the definitions as written. SOP is not a question for RfV and I will not bother trying to meet your off-topic SOP threshold. Purplebackpack89 17:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
           @DCDuring I have added citations for LR. Those citations bear out the definition as written. If they pass muster, I'll add citations for CD later. Purplebackpack89 18:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
               Not one of the three citations offered at Liberal Republican is for the headword. Try again. DCDuring TALK 19:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
                   If you're complaining that they are for "liberal Republican" instead of "Liberal Republican", by god, I can just flip which is the primary and which is the alternative. Otherwise, the citations are valid. Purplebackpack89 20:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
       Virtually no-one, bar a handful of ideologues, is liberal or conservative on every single issue. There are at least two groups of "conservative Democrats" in the US - social-conservative Blue Dogs and fiscal-conservative New Democrats (I can find cites calling both conservative Democrats). Not all conservative Democrats fit the definition given, it seems, and I'd be surprised if all "liberal Republicans" do either. Smurrayinchester (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
           Well, I doubt they use LR and CD to refer to people who are 90-10. But you do concede that this definition is a valid description of some people, Murray? Purplebackpack89 20:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
               Do I think that there are Republicans who are (relatively) liberal and Democrats who are (relatively) conservative? Sure (as you can see from the citations I linked). Do I think that liberal Republican means anything more than a Republican who is liberal? No. Smurrayinchester (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
                   But, Murray, isn't your second question an RfD one instead of an RfV one? Purplebackpack89 23:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
   Comment: Following @DCDuring's concerns about headwords, I have moved the primary definitions to liberal Republican and conservative Democrat. I have left the RfV templates on. Purplebackpack89 20:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
   SOP. These "terms" exist, but as no more than collocations of “liberal | conservative” + “Republican | Democrat”. The definitions as given in the current terms at liberal Republican and conservative Democrat are unsupportably narrow, as noted by Smurrayinchester above.
   Delete, or move to RFD, then delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
   I think the only way to find out if this is SOP is to read every use of LibRep and ConsDem on Google Books and find out if, in practice, the terms are always used the way Purplebackpack89 has defined them. Let's do some researching! Khemehekis (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

This has been sitting here for over a year, because it is an argument that belongs in RFD not RFV. I have cited both entries. I would vote for delete if this were moved to RFD, but as an RFV issue, I must say it has passed. Kiwima (talk) 03:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep all: and restore the definition Kiwima removed. Purplebackpack89 16:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

farvell[edit]

This is a misspelling of farvel, which already has an article for both Nynorsk and Bokmål. All relevant information is already in those articles.--Barend (talk) 12:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

  • If it's a common misspelling or an archaic spelling, we should keep it. Is it either of those? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it's particularly common, and I don't think it's archaic.--Barend (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
It is a misspelling, and I even found "Kapp Farvell" (Kapp Farvel of course). Anyway, delete. DonnanZ (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, is a redirect a good way of dealing with misspellings? DonnanZ (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Tusen takk[edit]

Exactly the same as tusen takk, but capitalised, for some reason. Should be merged with tusen takk, but that is already a better entry, so this can simply be deleted. --Barend (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, although some of the definitions can be transferred to tusen takk, I think. DonnanZ (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 19:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

cost a pretty penny[edit]

SoP, pretty penny, can also "make", "earn", etc. Equinox 20:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Um, that would include the translations, ones that don't appear at pretty penny. I like the Spanish one, cost a testicle and a half. DonnanZ (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Those aren't direct translations for "cost a pretty penny" but general idiomatic equivalents of "cost a large amount". bd2412 T 22:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Not that I disagree with your basic point, but translations are "general idiomatic equivalents". Ƿidsiþ 06:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
        • A synonym is cost an arm and a leg, which went through the indignity of an RFD in 2009, and got redirected to arm and a leg. An arm and a leg are two different things, and the idiom only makes sense in full. We don't need a repeat of that disaster. DonnanZ (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
In other words, keep this entry in its present form. DonnanZ (talk) 08:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

明顯地[edit]

明显地[edit]

Sum of parts, 明顯 (clear) + (ly). 明顯地 was already converted into a redirect in 2016. —suzukaze (tc) 06:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Wyang (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

motel[edit]

Owned by an establishment applies to all establishments (hotel towel, courthouse tissue box, school pencil)--Simplificationalizer (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete all senses, IMO it's not an adjective anyway, just attributive use of the noun. See also the noun, sense 2. DonnanZ (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete entire adjective PoS section per DonnanZ. DCDuring (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

be in on[edit]

