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

Templates:

Shortcuts:

See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oldest tagged RFDs

Contents

April 2015[edit]

take upon[edit]

I think this is only used reflexively, as to take upon oneself. When used non-reflexively, don't people say "take on"; that meaning is already documented under take on. Kiwima (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

RFV maybe? I agree but I think we should try to cite 'take upon' without a reflexive pronoun. I can't imagine it though: "he took it up his mother to finish the task". Nah! Renard Migrant (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I tried to cite non-reflexive usage using COCA. I found three instances that do not have -self forms as the object, but they are nonetheless reflexive. DCDuring TALK 10:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

May 2015[edit]

適当に[edit]

See Talk:親切に. Nibiko (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Delete. We have established that is a separated word, not an ending. Could there possibly be some exceptions, though? Category:Japanese adverbs needs to be checked for words ending in . --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, as pointed out by Nibiko and Anatoli. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree per above. Here are all other entries with supposed adverbs ending in に, except kana duplicates:
--Haplogy () 05:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Inseparable adverbs like あまりに, いかに, 殊に, and 更に must be kept. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • From how I understand this, the nomination is that this is a sum of parts of 適当 (1. suitable; appropriate; fit) + . Which sense of should I take so that the sum yields "appropriately"? I checked google:"適当に" dictionary to learn more. The question we should be asking is whether we help the native English speaker by deleting this entry, and whether creating a templated usage note pointing out this is in fact sum of parts (if it is) is not more friendly towards the user. By the way, the deletion of 親切に was out of process as per Talk:親切に: there was one participant in the RFD and there was no formal closure of the discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • All na-type adjectives in Japanese work morphophonemically as standalone words, taking various particles afterwards to indicate how the word functions grammatically in a given sentence. The basic set of particles is ‎(na) to indicate an attributive adjectival use, ‎(ni) to indicate adverbial use, ‎(sa) to indicate nominal use indicating degree, and ‎(da) and its inflected variants to indicate use as a predicate. Some of these na-type adjectives can even operate as nouns, in which case an even wider variety of particles may be used.
We do not have any other instances of Japanese entries consisting of [WORD]+[PARTICLE], except for those cases where the resulting combination has some idiomatic meaning not derivable from its constituent parts.
Our coverage of Japanese particles may be incomplete; I would be very surprised if it were not, as these words are very wide-ranging in meaning and use, much like English articles and prepositions. However, incompleteness of our entries constitutes grounds for expanding those entries. I don't think these are grounds for creating entries that are SOP.
I'm not sure what you mean by "out of process". The discussion archived at Talk:親切に was in 2011, and much has changed since then. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • PS: I just did some quick testing. So long as the lemma entry includes the inflection table, searching for the corresponding adverbial form should direct the user to the lemma page.
For instance, the adjective entry for term 馬鹿 ‎(baka, foolish, idiotic) includes the {{ja-na}} inflection table template, which auto-generates a table that includes the adverbial form, 馬鹿 ‎(baka ni). There is no page at 馬鹿に. Entering 馬鹿に into Wiktionary's search field directs the user to the 馬鹿 page as the first hit in the list.
@Dan, does that answer (at least some of) your concerns about usability? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
@Eiríkr Útlendi: You say that particle (ni) is used to indicate adverbial use, and that this function of the particle is currently missing in the entry. If that is such a basic function of the particle that it renders a whole class of items sum of parts, the first thing to do, IMHO, is to expand the entry; it is as if -ly entry for English were missing, and people would be nonetheless opposing entries like quickly. It would be real nice to have at least one external link from entry to a page that explains the particle use that you have described. On another note, how do you establish for Japanese that 適当に is not a single word? The background of that question is that, in English, I can use spacing in typography to assess whether something is a single word, and I cannot do this in Japanese, apparently. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Apologies for the delay in replying; with work and other IRL responsibilities increased, my time on Wiktionary has been severely curtailed, and this thread fell off my radar.
@Dan, descriptions of Japanese grammar in English have generally treated particles as separate words, inasmuch as there is such a concept (you correctly note the lack of whitespace, which introduces some ambiguity). Some schools of thought advocate treating particles as suffixes, but these viewpoints appear to be in the minority, and are generally limited to higher academia.
The descriptions of Japanese grammar in Japanese that I have read also treat particles as separate words. Monolingual Japanese dictionaries have entries for 適当 and for , but not for 適当に, suggesting further that Japanese lexicographers treat these as discrete units.
Does that address your question?
In addition, I agree that we should expand the entry for , and indeed for all the Japanese particles. Doing so adequately is a substantial undertaking, similar to the task of fully documenting the senses of any of the small grammatically important words in the world's languages (compare English the, for, etc.), and while I am not certain when I will be able to get around to tackling this challenge, it is on my to-do list. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@Eiríkr Útlendi: As for my question (how do you establish for Japanese that 適当に is not a single word?), what I intend to know is how does anyone establish the thing, including the sources that you mention. How do they justify their claim that 適当に is not a single word, that is, how do they show that what they call particles are not really suffixes or that a combination of a particle with something else is not a single word? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah, that is a much deeper discussion. In a nutshell, a lot of the judgment call comes down to how individual phonetic units function, and whether such units can be used independently in various kinds of utterances. By that analysis, 適当 and are regarded separate, whereas synonym 相応しい ‎(fusawashii, appropriate, fitting) is regarded as an integral whole (the final -i cannot be omitted in the same way that the ni can for tekitō ni). There is some description of this in the Adjectival noun (Japanese) article over on Wikipedia, particularly in the Characterization section. There is quite a bit more material about this in Japanese, and the JA WP article at ja:w:形容動詞 is more extensive than the corresponding English section. Monolingual dead-tree dictionaries will also often given an extensive treatment of parts of speech in the introductory material before the entry listings. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

June 2015[edit]

stutzig machen[edit]

Clearly SoP -- Liliana 15:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. I think it's pretty much a set phrase. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    This Google books search shows that phrases of the form stutzig und|oder ADJ machen exist, ie, it fails the coordination test for a set phrase. DCDuring TALK 23:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Delete as SOP. As DCDuring notes, other words can intrude into the construction. It also fails the lemming test, AFAICT; de.Wikt excludes it (only mentioning it as a common collocation in de:stutzig), ditto the Duden. - -sche (discuss) 07:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: present in the following translation dictionaries: dict.cc[3], en.bab.la[4], dict.tu-chemnitz.de[5], and German/English Dictionary of Idioms by Hans Schemann 2013[6]. However, does the sense "to perplex (someone)" exist given its apparent absence from Duden? On a further note, I am surprised to see "perplexed, suspicious" as a definition at stutzig since perplexed and suspicious do not seem to be synonyms. Moreover, Duden:stutzig seems to suggest the word stutzig is only used in constructions "stutzig machen" and "stutzig werden" since they give no other definition in their Bedeutungsübersicht section; is that correct? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
    Dict.cc makes no pretense of only including idiomatic phrases, or even just set phrases, or even just phrases that tourists could reasonably be expected to need; many of the things it includes are, like stutzig machen, just usexes. Other things it includes: "Kaffee ist eines meiner Laster" = "Coffee is one of my vices" and "die Abschlussklasse von 1997" = "the class of 1997". It isn't a good lemming to follow. Ditto bab.la, which also includes such awkward constructions as "Der Kaffee pulvert dich auf." = Coffee peps you up., Coffe bucks you up." - -sche (discuss) 09:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
    @-sche: Good point. Are the three dicts I mentioned even independent? They all contain "Der Kaffee pulvert dich auf." There is still Hans Schemann. But what about my other point that "stutzig" is maybe only used in phrases one of which is "stutzig machen"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Kept: No consensus to delete this after discussion open for two and a half months. Purplebackpack89 18:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

dizamos[edit]

"Dizamos" doesn't seem to be a legitimate conjugation of "dizer"; Portuguese Wiktionary lists the first-person affirmative imperative as "digamos", not "dizamos". A quick search online shows just a little over 2,400 results. You may see this, this, and this for more. (under imperativo → nós) The Obento Musubi (talk) 06:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV, just to make sure that there isn't something weird or dialectal that could be going on. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete. It doesn’t look like it’s attested even in dialect or nonstandard text. All but one of the Google Books hits are typos of dizemos and scannos of digamos. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Abstain. google books:"dizamos" gives me the following attestations: [7], [8], [9], [10], and more. Therefore, the form appears attested. google books:"dizemos" gives 3,300 hits. It is an inflected form, with low absolute number of hits, so, despite the favorable frequency ratio, I do not know whether this should be kept as a common misspelling; probably not. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
    • The four hits you listed above are in Spanish, not Portuguese. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

جدّی - jeddi[edit]

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

  • I didn't know what "tashdid" meant, so I looked it up for interest, but Wiktionary has no entry! 109.153.226.155 17:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    تَشْدِيد ‎(tašdīd) is the state of there being a شَدَّة ‎(šadda) in a word or on a letter. --WikiTiki89 17:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to جدی, there's no need for "alternative form" entries, we don't do this for terms with diacritics for Arabic or Hebrew script based languages, neither for Cyrillic-based with accents. I've started a "tashdid" entry. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 2015[edit]

Verizon[edit]

I request undeletion (keep AKA undelete). Deleted in 2009. I cannot find any process data related to RFD; anyone has a better luck? This company name is a single-word one and can host pronunciation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Before it was deleted, the page said nothing but "VERIZON". Being empty of content, it was eligible for speedy deletion, and should not be re-created in that condition. If there's evidence of this word being used in a way consistent with WT:BRAND, let's list it at Citations:Verizon. Until there are cites showing that it's eligible for inclusion, the pronunciation info at w:Verizon will suffice. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
(sarcasm) Sure, it's the business of encyclopedias to provide pronunciation of terms, not of dictionaries. Especially given that "Pronunciations [...] are the most essential part of any lexical entry, [...]" as per diff. (end of sarcasm) --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not the business of dictionaries to do other people's advertising for them. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
An entry in a dictionary with its definition line consisting of a small number of words is much less of an advertising than an entry in an encyclopedia. I tend to think it is not advertising at all. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
@Angr: We advertise political parties, NGOs, political jurisdictions, religions, and ideologies. We just have a bias against commercial enterprise — filthy lucre and all that. DCDuring TALK 15:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I myself added cites to McDonald's to ensure its keepability. If you want an entry for Verizon, just add the cites. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Allow creation of a new entry: Purplebackpack89 16:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, move to RfV. DCDuring TALK 11:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
    I placed some quotations at Citations:Verizon and recreated Verizon, given the previous deletion was not of a Verizon dictionary entry but rather of a post that, per Angr above, had no usable content since it only said "VERIZON". --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 14:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Shi'a-centric[edit]

