Wiktionary:Requests for deletion

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for deletion

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

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

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

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

Requests for deletion
add new | history | archives

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

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

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

Scope of this request page:

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



See also:

Scope: This page is for requests for deletion of pages, entries and senses in the main namespace for a reason other than that the term cannot be attested. One of the reasons for posting an entry or a sense here is that it is a sum of parts, such as "brown leaf". It is occasionally used for undeletion requests, requests to restore entries that may have been wrongly deleted.

Out of scope: This page is not for requests for deletion in other namespaces such as "Category:" or "Template:", for which see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others. It is also not for requests for attestation. Blatantly obvious candidates for deletion should only be tagged with {{delete|Reason for deletion}} and not listed.

Adding a request: To add a request for deletion, place the template {{rfd}} or {{rfd-sense}} to the questioned entry, and then make a new nomination here. The section title should be exactly the wikified entry title such as "[[brown leaf]]". The deletion of just part of a page may also be proposed here. If an entire section is being proposed for deletion, the tag {{rfd}} should be placed at the top; if only a sense is, the tag {{rfd-sense}} should be used, or the more precise {{rfd-redundant}} if it applies. In any of these cases, any editor including non-admins may act on the discussion.

Closing a request: A request can be closed when a decision to delete, keep, or transwiki has been reached, or after the request has expired. Closing a request normally consists of the following actions:

  • Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it was deleted), or de-tagging it (if it was kept). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
  • Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFD deleted or RFD kept, indicating what action was taken.
  • Striking out the discussion header.

(Note: The above is typical. However, in many cases, the disposition is more complicated than simply "RFD deleted" or "RFD kept".)

Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request should be archived to the entry's talk page. This consists of removing the discussion from this page, and copying it to the entry's talk page using {{archive-top|rfd}} + {{archive-bottom}}. Examples of discussions archived at talk pages: Talk:piffle, Talk:good job. Note that talk pages containing such discussions are preserved even if the associated article is deleted.

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

Oldest tagged RFDs

September 2015[edit]

End of Cycle[edit]

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

The entry as a whole, certainly the second definition['s usage example], looks like a copyright violation as is. [See this glossary] DCDuring TALK 07:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC) [13:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)]
  • Leaning delete. Something seems very off about having this in a dictionary. bd2412 T 13:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
  • Abstain. The nomination is rfd-sense: (Scientology) The completion of a sequence of actions. Could this be deleted via RFV? The only other sense in the entry, not nominated, is (Scientology) suicide. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

October 2015[edit]

empty space[edit]

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

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

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

  • This entry should probably be kept due to that it in the physical sense it is often actually a misnomer since macroscopically "empty" space is usually anything but on a quantum scale. It can also have very different meanings in both metaphysical and artistic senses. Nicole Sharp (talk) 04:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
    • @CodeCat Yes, definitely a physical misnomer, didn't see your comment above. Nicole Sharp (talk) 04:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per the previous discussion, and per P Aculeius and Nicole Sharp. Sense 1 does not really correspond with existing senses of "empty" because it implies availability for use. Sense 3 is a technical sense due to the aforementioned quantum effects. bd2412 T 15:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Note: I have added a fourth sense, for "empty space" being used to indicate the feeling of someone or something being gone from one's life. bd2412 T 15:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm Hindu[edit]

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

Comment: is there a particular reason why you don't think this phrase has any value, although you haven't nominated any other statements of religious belief for deletion? [[1]] shows that Wiktionary includes similar phrases for a variety of religions, presumably because they're useful phrases for people who may not speak English well, and so meet the criteria for inclusion. If those phrases are suitable for inclusion, then so is this one. P Aculeius (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I tried I'm Christian, I'm Muslim, I'm Buddhist, I'm Greek Otrhodox, I'm Sikh, I'm Pagan and concluded that this is the only one in this category. I failed to check I'm Jewish, and I'm nominating that and all similar statements of any religion or ideology that can be found. --Hekaheka (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not, click on the link above, and you'll see why. These exist because they're useful phrases for those who don't speak English well. If anything, they're likely to acquire more variations. P Aculeius (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm a Christian, I'm a Muslim, I'm a Buddhist. —Stephen (Talk) 03:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
How is a person who does not speak English enough to understand what I'm Hindu means supposed to understand what is given as explanation for those particular words? The "explanation" indicates that the speaker is a follower of Hinduism requires better understanding of English than the sentence that is being explained. Contrary to what you say, this entry - and the others like it - is not at all useful for those who don't speak English well. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I doubt most people use phrasebooks to translate phrases into their own language. The idea is to show how to express an idea in another language. Passive understanding of a second language is generally much better than the ability to say things in that language. I can figure out the meaning of texts in dozens of languages, but I'm only really comfortable speaking English. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Category:English phrasebook/Religion, check these then. They all use "I am". Aryamanarora (talk) 12:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, the translations into other languages make them easier to understand, even if the reader doesn't speak English. Aryamanarora (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Keep because it seems legitimately useful for a phrasebook (though I still have my doubts about whether phrasebook should be in mainspace). Equinox 20:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Equinox and Stephen (I'm a Christian, I'm a Muslim, I'm a Buddhist). --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Abstain. If we're going to have a phrasebook in the first place, then the phrase I'm Hindu or I'm a Hindu, depending on which one you actually say in English, belongs in there. Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 10:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Move all phrasebook entries identifying characteristics to "I am a" titles; redirect contractions to those. bd2412 T 14:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
    What are "I am a" titles? e.g. "I am Chinese" seems more plausible than "I am a Chinese person". Equinox 18:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
    Still better than "I'm", which is a bit informal for a dictionary to use as a default. bd2412 T 17:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • RFD kept: either consensus to keep or in any case no consensus to delete. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

competence porn[edit]

This has existed for at least 6 years (http://archive.wired.com/geekdad/2009/10/admit-it-you-love-competence-porn-too/, http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/10/09/the_martian_is_not_competence_porn_why_it_s_wrong_to_compare_ridley_scott.html) so I don't see why it's being deleted as a protologism. Do the administrators bother to read the references, or do they just delete on their own competencies, regardless? -- 03:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I rather doubt that it is or was a protologism. It looks like an instance of the combination of a noun with porn ‎(Lurid or sensational material. Often used in combination: disaster porn; Printed material featuring enticing photography: quirky or scholarly garden books that would be lost in the spring flood of garden porn (Michael Pollan).) Definitions taken from American Heritage Dictionary, but similar definitions are to be found in some of the dictionaries at porn at OneLook Dictionary Search. Thank you. We lacked such a definition. DCDuring TALK 00:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
We do have some entries like food porn, property porn, revenge porn, mommy porn (bluelinks at the time of this post) -- 08:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I added a sense at porn that captures the concept behind the 'xyz porn' usage a bit better: "(uncountable, informal, often humorous) Material that provides illicit gratification of an obsessive or unhealthy interest in something.". It could probably use a little tweaking. Chuck Entz (talk) 11:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I opened WT:RFV#competence porn to see whether it is attested. I make no comment about whether it is sum of parts (SOP). --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Meanwhile, we have some quotations at Citations:competence porn. These can be checked to judge whether this is a sum of parts (SOP). --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep not really a transparent compound - it's not just porn in which any competence is displayed (e.g. watching a great classical guitarist); in fact, I had no idea what it meant until reading the citations, and looking up some of the websites for clarification. -- Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

isomer bomb[edit]

I was in the middle of creating this entry for isomer bombs (syn: hafnium bombs) when it was deleted out from under me, with a snide remark about "crap definitions" and protologisms. Clearly the administration does not know the topic. If the administrator does not know the topic, they should kindly let me finish building the entry first. This concept has been around for over a decade, so clearly not what the administrator claimed to be a "protologism" (2003)(2006)(2008)(2009)(2013)

Exactly how much checking do admins do before deleting things? Is it just a whim and poof? -- 08:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry this happened. Not being an administrator, I can't check the page history to see what was done to it or by whom without recreating it. But there do seem to be multiple uses of the phrase in various sources over several years; I noticed Wired and The Guardian near the top of the results list. However, none of the other hits from the first two pages are from similar sources, so perhaps it's the deleter's contention that the term is just a minor variation on a more widespread term, which has yet to gain general acceptance. I would suggest that your best course of action is to rebuild the entry, quoting three or four examples from the most respectable sources you can find, and if necessary adding more under the "citations" tab. Since you say it was deleted as you were working on it, perhaps you shouldn't save it until your main citations are given; then there would at least be strong evidence that it's an attested and widespread term, and any discussion of deleting it as a protologism would have to take place before such action. At least, that's my understanding. P Aculeius (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I have restored the page and tagged it with {{rfd}} so that discussion can take place. (To be clear, I tagged it with {{rfd}} purely as an administrative action; I currently have no opinion on whether the entry should be deleted or kept.) —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 13:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I was about to restore it, but Mr. Granger beat me to the punch. I would definitely recommend adding citations (see WT:Citations) showing that the term has been used by three independent publications over the space of more than a year. I'd also recommend getting rid of the usage note, which is too encyclopedic for Wiktionary. A usage note would have to be about how the term is used, not about properties of isomer bombs themselves (which falls into Wikipedia's purview, not ours). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I've cleaned it up, and added entries for a couple of red links. It's probably OK now but seems to have too many synonyms etc. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
    • What was the problem with it when you deleted it originally? -- 06:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Kept Article has been cleaned up, nobody has voted delete, and there are no new comments in a month. The entry may still face an RfV. Purplebackpack89 19:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

nigga please[edit]

Looks SOP to me. "please" is being used in what we have listed as an adverb under Etymology 2 at please (though I should think that's an interjection?). It's not only used to mean "you don't know what you're talking about", it can signal impatience as well, any form of annoyance really, just like any other use of "please". The use of nigga is often ironic because it is used by people who would not otherwise address each other as "nigga". But that does not strike me as enough to make it idiomatic. It's ordinary AAVE, sometimes (like all AAVE) used by white people. WurdSnatcher (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure (I tend to agree with you though) and we lack bitch, please which is the only one of these combinations I've heard of. Also should be nigga, please because of the vocative nature of nigga. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Delete. The meaning is self-evident. Also does need a comma. Suspect it was added in part for its shock value, which is hardly a recommendation. P Aculeius (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


Added today by an anon. This appears to be a simple sum of its parts: 性的 ‎(seiteki, sexual) + 魅力 ‎(miryoku, attraction, magnetism, allure). Native-JA editors, does this have some idiomatic connotations that I'm missing, or is this indeed just an SOP? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. We don't have sexual attraction in English because it is SOP, so I don't see why we would have the same thing in another language. bd2412 T 16:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
We have physically attractive though. (Dunno why.) Equinox 20:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Probably because it means something different to physicists than it means to pageant judges. bd2412 T 00:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. Wyang (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Jew by choice[edit]