SoP, be + in on. It's hard to find it without be, but it seems perfectly possible that it could be used with e.g. wish or announce. Just found this: "Although more entrepreneurs wanted in on their success, only four Top Hats were ever opened." Equinox 02:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I think also get in on, bring in on, let in on, and probably slangy synonyms for most of the above. DCDuring (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

ランボルギーニ[edit]

クリオ[edit]

シボレー[edit]

ボクスホール[edit]

メルセデス[edit]

スバル[edit]

ポルシェ[edit]

プジョー[edit]

メルセデス・ベンツ[edit]

フォード[edit]

フェラーリ[edit]

キャデラック[edit]

ベンツ[edit]

ベントレー[edit]

per WT:BRANDsuzukaze (tc) 04:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Some entries are poorly formatted and use wrong PoS headers (e.g Noun, not Proper noun) but they all seem to have English equivalents, for which we have entries. To me, they are just normal proper nouns. Tentatively keep. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

go, go, go[edit]

"A command to begin a police raid or similar" – whatever is similar to a police raid.. Ƿidsiþ 19:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. —suzukaze (tc) 22:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

My first attempt at a definition was not great. I have changed it to say: "A command to begin a police raid or a military operation, especially the storming of a building." I hope that addresses the point. John Cross (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Just a repetition of go, definition 3. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
delete, delete, delete --Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

twin-[edit]

Not IMO a prefix. Feels more like an adjective. There's virtually always a hyphen when it's used in longer words, and it doesn't have any particular special meaning beyond the usual noun. Equinox 19:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I agree, delete. I could only find one hyphenated entry (twin-engine) anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
It's never used as an adjective though. Nothing is very twin, or so twin, or more twin/twinner.... keep Leasnam (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
You can, it's just rarer now. Eg in Twelfth Night, "An apple cleft in two is not more twin…". Ƿidsiþ 08:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, I have a surprise for you, Oxford, Cambridge and Collins all regard twin as an adjective, e.g. twin sister, twin town etc. DonnanZ (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
attributive. that would be like saying sister in sister city is an adjective. it's not imo. there is also twin-chamber, twin-car, twin-deck Leasnam (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
You can't say, my sister is twin (adj). Leasnam (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue with those dictionaries. The concept that adjectives must be comparable is rather bizarre. Anyway twin as an adjective can be discussed in the Tea Room if you want to do that. DonnanZ (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
@Donnanz: Comparablity and gradability are two sufficient conditions in out decision making about whether a candidate term to be considered an adjective. The only necessary condition is that it modify a noun, without which condition the adjective PoS would probably be speedily deleted. We follow the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language for PoS tests where possible. DCDuring (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I would call it a modifier. But it's all good. It's being used as a prefix even if we don't call it one; I'm satisfied with that. The concept that a prefix cannot be a standalone word is bizarre to me. But it's the consensus here, and I respect that. delete :) Leasnam (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
It is not attributive, it's an adjective. It just feels attributive now because the noun is so much more common. Ƿidsiþ 08:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I suppose you're right--it was an adjective in Old English (alongside ġetwinn which was the noun). It must have survived unrecorded in ME to this day. I'll update the entry Leasnam (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
The "very", "so", etc. tests are useful evidence for an adjective but not necessarily required. Equinox 23:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Examples are easily paraphrased to use twin as a separate word: the plane has twin engines-->it's a twin-engine plane. The fact that it's attached to the following word is merely an artifact of how phrases are treated when used as modifiers.
The matter of whether twin as a modifier is an adjective is a bit murkier. It obviously started out as attributive use of the noun, but it's hard to be sure that it hasn't changed into something else, whether an adjective or a determiner, I'm not sure. There's also the matter of having two as opposed to being one of two: twin engines may be twins to each other, but they aren't twins to the plane, and someone with sisters who are twins to each other but not to them could say "I have twin sisters", but not "I have a twin sister". Chuck Entz (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete; the word can also be used without the hyphen, as in Chuck's example of "twin engines", which strongly suggests that hyphenated use does not represent a prefix; compare "ownership-based society" in which "ownership" is neither a prefix nor an adjective. This is independent of the question of what part of speech "twin" is in "twin engines". That it was an adjective in Old English, and that a few examples like "more twin than" can still be found, suggest it may be an adjective (compare Talk:aliquot). - -sche (discuss) 19:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

indeterminate gender[edit]

See the short previous discussion at Wiktionary:Tea_room/2017/April#indeterminate_gender. The definition is wrong; people who are intersex are sometimes described as having indeterminate gender because doctors have not or cannot determine which binary gender/sex they belong to (because they don't belong to either), but the description is SOP and also applies in other cases where gender (using either the "social category" or the "biological category" sense) is indeterminate, see e.g. google books:"of indeterminate gender". The plural is even more obviously SOP (google books:"indeterminate genders"). - -sche (discuss) 22:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

delete as SOP. Kiwima (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. (It was created, btw, by PaM.) - -sche (discuss) 18:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017[edit]

fire drill[edit]

RFD sense 1: "An organized practice to prepare occupants of an office, school or other public building for evacuation in the event of a fire."