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

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

Transhumanist Party[edit]

Minor political party whose name is SoP. Equinox 00:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

If it were a commercial enterprise, we would call it spam. DCDuring TALK 15:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete. - -sche (discuss) 22:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
For a second, I thought it was the transhumance party. We could have made jokes about that name until the cows come home... Chuck Entz (talk)

亞美利加洲[edit]

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

  • Don't nominate something for deletion without first doing, then submitting, research to make sure that this term hasn't been used in print. 173.89.236.187 07:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Supporting the same approach for other Chinese, Japanese and Korean proper nouns where common nouns like "river, state, city, province, prefecture, country", etc. should be excluded from the lemma, unless they absolutely belong together. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

sole survivor[edit]

"Sole" means "only". Equinox 04:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

But it is only used in situations where a large number of people have died, right? Doesn't that make it idiomatic? ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I can find uses in situations where only two people died (1, 2 (warning, autoplaying video), 3), so I wouldn't say so. Smurrayinchester (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's nothing truly idiomatic here. "Sole", like "only", often implies one or more others of a contrary nature. Consider the following e.g.'s from a New York Times search:
    - South Korea chose a state-run aircraft maker on Monday as the sole preferred bidder.
    - Her departure leaves Judge Eugene F. Pigott Jr. the sole Republican on the seven-member panel.
    - Seventy years after the United States invented uranium enrichment, the sole American company in the business is struggling.
    - And 18 percent said they were their household's sole provider.
    - The bank will be the sole advertiser on NYMag.com.
-- · (talk) 05:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete. - -sche (discuss) 03:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

deleted -- Liliana 09:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

addictive personality[edit]

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

  • I think SoP would be a personality that is itself addictive (easy to become addicted to). Although sense three of "addictive" covers this, it uses "addictive personality" as an example, and I don't know of another commonly used collocation where "addictive" is used to mean something other than sense 1 or 2. bd2412 T 13:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
    Some usage at COCA of addictive is more like definition three. Noun phrases headed by life, crime, disease, disorder, for example, don't well fit "1. Causing or tending to cause addiction; habit-forming.", let alone "2. Enjoyable."
A catchall sense, possibly even broader (eg, "or associated with") than "3. Characterized by or susceptible to addiction." seems necessary to include all of these.
OTOH addictive personality at OneLook Dictionary Search shows that two lemmings, a medical and a learner's dictionary, have it. DCDuring TALK 16:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

developmental social anxiety[edit]

From RfC. This is developmental + social anxiety. I'll admit our definition of developmental is pretty poor but the example sentence given catches the gist of it perfectly. -- Liliana 11:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

ethnic music[edit]

Seems like sum of parts to me, like "ethnic food" or "ethnic beliefs". An encyclopaedia topic rather than a dictionary entry? Equinox 03:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The second definition is not SoP since "ethnic" doesn't mean "traditional or folk". I've added four cites to that (and this and this strongly imply the same meaning without any really citeable quote). I'd argue the first definition is also not SoP because the relevant definition of ethnic includes religion, and no one would consider something like Gregorian chanting "ethnic music". There are, I think, more specific uses out there too, like IIRC in early 20th century America, "ethnic music" was a marketing category exclusively for urban immigrants of Eastern European origin, I'll see if I can find a cite for that too. WurdSnatcher (talk)
There is also the third definition of ethnic -- "ethnic" can mean "heathen" but ethnic music is not the music of heathens. I realize that sense is dated, but ethnic music is kind of a dated term too. WurdSnatcher (talk)
Found something similar to that other meaning I was referring to, just one cite at the moment, but it is also not SoP, referring to a specific body of recordings. WurdSnatcher (talk)
If this is to be a dictionary rather than an encyclopedia, then the linguistic evidence already in the entry should be taken seriously:
  1. the proliferation of definitions is highly supportive of the proposition that almost any construal of ethnic + music is possible
  2. that ethnic appears in coordination with other terms modifying music in some of the citations demonstrates that it is not a set term.
To this can be added the general point that no fine argument about the alleged idiomaticity of a particular definition has any merit whatsoever in the absence of citations that clearly demonstrate that the definition in question is actually in use. DCDuring TALK 13:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I've found two more cites for the fourth definition, which clearly refer to a specific genre of polka-based "ethnic music" that declined in the 1950s (which can't be in reference to the other meanings, since folk/traditional, foreign and ethnicity-based music all became more popular in the 50s, not less). WurdSnatcher (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Upon further research, I decided to move the "folk/traditional music" meaning (slightly adapted to ethnic), since that can be used in reference to art and other subjects. That still leaves the fourth and most specific/idiomatic meaning remaining. I realize some would prefer to combine the first three defs, which I guess I'm fine with but I think it is easier to understand this way. WurdSnatcher (talk)
Delete per DCDuring. - -sche (discuss) 03:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep: My image of "ethnic music" is defined by (the atmosphere generated by) the instruments used (flutes, percussion, etc) and style of melody and does not have to originate or be based on the music of a particular "ethnic group". —suzukaze (tc) 06:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

parco en palabras[edit]

Seems to be SOP in Spanish. BTW, man of few words seems to be NISOP. --A230rjfowe (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

First-Class-[edit]

Erste-Klasse-[edit]

Discussion moved from WT:RFV.

RfV for the Part of Speech please.
Erste-Klasse- shouldn't be an adjective, but rather a "combining form" (that wording is used in tri-).
Also: Maybe they should be deleted like Boden-Boden. -84.161.33.177 00:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I would delete these for the same reason as "Boden-Boden". "Erste" is a word, "Klasse" is a word, and one could even argue that "Erste Klasse" was an idiomatic phrase, and that "Erste-Klasse" was its attributive form like criminal-law is the attributive form of criminal law. But in the same way that we don't have criminal-law-, we shouldn't have Erst-Klasse-. It's like "cloud-to" / "cloud-to-": it's not a word, it's either two terms ("cloud", "to") or part of a longer term ("cloud-to-ground lightning"). - -sche (discuss) 19:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Cf. Wiktionary:Requests for verification#First-Class-, Erste-Klasse-. -84.161.50.63 21:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete both IMO. Create either first class (the form the Duden lemmatizes) or First Class, and then First-Class as an attributive form of it, probably without a misleading inflection table. Possibly create erste Klasse or Erste Klasse, and a similar hyphenated attributive form. See my logic above about criminal-law-. - -sche (discuss) 23:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't "erste Klasse" be SoP? (erste = first, and there's the meaning "most excellent".)
  • Duden uses "first class", but doesn't give a gender, so it looks like an adjective. [www.wissen.de/fremdwort/first-class] even states that it is an adjective.
    • If it is an adjective, then (a) "First Class" would be wrong, and (b) shouldn't it be "first class Hotel" instead of "First-Class-Hotel" (duden)? So, could it be that it isn't always viewed as an adjective?
  • RfV for the part of speech, and RfD are two different things.
    Similar question: Is criminal-law really a noun? Can it stand alone, like "Criminal-law is the body of law that relates to crime." instead of "Criminal law is the body of law that relates to crime." (en.wp)?
    So forms like "Criminal-law" and "Erste-Klasse-" should be deleted, or the header should be changed to something else, like "Form" ("combing form", "attributive form", ...).
-84.161.28.106 12:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Erste Klasse is as SOP or as not-SOP as first class, and we have that.
First Class and criminal-law are attributive forms of nouns (the header for which is "Noun", much as the header for past tense forms of verbs is still "Verb"). - -sche (discuss) 07:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Moved per the above. - -sche (discuss) 07:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Plautus characters[edit]

Pyrgopolynices[edit]

Pyrgopolinices[edit]

"Conquerer of many towers"

Artotrogus[edit]

"Bread muncher"

Palaestrio[edit]

"Wrestler"

Periplectomenus[edit]

"Embracer" or "Entangler"

Philocomasium[edit]

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

Acroteleutium[edit]

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

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

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

KTV bar[edit]

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

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

KTV lounge[edit]

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

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

Literal proverbs[edit]

These are a few of the proverbs that, it seems to me, we have been erroneously keeping because they are SoP, without a figurative meaning AFAICT. I've only included some from a to e to not flood the page, but there are more like this. I'd be interested in any general principle that make these keepable, presumably as set phrases sensu lato. DCDuring TALK 19:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's it right there, DC. I've always assumed such entries are set phrases (even though we don't usually label proverbs with "idiomatic" or "set phrase" tags). Two points of principle, actually: They are (a) proverbial insofar as they give famous advice or provide famous characterizations, and (b) set very firmly and precisely in the English language through a significant history of usage. There's no need to analyze the content of each one individually. As long as they fulfill (a) and (b), they most certainly do belong here. -- · (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
What is good evidence that something is a proverb? DCDuring TALK 01:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
As I said above, (a) and (b) are the criteria: A proverb is a set phrase that gives famous advice or that provides a famous characterization. Admittedly, both "set" and "famous" can be a bit slippery, but I'd be inclined to say that every entry below manages to pass this not-terribly-demanding test. -- · (talk) 04:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
@Talking Point: We seem to be confident that we can identify a set phrase, though there is often disagreement.
Are we supposed to also vote on what it "famous"? How, for example, could we trust our judgment about the fame of obsolete or archaic proverbs, which are, if anything more in need of inclusion than current ones? Does the recency of fame make something less proverbial? If we can't trust our judgment what sources could we trust? Should we just rely on editions of Bartlett's? Are there other sources? Are there such things as modern proverbs? Modern SoP proverbs? Should we just leave this entire realm to those willing to undertake a serious phrasebook? DCDuring TALK 11:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
You ask too many questions, provide too few answers, and seem to sneer at any that are provided. All I can say is Potter Stewart test. Equinox 14:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I've provided answers that have been rejected or ignored. Eg, 1., if books say an expression is a proverb, then it IS a proverb (ignored or rejected in the case of make new friends, but keep the old) and, 2., any expression used as a proverb is idiomatic and includable because such use is a speech act. I'd add that the expression needs to be a set phrase sensu lato. I'm trying to solicit any other views based on real cases that seem marginal to me. DCDuring TALK 14:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
It almost seemed to be true that we think a proverbial expression is includable if (only if?) it is applied figuratively or has some phonological features (rhyme, alliteration, two parts with same stress pattern, etc). DCDuring TALK 14:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
In my Wiktionary I would keep (almost)added 2 Sep, 2015 all of these, as they seem to be set phrases sensu lato and to perform one or more speech-act functions. Whether we call them proverbs or phrases (or even cliches) is immaterial to whether they meet CFI, though any expression that is considered a proverb is ipso facto likely to have a significant speech act function. DCDuring TALK 22:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

a house is not a home[edit]