Someone who is a Jew by his own choice. SOP.​—msh210 (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this is a keeper, but I would note that the definition specifies a convert to Judaism, even though a person who is born Jewish and is free to leave the religion, but chooses not to, could also be described by this term. I would RfV first to see if it really is exclusively applied to converts. bd2412 T 14:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Good point. In my own experience it's applied exclusively to converts, but that's not worth much: cites will tell. Perhaps this is a keeper as defined and should be moved to RFV.​—msh210 (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. It is used exclusively for converts, and it is not quite SOP, because conversion is non-trivial. You can choose to be Jewish, say, but if you have not completed the conversion, you are not Jewish. Choor monster (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
    • That seems to be a practical rather than a lexical consideration. A person who becomes an attorney and practices law could be called an attorney by choice, although if the same person does not complete law school, then they can't be an attorney even if they choose to be. There are two issue with this phrase - can we demonstrate that it is only used for those who have converted to Judaism (as opposed to those born Jewish who choose to adhere to the religion), and is it only applied in this sense to Jewish people (as opposed to converts to other religions, or other areas of life). bd2412 T 18:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Based on Google Books, this term does also, but not always, include people who were born unobservant Jews and who have become religious. Interestingly, though, many of the results spell this term as Jew-by-choice or even Jew-by-Choice (and the adjectival forms Jewish by Choice, Jewish-by-choice, and Jewish-by-Choice all exist). This contrasts with Muslim by choice, for which I cannot find any uses with hyphens, but a few instances of Muslim by Choice. But other than orthographic differences, the usage and semantics seem to be the same between "Jew(ish) by choice", "Muslim by choice", and "Christian/Catholic/etc by choice". --WikiTiki89 19:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
    • That's a self-contradiction, surely? If you can choose to be X, but are not yet X, then you are not yet an X-by-choice either. (Compare choosing to be(come) married.) Equinox 21:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. SOPSonofcawdrey (talk) 08:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. As Equinox says, if you choose to marry someone or to become Jewish, but you have not yet married them or become Jewish (by whatever criteria you are using to define "Jew"), then you're not yet "married by choice" or a "Jew by choice", you're just engaged. And based on Wikitiki89's comments, the term is SOP. - -sche (discuss) 06:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to be widespread, although the meaning can vary, since the question of "who is a Jew?" is much more complex than "who is a Christian?" or "who is a Muslim?" or other similar questions, due to opposing viewpoints about culture, ethnicity, and religion. Other similar phrases don't seem to be as widespread, probably for the same reason. In other words, similar questions tend to be very much sum-of-parts, while "Jew by choice" (or "Jewish by choice") isn't at all intuitive. For most people, anyone who practices Christianity is a Christian; anyone who practices Islam is a Muslim; anyone who was born or naturalized an American citizen is an American. But there's widespread disagreement over whether Jewishness is defined by religion or ethnicity (most Jews would say either or both, but many non-Jews would say religion alone). There's disagreement over whether converts are Jews, or whether the non-religious children of Jewish parents are Jewish, or those who profess a religion other than Judaism, but consider themselves ethnically Jewish. Of course that's all beyond the scope of Wiktionary, but it illustrates why the phrase "Jew by choice" has a certain currency not shared with most similar phrases. P Aculeius (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Creating by choice would be a better option. bd2412 T 14:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

RFD-failed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Old Red Sandstone[edit]

Do we want multi-word names of geological assemblages or formations? Are the likes of Vishnu Basement Rocks or Tapeats Sandstone also fair game? I'm not sure, but I wanted to bring the issue up here. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I think we do. The situation is similar to that with taxonomic names. The International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) is a body that has normative standards for such names. There are sites that have alternative names as well and region-specific databases as well. (See links at ICS site.) DCDuring TALK 00:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
We decided we didn't want names of individuals, which could theoretically run into the hundreds of millions, but we're doing names of species, which could theoretically run into the millions. This isn't as bad as either- I would guess we're talking about thousands. The only difference between these and everything in Category:en:Geological periods is the "multi-word" part. If these were SOP, that might be a problem, but they aren't. This one, for instance, doesn't refer to just any old red sandstone, it's a geological term of art. What's more, it's probably translingual (cf. a Google Books search for "ins old red sandstone" or for "le old red sandstone". Chuck Entz (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced we should add entries for every species or even genus, no matter how easily the process could be automated.
For this case, we would not necessarily be allowing names for every geological feature, but for formations (usually outcropping in multiple locations), time periods, and some singular formations known for their fossils, for oil prospects, etc. Names that have received official recognition are widely accepted and almost guaranteed to be attestable. DCDuring TALK 18:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I was also going to comment that these are something like geological periods (Triassic etc.). This one has a pretty self-evident name but I don't feel that it's a pure SoP. Equinox 01:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Refers to a specific geological formation, so not sum-of-parts. And much more likely to be encountered in geological literature than many other terms. P Aculeius (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • It looks like the community wants such entries to be kept. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


Rfd-sense "An occurrence of the Biblical word selah.". Otherwise we should include this sense for every word we have; i.e. define apple as "An occurrence of the word apple.". --WikiTiki89 19:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Is apple actually used that way ever? As an unusual Biblical word, selah certainly is. Also, otherwise we'd be failing to document an actual word (spelled with the final s). What about the "oohs and aahs" of a crowd? A "cheery hello" from the postman? Equinox 19:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that we have something similar at gardyloo. Smuconlaw (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, apple is used that way on occasion, but I realize now that this kind of usage is more common with function words than with nouns or verbs. For example, "How many ands are on this page?" --WikiTiki89 22:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, because there is one "because", one "there", and one "is" in this sentence (not to mention three "ones", a "sentence", and a "mention"), but none of these get entries defining the term as an instance of the term. bd2412 T 15:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Do you feel the same about e.g. hello and amen, or are they different to you somehow? Equinox 16:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello is definitely a regulation noun and not just an instance of the interjection 'hello'. This is (apparently) more like counting a picture of an apple as a distinct definition of apple. "How many apples are in that photo? None, because it's a picture". That said having never encountered the word I will abstain. But both hello#Noun and amen#Noun (which I'm not really familiar with either) need to be better defined. We're just not great at definitions in general here. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that "saying ones hellos/goodbyes" literally requires saying the word "hello" or "goodbye" (see eg "Attending wakes and dashing off postcards became part of his routine—he said his hellos with postcards and his good-byes at wakes."), which would let it pass. This on the other hand is a literal mention of the word "selah". Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. What about names of letters, then? "There are three vaus in that Hebrew sentence." These would also seem to be "literal mentions" even though it isn't the word "vau", but a Hebrew letter, that appears in the text. Equinox 18:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
That's a regular usage of the word. The definition of vau is the Hebrew letter ו and it does not have any less abstract definition. --WikiTiki89 18:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Well, like you say, it's not the word "vau" appearing in the text, it's the symbol (ו) represented by it, just the same as if you use aitch or full stop ("He drops his aitches." "There are three full stops in an ellipsis."). "vau" is therefore a valid noun. On the other hand, "There are two vaus in Equinox's comment" is using "vau" to literally refer to the word vau, which is an important difference. Smurrayinchester (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I completely agree with Smurrayinchester. He said it better than I could have. bd2412 T 19:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not about abstract definitions; vau has a noun definition which is indisputable. Let's go non-word and go with ®. What about adding an English noun section with the definition 'an occurrence of the symbol ®' (there were ® on the page). @Equinox. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I have just created isn'ts together with Citations:isn'ts as a test case, but is is obviously a slippery slope. "All words in all languages" says we ought to have an entry for isn'ts, but I have got better things to do. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
But this is just evidence for the existence of such plurals. We should not define terms as instances of themselves. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • This is a very slippery slope indeed. We would end up with an entry for all of the words in the corpus with an "s" added. What about instances of plural words? There are two "wordses" in this paragraph. A book on countries might have numerous "countrys". At the very least I would want some strict rule of attestation prior to creation of the entry, and would probably want to limit it to instances in natural speech ("they said their hellos"; "there were many amens") rather than purely demonstrative speech ("there are two wordses"). bd2412 T 16:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • On a related note, "isn'ts" appears attested, but primarily as the plural of a noun form of "isn't". bd2412 T 16:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Is 'isn'ts' really the plural of a noun 'isn't'. I mean, plural ought to imply plural of a noun, but does it always 100% of the time? Renard Migrant (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • It is when "isn't" is being used as a noun. For example:
    • 2000, Darren O'Donnell, Your Secrets Sleep With Me, page 94:
      And not just any isn't but a certain isn't or, in reality, a whole massive group of isn'ts.
    • 2001, Terry Esau, Blue Collar God: White Collar God, page 13:
      Something that isn't can't become something that is, unless that which is precedes that which isn't. Now, the isn'ts, that's us. You and me, we used to be isn'ts.
    • 2006, Gail Godwin, Queen of the Underworld: A Novel, page 380:
      No, at this stage they want to find out who's for sale and who isn't and blow the isn'ts out of the water early in a style that will make other isn'ts reconsider.
    • 1993, Cycle World Magazine Vol. 32, No. 1, January 1993, page 59:
      For the second straight year, the CBR900RR cops Best Superbike honors. it does so largely because of what it isn't. It isn't heavy. It isn't big. And those two “isn'ts” make the 900RR what it is-the quickest, most nimble, most highly refined...
  • bd2412 T 13:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
WT:CFI suggests - but doesn't outright state - that these sorts of terms don't class as words, given that it refers to the w:use–mention distinction to decide whether a term conveys meaning. I'd argue this is covered by "This filters out appearance in raw word lists, commentary on the form of a word, such as “The word ‘foo’ has three letters,” lone definitions, and made-up examples of how a word might be used.", although strictly it's not the form of the word but its usage that's been commented on. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I wonder which is correct:- "There are no cats in this sentence." or "There is one cats in this sentence.". Or am I getting ridiculously off-topic? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
This does seem a bit off-topic. It depends on what you are trying to say. First, if you are referring to the word cats rather than cats as animals, the word should be placed in italics or quotation marks. Secondly, assuming the correctness of what I just said, if what you are trying to convey is "The word cats does not appear in this sentence", then your second sentence is correct, though it would be better rephrased for clarity in the manner I suggested. Smuconlaw (talk) 10:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Any word can be referred to as a word. The mere fact that someone occasionally does so doesn't justify defining words as instances of themselves. In the case of Amen, Hallelujah, Shibboleth, or Hello, the words have acquired secondary meanings as nouns, and are frequently used and widely recognized as such. If the saying of selah constituted a specific act or ritual other than merely saying the word, then there would be reason for a definition. But the mere act of saying it, even if referred to by someone else, doesn't justify a definition, no matter how notable the source. P Aculeius (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Delete per Smurrayinchester. CFI requires words to be used to convey meaning (not just mentioned as in "there are two tos in this sentence"). - -sche (discuss) 23:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems that it can be considered a special case since it is so frequently discussed as a word, and hence is used as a noun that has a plural form. Sure, we wouldn't want to have to do this for every word - but there's hardly any danger of that is there? Who'd have the time? Who'd have the motivation? Not to mention, finding attestations would be difficult/impossible for 99.9999% of vocabulary. With selah(s) there are attestations.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, this is a special case: it's well known as a mystery word whose meaning has been lost, so the word itself is all there is. As for the danger of a precedent being abused: you'd be surprised. There are people out there who do things like generate hyphenated attributive forms of huge numbers of noun phrases, decade names for every decade in history, spelled-out versions of large numbers of integers, entries for every SOP technical phrase they've ever encountered in their line of work, "Derived terms" sections in suffix entries with all the words using the (very common) suffixes, "Coordinate terms" sections that are really lists of every member in large categories, dozens of translations in one language for a single animal name because the language has morphemes for gender, age, and a few other characteristics- those are just some of the abuses that I've seen. You have to realize that there some very compulsive people out there, and a few industrious ordinary people who come up with odd ideas for projects. Never underestimate the potential for generation of massive cruft on a continental scale. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Wow! No Chuck Entz I did not realise that. That's amazing. And so, yes, I agree we need to be careful. (Though I did notice the other day that someone put in a bunch of fractions "one fifth" etc. - which clearly is another danger area!! ...but that got generally approved by the regular Wiktionarians who do most of the hard work around here.) Anyhow, since we already have a noun sense for selah, covering the 'pause to reflect deeply on the text', I now am leaning toward chucking the "an instance of" sense. I have struck my 'keep', and delete--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 07:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Just looked at the entry again. If we delete this sense, the entry will still say that the origin or precise meaning is unknown, and will still indicate what it's apparently used for in the Bible. The only two citations given are just counting occurrences of the word in sections of the Bible. It's not independent of the only known source of the word; it's not used in another context. That use is self-evident from the context. So exactly how does defining "selah" as "an occurrence of the word 'selah' " contribute to its meaning? No matter how rare the word is, if it's only used in one work of literature and one or two essays that do nothing more than count incidences in that work, then no new or useful sense has been created. P Aculeius (talk) 03:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Sense deleted: Purplebackpack89 14:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