At my old high school, we also used to have tornado drills. You could also say emergency drill, hurricane drill, earthquake drill, etc. What I suggest is deleting the sense and replacing it with something like this:

  1. Used other than as an idiom: see fire,‎ drill.
The schoolchildren all went outside and lined up during the fire drill on Friday.

PseudoSkull (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Delete/Replace per nom. drill#Noun even has the example of "Regular fire drills can ensure...". —suzukaze (tc) 00:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete etc. per nom. DCDuring (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I think the definition at drill could be improved if fire drill is going to be deleted. The current one doesn't include the notion of the practice being done in preparation for a possible future event/disaster. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@User:Andrew Sheedy [29] [30] Did that do the trick? PseudoSkull (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I think that about covers it. I question the parenthetical "especially as a military exercize". Is that accurate as the definition now stands? Perhaps the definition is better off split into two separate senses or subsenses? A military drill and a fire drill don't "feel" the same to me, at least. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep sense 1, I don't see the point in deleting it when the rest of the entry is being kept. That's mind-boggling silliness. DonnanZ (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I have added references, and it's in my Oxford hard copy ("a practice of the emergency procedures to be used in case of fire"), so it's definitely dictionary material. DonnanZ (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep in mind that we are different from other dictionaries. Regardless of other dictionaries, Wiktionary simply does not allow SOP terms. Notice that, for instance, we don't have Internet meme, though I'm sure many online dictionaries have this probably. standardized test is probably also in a lot of dictionaries. It's not "mind-boggling silliness" to delete the sense; in fact, since fire drill is so commonly used to refer to the school drill, I suggested above that we replace the definition with an &lit. And you just said " I don't see the point in deleting it when the rest of the entry is being kept. That's mind-boggling silliness." So basically you're saying that all rfd-sense situations are wrong. I don't understand this at all. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I have struck the offending sentence. The truth of the matter is that dictionaries can't call themselves dictionaries unless so-called SoP terms are included, not even Wiktionary. A lot of terms don't lend themselves to be compounded (though some users seem to think otherwise, and Wiktionary contains a lot of ghastly compound words). A check of derived terms for fire proves this point. So you can't delete every SoP entry. DonnanZ (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
No actually other dictionaries don't see to have "internet meme" and "standardized test". Both dictionary.com and merriam-webster don't have entries for those, while both have a fire drill entry. 2602:306:3653:8440:B979:122F:5C44:E2AD 12:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ƿidsiþ 16:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
It would be silly to remove it altogether. Changing it to an &lit, as suggested, seems okay to me. Equinox 13:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Does WT:COALMINE apply to individual senses? — Ungoliant (falai) 17:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I suppose it would. DCDuring (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

ложное срабатывание[edit]

SoP and a wrong definition. It refers to an alarm system that was triggered by something, eg. a malfunctioning alarm worked but there was no security problem. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, isn't that approximately what a false alarm is? Benwing2 (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
For the sense, ложная тревога is normally used in the direct or figurative senses, "ложное срабатывание" means a "false firing/functioning". This is SoP, IMO. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Miles Christi[edit]

Tagged but not listed. Seems SOP, too. - -sche (discuss) 02:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Trivially attestable, so I've moved -sche's post from RFV here to RFD. There were two senses originally in the entry, one for "soldier of Christ", which is patently SOP, and one for the Miles Christi religious order, which is patently not Latin (and which I have therefore removed). Looking at actual attestation, however, I see that some writers have used miles Christi or miles Dei to refer not only to crusaders or other soldiers motivated at least nominally by Christianity, but to all Christians in general. I presume that this metaphorical usage is not exactly lexical, however. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
The first sense is in the wrong case form anyway, it should be at miles Christi if it is to be on any entry at all (and I don't think it should be). The second sense is encyclopedic imo and not dictionary material. Delete.Kleio (t · c) 17:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
If it to be kept, then it needs the normal Latin formatting, along with inflection. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
It could also be an English entry under a wrong language header, cp. this older revision with its likely English references and English see also terms: this revision. For English it wouldn't be SOP and as an English entry it doesn't need Latin inflection. -84.161.7.226 21:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