  • home "a familiar or usual setting : congenial environment; also : the focus of one's domestic attention" <home is where the heart is> per MWOnline.
Since the edit summary says "seems okay", I must have created this from WT:REE or similar source. Don't much care whether it lives or dies, but I think there might be a reasonable argument from polysemy. Equinox 08:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The expression Home is where the heart is suggests to me that the relevant sense of home is obvious, quite instantly available to interpret the expression. If this is to be kept it would seem that it would be by virtue of setness or proverbiality. DCDuring TALK 15:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep because proverb dictionaries include it, notwithstanding its transparency. DCDuring TALK 21:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

a mind is a terrible thing to waste[edit]

  • Delete. This is really just a slogan. bd2412 T 22:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it sounds like a quotation from somewhere, rather than having any unguessable meaning. What's the origin? Equinox 21:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Possibly the United Negro College Fund. They popularized it, in any case. - -sche (discuss) 21:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The UNCF website gives this:
The Motto
The UNCF motto, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste,"® was created in 1972 by Young and Rubicam advertising executive Forrest Long.
But what difference does origin make? It can't be that we can credit a specific person with first attestation or we'd have to get rid of Shakespeare-originated expressions. DCDuring TALK 23:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Talking Point mentioned "significant history of usage" as one indicator of proverbhood. As per google books:"a mind is a terrible thing to waste", I see no significant history of usage. When I restrict the search to 19th century, I get a sole hit. When I check hits in 20th century, suspectly many refer to United Negro College Fund; I mention it not for origin but for each occurrence that has that reference since I consider such occurences non-proverb ones, e.g. 'For example, we, via United Negro College Fund, have been saying this slogan loudly for a while: “A mind is a terrible thing to waste.”' --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Right. Talking Point's point does not require a long timespan of usage. I would argue that a proverb could be quite recent if its usage was "proverbial". I would think that any proverbial usage would be recent. I also note the UNCF has made it a trademark, so WT:BRAND might have implications. DCDuring TALK 02:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Two things that suggest its having become part of the language: people make puns (w:Anti-proverbs?) based on it (e.g. "a waist is a terrible thing to mind"), and a public figure (w:Dan Quayle) got ridiculed for not saying it right. It reminds me of phrases like w:I've fallen, and I can't get up! and w:Where's the beef?, that also came from advertising. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a proverb, included in proverb dictionaries; it's a set phrase; and per Chuck Entz. DCDuring TALK 21:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

a promise is a promise[edit]

  • Delete. A deal is a deal, a vow is a vow, a contract is a contract. bd2412 T 01:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    • And none of these are mere invocations of the law of identity. —Keφr 15:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I think I'm agreeing with Kephir. Somehow these all seem different from "A box is a box". People seem to use these expressions to say that something labelled as an X should be taken seriously as an X with all the (legal) implications of so being. DCDuring TALK 15:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
      • If so, then we have other possibilities that aren't mere invocations of the law of identity - a win is a win, a profit is a profit, a customer is a customer. Perhaps the solution here is to create an appendix of terms for which "a foo is a foo" or "an X is an X" has some significance beyond identification. bd2412 T 16:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Well, it is what it is: a simple equivocation. A promise ("a declaration that one will do or refrain from doing something specified") is a promise ("a legally binding declaration that gives the person to whom it is made a right to expect or to claim the performance or forbearance of a specified act"), both definitions taken from MWOnline. That is it uses "promise" in both its primary and a secondary sense. Say, wouldn't the fact that a secondary sense is used ipso facto lead to inclusion under the principle invoked in favor or keeping better dead than red? DCDuring TALK 16:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
          • Are we sure that the meaning of "promise" differs from the first use to the second? The definition that we have says nothing about it being legally binding. I don't see it as being any different from "a vow is a vow", for which there is no "legal" sense. bd2412 T 16:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
            • I am now, though I didn't start out that wiht that thought. We could probably tell from some of the citations. DCDuring TALK 17:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
              • Come to think of it, isn't a promise is a promise a shortening of "a promise made (should|ought) [be] a promise kept", which makes explicit the gap between the making and the keeping? That kind of gap also exists for the "vow", "law", and "contract" expressions? DCDuring TALK 17:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
                • Isn't there a comparable gap for "a box is a box"? For example, if Bob can't decide which box to use, and Joe says, "come on Bob, a box is a box", Joe isn't merely articulating a standard of identity, he is saying that "any box is as good as any other box". This probably goes even further for "a customer is a customer", which suggests that the customer is good to have even if it is not the one you'd prefer to have. bd2412 T 18:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
                  • I don't see it, which is probably one reason it is hard to find that expression in use. In any event, this expression is just an alternative form of a promise made is a promise kept, which is not transparent because it uses one or more Clintonian senses of is ("should be" or "can be relied on as being"). DCDuring TALK 18:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
                    • Many expressions of the form "an X is an X" seem to be construed as "an X is just/only an X", whereas others seem to rely on some kind of equivocaton. DCDuring TALK 18:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as beyond sum of parts. The fact that the word "promise" can be changed to near-synonyms contract, deal, and vow does not detract from this. The reader gains nothing from us replacing this with "an X is an X" or of the sort. Moreover, in a promise is a promise,a contract is a contract,a deal is a deal,a vow is a vow,a win is a win, a profit is a profit, a customer is a customer at Google Ngram Viewer, "a promise is a promise" has the highest frequency, so at the very least, "a promise is a promise" should be kept as a representative of the whole pattern, and the other items could be mentioned in the usage notes if there is a wish not to keep them. Finally, the entry already has translations that are not word for word; Czech "slib je slib" is word for word, but French "chose promise, chose due" and Russian "угово́р доро́же де́нег" are not word for word. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. It should be explained in be or is. All of the sentences A is A are similar, like war is war. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep based on the equivocation argument above, its being a shortening of a promise made is a promise kept, its inclusion in proverb dictionaries, and per DanP. DCDuring TALK 21:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

bad money drives out good[edit]

  • bad "failing to reach an acceptable standard" (MWOnline); drive out "To force someone or something to leave some place:" (AHD) "force to go away; used both with concrete and metaphoric meanings" (WordNet 3.0)
    If the second sense is attestable and its use is more than a naive misunderstanding of the original meaning, this would have to be kept.
    Our first definition seems wrong as the expression is normally thought to be a simplification of Gresham's law. I suppose it is possible that this doesn't make sense nowadays, except to a businessman or an economist and this needs to be explained.
    That would make it a keep by virtue of evidence of actual misunderstanding or its potential for misunderstanding. DCDuring TALK 14:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I didn't know what it meant until I just read it now. Sounds like a keeper. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

better dead than red[edit]

  • I would keep this one. It refers to an unintuitive meaning of "red". bd2412 T 22:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
    In any plausible usage context, isn't it obvious what sense of red/Red is intended? DCDuring TALK 23:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
    I don't think so. Consider the context of a person displaying this phrase by itself on a t-shirt, bumper sticker, or protest placard. bd2412 T 01:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    So it is because the sense of red is no longer salient? ("We are all red now.") DCDuring TALK 13:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    I wouldn't characterize it as a matter of saliency - it was always an unusual meaning of red, which is susceptible to numerous interpretations. We have things like a red line and red letter day that have nothing to do with the sense of "red" used in this saying. Also, there's a degree of fungibility to it. Some people even use this phrase ironically to refer to being from a red state. bd2412 T 15:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    It was highly salient when the expression first came to be used in the US. Now it is archaic or, at least, dated. DCDuring TALK 16:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    Even so, the primary meaning of "red" has always been the color. The expression never meant better dead than literally being the color red. bd2412 T 16:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    We have never had a consensus that the only sense of a word that should be considered in determining transparency was the single primary sense. If anything that view has consistently been rejected. Is the principle implicit in your statement only applicable to proverbs? DCDuring TALK 16:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    We have, however, generally held that a term should be included where the sense of an included term is not the primary sense and it would be difficult to determine which other sense was intended from reading the phrase. bd2412 T 16:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    So which alternative sense is the likely source of confusion here? DCDuring TALK 17:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    Any of them - red-haired, a red wine drinker, at a red light. bd2412 T 18:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    So I guess it's a keep, then. DCDuring TALK 18:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the sense of "red" isn't obvious in the abstract, without context, but I'd suggest it also isn't obvious in almost any statement about the "red" Communist menace (or whatever it's supposed to be); yet we don't include sentences like "we must stop the reds!" simply because they aren't ginger-haired girls. Again it seems to come down to the "set phrase". To me, this one seems like a historical-political slogan, thus deletable; but not deletable for the reason of having "red" in it, only because it's a propaganda line rather than a proverb. DCD will have a field day. But feels like common sense... Equinox 08:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps there is more going on the statement than just having "red" in it, in the sense of "we must stop the reds!" It really means, "I would rather be dead than be a communist/under communist rule," as opposed to "I would rather you be dead." bd2412 T 16:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I've thought of it referring to anyone in a kind of declarative/descriptive usage: "Anyone would be better of dead rather than under Commie/pinko rule", or to the speaker: "I, wearer of this t-shirt, hereby declare that I would fight to the death rather than submit to Commie/pinko rule." DCDuring TALK 00:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Well I think it's about more than submitting to rule. The speaker is declaring that they would rather die than become a communist, irrespective of the means by which they become one. bd2412 T 00:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete per Equinox. - -sche (discuss) 06:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep based on the lemming principle. (See better dead than red at OneLook Dictionary Search.) It is also included in books of proverbs that include modern ones. DCDuring TALK 21:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

correlation does not imply causation[edit]