blame Canada[edit]

(Previous RFD)

OK, yes, it's a song. But it just means "blame" + "Canada", and all the citations seem to be using it in this literal sense (I'm unsure about the 2007 one, but I think it's referencing the song, and it's paywalled so I can't see the whole thing). Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

More context might help in interpreting the citations. The one from 2004 looks like it might be supportive. I don't think blame Canada was at all literal in the use I used to hear, in which Blame Canada was used as a kind of parody of political deflection of responsibility for a bad outcome. Perhaps Used to draw attention to an attempt to direct attention away from the true cause of a bad outcome. DCDuring TALK 13:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not very familiar with this, but the 2005 cite "National Cattlemen's Beef Association immediately resorted to a blame-Canada-first strategy" looks like idiomatic usage. I'd welcome more input from some US users who've heard of this. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
That ismust be referring to the mid-1990s mad-cow disease outbreak, first discovered in Alberta, Canada. It is also an allusion to the song (1999), so it straddles literal and allusional/figurative use. DCDuring TALK 18:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh right, if so maybe not idiomatic. I didn't know that. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
How about RFV where we look for three unambiguous cites where it doesn't refer to literally [[blame]] [[Canada]]. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
We should just do an RfV here and extend minimum time to closure to 30 November. DCDuring TALK 21:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
@Smurrayinchester move to RFV? Renard Migrant (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Sure, I'm fine with that. Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Despite what DCDuring says I think it's best to move it or else people will complain they haven't seen it. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

nicht zu schnell[edit]

I fail to see how this is idiomatic in any way, the topical labels also seem completely wrong. -- Liliana 12:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Weird, even from my GCSE German I know this is standard German for 'not too fast'. Was the user thinking of the English not so fast? Also the first edit in the <span class="plainlinks"?history says "see comment for why this is here". So where's the comment? Not on the talk page and not on the initial edit either. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I think "not so fast" is "nicht so schnell". Donnanz (talk) 15:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
We do have English and Portuguese entries for the Italian phrases allegro non troppo and allegro ma non troppo, which are not idiomatic in Italian, but clearly are in other languages. I suppose if we called this "English" and restricted it to its musical sense, it could be kept, but is it used in English? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Delete per all. Feel free to re-enter as English with citations. This RFD won't affect that. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 21:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

wegen Mordes[edit]

I think this is not a set phrase, and better explained as a usage note at wegen. There are a lot of combinations that work like this, such as wegen Totschlags, wegen Betrugs, wegen Einbruchs etc. -- Liliana 13:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 21:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015[edit]

environmental protection[edit]

Is it an SoP? Also, the Chinese translation 環境保護环境保护 (separate topic?). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I would keep, just because this is protection of the environment, not protection from the environment. Also, in my pre-lawyering years, I once worked for a "Department of Environmental Protection", which is a fairly common term incorporated into such agency names. bd2412 T 02:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
    Well environment meanings 'pertaining to the environment', so environment would mean 'protection pertaining to the environment' (not from the environment. It's a bit of an off-topic argument to be honest. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Set phrase. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Meh, so's green grass. What else are you going to call grass that's green? Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. --WikiTiki89 18:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd keep this for its usefulness. This a very widely used term and it's important to keep the central terms right in all languages. I can imagine that somebody would want to check a dictionary to find out the exact translation of "environmental protection" to another language. In Finnish, for example, one could generate at least these alternative terms: ympäristön suojelu. ympäristösuojelu, ympäristönsuojelu, ympäristönvarjelu, ympäristön varjelu. Only one of them is actually used in this sense. --Hekaheka (talk) 11:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per BD2412. Aryamanarora (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: per Toonironic, and because of the general ambiguity of the term noted by BD2412. Purplebackpack89 22:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


As above? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


I am the author. I added (Chinese, Japanese, Korean terms) because its Korean hangeul spelling 자연환경 (jayeonhwan-gyeong) was included in a Korean frequency list (Wiktionary:Frequency lists/Korean 5800) and the Chinese and Japanese forms also exist in some dictionaries. Are they SoP's? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Common collocation but sum of parts. We can add 自然環境 as an example at 自然 and 環境. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't see much difference between 環境保護 and 自然環境 (as for CFI), the latter seems even a better candidate for the inclusion. If you use the lemming principle, it's also included (in not so trustworthy) dictionaries. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Well 环境保护 is in the 現代漢語規範詞典, Moedict and zdic, while 自然環境 is in none of them. These are the best lemmings we have for C-C, surely. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I note we do have built environment. We could include its coordinate term natural environment, as well as the Chinese translations. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


Rfd-sense "An unincorporated area wholly surrounded by one or more incorporated areas.", because it is an unnecessary specialization of sense #2: "An entity surrounded by other entities that are very different from itself.". --WikiTiki89 22:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep: Sense #2 is metaphorical in a different way than the sense up for deletion is. I would also note that the sense up for deletion is used to form geographic place names. Purplebackpack89 22:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
If this is the official name for these things, used by government etc., then I'd say keep. (I've never actually heard of it before.) It would be a specialisation, but perhaps a specific one worth having (as subsense, possibly?); compare field. Equinox 16:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete. DCDuring TALK 18:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Can we verify this sense as existing in more than a metaphorical sense? bd2412 T 23:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    • @BD2412 There are place names bearing "Island" where island refers to the sense of a wholly surrounded unincorporated area. Anaheim Island, California, South Monrovia Island, California and The Island, New Jersey (wholly surrounded by Trenton) are three examples. Purplebackpack89 02:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I don't see how that is distinct from a thing surrounded by another kind of thing. bd2412 T 05:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
        • @BD2412 "A thing surrounded by another kind of thing" is an impossibly broad and vague definition that could apply to lots and lots and lots of things. The original, geographic sense of island isn't distinct from "a thing surrounded by another kind of thing"...it's a thing (land) surrounded by another kind of thing (water). IMO, "A thing surrounded by another kind of thing" is a bad definition and should be broken up into several clearer, more specific definitions. Purplebackpack89 14:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I think that all other senses suggesting a thing surrounded by other kinds of things are basically metaphorical references to the sense of land surrounded by water. bd2412 T 15:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Has a strict legal definition and therefore passes the prior knowledge test. It appears for example in court proceedings:
  • The City of Beaverton (city) extended its boundaries and encircled that territory so that its boundaries were contiguous to the territory on all sides. It is undisputed that that territory thus became an island, within the meaning of the island annexation statute, and that Oregon law authorizes the city to annex that territory in its entirety without the approval of the owners of property in the territory. [In fact, if you look further down you'll find out that under Oregon law, an island in this sense must not be surrounded on all sides by water.]
  • We are unpersuaded by defendants' argument that the 19.73-acre Cambrian Park Plaza may, and should, be treated as an island within the larger 600-acre island of Cambrian Park. Doing so, we think, would defeat the statutory purpose that only 'entire islands' within a city's confines be annexed.
  • While certainly this legislation helped to eliminate some islands, many are still in existence today.
Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Then you wouldn't object to adding a {{lb|en|legal}} tag? --WikiTiki89 16:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps {{lb|en|government}} or {{lb|en|geography}} would be better, but I wouldn't object. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

free throw percentage[edit]

field goal percentage[edit]