民主革命[edit]

Just as SOP as democratic revolution. Note to closer: if this fails, be sure to delete the pinyin as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Delete unless @Tooironic has a good argument for keeping it. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The Chinese entry can stay as it passes the Lemmings test, being in the 现代汉语规范词典. The English entry is yet to be created. It is a term used in political science. See the Wikipedia entry. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

AP課程[edit]

SOP? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

AC米蘭[edit]

A football club. Nibiko (talk) 05:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent. It may be keepable. There are other club entries, such as Arsenal or entries in Category:zh:Football. Wyang (talk) 10:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Arsenal is a single word, unlike A.C. Milan. These entries were added by an anon who just linked the definitions wholesale to English Wikipedia. Given that the construction of this term is the same as the English equivalent, this fails WT:CFI. The same also applies to K聯賽, J1聯賽, and J聯賽. Nibiko (talk) 01:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sum of parts, basically. bd2412 T 23:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

K聯賽[edit]

J1聯賽[edit]

J聯賽[edit]

Malay, Indonesian language names with bahasa in Category:ms:Languages,[edit]

Delete or redirect all Malay and Indonesian language names with bahasa (language) in Category:ms:Languages and to lemmas without "bahasa". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

是非ご一読[edit]

是非 ("please") + ご一読 ("read") —suzukaze (tc) 03:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

lait bilong san[edit]

Tok Pisin for "sunlight", but it just means "light of the sun". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

You mean it's not a term in its own right, but merely SoP? Is there some other Tok Pisin term for sunlight? — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it's SOP, and no, there is no other term. It's the same reason we don't have an entry for Spanish luz del sol. Many languages just don't have a single-word way of sayng it, so we link the individual words in the translation table and don't make an entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
In that case, delete. Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

woman of size[edit]

woman with of size? (By the way, the author is you‐know‐who again.) — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 01:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Of size is itself an example of a syntactic construction of broad application: A woman of renown, nothing of substance, a cross of gold. DCDuring (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, same kind of thing as of color. Equinox 16:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I like what you did there "broad application." Also delete. - TheDaveRoss 14:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
A triple entendre. - -sche (discuss) 03:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete. The definition given is clearly SoP. I don't think it is even a euphemism. DCDuring (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
It's not even a definition. I can't think of a reason for keeping it. Delete. DonnanZ (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete. - -sche (discuss) 03:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Wait !, we have person of size don't we ? woman of size is certainly a euphemism for an obese woman. Keep. Leasnam (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

CRT television[edit]

Sum-of-parts. 2602:306:3653:8440:B979:122F:5C44:E2AD 16:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I think therefore I am[edit]

Along with all the translations. Seems like a Wikiquote/Wikipedia situation; it has cultural and philosophical relevance, but it isn't lexical, idiomatic, or worthy of keeping as a phrasebook entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Keep. I disagree that it's entirely unidiomatic, and the fact that it is snowcloned is evidence of lexical value. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Zen Buddhism[edit]

SOP; just [[Zen]] [[Buddhism]]. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

manual capture[edit]

delete as SOP. Kiwima (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

forced update[edit]

Both created by the same anon. Not sure if they fulfil WT:CFI – could they just be SoP? --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

country bumpkin[edit]

A bumpkin from the country. Keep translations, though.__Gamren (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm leaning towards keep as it seems to be one of those common collocations. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Country bumpkin is much more common than just bumpkin. In fact, the former term probably came first. ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep, more or less a set phrase. DonnanZ (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete. It is SOP. Kiwima (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

quack[edit]

Adjective: "Falsely presented as having medicinal powers". That's the noun, isn't it? 2.24.119.144 12:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The definition is not expressed as a noun, so perhaps you can clarify what you think the problem is? There is a usage example of the adjectival use: "Don't get your hopes up; that's quack medicine!". — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
It does feel like attributive use of a noun; cf. "that's doctor talk!". Equinox 04:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Hmmm. I do see some usage of the superlative quackest, though they may be facetious or non-standard uses: [31], [32], [33]. However, I didn't see any use of quacker in the comparative sense. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Found one cite for more quack than: [34]. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

years young[edit]