Delete IMO: very literal, and lacks the colour/character/quirkiness of a true proverb. Just a scientific observation. Equinox 00:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and per Equinox. bd2412 T 01:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    So a proverb has to have a certain je ne sais quoi ("color, character, quirkiness"). And a truism from a specific community can't be a proverb. Is it a set phrase? DCDuring TALK 13:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    Basically fuck off. Equinox 09:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This seems to be a set phrase and is used, in restricted contexts, as advice, invoking a general principle in the manner of many proverbs that are truths or, more pejoratively, truisms. It is intended to restart thinking giving it a function more or less opposite to the thought-stopping function or everything happens for a reason. DCDuring TALK 14:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 19:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

dead men tell no tales[edit]

Not always about men, but could be also women; yet I can't imagine it was coined with the general "man is mortal" gender-neutral sense in mind. I think it'd be a pity to lose such a colourful unguessable set phrase. Equinox 00:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep per Equinox; the wording isn't as guessable as e.g. "a promise is a promise", which fits the usual format bd2412 outlines ("a deal is a deal", etc). "Dead men tell no stories" is nowhere near as common. "Dead men tell no tales" is included as an idiom in Cambridge and McGraw-Hill's Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs, and in several language-to-language dictionaries, e.g. A Dictionary of English Idioms and Their Arabic Counterparts, Stefanllari's English-Albanian Dictionary of Idioms, Akenos' 4327 Chinese Idioms, Learn to Speak Like the French: French Idiomatic Expressions,Tuttle Concise Japanese Dictionary: Japanese-English. - -sche (discuss) 15:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
So archaic wording in a proverb-like expression makes for including it, as does the lemming rule. DCDuring TALK 15:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Nobody is arguing for this on the grounds of archaic wording. You're trying so hard to come up with a robotic assembly-line rule for proverbs! It's so cute. Equinox 08:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
@Equinox: I think your argument "could be also women" depends on a shift in default meaning of men from "people" to "males". I was thinking of the overall wording of the expression, but was probably wrong about that, confusing its setness with archaicism. DCDuring TALK 14:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Additional comments: the phrase is used in reference to secrets, not any tale, a (possibly weak) argument for keeping it. The fact that the phrase can be varied as "dead men don't tell tales" and inverted as both "dead men tell tales" and "dead men do tell tales" might be a weak argument for deleting it. - -sche (discuss) 09:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Or conversely those might illustrate that it's such a widespread everyday phrase that people will understand and appreciate a humorous reversal, as with cereal killer for serial killer. I don't think "dead men do tell tales" would mean anything without the prior general understanding (i) that dead men generally don't, and (ii) that this is a well-trodden metaphor. Equinox 09:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
This "proverb" has speech-act functions. At least in fiction, it is used as advice among conspiring wrong-doers (Let's make sure potential testifiers are dead.). It may also be used more widely as reminder to all of the absence of potential testimony from a possible witness. DCDuring TALK 14:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Good point. - -sche (discuss) 23:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 19:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

do as I say, not as I do[edit]

Delete. Again, might be a quotation, but means nothing beyond the obvious surface reading. Equinox 05:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep: seems set-phraseish to me. We don't say it like this in Czech. And one other dictionary has it: idioms.thefreedictionary.com[11]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
It is quite proverbial so if it were purely down to choice I'd say keep. But WT:CFI has no special rules for proverbs so... meh. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Set phrase; speech act (as apology or as calling someone out for hypocrisy); included in books of proverbs in some dictionaries. (See do as i say not as i do at OneLook Dictionary Search. DCDuring TALK 22:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

don't change a winning team[edit]

Is not necessarily about a "team" (or is it?). Equinox 20:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

team ‎(Any group of people involved in the same activity, especially sports or work.) (Wiktionary) DCDuring TALK 21:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you're being too rigorous here. It's defined as a synonym of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", so there might not be any team, group, or anything. It might just be, say, a piece of software. Then where is the team? Equinox 05:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as beyond sum of parts if it is synonymous with "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    That synonymy seems false to me. At best its relationship is as a parallel, not a synonym, for an essentially animate, person-specific entity, of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", which normally refers to things viewed as inanimate (a machine; an organization or part viewed as having interchangeable people as components). "Teams" and "people" are not normally called "broke" (in this sense, anyway) and aren't "fixed" in this sense except in the context of medicine, psychology, or social work. And machines and systems are not normally evaluated as "winning".
    IOW, the current definition should be considered sloppy, offering "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" as a definition, when it belongs under "See also" or "Coordinate terms". It leaves us failing to perform the basic function of a good dictionary. Other arguments should be found to support inclusion, such as, perhaps, the expression's function as a coordinate term. DCDuring TALK 14:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, but perhaps revise per Dan. Purplebackpack89 23:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: Transparent, not considered a proverb, similar to many other non-proverbial expressions that substitute mess with for change (Yes, there are equivalent senses.) and other nouns besides team and side, such as formula, strategy, game, stroke, swing. DCDuring TALK 22:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

everything happens for a reason[edit]

Delete: no meaning beyond the sum of parts. Transparent. Also, the definition is dumb: an event cannot be purposeful (see our definition); perhaps it should say "all events are planned". Equinox 05:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a thought-terminating cliche. Do we include those? - -sche (discuss) 08:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Bluhh. The day we turn into TV Tropes, whose entire goal is to turn every possible thought into a thought-terminator, and thus destroy imagination, is the day I... get in a time machine and go back to a GeoCities home page? Anyway, no, let's not include. Equinox 08:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Thought-termination would be a speech act, wouldn't it? I make fun of this all the time, sometimes even to the face of the speaker using it, but it is in widespread use and seems to me to be a set phrase.
But this could be used to offer solace (when the possible good consequence is not (yet) known: "Stay tuned for the good consequences to follow, as they always do.") or to introduce a story of the better consequences of something untoward, which serves to illustrate the truth of the proverb (if that's what it is). DCDuring TALK 13:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete. - -sche (discuss) 06:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 17:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Our prejudices are showing. Contrast this deletion with our treatment of shit happens, which is an SoP proverb. DCDuring TALK 17:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
    • You nominated the lot of these for deletion in the first place. So far as I know you have not nominated shit happens. In any case, their relative SoPness is debatable. bd2412 T 18:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
      • I was just wondering how egregious the display of inconsistency and prejudice would be. This could lead some to reflect on how their philosophical beliefs or inclinations influence the exercise of thier responsibilities as Wiktionarians. God works in mysterious ways, you know. DCDuring TALK 18:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
        • I think your prejudice is showing. Perhaps start with your own beliefs before you criticise those of others. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
          • I am so benighted that I don't see them. Perhaps you could send me an e-mail or leave a comment on my talk page explaining your beliefs about my prejudices. DCDuring TALK 19:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
            • Can you specify what inconsistency you see? There are a set of discussions here for different phrases, each with its own unique issues which prevents the group from being discussed as if they shared a monolithic identity. Perhaps the issue is not consistency between similar phrases, but an insensitivity to the differences between them. bd2412 T 20:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
The latter two would seem to have the same truth value and be equally SoP. shit happens is different, being perhaps a vacuous SoP, possibly nihilistic truism, though someone who believed in the other two would reject its validity. All three can be found in books of proverbs. All three are set phrases, sensu lato, from which speakers and writers spin variations. As proverbs they have equivalent (not identical) speech act-functions. DCDuring TALK 21:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll tell you why shit happens should be kept, DCDuring: when people say "shit happens", they're not talking about using the toilet. When people say "everything happens for a reason", they ARE talking about everything. "Shit happens" is clearly idiomatic. Purplebackpack89 12:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
    By the tired, discredited reasoning in your opening sentence we should have a mainspace entry for get the paper because it might mean "get the newspaper" and "newspaper" is not the principal sense of paper.
'"Shit happens" is clearly idiomatic.' is not an argument. The sole sentence to be taken somewhat seriously is "When people say "everything happens for a reason" they are talking about everything." Which of the following definitions of everything (from MWOnline) are they talking about in typical usage of the proverbial expression?
1a : all that exists
b : all that relates to the subject
2 : all that is important <you mean everything to me>
3 : all sorts of other things — used to indicate related but unspecified events, facts, or conditions <all the pains and colds and everything — E. B. White>
Which of these is the principal sense in your opinion? Do you have any evidence that any users of the phrase share your opinion? Which sense is being used in the phrase? DCDuring TALK 14:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
1b. Also, noting that something is idiomatic is a perfectly valid reason for keeping something, so to claim that that "is not an argument" is erroneous. DCDuring, I think you've gone a little too off the deep end in your quest to delete the phrases in this thread. Purplebackpack89 14:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Try to stay with the flow of the discussion. I am arguing that that everything happens for a reason is no more to be deleted than shit happens or God works in mysterious ways. I refuse to make my argument dependent on the discredited crutch of an argument you had relied on in your first sentence. I note that you did not distinguish shit happens from get the paper as inclusion-worthy, which your opening sentence implies should both be included. Have you abandoned that argument? If so, are we just to accept your bald, unsupported assertion that the phrase is idiomatic because you say so? Most us at least try to have evidence and arguments that go beyond intuition and armchair reasoning to support our positions. DCDuring TALK 15:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
You know why I didn't mention get the paper? Because I'm not going to be drawn into the ridiculous analogy-based arguments you and Equinox put forth. If ever there was bald, unsupported armchair reasoning, it's saying "if we keep this, we'll have to keep that" or "if we keep this, we'll have to create that". As for my reasoning, there's nothing bald or unsupported about it; you either don't agree with it or don't get it. If you think shit happens should be deleted, nominate it for deletion. If you don't, stop yammering on in an unrelated (yes, unrelated) discussion that has already been closed. Purplebackpack89 16:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Prince of Demons[edit]

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

prison cell[edit]

jail cell[edit]