Both SOP of free throw/field goal + percentage. The fact that the abbreviations FT% and FG% exist does not make the terms themselves idiomatic. --WikiTiki89 00:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep both: What are we going to delete next, batting average? I'd dissent from the nominator's rationale and say that's unclear simply from SOP what field goal percentage means; the definition includes words like "made" and "attempted" that are not part of the word itself. Plus, the mere fact that it's a sum of field goal + percentage and not field + goal + percentage is IMO a reason for keeping. Purplebackpack89 00:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Why are they uncountable? SemperBlotto (talk) 08:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
    • OK, I guess you can have field goal percentages or free throw percentages... Purplebackpack89 13:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete both. DCDuring TALK 11:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Leaning delete both. SOP, and it should be obvious from the context that the percentage is successful attempts out of total attempts. bd2412 T 12:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
    • @BD2412 I doubt it's that obvious unless you're a native English speaker with a bit of a head on your shoulders (FWIW, I really don't like people using "it's obvious" as a deletion rationale). Also, remember for this to be pure SOP, the definition shouldn't contain any other words except "field" "goal" and "percentage", and maybe a few articles or prepositions. Purplebackpack89 13:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
      • That seems pretty straight forward: field goal percentage. bd2412 T 00:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
        • If one knew what "field goal" and "percentage" meant but not what "field goal percentage" meant, couldn't one also reasonably also conclude that an acceptable definition of "field goal percentage" is the percentage of one's total shots that are field goals (as opposed to free throws)? That's equally SOP-y as the correct definition. And again, that's still making the assumption that everybody can put the field and goal together in their mind; if they can't, there's no way they arrive at the proper definition. Purplebackpack89 02:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
          • No ones asking them to put "field" and "goal" together, that's why field goal is not SOP. The fact that another interpretation of the parts exist that is not used in a particular instance of the phrase, does not make the phrase un-SOP. --WikiTiki89 16:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
            • But what it does do, @Wikitiki89, is make a case for why the definition would be useful for readers. I would hope people actually care about having definitions useful to readers? Purplebackpack89 16:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I await the start of your vote: add to CFI "automatically include anything PBP89 thinks is useful to readers". Equinox 20:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Nah, I'd rather just repeal the "Equinox thinks every single reader can determine what every single two- and three-word entry means" policy. Purplebackpack89 21:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
@Wikitiki, they do not have to. --DixtosaBOT (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
COALMINE has nothing to do with abbreviations; it only applies to variants that differ only by spaces. --WikiTiki89 19:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 02:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
But, @-sche, the nom's rationale has already been disproved above. Purplebackpack89 14:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
On the fence somewhat. There's a general US sports issue where 'percentages' are marked out of one, like on-base percentage .500 (surely that's 1 time in 200, not one in two) but let's set that aside because that's a common thing that you get used to pretty quickly. So a percentage is something divided by something times 100. Alright not times 100 in this case just a/b. How obvious is it what's being divided by what here? The actual verbatim CFI wording is "An expression is idiomatic if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components". Is this really easily derived or just derivable (but not easily)? Renard Migrant (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Purplebackpack89. Aryamanarora (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Purplebackpack89. Kiwima (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


This is just 46 + -jährig. We don't need these entries for all possible ages. -- Liliana 20:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. This is an odd one, too. bd2412 T 21:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. For those who don't speak German, this is basically "46-year-old". I'm a bit concerned about the site linked to from the entry: it contains a semi-random collection of both lexically-valid terms and SOP collocations (see, for instance, this). This may end up becoming the equivalent for SOP phrases of Bing- or Google Translate for translations- interesting and sometimes useful, but a massive source of random misinformation when misused. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, odd indeed. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, maybe. It's just an alternative form of Sechsundvierzigjähriger (and see the debate on twelve-year-old below). Donnanz (talk) 11:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


Sense: "An aggregate of characteristics of a house" as redundant to sense: "A structure serving as an abode of human beings" and other definitions. The only difference between this definitions is that one is being used in the partitive sense, when one says "too much house" or "more house", it's just a clipped form of "too much of a house" or "more of a house". Similar to the RfD for selah above. Yes, this entry is cited, but those citations could easily also apply to the "structure serving" definition. Purplebackpack89 21:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete this sense, as essentially the same as sense 1.1, but not the second RFD sense, the game of "playing house", which makes more sense to me. P Aculeius (talk) 01:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    • The "playing house" sense is not under discussion in this RfD. It is tagged for discussion, not deletion, and I agree with you that it should not be deleted. Purplebackpack89 02:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. P Aculeius (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The 21 definitions given were very strangely organized and had a lot of redundancy. I've tried to clean them up a bit, combining the ones that seemed to be the same, and deleting a couple that didn't seem to belong (I don't think anyone ever said, "let's go play house", meaning "play bingo", or "let's play some house", meaning "put on the house music". I didn't change the sense under discussion here. P Aculeius (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Reverted. If you want to rfv the bingo and house music senses, go ahead- but I'm pretty sure the musical one, at least, will pass. You won't find house in all of the contexts where you would find house music, but that's not the same as saying it's never used. Feel free to add back the less-destructive parts of the edit.Chuck Entz (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Done. It would have been easy simply to restore the two definitions in question, instead of reverting all that work, however. The fact that attestation for previously unattested definitions might subsequently be discovered doesn't mean that a clean-up removing some of those definitions is "destructive." P Aculeius (talk) 13:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are a good number of nouns that are attestable in analogous "too much <noun>" constructions: "too much apartment", "too much sofa", "too much car", "too much boat", "too much motorcycle", "too much airplane", "too much dog", "too much horse", etc. This is obviously a figure of speech that's not tied to any one of its components: there are similar series for "not enough <noun>", "more <noun>", "less <noun>", etc. What they have in common is use of a quantitative modifier to frame a countable noun as a mass noun. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Merely systematic polysemy.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. 2602:306:3653:8920:F14D:7716:1583:E124 01:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Deleted Unanimous consent to delete this sense. Purplebackpack89 16:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


The boardgame. Possibly acceptable content, but not as a Translingual entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

WT:BRAND? No objections to Translingual though, doesn't sound like a terrible idea to me. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Is this the only Translingual name of a board game? Is this the only Translingual trademark? If we were to keep this as Translingual, wouldn't we want to revive WT:TODO to properly populate the corresponding categories, presumably by partially depopulating the corresponding language-specific categories? If no one wants to do the work, I'd just as soon male the L2 English. DCDuring TALK 18:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

fun pack[edit]

"(Singapore) A free government-sponsored goody bag distributed to audiences attending events such as the Singapore National Day Parade."

Does not seem distinct enough from the primary sense to warrant an independent definition. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Fits easily into the original sense. P Aculeius (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as identical to the first definition. Do we even need to let this run for a month, or could it be speedied.--Dmol (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It's a week for RFD, unless that's been changed. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
    @Renard Migrant: Did you mean to post this under the RfD for alcohol poisoning? Purplebackpack89 23:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
    Looks like a direct response to the point above, PBP. bd2412 T 00:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
    Well, what he said is germane to Wikitiki's re-opening of the alcohol poisoning RfD above. Purplebackpack89 00:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Not sure we should delete this def. The argument for it being that in SingE this is the only thing it means, that is, the more general sense is not used there. It's not like we need to save space.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
    In the vicinity of New York, "the City" can only refer to "New York City", does that mean we need a separate New-York-specific definition for it, and, for that matter, one for essentially every city in the world? --WikiTiki89 04:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
    That's because the phrase "the City" is using the definite article; the word "city" by itself doesn't mean NYC in NY, it just means "city", so it is not an analogous case.--Sonofcawdrey (talk)
    But, re-looking at the citations, some of them are for "NDP fun pack" - which rather argues for a Singaporean understanding that "fun pack" has a wider meaning - i.e. one coincident with the first definition. It's not looking good. I shall abstain.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 07:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
    @Sonofcawdrey we'd still cover the usage with the first definition, the second one only really adds 'government issued' which is not necessary to understand the meaning. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
    Perhaps we could move the info about the restricted usage in Singapore English to a usage note. No need to delete info that could be relevant to someone reading the entry, now that it already has been added by someone.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Precisely how would this differ from a "Seattle Fun Pack", a "Texas Fun Pack", or a "Today Show Fun Pack"? Or for that matter, a "Wendy's Kids' Meal". Sure, you only get it at Wendy's, and maybe it comes in a different package with different contents than a "Burger King Kids' Meal", but there's no need for either a special sense or a usage note. I think the same principle applies here. P Aculeius (talk) 05:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
It differs because it is used without a modifier, unlike all your examples. In SingE "fun pack", unadorned, refers to these government-issue things.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment: I'm from Singapore, and I'm not entirely convinced. The term fun pack was chosen by the Government to describe collections of items that were distributed free of charge to celebrate Singapore's jubilee year in 2015, but can it be concluded from this alone that the term refers only to Government-sponsored freebies? How will the term be used after 2015? I think it's premature to include the sense in question. Smuconlaw (talk) 12:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you saying that a shopping mall in Singapore can't make up a "fun pack" consisting of the same sort of goodies? It wouldn't be a "fun pack" if made up by anybody but the government? P Aculeius (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm agreeing with you. I don't think there's enough evidence that fun pack as used in Singapore is limited only to Government-sponsored items. One problem with looking for evidence of usage is that because of Singapore's jubilee this year, most recent online occurrences of the term relate to the Government-sponsored item. Smuconlaw (talk) 14:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I was replying to Sonofcawdrey, sorry for the confusion. P Aculeius (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Usage is king (of descriptive lexicography - which what we are supposed to be doing here), so let's not speculate what a shopping mall may or may not do and what they may or may not call it in the future - let's just look at the citations. The citations make it clear that it is not just a SG50 phenomenon, with SingE citations dating back to 2009, and they've apparently been in use since 1991 (https://www.youth.sg/Users/W/E/WeiyingGoh/2015/8/Evolution-of-NDP-funpacks). Still, that's only a few citations (but well over CFI needs). So I look further, a search of NewspaperSG database finds very little evidence for the term until after the 1990s, not much in any case, but also not any citations referring to the normal non-gov't usage (as per def 1). So Google Books: well, non-Singapore citations there are, dating back to the 1950s in the usual sense (def 1). Straight Google search restricted to site:.sg are overwhelmingly referring to the gov't issued fun packs. I can't see why anyone would object to this, based on the available evidence. As with all language, there are precious little absolutes, so of course I'm not suggesting that we have a usage note that says "In Singapore ONLY ever used ... etc.", merely that we have a usage note that notes the common usage in Singapore, something like "In Singapore chiefly used to ... etc." Anyhow, this discussion is supposed to be about a request for deletion of def 2 (fine delete away, I give that option my full support), so I guess we should desist with this discussion of whether or not to add an accurate and helpful usage note to the entry. Does that sound reasonable?--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 11:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Shoof (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Sense deleted. bd2412 T 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


Literally Fe ‎(iron) + / ‎(divided by) + H ‎(hydrogen). It's not actually metallicity per se, but a proxy for it using the ratio of iron to hydrogen which is, as I pointed out, SOP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep – On various websites (including Wikipedia) and data from the Exoplanet Catalogue, Fe/H is considered to be an abbreviation for metallicity. While is is also the ratio of iron to hydrogen, the definition of metallicity isn't evident at first sight. Aryamanarora (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • This looks like a question for WT:RFV. --WikiTiki89 22:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • That sounds pretty good actually. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