Idiomatic or an SOP joke? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe it's a play on the word young, meaning "old". One is [x years] + [young/old]; not [x] + [years young/old]. delete per nom, and put a new sense at young which states can mean "old" euphemistically Leasnam (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
If someone is called 70 years young, it could be a euphemism or flattery or it could be that the person is being simply described as young ("as if young, youthful") for their age. DCDuring (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Good point. So "[70 years] [young]" would essentially mean "[70 years] [of age]" but would connote "[70 years] [of (youthful) age] ? Leasnam (talk) 03:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
This seems supported by how the phrase seems to have evolved in the first place, for if we trace x years old (and incidentally its mutated offspring x years young, which is just the same phrase with a twist), we find Middle English x yeres of eld(e) ("x years of age") and finally our x years old. So the old and hence the young refer to "age" Leasnam (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
It's not a joke entry, just a humorous phrase. See Markedness. It's like saying "he was 5 feet short" instead of "tall": it comically draws attention to failed expectations or what not. I'm not sure that dictionary entries are the best way to cover this sort of language feature. Equinox 04:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if we need to expand young to address this or if the entry already addresses this adequately simply by defining "young", but delete "years young" because it's just [years] [young], not [years young], like "5 feet tall" or "5 feet short" are not using *"feet tall" or *"feet short". I can find babies referred to as "n months young", btw. - -sche (discuss) 03:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Possibly also redirect to young, if there is an appropriate specific sense. I'm not sure that young is unique, but it may well be an example of a rare phenomenon in English, which would make a definition that captured the phenmenon lexical material. DCDuring (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: Largely on the basis that "young" meaning "old" is indeed a joke (though a widespread one), and also that it doesn't have much use beyond years young. Since there is no corresponding definition for young, SOP cannot be invoked. Purplebackpack89 16:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

erata[edit]

The dictionary of the highest authority on Finnish language (Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskus, Institute for the Languages of Finland) says there are no weak-grade forms for this verb — within this conjugation paradigm (No. 72), the first infinitive (which this would be) is a weak-grade form.[35] Meaning that this is a defective verb. The dictionary lists the indicative third-person singular form (erkanee) as the lemma. -- Puisque (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

A redirect to "erkanee"? --Hekaheka (talk) 08:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Russian military terms, part 3[edit]

More terms that are likely SOP:

@Atitarev Benwing2 (talk) 07:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Delete all. When learning foreign vocabulary, it's probably better to use collocations, so US army personnel used these word combinations to learn Russian but they are all obvious SoP's. Thanks for pinging. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Боевое отделение is not a SOP. 178.49.152.66 22:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Here are a few more possible ones:

@Atitarev Benwing2 (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Delete all. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

One more:

@Atitarev Benwing2 (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Worshipful[edit]

"A respectful form of address used in the name of livery companies (such as "The Worshipful Company of Scriveners")." I know we have consensus to keep capital versions of 'titles' (Pope, Queen) — though I don't like it — but this one seems a bit too much. Just an adjective capitalised because it's part of a society's name, yes? Equinox 21:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

To clarify: I am fine with moving this to the lower-case worshipful; I just think the capped entry should not exist. Equinox 21:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Sigh, delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Agree. delete Kiwima (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete/move per nom. - -sche (discuss) 18:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

mental hygiene[edit]

I'm unsure if this is SOP, but it smells like it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Was this coined to rhyme with "dental hygiene"? I see that hygiene basically means health, but I don't usually associate it with mental health (which after all isn't really about cleanliness at all, but about conforming to social norms). My instincts say keep. I'm on board with Thomas Szasz so maybe I'm biased or whatever, not sure. Equinox 04:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Its meaning cannot be fully or clearly inferred from its parts, i.e. without clarification it could be very well be about cleaning your mind from sinful thoughts. Morgengave (talk) 09:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

foreign currency[edit]

foreign + currency -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, as I don't believe translation-only entries should exist (though the community disagrees with me). PseudoSkull (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, because the translation target argument is silly. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Anatoli. DonnanZ (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Silly or not, we have a number of "translation targets" already. Our policies and practices should not be applied in a haphazard manner. It seems that many of the translations are also SOP's but for example Catalan divisa is not. --Hekaheka (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Sidebar: clarity on "translation targets", redux[edit]

See #Sidebar: clarity on "translation targets" above. Aren't we ready for a full discussion and vote on this issue yet? — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

types of Russian kasha[edit]

The following appear SOP:

@Atitarev Benwing2 (talk) 02:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I think they are OK to be deleted. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
You can also say "геркулесовая крупа", so perhaps an oatmeal sense should be added to геркулесовый and then геркулесовая каша can be deleted as well. --WikiTiki89 14:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Done, and we should probably then also delete геркуле́совая ка́ша (gerkulésovaja káša). Benwing2 (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

have young[edit]

SoP, like "have a baby" or "have puppies". Equinox 19:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree, delete. Kiwima (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete DCDuring (talk) 11:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
have a baby should be a blue link that has translations at least, otherwise how would I look it up? have young, not so much. Siuenti (talk) 07:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
But that's SoP, since it's have (to give birth to) (sense 6) + a + baby. I vote "delete" as well. — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete. - -sche (discuss) 18:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

college is the new high school[edit]

Snowclone, X is the new Y. DTLHS (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

What about the implied standard of living aspect? And if this really is a "snowclone" shouldn't we have an entry for "is the new"? Because there are so many terms with the layout "X is the new Y". PseudoSkull (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. In every "X is the new Y" snowclone, there is some reasoning by which to explain why that particular "X" is the new "Y". bd2412 T 02:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't think the definition is apparent, and unless it isn't attested without the context explaining or implying what is meant, there is no good reason not to keep it. I don't think "it's just a snowclone" is sufficient reasoning to delete, since in this case, the meaning isn't deducible from "college" + "is the new" + "high school". Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
    One can also find community college is the new high school, A Bachelor's degree is the new high school degree. "I was a little taken aback to see that apparently preadolescence is the new adolescence or junior high school or middle school is the new high school". Preschool is the new kindergarten. the white T-shirt is the new little black dress. Many Xs fit [X] is the new black.
    Delete It's an instance of a snowclone. We've never figured out how to make snowclone entries that would be useful to someone using standard mainspace search. DCDuring (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
    I still think it's worth having those entries, as long as they have fairly consistent definitions (if "college is the new high school" refers to all sorts of different aspects of college and high school, then it's not worth keeping, but it fairly consistently refers to educational expectations, it's worth including). I don't think it's at all harmful to have such entries. If space was a concern, then sure, but it really isn't and you can't necessarily figure out what the phrase means based on the sum of its parts ("is the new" relating to colour is pretty consistent in meaning, but with other phrases it's more ambiguous and it is thus worth it to create separate entries). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete per bd. - -sche (discuss) 18:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

just like[edit]

A Wonderfool entry. I could also say "just as" or "just how". Perhaps we need to extend the definition at just. On a more RFCish kind of note, this isn't even a preposition, and prepositions are also labelled "prepositional phrases" here on Wiktionary when there's more than one word. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a prima facie case that if like is a preposition, so is just like. Normal parsing of uses of just like [x] would have just as an adverb modifying the prepositional phrase like [x]. That is, just like is not a grammatical constituent in any standard use AFAICT.
I don't see why we should have an entry for just like. DCDuring (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

thank ya so much[edit]

Also thank ya very much and thank ya so very much. Equinox 23:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

See ya, also seeya and see ya. DCDuring (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep. I am against the deletion of such eye dialect phrase variants. They do add to the dictionary, even though it is of the smallest manner. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete. This is just a phrase containing an eye dialect word. Kiwima (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

èfe[edit]

I added èfe as an alternative spelling of French effe, I had seen that spelling listed on French wikipedia, but afterwards I looked around for and couldn't find any verification of that spelling ever being used anywhere else on the internet. 2WR1 (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

จับได้, จับตัว[edit]

(Renomination) Sum of parts. Wyang (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

azidoazide azide[edit]

The term "azidoazide azide" is not a real chemical name. The blogger Derek Lowe used this term (here) entirely as a joke when referring to the chemical with the real chemical name "1-diazidocarbamoyl-5-azidotetrazole". The joke name "azidoazide azide" has been used elsewhere since then, sometimes using it jokingly in imitation of Lowe, and sometimes apparently without realization that "azidoazide azide" was a joke. In no way is "azidoazide azide" a meaningful chemical name for 1-diazidocarbamoyl-5-azidotetrazole. For additional context, please see the deletion discussion for a redirect with the same title at w:en:Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_14#Azidoazide_azide which resulted in deletion of w:en:Azidoazide azide. ChemNerd (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Move to RFV. (P.S. I'm reminded of dihydrogen monoxide and bananadine.) Equinox 16:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Prank or not, if there are three cites meeting WT:ATTEST supporting a particular definition, we should have an entry. Let's see what definition(s) fit the valid citations. DCDuring (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

鍍鋁膜[edit]

Sum of parts. —suzukaze (tc) 23:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)