These are as SOP as they come, IMO. "Prison cell" was kept per no consensus all the way back in 2008, after User:msh210 RFDed it, Visviva invoked the lemming principle because "it's in WordNet" (but I think we have since come to realize that WordNet is unreliable; I seem to recall DCDuring saying he wouldn't count on it when looking at the Lemming test) and Connel MacKenzie incorrectly argued that "SOP" wasn't a valid deletion rationale (in fact it is, per WT:SOP). - -sche (discuss) 23:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep, per me.  ;-) Since deletion is an extreme remedy that should apply to only the must straightforwardly out-of-bounds material, the fact that a word is used as a unit in any professionally-maintained lexicographic resource should, in most cases, weigh conclusively in favor of non-deletion. -- Visviva (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    Although I had proposed that the lemming test be used as a simple, objective, discussion-stopping criterion for inclusion, there did not seem to a consensus on the idea, at least not a suitable level of specificity. Of all the lemmings, I thought Wordnet and its followers were the least reliable, with what seem to me to be concept-oriented entries rather than linguistic ones. There were also questions about whether specialist glossaries were reliable for our purpose. The upshot is that the lemming test is not conclusive and its weight depends on the opinions of the inclusion/exclusion electorate.
One possible, albeit weak, rationale for inclusion might be that a cell at a euphemistically named correctional facility ("prison") would almost certainly be referred to as a prison cell.
To me both terms otherwise seem simply SoP, given the widespread availability to language users of the appropriate sense of cell. DCDuring TALK 05:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: "cell" without anything before or after it refers to the microbiological unit. It means something different with jail before it or phone after it. Purplebackpack89 23:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Not true: a search for "in his cell" comes back with 15,200,000 hits, of which very few refer to microbiological units. People also leave off the "phone" sometimes when referring to cell phones. It's a simple matter of context. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
What Chuck said. DCDuring TALK 15:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep as useful entries. Using the SoP theory every other derived term of cell would also be deleted. Those of you susceptible to knee-jerk reactions whenever the dreaded term SoP is mentioned can be transferred to padded cells. Donnanz (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

SoP is not a theory. It's an abbreviation for the supportable belief that a given term has no meaning not readily understood in context from the definitions of its component terms in a good dictionary.
Indeed I have a visceral reaction to such terms: nausea and disgust at the vacuous entries (which others need maintain) that contributors like to foist off on others in celebration of their having just noticed a given collocation for the first time. DCDuring TALK 19:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete as not ambiguous to humans because of the words 'jail' and 'prison' respectively. How can it refer to the microbiological unit with the words 'jail' and 'prison' in front of it? Renard Migrant (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I would like to see entries for submarine cable, undersea cable, and underwater cable; when working back from other languages they would be useful, but with the SoP theory / policy the way it is they don't have a cat in hell's chance of being entered. Sadly, that's the short-sighted policy that prevails. Donnanz (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Why should English do heavy lifting for other languages? Why not just use [[submarine]] [[cable]] instead of [[submarine cable]]? DCDuring TALK 01:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I did, but it's a far from perfect solution where compound foreign words are involved, and I'm not happy with it. Donnanz (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Why should the tail wag the dog? If something is SoP in English, with a polysemic component, are we supposed to define each attestable combination of meanings (which I view as heavy listing, and quite unrewarding)? Or do you have some other procedure in mind? DCDuring TALK 11:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Some languages use the same words for any males of a particular generation relative to the speaker. Should we have an English entry for father or uncle? Brother or cousin? Should we have an entry for hello, goodbye or love to translate aloha? Chuck Entz (talk) 13:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Commonsense would rule Chuck Entz's ludicrous situation out. Before trying to answer DCDuring, returning to the subject of prison cell and jail cell, neither entry has a translations section, but there are some translations around, such as Gefängniszelle in German. Possibly the answer is to allow SoP entries if translations are included. In the case of submarine cable, I created an entry for sjøkabel, which from the sum of its parts is not an obvious translation, sjø meaning sea rather than undersea. There is another word - undersjøisk, but instead of saying undersjøisk kabel, sjøkabel is used - short and sweet I suppose. Another example, forsvarer is a sum of bits rather than a sum of parts; apart from the literal translation defender it also means counsel for the defence, defence counsel, or defence lawyer. On the other hand the compound word regnbuehinne is not a sum of parts in English. It's swings and roundabouts. Donnanz (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
That is an answer to your question. My question is why should English contributors have to create or clean up and maintain translation-target entries when there is a perfectly reasonable way for the meaning of an FL language word or FL idiomatic expression to be provided? What language learners seem to need to know is how to construct meaning in the manner of speakers of the language they are learning. For FL learners of English the SoP translations seem to cover that. English learners of FLs need to do the same in the opposite direction. One of the biggest problems that an English learner has in learning an FL using Wiktionary is the absence of entries for terms that are FL redlinks in translation tables. Take rebar as an example, pending more systematic study of the matter. Of the twelve terms (in nine languages) offered as translations, only two have entries in English Wiktionary, another two having interwiki links. And many terms have no translation tables at all. One service would be to patrol Special:WantedPages to extirpate some of the SoP redlinks there by substituting component-wise linking for whole-collocation linking, excepting those rare cases where a really English idiom is involved. DCDuring TALK 20:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I strongly suspect that any answer I give would be rejected anyway. As for rebar - I didn't realise the word existed, I would call it reinforcing steel. As for red links, it requires a joint effort to turn them blue, including those in hidden inflection tables. SoP red links are a different matter, they exist for various reasons. Even blue links can have hidden dangers as the word may be entered in one language but not another. Translation tables - I created one today for deathtrap, but I agree that many more are needed, but I doubt that you'll ever get them for the rarest and most obscure English terms. Donnanz (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
And reinforcing + steel would be understood. I don't really care that much about inflection tables rather than lemmas, as most inflections are based on rules.
Plenty of people agree with your position. It certainly isn't beyond the pale. But consider the effect of having entries that contain all the attestable combinations of highly polysemic words. Sometimes only a small number of languages have translations that are not word-for-word, but each language should have a translation whether or not its most idiomatic translation is word-for-word or not. Given the difficulty folks have in filling non-SoP translation tables and then making proper entries, I'd think that adding to the workload with debatable entries doesn't do much to further the ambitious goals we have. DCDuring TALK 22:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The claim that being more lenient in regards to SOP will result in increased work is specious. Workload implies a "need" or a "requirement" for those entries to be created. Being more lenient with SOP means that we could create those entries, it doesn't mean we have to. Also, as for "workload", one-word English entries are fairly built out. Spanish and French translations of those entries are fairly built out as well. If a person speaks nothing but English, Spanish or French, what are they to do on this project? What's so bad about people who speak only English, Spanish, or French creating two-word entries in those languages? Purplebackpack89 20:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I am only fluent in English but I seem to find "a few" words to create around here. And I don't think that people being incompetent would be an argument to find work for them to do, anyway. If somebody had a weird disorder where they could only add made-up unattestable phobias, we wouldn't accommodate them just because of that. Equinox 11:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete. The above comparison with e.g. "jailbird" is fallacious because jailbirds are not birds, while jail cells are cells. This entry is more akin to "prison canteen" or "hospital ward". Equinox 21:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete both on the grounds that their meaning is fully transparent. There is more to be gained from making sure that folks understand the jail-prison distinction. so that our entries don't contain blunders such as declaring jail cell and prison cell synonyms, as they had been at the time of the RfD. Some speakers may confuse jail and prison, but the distinction is maintained by many speakers and writers. DCDuring TALK 22:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete per Equinox and DCDuring. --WikiTiki89 13:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep, for me. prison cell is in the OED, I note (as a common collocation of prison). I see it as a single lexical unit, and I think that's supported by the usual pronunciation: 'prisoncell, 'jailcell, where the second word has only secondary stress, as opposed to how you'd say 'prison 'floor, 'prison 'bunk, 'prison em'ployee, where both words have equal stress. Ƿidsiþ 13:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep Both - both are idiomatic. IQ125 (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I wonder Mr CloudCuckoo if you can find any more real Coalmine valid quotes, apart from the dubious one you just added. For me, these entries are SoP. I've never been in jail / prison (thank God) but I sincerely doubt that in any of them they say things like "Get back to your prison cells, now!" or "Lights out. Everyone must be in their jail cells!" No. It really doesn't sound right. "Everyone back to their cells!" sound right. We only add the words "jail" or "prison" as context clarifiers when necessary, not as idiomatic expressions. An idiomatic expression (see point 5) means there is something either greater than, or more specific than, the sum of the parts, which is NOT the case here-- ALGRIF talk 13:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 14:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

враждебно настроенный оппонент[edit]

Sum-of-parts.--Cinemantique (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedied. Not expecting any opposition but you never know. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

hasbien[edit]

This is not a common misspelling of "hasbian". In fact, AFAICT, not a single one of the 30 Google Books hits is of this as a misspelling of "hasbian", and most of the hits aren't even actually of this string at all (they're scannos of "has been"). We do not include rare misspellings. Ergo, delete. - -sche (discuss) 06:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Google books has only one hit - on the plural, hasbiens, but if you do a search on News rather than books, there are more hits (7 on the singular, 2 on the plural). Where I really see this one a lot, however, is on blogs and such. Kiwima (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I am a bit confused (which is not surprising as I am a relative noob). There are sufficient citations that I could have entered it as an alternative form because it meets our attestation criteria, but they were such a small percentage of the actual number of usages, that it was clear to me that it is a mispelling. How can something common enough to meet the attestation criteria be too rare to be a mispelling? —This unsigned comment was added by Kiwima (talkcontribs).
@Kiwima Firstly, there's more merit to recording intentional alternative spellings than misspellings or typos (errors an author would likely correct if they were pointed out); google books:"wmoen" gets 3+ hits, but it's such a vanishingly rare error for "women" that I'm not aware of any Wiktionarian so inclusivist that they would include it. Secondly, I see no evidence that "hasbien" would meet CFI if it were an intentional alternative spelling — you're aware that blogs and websites are not considered durably archived, right? - -sche (discuss) 00:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
@Kiwima: Re: "be too rare to be a mispelling": This is not too rare to be a misspelling; it is too rare to be a common misspelling. Editors do not seem to want to include all attested misspellings, only the common attested misspellings. This follows from WT:CFI#Spellings, whose key statement was made official in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-04/Keeping common misspellings, which had two opposes, one of which agreed with the substance of the vote but had issues with wording and its placement. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

estiercoleros[edit]

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

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

Tiny Tim[edit]

"An American singer, a one-hit wonder noted for his unusual falsetto, ukulele, and distinctive appearance." Doesn't seem like dictionary material. Equinox 19:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