When this page was originally created, it represented a character not in Unicode. Since the creation of the page, the character has been encoded in Unicode as 𬖾. Looking up ⿰米頗 simply redirects you to 𬖾. VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why a redirect needs deleting? Keith the Koala (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose 𬖾 is not easy to type. (Neither is ⿰, but at least ⿰ is in the BMP. 𬖾 is in SIP, U+20000+.) —suzukaze (tc) 02:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Keep A technical redirect that does no harm. Actually, I'd argue that we should go further and ultimately have equivalent redirects for all compound ideographs to allow searching for characters by radical/component. Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


This is an incorrect form of 占卜, due to incorrectly converting 占 into 佔 from simplified to traditional. — Justinrleung (t...)c=› 02:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I have speedily deleted this as it is an obvious error. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

storm out[edit]

I made this one earlier thinking it was used as a phrasal verb, but looking over its uses more, I think I was wrong, I might be the only person who uses it as a phrasal verb. storm can be a normal verb, and you can storm in or storm away or storm wherever you like. WurdSnatcher (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

"Storm in" and "storm out" seem idiomatic, although I'm not sure any of the others are regularly used; if they are, I think it's derivative of these. I don't think that it's sum-of-parts, because someone can't just "storm", and someone who hasn't encountered the phrase before might be confused by the meaning. P Aculeius (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Possibly you can't "storm" without a preposition (can't you, though?), but you can storm with all kinds of prepositions ("stormed through the classroom", "stormed into the meeting", etc.); I think it might be more sensible to note this at "storm" than to include every actual combination. Equinox 19:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Here are some uses without a preposition, though I think it's a different sense of storm. (Certainly storming a castle is a different sense.) You can use it with adverbs too, like storm back. What tests are there to decide whether an intransitive verb is a phrasal verb? The usual test of seeing whether a pronoun direct object can come before the adverb doesn't apply. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I suspect that storming in this sense is influenced by the same kind of storming that one does with castles, but I don't have anything substantive to point to for that. All of the senses are related, though, so I'm not sure it could be demonstrated one way or the other. P Aculeius (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
put is worth comparing, BTW. You can't just "put" something, but you can put it on, in, into, through, beside, etc... Equinox 20:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Equinox makes a good point. I wasn't thinking of "into" or "through". There may be others, and I'm sure lots of prepositions could be used as nonces. We probably don't need half a dozen different entries for this sense, and since they'd all begin with "storm" it wouldn't be hard to find simply by listing under that word. I think I'm convinced. P Aculeius (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
MW 1913 had the following for two of its definitions of intransitive storm:
for "To rage; to be in a violent passion; to fume."
The master storms, the lady scolds. Swift.
for "To blow with violence; also, to rain, hail, snow, or the like, usually in a violent manner, or with high wind; -- used impersonally"
It storms.
It would be a bit tedious to find current citations for prepositionless storm. DCDuring TALK 02:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Unnecessary to do so, IMO. I'm perfectly satisfied with Swift and Merriam-Webster, if the sense isn't clearly obscure. But I'm not convinced that it's quite the same sense as "storming in" or other prepositional forms, which carry the specific implication of movement more than rage. Perhaps that's the key; in order to express motion, it has to have a preposition. P Aculeius (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Swift's usage is a different sense. To storm into/out/off etc. mean to "rush in anger" not "to rage" - in Swift's sense, the master is verbalizing, in the other sense, it can be done in silence (though can be accompanied with vebalising), and I don't think it exists without a preposition, at least to my knowledge.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

keep - with sense "to rush or stride in anger", but add context "followed by preposition" (because you cannot simply storm).--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I hate to say this (as it's WurdSnatcher), but storm off could be considered a synonym. Donnanz (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I would have nominated that at the same time if I'd seen it, but it doesn't seem likely that this decision will go through (which I'm fine with, obv., I vacillated on whether this was a good one or not, but if it is then storm off is too IMHO). WurdSnatcher (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Shoof (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


Only 復興 is the correct traditional form of 复兴. The following is taken from 重編國語辭典修訂本 (emphasis mine):


Justinrleung (t...)c=› 23:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I have speedily deleted this as it is an obvious error. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

short a[edit]

And all the other similar entries by the same person. No headword, no proper definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

They should at least have the IPA symbols, rather than just giving a couple of random example words. But they seem rather SoP anyway: e.g. a "long o" in Old English was a different sound from a long o in Modern English, right? (Not purely because of vowel shift.) Equinox 20:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think they're SOP at all as applied to modern English, especially in accents like General American that doesn't even have phonemic vowel length. The "short a" in a word like bad is not particularly short, and long i isn't a long vowel at all but a diphthong. These are historical names, but in modern English they're misnomers and thus do not have a meaning that's predictable from their component parts. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Aɴɢʀ, a long a could potentially refer to a vowel such as occurs in "You've been a baaaaaaaaaad cat." But, in linguistics it doesn't, so not SOP. As for long oo and short oo - these are perhaps from the field of "phonics" as opposed to phonetics, but I had never heard of them and so didn't understand their meaning until I read the entries, so again not SOP. That said, the entries added by Pizza86 certainly need work (but not deletion).--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Aɴɢʀ, Sonofcawdrey. bd2412 T 16:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm with Angr too. Let's start with the deletion rationale. "No headword, no proper definition" those are easily fixed. So there simply is no deletion rationale at the moment, I can't think of one so keep due to lack of reason to delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: There should be entries for concepts like these. Also, implore @SemperBlotto to refrain from deleting or RfDing entries solely on cleanup concerns. Purplebackpack89 19:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    • There's nothing wrong with the nomination. It brings the issue to the attention of the community for discussion. bd2412 T 22:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Is nominating for deletion really the best way to do this? I'm sure I could think of lots of perfectly valid entries that need clean up that I could nominate for deletion if I were so inclined. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
        • If there is an argument to be made that the entries should not exist at all, then this is the appropriate venue. A phrase with "no proper definition" may be one that has no sense suitable for inclusion in a dictionary. Although this may not be how the nomination turns out, I still think it is fine to bring it here. bd2412 T 02:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe it's a US/UK thing, but this article and long a don't correspond to what I think of when I hear the terms – namely, the GRASS vowels: short a is the Northern England /æ/ and long a is the Southern England /a:/ (not /eɪ/). See 1, 2, 3 Smurrayinchester (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Ah yes! As I thought, there are two definitions - the linguistics long-a (= /a:/), and the phonics long-a (= /eɪ/). A quick Google of "phonics" and "long a" will provide plenty of examples. I suspect the original editor was coming from a phonics perspective, e'en tho' they labelled every entry "linguistics". If no one makes clean-up of these entries their pet project, I will, but am too busy for the next week or so to get around to it.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not SOP. The phonemes "long a", "long e", "long i", "long o" and "long u" used to be actual long vowels, and then there was the Great Vowel Shift. They're not SOP in modern English. 2602:306:3653:8920:F14D:7716:1583:E124 01:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Shoof (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Angr. - -sche (discuss) 05:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Kept. There is no reasonable chance of deletion at this point. bd2412 T 19:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

bog in[edit]

Gives two defs, the first (start eating) I can't find any uses of at all. The second does not look like a phrasal verb to me. I found plenty of uses of bogged as an adjective, and when someone is bogged in a place, we say he's bogged in that place. (often bogged in mud). WurdSnatcher (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

keep first def. Very common in AusE (? and NZE). I have added a citation to the entry. However, delete second def., not a phrasal verb as WurdSnatcher notes.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
You didn't actually add a cite to the first def. Not that I don't believe you, just pointing out you forgot to hit save. It sounds like something an Aussie might say (they'd say it drunkenly, obviously, but that still counts). WurdSnatcher (talk)
It is in the "citations" tag.Sonofcawdrey (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh, btw, drinking to excess not needed to use this expression - merely colloquial.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh I see, weird, the cite tab is still a red link for me even though it's existed for like sixteen hours now. Thanks! I've switched this to be just a nom for the second sense. WurdSnatcher (talk)
The second sense looks like a shortened version of "bogged down". P Aculeius (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the last definition seems out of place. I have added the extra definition. I don't (yet) know how to add a citation. However, the first sense of the expression is in a common form of disrespectful preprandial grace in my native land of Australia: "Two, four, six eight. Bog in, don't wait". (Is this the right way to do this?) Skelta

Have added a citation each for both AusE senses (you can see how it is done Skelta).--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank Sonofcawdrey for the instruction. I noticed that what you have added are quotations, and that there is a quotation in the citation tab of the "bog in" entry. Should the quotation be taken out of the citation tab and a citation to the Australian Macquarie Dictionary be added to the citation tab? Skelta

The terms citation and quotation are essentially synonymous in this context. A reference refers to a citing of some authority such as the Macquarie Dictionary, or other book on language. But there is no need to add any references to secondary sources unless the information in the secondary source adds something that the citations do not have (i.e. maybe some info about the etymology, or when the term was first introduced, etc.). In this case, seems to be no need for a reference. Citations in the "citation tab" appear to be used for 'extra' citations as we generally don't want too many attached to the def. itself because it clutters up the page - but also the "citation tab" can store citations that back up certain usage notes, show early attestations, give an indication to etymology, etc. At least that's as far as I can gather.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

little boy, little girl, little child, little kid[edit]

Sum-of-parts. 2602:306:3653:8920:F14D:7716:1583:E124 00:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I guess little boy should be kept as there is a sense that is not SOP. The others should go. 2602:306:3653:8920:F14D:7716:1583:E124 00:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete except little boy which is a prime candidate for {{&lit}}. What's the point of having the relevant sense of little and then allowing every possible combination shouldn't we either delete these or delete the relevant sense at little? Renard Migrant (talk) 13:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete little kid and little child. Abstain on the other two. I think little girl was discussed before. Equinox 15:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete See prior 3 RfD discussions at Talk:little_girl. DCDuring TALK 20:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete little child, little kid; keep little boy and little girl but convert literal senses to {{&lit}} - it's misleading to suggest that it means anything more than "little" + "girl" (the 10 years old thing is v. spurious) but as long as there are non-literal senses, we need something. Smurrayinchester (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Keep all. The relevant sense of little is not really used before any nouns other than these four, at least as far as I know. Note that these combinations nearly always refer to age, not size. Unlike, say, little person which refers to size. Shoof (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
What about someone's little brother, sister, nephew, niece, or cousin? Seems pretty generic really. Equinox 21:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Talk:little Hitler is a deleted entry I remember, BTW. Equinox 21:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete, or {{&lit}}-ify if some senses are idiomatic, per Smurrayinchester. - -sche (discuss) 05:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Keep little boy and little girl per previous RFD discussions and as translation targets. There could be lemmings as well. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Keep little boy and little girllittle girl does not literally mean a girl who is particularly little (compared to other girls). Used in phrases like "little girl's room". Delete little child and little kid. —Pengo (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