  • That would seem to be more of an RfD case. bd2412 T 16:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    I have thus transferred it to RFD. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    There have been three citations since the entry was created. Choor monster (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    Those citations seem to mean something generic ("the Tiny Tim of the X world"), but our definition is encyclopaedic about a single historical person. Equinox 14:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    Yes. That is the point. Choor monster (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    Well, can you provide a definition for what Tiny Tim means in the citations? DCDuring TALK 15:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    We don't do that for any other instance of WT:BRAND. Choor monster (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    Actually, we do, but only sometimes. I don't see it mandated or even suggested anywhere that we spell out how a proper noun is used when describing something other than the original. Sometimes one aspect stands out and the generic use equates with the one aspect, but, if not, it seems perfectly appropriate to just hit the high points regarding the named entity, provide citations that attest the name is used in a generic/attributive way, and point to WP. Choor monster (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    Ah, yet another example of the legalistic approach to sanctioning laziness. DCDuring TALK 18:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    It's not a question of laziness, it's a question of accuracy. Choor monster (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete existing definition. DCDuring TALK 19:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    Uh, why? See the definition of Tiny Tim, the Dickens character above the singer? It's an accurate very brief non-encyclopedic description, and the accompanying citations provide no particular indication that any one particular aspect of the character is singled out. How is Tiny Tim, the singer, any different? Choor monster (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: the nominated definition "An American singer, a one-hit wonder noted for his unusual falsetto, ukulele, and distinctive appearance" is attested beyond literal meaning at Citations:Tiny Tim, and some characteristics of the referent are mentioned in the definition. Whether the mentioned characteristics are those that are intended to be picked up by "The Tiny Tim of xyz" I do not know, but they could be; if someone has a proposal for different characteristics, that can be considered. Seems good enough. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Strong delete: specific people are for Wikipedia. See Britney Spears for the only way I could possibly support this entry (and even then I'd dislike it). Equinox 23:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: It's got citations, uses wherein people could be unsure what it means and look it up in the dictionary. Wikipedia would not really explain how it is being used. Only a dictionary or dictionary-like project like us would explain it in a useful way. WurdSnatcher (talk)
    Our definition does not explain how it is used. Perhaps you'd like to add that. DCDuring TALK 17:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
    You're asking for deletion because the entry lacks a Usage Note? Seriously? Choor monster (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
    No. I'm saying it is a definition that would only fit as the first line of a WP article. Our first definition of the meaning of Tiny Tim is how Charles Dickens uses it and the authors of derivative works use it. A usage note is usually a note about the usage context or some style question - hardly relevant here. DCDuring TALK 18:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
    You're saying different things now, and all are just as bizarre. Numerous WT entries could pass for the first line (or at least a reasonable first draft for a first line) of a WP article, for example, seven-layer cake or monkey wrench or olinguito. So your attempt to somehow argue that we're looking at an "encyclopedic" entry instead of a "dictionary" entry doesn't work.
You seem to ignore that the fictional Tiny Tim in Dickens and derived works is nowhere cited. Our rules for WT:FICTION would not allow such an entry, and restrict its appearance to an appendix only. Instead, we have a definition based closely on Dickens, and multiple citations that show us that the term "Tiny Tim" has gained currency in contexts where Dickens is nowhere to be found except by knowing inference. That's what makes it allowable here as a term in the language.
I don't see how the singer's entry is any different. As for replacing the entry with something like "laughing stock", I personally cannot evaluate the citations, since I know pretty much nothing about the people that are compared with Tiny Tim. As it is, some names have passed into common usage so deeply (Einstein, Quisling, Benedict Arnold) that the names are complete synonyms for other words. "Tiny Tim" (in both senses) strikes me as rather shallow instead, which means the various high points are up for grabs, and any attempt to pinpoint them down is inaccurate. Choor monster (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, DCDuring is right. The definition of this sense as it currently stands does not tell the user what characteristics a Tiny Tim has - it only points to a specific Tiny Tim. That is what makes it encyclopedic, and not dictionary material. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
At this rate, we should delete mathematics #1, philosophy #2, physics #1, etc. Choor monster (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
"Mathematics" is a word; "Tiny Tim" is a specific person's (nick)name. If you don't see why the first one is more includable than the second one... - -sche (discuss) 21:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This goes back to the criticism that what's wrong is we don't have a Usage Note. That criticism is equally valid against the Dickens' character. Moreover, we're discussing "include" vs. "not-include", not SNOW KEEPs vs. borderline entries: bringing up "more includable" is a point-missing irrelevancy. So far as I can tell, "Tiny Tim" the singer meets CFI. People have proposed how this term and its definition do not actually meet CFI, and they have offered reasons (or more precisely, hinted at reasons) that are rank nonsense. The latest seems to be that as a complete definition can only be encyclopedic in nature, the term is inherently encyclopedic, hence delete. I was pointing out that they would apply to the terms I mentioned above. It would also apply to dog #1, ekpyrotic #1, etc. All these terms have absolutely pathetic definitions (from an accuracy or utility point of view), it's simply not possible to fix them (well, maybe ekpyrotic), but all we do to help our readers is link to WP and let it go. Choor monster (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Ƿidsiþ 07:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. (In case my earlier comments aren't clear.) And to add what I think is relevant background: when there was a round of RFV/RFD's regarding various fictional characters I found several "Tiny Tim" citations for the Dickens character that meet our requirements for fictional characters. While slogging through the mess, I also found two other usages of "Tiny Tim", the singer and the rocket, both with multiple citations. I came across no citations for the other "Tiny Tim" dabs on WP. I'm old to enough to vaguely remember Tiny Tim back in the late 60s, but not much else about him. If it wasn't for that memory, those citations would have been extremely confusing to me. And to anyone younger, I wouldn't be surprised if some plausible construction like "Donald Trump is the Tiny Tim of politics" might be genuinely confusing. If such a reader looks it up here, as it is now, they would at least get the correct reference. If it's deleted, we've done a deliberate disservice. Choor monster (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I notice some people have made something of the fact that the citations are all of the form "X is the Tiny Tim of Y". This is probably nothing more than an artifact of the search terms I used to find them. Choor monster (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. We do not, and definitely should not, have "well-known vocalist" senses for Madonna, Chicago, Babyface, Gaga, or The Band either. We should also reconsider the mistaken decisions to keep our entries for Beatles and Rolling Stones (both of which squeaked through rfds in years gone by). -- · (talk) 05:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete for the multitude of reasons given above. --WikiTiki89 19:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

anthralgia[edit]

anthroconidia[edit]

Discussion moved from WT:TR.

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

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

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

global warming denier[edit]

And we forgot this one. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox 16:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete. DCDuring TALK 17:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh yeah, delete. -- · (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015[edit]

boxer[edit]

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

motted[edit]

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

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

ghost town[edit]

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

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

ironic cool[edit]

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

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

work[edit]

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

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

cielito lindo[edit]

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

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

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

er det det det er[edit]

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

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

impuesto sobre bienes y servicios[edit]

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

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

Crown of all the Saints in Heaven[edit]

An epithet of Jesus. Valid? --A230rjfowe (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete. It doesn't seem to be attested, but even if it were attested, I would consider it to be in the same category as "Queen of this Realm and of Her other Realms and Territories", "god of the silver bow" and other titles and epithets, which I also would not include. Compare #Prince_of_Demons, above. - -sche (discuss) 22:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete, doesn't pass muster any more than His Noodly Appendage. Aperiarcam (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 14:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

bone fissure[edit]

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

contaminación ambiente[edit]

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

The translation (air pollution) was wrong - fixed. There seems to be some usage, also in books, which makes it attestable. Dunno about SOP-ness. --Hekaheka (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

karaoke bar[edit]

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

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

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

Agreed -- amateur members of the public sang in bars before karaoke existed. Not sure if that's really an argument that this term should be kept or if my point is more that the definition is too broad. WurdSnatcher (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

lightning in a bottle[edit]

Sense 4: Stored electricity, as in a capacitor.

Neither of the citations gives any evidence that "lightning in a bottle" means "stored electricity" - in fact, they're both incompatible with that reading (*"you could shut up the stored electricity"; *"But they say Franklin succeeded in putting stored electricity and corking it") - and even if it did, it's SOP. Franklin was after all working with literal lightning at a time when capacitors were literal bottles. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Is this an RFD as opposed to an RFV matter? You're saying it's SoP because it's actual lightning in an actual bottle? When has that ever occurred? Renard Migrant (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I think treating it as an RfV allows us more time to find valid cites, which, though unlikely, may exist, especially from the 19th and early 20th centuries.
In neither of the citations does in a bottle function as a modifier of lightning, rather as a locative or instrumental modifier of the verbs. It seems like citing home in a taxi from I went home in a taxi. DCDuring TALK 16:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a dubious brand of cider in the UK called "White Lightning", which comes in a bottle of course. Donnanz (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah memories of being a teenager. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Now in the past tense, withdrawn from sale in 2009 apparently. Donnanz (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Closed as not an RfD matter: Nobody's made any valid RfD arguments; all the discussion is about citations, and therefore this should be taken to RfV. Purplebackpack89 14:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

sentimental value[edit]

SoP? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

My knee-jerk reaction is delete, but the definition given in the entry may include a little more than is directly meant by the two individual component terms. Also several reputable dictionaries at OneLook do include this term. -- · (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. A common idiom. Means more than the sum of its parts. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
It does seem SoP. It is a very common collocation. My feeling is also delete. I increasingly feel that we need some kind of appendix of common collocations, e.g. (Hunston 2002, Corpora in applied linguistics) "acutely aware", "readily available", "vitally important": these are words that occur together very often in English, but that are never taught to foreign learners. Apparently, there is a big groundswell of native English speakers who think these things are important enough to have dict entries! What should we do? Equinox 01:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Appendix of common colloctions might be a good idea, which would solve the old "translation target" -problem. Many English common collocations are compound words in many other languages. I guess that few users are concerned about Finnish, but it can serve as an example. "Sentimental value" is tunnearvo < tunne ‎(feeling, emotion, sensation, sentiment) + arvo ‎(value, worth) in Finnish. It's good to have a place where one can check which of the thinkable combinations is the common collocation. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
A translator of English into other languages faces a similar problem. "Sentimental + value" is not tunteellinen + arvo in Finnish. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I would err on the side of keep, since it is so common and seems more than just SoP. But I would add that the question of its being "one word" in Finnish is probably not so clear, though in all fairness I know no Finnish. But at least in the case of other agglutinative languages (most notably German), the fact that something can be written without any spaces does not a word make. Räumungsbefehl ‎(eviction notice) and Steuertricks ‎(tax tricks) are not deserving of entries (although we do have the dubious entry häätöilmoitus). Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän doesn't deserve an entry either, in my opinion, but someone created one because of the novelty value. Aperiarcam (talk) 04:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with häätöilmoitus being dubious. Ilmoitus has at least six possible translations into English, of which "notice", "notification" and "announcement" are thinkable options for this particular translation. According to Ngram, only "notice" is used in this context. --Hekaheka (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
There has been debate on whether no spaces makes something a word for our purposes, and there is no consensus. There is no simple definition of what is a word even (or especially) in languages like German and Finnish.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I note that the OED thinks it idiomatic enough to keep. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I have lived in the belief that there's a consensus of no space making a compound term a word. At least in English it does. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Another point is that "sentimental value" can really equally refer to any sense of value that makes sense in the context. --WikiTiki89 15:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I like the Oxford definition better actually [12]. Donnanz (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Re Common Collocations Appendix. I have been after something like this for many years. It seems there might at last be a certain degree of support. I remember suggesting that we could allow a collapsible table of common collocations within the main headword definition. Anyone agree? -- By the way, either keep or add to common collocations. -- ALGRIF talk 10:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
How would you solve the issue of showing the translations for the common collocations? --Hekaheka (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Hekaheka. I really do not think we need translations for common collocations. Mainly because they are nothing special that cannot be translated directly. It is simply "the way we commonly use this word" information. Extra stuff, which could be of interest to many English L2 speakers. For instance "dumb luck" does not deserve a headword entry, but it is a very common collocation. Put it under "Common Collocations" in both dumb and luck. However, no translation is needed, as it is pretty obvious to anyone how this would translate into any language. -- ALGRIF talk 08:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Even without translations, a centralized appendix of all common English collocations would become monstrously large, so storing collocations in (or near) individual entries seems more practical, more scalable. There was some support in 2012 for having 'collocations' sections in entries, and we currently sometimes include very common collocations in usage notes (see e.g. goods), not to mention usexes, but it's not feasible to add translations to collocations listed in either or those ways : the sections would grow too large and take up too much visual and byte space in the entry. I suggest we create a 'Collocations:' namespace, to be given its own tab like 'Citations' and to be made prominent by being linked-to using a {{seeCites}}-type template from entries. In this namespace, we would list common collocations as the glosses to translation tables, to which translations could be added. I have mocked up a 'Collocations tab' at Talk:goods; note that SOP translations are linked accordingly. (We could just move all those tables to a =====Collocations==== aection in the entry, but as I said, I think that'd consume too much space.) - -sche (discuss) 07:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Looks quite good! Could we perhaps move this tangential discussion to somewhere more topic related? -- ALGRIF talk 14:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I've started a BP thread: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/August#Adding_a_collocations_tab_or_section. - -sche (discuss) 19:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep using the lemming heuristic: in oxforddictionaries.com[13] and Collins[14]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dan and Toon. Purplebackpack89 23:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Although I am the nominator, voting keep per Lemming principle. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 14:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

rejection letter[edit]

What do you think? SoP? I lean toward yes and delete, but am open to argument to the contrary. -- · (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox 01:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete per BD2412. DCDuring TALK 22:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete, common but so's green grass and wet floor. And I don't think it meets WT:CFI#Idiomaticity. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 14:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

electronic toll collection[edit]

ummm Equinox 01:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I think it's happening in a number of countries with toll roads, like Norway. Toll booths may become a thing of the past. Donnanz (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    • That may well be, probably is, but it's still just electronic + toll + collection. Delete. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
      • "System to eliminate delays on toll roads" isn't really part of the definition and should go. Not even true, you can never hope to eliminate delays all together. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
        • It should read "delays at toll booths", I think. Donnanz (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
          • Regardless. The reason something was created is not part of the definition. It would be like defining Coca-Cola as "drink to help quit morphine". --WikiTiki89 19:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
            • Just think of the benefits of a cashless society. No more digging in your pockets for crumpled-up fivers. There's a Wikipedia article, but no doubt you'll disregard that [15]. Donnanz (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unambiguous sum-of-parts.--Dmol (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. If you know what each of these 3 words means, you know all one needs to know to understand this term. That's SoP. -- · (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Simple SOP. - -sche (discuss) 06:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: This is sum of parts (SOP) term, and I see no redeeming qualities to grant it a keeping excetion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. --WikiTiki89 20:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 14:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Islams[edit]

Plural of a noun. We only have Islam as a proper noun (with no plural). SemperBlotto (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep, for the same reason that we have Christianities and Judaisms --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 13:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep, so we don't have to direct as many users to Wiktionary:English proper nouns and then explain it or argue about it. DCDuring TALK 14:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Sounds odd, but sounding odd isn't a criterion for exclusion, ergo, keep! It's real, what more do you want? Renard Migrant (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep per WT:COALMINE (of either I + slams or Islam + -s). --WikiTiki89 14:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Surely "I slams" is not even English (possibly in Wiltshire, but meh). Renard Migrant (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
In case anyone cannot see through my sarcasm, my point is that Islams is attestable and spelled without a space and therefore, by our rules, should be kept. --WikiTiki89 15:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
We need more emoticons, dammit! Renard Migrant (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
We don't facilitate the creation of plurals of English proper nouns, even when attestable and they would convey useful information. (Is it Jerrys or Jerries?) We exclude them on the grounds of their being trivial and, mostly, exceptional. OTOH, adding them would be any easy way to increase one's count of new entries. DCDuring TALK 16:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
There's a difference between creating them and not deleting them. --WikiTiki89 16:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, if you add plural information to {{en-proper noun}}, it does create a green link you can use to ACCEL-eratedly create a plural form; see my recent edits to Argos and Argoses: I've used that feature to create entries for the attested plurals of a lot of proper nouns, especially personal names like Caitlins. Semper mentions that Islams isn't linked-to from Islam, and that Islams is categorized incorrectly, both of which can be fixed. Keep and clean up. Incidentally, google books:"islams of" suggests we're missing an uncapitalized sense — perhaps it's usually uncapitalized when plural and referring to individual groups' varieties of Islam? - -sche (discuss) 17:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Or, Equinox could unilaterally delete it because reasons. Whatever. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 01:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I did this because it seemed like User:Pass a Method's work, someone who was blocked for being repeatedly stupid, and who still comes back all the time as an IP to create rubbish made-up words relating to incest and Islam. We used to spend time cleaning them up, but at some point you have to give up and say "nope, instant deletion". Hope that makes my (and not only mine!) position clear. Of course you are always welcome to produce multiple convincing cites instead of whining against someone who works hard to clear shit from this project. Equinox 01:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Closed as kept: The preponderance of editors want this article kept. Just because an article was created by a blocked editor is not in and of it itself a rationale for deletion. Purplebackpack89 14:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

山崩地裂[edit]

  1. (movie title) Dante's Peak
  2. (movie title) Landslide

Are movie titles dictionary material? I don’t think so. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Dante's Peak is not exactly Citizen Kane Siuenti (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete. DCDuring TALK 17:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

ruisseller[edit]

Should be an erroneous form of ruisseler. --kc_kennylau (talk) 05:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

  • This doesn't seem to be an erroneous form / misspelling; it seems to be an intentional (nonstandard) alternative spelling. As evidence of this, google books:"ruisseller" gets 319 hits and google books:"ruisseler" gets ~600, but google books:"ruisseller" "ruisseler" gets only 3 — if "ruisseller" were an error, I would expect more (not all, but certainly more than 0.009%) of the books that used it to also use the correct spelling. Perhaps someone can show that the situation is different if inflected forms are included. Furthermore, of the three books are use both spellings, one is a dictionary, the 1830 Dictionnaire des dictionnaires, pour apprendre plus facilement, which gives in its list of -eller verbs "ruisseller ou ruisseler, v. rueller (la vigne)." Immediately after that list of -eller verbs, it has a list of -eler verbs, but it chooses to lemmatize ruissel(l)er as an -eller verb. Another of the three hits is the 1902 Godefroy Dictionnaire de l'ancienne langue française et de tous ses dialectes du IXe au XVe siècle, which has a citation of "ruisseller" from w:fr:Jean d'Auton, suggesting that the spelling is of quite long standing. So, keep but convert into an alt-form-of entry with a "nonstandard" tag. - -sche (discuss) 21:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
    • @-sche How is it conjugated then? --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
      • According to the Dictionnaire des dictionnaires, like other -eller verbs — quereller, for example. - -sche (discuss) 01:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Without any difficulty I found 3 citations from before 1800, making me think this is an archaic form, but not an alternative, because in 21st century French, it's a spelling mistake. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
          • From 1900 to 2014 ruisseller gets 39 hits, some of those are not in running text and some quote older, such as 2007 "Nous vivons dans les eaux lors que nous pouvons fendre Le rocher de nos coeurs pour faire ruisseller Une source de pleurs à fin de consoler Nostre exil prolongé que Dieu nous faict attendre." Note 'coeurs', 'nostre' and 'faict' which are not 20th century spellings. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
            • @-sche I hope you're ok with my changes. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
              • I think just 'archaic form' covers even the modern uses, which are you noted are apparently either quotations of older works, or using other archaic spellings. Other than that I think it looks good now. ({{lb|fr|archaic|now|nonstandard}} {{alternative form of| might also work.) - -sche (discuss) 16:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

software development process[edit]

Tagged but not listed: “Non-idiomatic term, easy to understand without an article. If this exists, then hundreds of other similar combinations need to be created, like aircraft design process.” — Ungoliant (falai) 13:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete: as WP article states, this can be any such process, nothing specific. Equinox 13:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete per above. DCDuring TALK 17:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Note Please note that the following terms (with their plurals) also need to be deleted for the same reason: application software, applications software, docketing software, free software, presentation software, software architect, software architecture, software configuration management, software defined radio, software deployment, software development lifecycle, software development, software engine, software engineer, software engineering, software escrow, software framework, software house, software life cycle, software lifecycle, software package, system software, systems software. Yurivict (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Not necessarily. "Package" has multiple senses in software (e.g. a Linux OS upgrade versus an office or graphics suite). "Free software" also has subtle implications that cannot be guessed. Equinox 19:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, not all of them, but certainly most of them. Yurivict (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete. I have also nominated (below) the 2 easiest items (probably) on Yurivict's list: software development and software development lifecycle -- · (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete OMG. --WikiTiki89 03:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete software development process per nom. - -sche (discuss) 02:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing to save this one as far as I am aware. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 14:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

software development[edit]

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

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

software development lifecycle[edit]