Sum-of-parts. 2602:306:3653:8920:F14D:7716:1583:E124 01:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. "All words in all languages". Also, it is a useful translation target. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Is there anything particularly significant about a twelve-year-old, compared to an eleven-year-old, a forty-year-old or a sixty-eight-year-old? (Note that one-year-old also exists, so the discussion should extend to that term too.) — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Semper. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
In response to SemperBlotto's comment that the term is a "useful translation target", I note that there is a word in Italian, dodicenne, meaning a twelve-year-old. However, I'm not sure that the mere existence of a word in one language means there should be an entry in all other languages. To give a silly example, if there is an Inuit word meaning "half-melted green snow", that would not warrant the creation of half-melted green snow. Also, note that we already have -year-old as a suffix. — Cheers, JackLee talk 10:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
But "all words in all languages" wouldn't apply to "half-melted green snow" as it is a three-word term, not a word. Also, just because we define a suffix, doesn't mean we disallow words that use that suffix - we allow musicology although we have -ology. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment Depending on referent some have special meaning, e.g. a three-year-old when talking of a racehorse is very different to a three-year-old when talking of a human. Anyhow just mentioning it as grist for the present mill.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 11:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that's a lexical difference though: in each case it refers to being three years old. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
And, of course, we also need the alternative forms such as 71-year-old which is very common, especially for the larger numeric values. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I think in the strictest interpretation of CFI, this fails as single words still need to be idiomatic. However I do feel that this is a single word and were there such a rule to always keep attested single words, I think this would pass it. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I realise it could lead to a multiplicity of entries; I recently made an entry for one-year-old and thought I would draw the line there. Maybe the entry for -year-old could be looked at too; it doesn't allow coverage of year-old as a standalone adjective (hard redirect). Donnanz (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect this and similar entries, in this case to -year-old [or year-old], where a full explanation can appear under Usage notes. If a translation table there can't be made to work, create an appendix with a table summarizing how FLs express the same thing (possibly with subpages for languages with truly complicated cases). DCDuring TALK 14:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
That sounds like a reasonable solution. The alternative of creating individual entries seems unwieldy to me since there is no theoretical limit to the number of hyphenated words of this type that can be created. SemperBlotto said we should include all terms that can be attested, so I just randomly Googled "25-thousand-year-old" and came up with these: [2] ("25 Thousand Year Old Faces"), [3] ("a 25 thousand year old sewing needle, used by Neanderthal people, was also found"), [4] ("a balloon sculpture dedicated to a 25-thousand year old fertility totem"). The sites didn't properly hyphenate the term, but I hope you see the point. — Cheers, JackLee talk 14:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Those are different: they're phrases that are hyphenated to serve as modifiers. What we're discussing here are nouns, which are far more tightly-bound, syntactically. The best query to use is is the plural: this construction applies to -day-olds, -week-olds and -month-olds, as well as -year-olds (in some cases, you might want to filter for -Oldsmobile). Chuck Entz (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Point taken about the adjectival uses, though note that both one-year-old and twelve-year-old list them. Also, note the following nouns that a Google search threw up: [5] ("all the Two thousand year olds are dead"), [6] ("Meet the million-year-olds"), [7] ("Do you know any 155 thousand-year-olds?"). — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep 1-20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 and 100. They're words, they don't have spaces in them, and other languages write them as single words without spaces or dashes. Purplebackpack89 14:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. SOP twelve + -year-old. I also think that -year-old should be moved to year-old, since it is not really a suffix (and this would also fix the problem Donnanz pointed out for covering the sense of year-old meaning one-year-old). --WikiTiki89 15:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I checked Google for "thirty-one-year-olds" and found a few examples, then checked for "one-hundred-and-thirty-one-year-olds" and got zip, and then "two-hundred-and-thirty-one-year-olds" and got zip, and then all the way up to "nine-hundred-and-thirty-one-year-olds" and got zip. I also got zip for "thirty-one-and-a-half-year-olds". So I suppose we could use frequency here as CFI stipulates, and just include those. However, that said, they all seem very SOP-ish to me. What the def? "A person or thing which is 31 years old".--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
      • But that is not linguistic frequency but simply a reflection of the natural frequency of people's ages. How many two-hundred-and-thirty-one-year-olds do you know? --WikiTiki89 16:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
        • I disagree. I think that linguistic frequency will, of course, be connected to natural frequency, but there are bound to be linguistic clusters, mostly around the fives and tens, that deviate from the natural distribution of people by age. bd2412 T 18:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
          • Yes, it is linguistic frequency (because of natural frequency) - I was following on from prev. comment about "25-thousand-year-olds" (which clearly don't exist but the word does, apparently). Anyhow, on a different tack, I noticed that fifty-year-olds actually refers to people anywhere in the fifties (50-59) and so I guess those ones at least are not SOP.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
            • Careful, look at the difference in pluralization: "25-thousand-year-olds" has no results either. It is also a "round number", so comparing it with "two-hundred-and-thirty-one-year-olds" is wrong anyway. Now round numbers are a special case even on their own. If you say you have "fifty chickens", that can be an approximation just as much as "fifty-year-olds". --WikiTiki89 15:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • If redirecting does not get sufficient support, then delete. DCDuring TALK 17:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to year-old. Shoof (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete or redirect. Equinox 11:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Sod it then, keep, even if CFI doesn't explicitly protect single words from the idiomaticity criterion, it has always been the de facto policy that single words are kept even if they aren't idiomatic. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
    • So you regard hyphenated words as compound words rather than SoP? Interesting, this would certainly apply to all the non- variants when spelt the British way. I notice also that the entry for -year-old doesn't mention the use of x-year-olds as a plural form. Donnanz (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Well, they can be words and sum of parts of course. And not all hyphenated terms, no. Some are two or more words linked with a hyphen instead of a space. But this one, to me, is a single unit not a couple of units linked by hyphens. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

yank out[edit]

Looks SOP to me. We can yank, and if yanking results in something coming out, we can say yank out. I don't see anything idiomatic here. Sorry I made all the inflected forms a few minutes ago, then realized I wasn't sure it was a valid phrasal verb at all. WurdSnatcher (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Transparent SOP. bd2412 T 18:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DCDuring TALK 20:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Shoof (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 14:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Sonofcawdrey (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. The snow has fallen. bd2412 T 16:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

talk down[edit]

Another one, this is an unusual one, I'm not sure of it. It's "to tell someone over the radio how to land a plane", but I think it is SOP. It's just talking for the purpose of going downwards, in other words talk + down. It's one context, at least in movies, where it happens a lot, but it doesn't seem any more or less grammatical than talk up would be (just doesn't really happen, even in movies). If it were limited to "over the radio" or "subject must be a person on the ground", that would make it idiomatic, but I don't think it is. Again, it's for logical not grammatical reasons -- if the pilot had both his arms cut off and his eyes gouged out, he might have to talk a passenger down. Similarly if a passenger had to take over a train or a car, someone might "talk him over the course", "talk him down the tracks", "talk him up the hill", or whatever. The "dispatcher talking a plane passenger down" scenario is a staple of fiction, but surely that alone doesn't make it grammatically special (don't call me Shirley). N.B. this has made me realize talk through is a valid phrasal verb we are missing. WurdSnatcher (talk)

Can imagine guide down, help down, take down, etc. for the same thing, yes. I think we need some help pages on types of multi-word verb, so we can refer people there regarding actual phrasal verbs vs. adverbial combinations. Equinox 04:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
keep - but definition tightening needed. Doesn't really matter if it only happens in fiction, it is still language. Some citations would be welcome. As for help pages, not saying it is a bad idea, but one problem with this topic is that there are definitely grey areas, and I don't think there is any definite agreement among linguists about how to categorise various phrasal verbs, prepositional verbs, complex prepositional verbs, etc. - i.e. there are different schools of thought on the subject.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I didn't nom it because it describes a fictional situation, it isn't describing anything special. You can be talked over a barrier, talked under an overhang, talked past a trap, talked through an obstacle course, talked away from a situation, etc. WurdSnatcher (talk)
Yes, that's right. But each of your examples are verb + prepositional phrase, where the object of the prep is needed (you can't say "I talked him under" or "she was talked past"), whereas talk down is just verb + preposition (according to the def). However, the def lacks citations, without which I think it can be deleted in any case.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Keep - have added 3 citations; not SOP.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
OED defines as "to provide (an aircraft) with directions by radio communication which enable it to land, esp. in overcast or emergency conditions" ... and also includes talk in with regard to ships seeking landfall.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

write down[edit]

To write something in a simple or condescending style. Looks like write + down (At a lower and/or further along or away place or position along a set path.) The set path in this case is written complexity. I'm also not sure this is actually used citably even if it is idiomatic, but it's very hard to search for. (I did find two uses). WurdSnatcher (talk)

Isn't it the same as dumb down, but dumb down in writing? Seems that is what it is trying to express. If it does exist, then should be kept, IMO.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I see talk down as inherently insulting. write down comes across to me as plainly literal, and it must (if it's used at all) specify to what it is writing down to, as in the examples I found of "write down to the level of", that's just a plain fact. talk down (or really talk down to) is mainly patronizing and insulting, and doesn't need to have any factual changes (in other words, I can talk down to someone without really changing my diction much, if at all, it's more a matter of tone and style; the only way to write down is to write in a (figuratively) downward manner). WurdSnatcher (talk)
In the following citation, write down seems clearly write + down (to the level....):
  • 2011, Ada Leverson, Love's Shadow: The Bloomsbury Group:
    Good heavens, I can't write down to the level of the vulgar public!
    DCDuring TALK 18:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Very difficult to find citations given the very high frequency of the usual sense of "to write down" = put down in writing. Without a good set of citations to back up this sense, I say delete.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
How are these:
  • 1983, Randolph H. Hudson, Gertrude M. McGuire, Bernard J. Selzler, Business writing: concepts and applications (ISBN 9780935732061)
    Writing down to the reader is even more undesirable. No grown person likes to be treated as if he or she has the mind of a twelve-year-old.
  • 1991, Studying Classical Judaism: A Primer, Westminster John Knox Press (ISBN 9780664251369), page 11
    Anyone who writes down to the Judaic and Christian faithful will miss a vast and important audience of religious intellectuals, the largest single body, I suspect, of serious readers about religion in any country in the world.
  • 2010, Laurence Lerner, You Can't Say That! English Usage Today, Cambridge University Press (ISBN 9780521140973), page 131
    [A] scientist or a philosopher, trying to explain difficult ideas to the general public , might be seen as writing down to them.
  • 2013, John Frederick Reynolds, Carolyn B. Matalene, Joyce Neff Magnotto, Donald C. Samson, Jr., Lynn Veach Sadler, Professional Writing in Context: Lessons From Teaching and Consulting in Worlds of Work, Routledge (ISBN 9781136688881), page 145
    Writing down to one's audience cheats the subject matter no less than it cheats both writer and reader.
Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Excellent work. I'm convinced! 'Keep from me. BTW, OED defines it as "to adapt one's literary style to the level of readers of supposedly inferior intelligence or taste".--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I would keep it. I feel like there is insufficient evidence to delete, and we have talk down to which is the same thing just a different verb and much more common. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The sense seems to exist and does not seem to be a transparent use of "write" + "down". As a double check, the sense is Collins 3[8], and Merriam-Webster intransitive sense[9], --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

alfabetul limbii române[edit]

Sum of parts. Literally "the alphabet of the Romanian language". Redboywild (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete. --WikiTiki89 18:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, easy, no explanation necessary. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

cry out against[edit]

Looks like SOP cry out + against (in opposition to) to me. I guess I should point out that it's sometimes figurative (because it isn't speaking at all), but so is cry out. WurdSnatcher (talk)

Delete. Equinox 23:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

crush out[edit]

To use pressure to force out -- in other words crush + out (also very often used for cigarettes, but that's also SOP, where "out" means "extinguished"). There might be a different idiomatic usage (feels like there should be, but I can't think of what it is). WurdSnatcher (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

pull apart[edit]

open something by pulling on various parts of it. I don't think the definition is accurate, first of all (I have to pull on various parts of this puzzle box I own in order to open it, no one would ever say I pulled it apart). The def could be tightened up, but AFAIK it is only used when you open something by pulling it apart either literally or in the "break down a machine" sense, which is already listed separately (and with which I have no quarrel). WurdSnatcher (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, though I dispute your analysis about accuracy. It only has to work one way, that you see pull apart in usage, you look it up and the definition works. It doesn't have to be that the definition would apply to every single situation covered by 'open something by pulling on various parts of it'. That's going from the dictionary to the real world, which is the other way round. Anyway if it gets deleted, problem over! Renard Migrant (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - it is just another version of the literal use, which already has an entry. Kiwima (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


The second def is really just referring to a use of the bowstring, not a separate sense. I believe this definition (which is in a number of dictionaries) is a mistake that has arisen from mis-reading the OED entry originally published in 1887. The OED has two defs "1. The string of a bow; also fig." and "2. As used in Turkey for strangling offenders." ... the latter meaning "(a bowstring) as used in Turkey ...." - presumably because this was a very common usage in early Eng lit. But it isn't really a separate meaning. There is no indication in OED nor in the OED citations that the word means "A string (other than a bowstring) used by the Turks for strangling offenders" as our current implies.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I think delete. Your analysis looks good to me. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree this is just the application of the main sense of the term to a specific situation. — Cheers, JackLee talk 11:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I wonder whether this should be a subsense (and similarly for axe). There are lots of hits for "escaped the bowstring", "escaping the bowstring" etc where only additional knowledge of Turkish execution methods tells you that this means "escaped execution". Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
That info can be added to the first definition, or as a usage note.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm beginning to see the point made by Smurrayinchester, so I'm changing my vote to "keep". We have something similar at shoe-leather. — Cheers, JackLee talk 19:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
In that case, the def should be "such a bowstring used by medieval Turks as a weapon for strangulation." ... or something like that. (Also, with shoe-leather - the split into count/noncount is an oversimplification - obviously, shoe-leather used for making shoes is also uncount despite the plethora of count noun citations in the entry (e.g. " the cobbler's wife, was in Smyrna to buy shoe leather")).--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I've updated shoe-leather accordingly. — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

slide off[edit]

The first def just looks like slide + off to me. An object can slide, and it can go off, and if it does both, it has slid off. Not idiomatic. The second def I am taking to rfv. WurdSnatcher (talk)

  • Delete. You can slide up, down, left, right, around, away, on, off, in, out, etc. No special meaning for "slide + preposition". P Aculeius (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, or else frankly, what's the point of having entries for slide and off if we're going to include every possible combination that makes use of them. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Provisionally keep. If the second sense passes RFV, then this one should be included to indicate that there is also the literal, non-ideomatic use. Kiwima (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    That's sort of a delete, because we'do that anyway if this sense got deleted. 12:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


Sfarney made the case here (NB, since this is not a discussion about the main page it will probably be moved somewhere) for the deletion of -therapy, as it is not a suffix but the word therapy with different prefixes or as the second part of a compounds. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete, of course. Not a suffix. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete for the reason given by Renard. — Cheers, JackLee talk 19:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete. --WikiTiki89 19:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete DCDuring TALK 23:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes delete, I agree with everybody for once. The derived terms should be moved to therapy. Donnanz (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done derived terms moved. Donnanz (talk) 09:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

border guard[edit]

I'd say that the definition is slightly inaccurate and quite misleading; it's just a guard at a border. Judging by the lemmings, the only other dictionary at OneLook Dictionary Search to have an entry for this is Collins. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The definition may be better now. Donnanz (talk) 11:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, one of those things that 'topically important' but lexically it's a [[border]] [[guard]]. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not sure about this one, but at the very least it is a common collocation. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. It doesn't mean a guard for any other type of border, just in the sense of frontier. Donnanz (talk) 10:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - translation target. --Hekaheka (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Border guard is also the agency which employs these persons. --Hekaheka (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. If someone is guarding a border, they are a border guard, regardless of what kind of border it is. The fact that not all types of borders need to have guards does not change that. --WikiTiki89 01:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Technically, any person who guards a property against trespassers is guarding the "border" of that property, and even a police officer designated to prevent undesirables from crossing city limits or county lines is guarding a border, but these would not be called border guards. bd2412 T 01:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Translation target. Defined in Collins dictionary. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

hell no, heck no, hecks no[edit]

hell yeah and hell yes were deleted https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:hell_yes. These should be deleted to. 2602:306:3653:8920:C98:897E:434B:84FC 02:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

chuck away[edit]

Looks like chuck (discard) + away. WurdSnatcher (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

In that case should we delete throw away as well?--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
No, that seems idiomatic to me. "throw" doesn't mean "discard", whereas "chuck" does. I can chuck this thing means "discard it"; I can throw this thing means "toss it". Adding away to chuck is therefore predictable while adding it to throw changes it from "toss" to "discard". WurdSnatcher (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • More or less synonymous with chuck out. Donnanz (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I believe this is based on the sense of chuck meaning "to throw" (which should probably be made clearer on the entry's page). The sense meaning "to vomit" derives from "upchuck" (i.e. to throw up). So "chuck away" doesn't mean "discard away" but "throw away", and "chucking" meaning "throwing away" is just a shortened form of that. P Aculeius (talk) 11:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I've come across throw to mean discard (probably derived from throw away) however I'm not convinced by this nomination so probably keep. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep In this phrasal verb chuck just means "throw", and is the original sense; the sense 'discard' is much later, so the original analysis for deletion is not correct.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
But if we're right, and it's simply "throw away", isn't it sum-of-parts? *returns to video of woodchucks chucking wood* P Aculeius (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

blow down[edit]

To blow something down, just looks like blow + down AFAICT. WurdSnatcher (talk)

  • Delete as per nom.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Sorry to vacillate, but on second thoughts, blow down, as in The Three Little Pigs, means to bring into a state of ruin through blowing. This is not the literal sense, which would be "I blew the pingpong ball down the slope". So I think we should keep it.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
      • But that seems to just be another sense of blow. We may have blow up, but we don't have "blow into a million little pieces", "blow sideways" (as in this, this and this), or "blow apart", or "blow to smithereens", or "blow to the ground", "blow off one's feet", "blow senseless", etc. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I think a "to destroy; to reduce to rubble"-definition might be valid, it sounds right but is very hard to search for. WurdSnatcher (talk)
        • But those senses of blow involve explosives, not wind. Lots of things get blown down by wind/hurricanes, etc. aside from big bad wolves.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Not convinced that blowing something down necessarily implies demolition, simply because demolition might be a natural consequence of being blown down. A tree or a flagpole or a tent or a fence can be blown down, without being demolished; admittedly the tree is probably beyond repair, but we wouldn't say it's been demolished or brought to a state of ruin. A plastic Santa on the roof can be blown down without sustaining any damage. Is the meaning of "blown down" different if the object isn't destroyed, or is the notion of physical destruction independent of the phrase? Right now I'm thinking that it arises from knowledge of what's being blown down, not the words "blown down". P Aculeius (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Maybe not always necessarily demolition, or destruction, but certainly damage of some kind. If the Santa (who in their right mind puts a Satan on the roof anyway?) or TV aerial is blown down, then even if not broken, there is damage that has to be put right. When things are blown down, we understand that repair will be needed. It is typical of some phrasal verbs to look like SoP, when in reality there is a certain specificity to the construction that more often than not means a more narrow definition than the simple SoP. To blow s/t down a slope or a tube does not imply damage and repair. "The power lines were blown down last night" most certainly does imply damage and repair. Specific definition. I like to offer the example of "cut up" to help users to better understand phrasal verbs. Just think of the difference in meaning between "He cut his finger" and "He cut up his finger". The meaning of "blow down" as a phrasal verb is parallel. -- ALGRIF talk 15:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
If a thing can be "blown down" without damaging it, then the notion of damage isn't inherent in the phrase; one merely assumes or infers damage to things that would normally suffer damage if blown down. A storm blows down leaves, but doesn't damage them; twigs and branches that have been blown down may damage the tree, or merely prune it of dead wood; but the twigs and branches that have been blown down wouldn't necessarily be considered damaged. Right now it sounds like all we have is that "to blow down" means "to blow on something so that it falls down". I don't think anyone is confused by the lack of reference to damage or destruction, which depends largely on what's being blown down. As it stands, the sense in question equals, "to blow on something so that it falls down; the object may or may not sustain damage, or if it is a house, it will be destroyed, unless it is a treehouse, toy house, birdhouse, or similar object, in which case it might sustain minimal damage and be repairable, or in the case of Eeyore's house, easily rebuilt using the original materials." P Aculeius (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
It is listed as a phrasal verb elsewhere. Its idiomaticity seems to come by it being specific to the wind (so the big bad wolf blowing down a house wouldn't count). I'm not sure I buy that, but I'll change my vote to neutral, maybe a weak delete. WurdSnatcher (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

up to[edit]

Doing; involved in (with implications of mischief). I just changed be up to from a redirect to its own page because I think this prepositional phrase is not used on its own. It's a verb be up to, you can't do up to or start up to or stop up to or use it with any other verb AFAIK. WurdSnatcher (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Good change.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Keep. While be up to might deserve a page (as would get up to), up to can also be used as a genuine preposition to link a person to a troublesome activity, as in "He looked like a man up to no good". Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


"A left-handed pitcher." Main sense is "One who is left-handed, especially in sports." There's just no need for this specification, as in baseball southpaw meaning 'one who is left-handed'. Notice as lefty there is no special baseball sense even though lefty is the most common term for it by far. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete precisely per nom. bd2412 T 15:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. In baseball, "southpaw" is used either exclusively or almost exclusively for a pitcher. I believe the term actually originated in baseball. I have doubts about the use of the term in other sports. Does anyone refer to a left-handed basketball player, hockey player, or soccer player as a "southpaw"? Why would they? I could just see someone applying it to a left-handed quarterback, but probably not to other football players. And even then, it would be applying baseball terminology to football, which isn't necessarily wrong, but speaks to the relatively great influence that baseball has had on English. I would reorganize the senses as: 1. (baseball) a left-handed pitcher; 2. (from sense 1) a left-handed person. I don't believe the other sense is verifiable in a sense other than "a left-handed person". P Aculeius (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
    ""southpaw" is used either exclusively or almost exclusively for a pitcher" Good point, I hadn't thought of that. Put me down as abstain. Though I thought it originated in boxing. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
    It is definitely used in boxing. Can we confirm which sport used it first? bd2412 T 16:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Etymonline says it was first used in 1885, referring to pitchers in baseball. It also says that "south paw" for "left hand" is attested in boxing slang from 1848. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I can't imagine that the use of "south paw" for a boxer did not appear as "southpaw" for over thirty years, or that the baseball meaning did not develop from it. bd2412 T 17:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
There's a difference between a person's "south paw", meaning their left hand, and a "southpaw", meaning a left-handed person. I believe I've heard that left-handed boxers sometimes fight differently than right-handed ones, but since boxing isn't a team sport, and nobody chooses to fight a right-handed or left-handed boxer due to the advantages of doing so, I think it's perfectly understandable if left-handed boxers didn't immediately become known as "southpaws" merely because they were "south-pawed". P Aculeius (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I note that the earliest use of "Southpaw" that I can find is as a nickname with no relation to sports. Frank Leslie's Pleasant Hours (1874), Volume 16, page 308: "The boys drank several times before composing themselves into their accustomed seats and leaning-places; but it was afterward asserted, and Southpaw — the one-armed barkeeper — cited as evidence, that none of them took sugar in their liquor". bd2412 T 22:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I have read the baseball explanations for how south came to mean "left". How did it come to mean it before the supposed baseball-field orientation etymology? How are cricket pitches preferentially oriented? DCDuring TALK 23:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I always thought it had to do with south being opposite the preferred direction, as evidenced by going south meaning taking a turn for the worse, just as left is (see, for instance, left-handed compliment and the etymology of sinister). Chuck Entz (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
That's a good explanation, probably better than the one about the field's orientation, if not as well-known. As for the bartender, I would say that his nickname has the same origin as that of a pitcher (or any ballplayer), but it's unlikely that the use of the term in baseball is derived from its use in the novel. Possibly it was a widespread term for a left-handed person at the time it was used in the novel and when it was applied to ballplayers. But if so, the term came to be so tightly associated with baseball that people have long assumed that it originated with baseball. I think we'd need more examples than one character in a novel, if the author didn't say that it was a widely-known term for a left-handed person at the time. The two uses almost certainly arose independently, but may have a common source. P Aculeius (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • OED (2011) has this to say: noun
1. A person's left hand. 1813 (4 cites)
2. a. A left-handed person. 1871 (5 cites)
b. Baseball. A left-handed pitcher. 1887 (6 cites)
c. gen. A left-handed sportsperson. 1925 (4 cites) (e.g's of tennis, tenpin bowling, and shooting)
3. Boxing. A boxer who leads with the right hand and guards with the left. 1910 (5 cites)
1. a. Left-handed. Also in extended use: left-footed. 1886 (6 cites)
b. Of a boxer: that leads with the right hand and guards with the left. 1914 (3 cites)
2. fig. Backhanded, ironic. rare. 1957 (1 cite)

So everything except the last meets CFI. Perhaps we should have all other defs. The speculation about which came first and which derived from which is not really relevant, except that as the general sense didn't come first, then it becomes harder (but not impossible) to say that we should remove the specific senses. For my own part, I don't think "catch-all" defs should be the goal in cases where specific usages are far more frequent.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 10:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Sounds like all these are well-attested except the last (and it might be worth checking to see if there are more examples of that before deleting it). And I think the derivation is obvious, even if the use of the term predates its appearance in literature (which seems all but certain). P Aculeius (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz The sense development from south is not obvious, though Chuck's belief seems very plausible. Can we find any support for it? DCDuring TALK 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Keep. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

нет бога, кроме аллаха, а Магомет — пророк его[edit]

To whatever extent this phrase, which lacks idiomaticity in any language, is useful as a phrasebook entry, it is only thus in Arabic. I don't know if it even counts as a shahada for strict conservative Muslims unless said in Arabic. Certainly not dictionary-worthy in Russian. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete. --WikiTiki89 14:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


The form with grave accent is wrong: see here and here. Italy.png IvanScroogeNovantotto (parla con me) Italy.png 17:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

  • But see here where it is used. I think that single-syllable Italian words are often written with a grave accent on the vowel. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • RFV? Is it obsolete or a variant or just a mistake? I have no idea. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @SemperBlotto: actually, it is exactly the opposite of what you said; as a rule, no accent is put on monosyllables unless they need to be distinguished from same-spelled ones with different meaning: e.g. "he/she gives" vs da "from, by" (sometimes not even this exception is applied: fa "he/she does" or "F (musical note)"). Moreover, we'd better rely on dictionaries than on automatic conjugators. Italy.png IvanScroogeNovantotto (parla con me) Italy.png 19:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

act for[edit]

"To make decisions in (someone's) place". Isn't this just [[act]] [[for]]? Renard Migrant (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It's To make decisions in (someone's) place; to take over and act in the role of (someone who can not be present); to represent (someone) in an official capacity. act doesn't mean "make decisions" or "represent in an official capacity". Perhaps it should be tightened to focus on the officialness of it? It's called a phrasal verb by Cambridge and McGraw-Hill, plus listed here. WurdSnatcher (talk)
  • I can't say as I agree with either Cambridge or McGraw Hill. “To [VERB] for (someone)” is an exceedingly generic construction. “To chew for someone”, “to shop for someone”, “to read aloud for someone” -- these all express the same sense from for as the construction “to act for someone”. As such, act for doesn't seem all that idiomatic. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
But none of those are official. "act" doesn't normally imply doing something in an official or legal capacity. WurdSnatcher (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
My thought was, does act for always mean to speak for. Can act for not be also non-verbal action, therefore broadening the definition to 'to act on behalf of someone', hence, clear SoP. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that would clear it up: "act" can mean "to do something" (this committee will act on your proposal), doesn't have to imply speaking. "act for" does, I think, require speaking (or at least signing documents, which is leqally equivalent to speaking). WurdSnatcher (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep - not SoP. Act here has a very specific/restricted legalese sense that is not covered by any of the usual uses of act. Try it with other preps, to act with cannot mean "to make decisions with someone", to act beside cannot mean "to make decisions next to someone". However, "I'm acting for XXX" can also be expressed "I'm acting on XXX's behalf", so perhaps this phrase needs coverage.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Can't it? "France says to act with Germany for euro." "Alderman-elect Schilling of the Twenty-fourth Assembly District announced last night that he proposed to act with the Republicans in the organization of the incoming Board of Aldermen." Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Expand act as required. Equinox 03:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete per Equinox. DCDuring TALK 05:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete More than anything, I think the definition is misleading and simply wrong. To "act for" has a broader meaning than just "to make decisions for" – it means "to represent" in general ("Nicola Sturgeon vows [Scottish National Party] will act for entire UK". Really, it's just the broadest meaning of act ("do something") + for. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I too think it's act (perform an action or actions) + for, and speaking of course is a specific action so falls well within the definition of 'perform an action' .

정권 변화[edit]

This badly formatted entry is 정권 (政權, jeonggwon, “regime”) + 변화 (變化, byeonhwa, “change”) = "regime change". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that if the original English isn't considered sum of parts, then any translations that use like words are inherently also not sum of parts. (If the English "regime change" is acceptable then "정권 변화" is too) —suzukaze (tc) 21:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. I will reformat it then. The creator didn't bother making 정권 (I did) but did 정권 변화. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I have formatted the entry, adding RFD to regime change. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

regime change[edit]

As above. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


Added by an anonymous user with no cites and no definition. I can find no legitimate cites for it.

  • Speedied as "no usable content given". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

黃人, 黄人[edit]

Not a word. Wyang (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, delete, the correct term is 黃色人種黄色人种 or 黃種黄种 (abbreviated). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
It's in the ABC Chinese-English Dictionary.  WikiWinters ☯ 韦安智  22:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
.. which is not a particularly reliable source. Concrete examples are needed. Wyang (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: 黄人 ‎(kōjin) is currently missing, but it's definitely a word in Japanese, albeit rare and possibly dated. Shogakukan's 国語大辞典 (Kokugo Dai Jiten) lists this as a synonym or possible abbreviation of 黄色人種 ‎(ōshoku jinshu, literally yellow race, yellow-colored ethnicity).
I also see that Google finds many instances of 黃人 as Chinese, particularly in the image search (safe for work).  :)
‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Those pictures refer to 小黃人小黄人 (“Minions; little yellow man”). Wyang (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, phooey -- my humour was too oblique.  :)   Yes, if you look at the search box, that was even the string I entered into Google Image. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • If you search further, you will encounter this usage in Chinese: [10] (18+ disclaimer). You will understand if you read 黃#Chinese. :) Wyang (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

appear before[edit]

Just appear + before. Nothing idiomatic about this. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom. See the several non-temporal senses of before#Preposition. DCDuring TALK 22:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)