Delete. Given definition is just "Synonym of software development process", which is also nominated above. -- · (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom. DCDuring TALK 00:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete. --WikiTiki89 03:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom and for the reasons discussed in the section on software development process, above. - -sche (discuss) 02:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Not even true, a process and a lifecycle are not the same thing. Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Kölner Dom[edit]

Not dictionary material (sum of parts). Also Magdeburger Dom and Merseburger Dom. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

  • There's no entry for Kölner as an adjective, which should be rectified. Donnanz (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • If we are to get rid of this entry (as I think we ought to), Eiffel Tower and Statue of Liberty need to go. I suppose you could say that Kölner Dom is SoP, but I don't know; I mean, that is the idiomatic name of the structure, and I don't think it should matter whether the name is kind of obvious or not. Aperiarcam (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that the SOPness or idiomaticity) of Berliner Dom and Kölner Dom differ significantly. Certainly, it seems to be possible to use Berliner Dom SOPly: google books:"ein Berliner Dom, google books:"der erste Berliner Dom". The most common use of Berliner Dom is in reference to the building on Museum Island, but then, I don't imagine that building a new Dom in Köln would change which building most new uses of Kölner Dom were referring to. And in any case the Kölner Dom is a [Kölner] [Dom], and the Berliner Dom is a [Berliner] [Dom]. The Statue of Liberty is a [statue] [of] [liberty], too, but it at least has some symbolism and might be attested with metaphorical meaning. IMO, delete the Doms as not dictionary material. - -sche (discuss) 02:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • SoP aside, I feel sorry for the poor sod who produced a relatively good entry. Donnanz (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I would delete as entirely transparent. Like there's a Leeds Bridge which is a bridge, in Leeds. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

リア充爆発しろ[edit]

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

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

wireless forensics[edit]

{something} forensics is self-explanatory, shouldn't create articles for all kinds of forensics. Yurivict (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete --Hekaheka (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. DCDuring TALK 10:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- · (talk) 05:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment: without looking up the definition, I have no idea if the intended meaning is analysis/diagnosis over a wireless connection or if this is analysis/diagnosis of a wireless connection. On the other hand, I expect the meaning to be crystal clear in any given context. Choor monster (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

beneficial insect[edit]

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

Delete. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. DCDuring TALK 11:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- · (talk) 05:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • If we do end up deleting this (and I don't think we should), we should at least have the relevant sense at beneficial, surely. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
@Tooironic: We already have the relevant definition: "Helpful or good to something or someone." If we were define all the ways in which all beneficial things were beneficial we would have quite a long entry. If we were to have separate entries for all the things that might be termed beneficial, we would have quite a few entries. For example, we could have various types of insects at the family or genus level, each of which was beneficial to some other family, genus, or species in some setting in some way. DCDuring TALK 10:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
This seems like the sort of thing that could be moved, translations and all, to a collocations section or tab... Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/August#Adding_a_collocations_tab_or_section. - -sche (discuss) 15:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I have a feeling that this should be kept. Donnanz (talk) 07:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
When I first saw this I thought "beneficial to what?" and the definition made me think "who on earth thought of this wording?" Keep. —suzukaze (tc) 19:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
That's exactly what I thought originally: what the hell is a beneficial insect, and beneficial to whom, or what, or in what ways? I wouldn't say it's as easy to understand as the nominator claims. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
A beneficial X is an X that's beneficial. From that, I conclude a beneficial insect is an insect that's beneficial (as opposed to detrimental like a crop-eating locust). Looking at the definition, and Wikipedia, I see that's right — in addition to the bees and silkworms our entry mentions, Wikipedia mentions pest-eating bugs and several other kinds of bugs as beneficial. Delete per DCDuring. - -sche (discuss) 05:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes but you can have insects that are beneficial that aren't beneficial insects. For example, many insects are great sources of nutrition, and thus beneficial to eat, but are not considered beneficial insects. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to see that usage in a work where the author did not define the term immediately shortly after first use or deploy it as a lure in a headline or title (as in a newspaper or a book chapter title). Can you find a dictionary that includes the term? (Don't bother with OneLook: among their references only a certain encyclopedia has it.) The WP article makes it clear that the group of beneficial insects is relative to some population of beneficiaries and some theory of benefit. DCDuring TALK 11:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
A cursory look on Google Books reveals lots of hits where the author uses the term without providing any kind of definition afterwards, leading the reader to guess what is meant. Isn't this where a good dictionary would come in handy? ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Replacing the need for basic text interpretation skills is not among the purposes of a dictionary. Nearly every collocation will have information that can’t be known from the collocation alone. Brown leaf doesn’t tell you the shade of brown, tall person doesn’t tell you how tall the person is and beneficial insect doesn’t tell you to whom it is beneficial. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
After e/c: What he said. DCDuring TALK 13:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but brown leaf and tall person are not specific things are they? A beneficial insect is. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Are they actually called this?? If so, definitely keep, as I'd never heard the term before. Ƿidsiþ 09:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

geotechnical engineer[edit]

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

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

wood veneer[edit]

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

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

charge density[edit]

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

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

freight density[edit]

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

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

population density[edit]

Non-idiomatic, means what it says, no need to have the separate article. Yurivict (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm leaning towards keep as a term of art, although I'm surprised to see that no lemmings have it. Defining density in terms of area instead of volume is unusual. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I would keep this one. It's a relatively important term, and there's quite a few translations. Donnanz (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: Purplebackpack89 14:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

poached egg[edit]

Sum of parts? An egg that has been poached? ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I would keep this one. We define poached as "Cooked, or obtained by poaching", and define poaching as "illegal procurement of protected wildlife ..." - which is not what a poached egg is all about. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
If we were to delete it, we would have to add an appropriate definition to poached (though we have one at poach, in any event - but not poaching). We have such entries as scrambled egg and baked potato, so precedent suggests keep. Aperiarcam (talk) 06:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, even the relevant definition of poach, "to cook something in simmering water", doesn't cover the fact that poached eggs are not cooked with their shells on, as boiled eggs are. To me, the most salient difference between poached eggs and soft-boiled eggs is precisely that poached eggs are cooked without their shells and soft-boiled eggs are cooked with their shells, but that distinction is not (and should not be) provided by the meanings of poach and boil. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This entry has been discussed and kept before, by the way. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
    But why can't be just add the relevant sense to poach or poached and be done with it? ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
    Because it isn't a property of the verb poach that eggs don't have their shells when they're its direct object. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. See also poacher (sense 2), an egg poacher. Donnanz (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Unclear what "poached" means without this definition. An egg that has been poached could mean an egg illegally obtained from the King's land. Purplebackpack89 13:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I remember a few years back there was a lengthy discussion about fried egg, which resulted in a "keep". I was on the delete-side then but don't want to reopen on this topic, thus keep. --Hekaheka (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • So for every possible poachable food (e.g. pears), we need a "poached X" entry? No, this is just polysemy and our readers have enough brain to tell which sense is meant. I'd like to see these theoretical people who really think "poached egg" could be a stolen one. Equinox 17:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    @Equinox
    1. While many foods can be poached in the stolen sense, only a few of them can be poached in the cooking sense, and those are the only ones we need definitions for.
    2. People who actually looks up "poached egg" on Wiktionary are likely to not know what it means. That's why people use dictionaries after all. The appeal to knowledge is a rather specious argument. Purplebackpack89 17:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • In that case you are being inconsistent with your logic. Why is a poached pear different from a poached egg - since, as you claim, either sense of "poach" could be used with either of them. Equinox 19:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    Let's use fish rather than pears, because "poached fish" is in actual use to indicate both fish that's been illegally captured and fish that's been cooked in liquid. By your logic, we should have an entry for poached fish. The problem is that both senses of poached fish are easily attested, so we'll need two senses. Poaching is a common cooking method for many types of fish, and many of those same fish are poached in the "illegal" sense, so there's potential for a great number of entries such as poached salmon. Once we have those, the question then arises: which sense of poached fish is meant in a particular text? You've just created a bunch of entries that don't really do anything- you still have to figure out from the context which is meant. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    @Equinox @Chuck Entz The reason I'm saying keep this is because poached egg is used nearly exclusively in the cooking sense, which is not the common sense. Poached pear is only used in the common sense, so less of a need for it than poached egg. Poached fish is used in both senses, so less of a need than poached egg. But, no matter, poached egg will be kept, because I'm clearly not alone in wanting it kept, so maybe question their logic instead of mine, mmmkay? Purplebackpack89 22:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not questioning their logic, because it makes sense- which is why this will probably pass. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
If Angr's comments are right, this passes the fried egg test and we should keep it. Concerns that that will lead to keeping all "poached x" terms seem to be unfounded, inasmuch as keeping fried egg hasn't led us to have fried pork, fried onion, etc. - -sche (discuss) 18:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, that reminds of another tenet in my reply to User:Equinox: 3. Just because we could create certain two- and three-word entries doesn't people people are actually going to create them. I consider it unlikely that anyone will bother to create poached pear. Purplebackpack89 19:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I modified the definition of egg to implicitally state that when cooking, the shell is not used. I really hope that's enough for you all to realise that poached egg is totally SOP and that this debate is dumb. --A230rjfowe (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    Oh, that totally solves our problem, except for the small matter this nomination hinging on the definition of poached rather than the definition of egg. Purplebackpack89 22:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    Well, no, it doesn't solve the problem. Nevertheless, this nomination is not about poached but about poached egg and about whether this entry should be deleted or not. --A230rjfowe (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    Your additions don't change the fact that boiled eggs are cooked with the shell and poached eggs are cooked without the shell, but that fact has nothing to do with the definitions of boil, poach, or egg. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Passes the fried-egg test. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Angr's argument. boil and poach are essentially synonyms, yet boiled egg and poached egg are not. Putting the words together introduces an additional shade of meaning (i.e. whether or not the eggs are cooked in their shells) that is not present in the individual parts. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

home game[edit]

home team[edit]

away game[edit]

away team[edit]

away side[edit]

road game[edit]

These are uses of home, away and road with specific nouns. Plenty of other possibilities with each, like away wins, away fans, away victories, away defeats (and so on). Let the meanings stay at home, away and road where they belong. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep all: It's ambiguous what "home", "away" and "road" mean in these definitions. Somebody unfamiliar with English and/or with sports would have trouble providing the correct definition. Purplebackpack89 20:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
    • This is why home, away and road have definitions. It's not a massive coincidence you know. Renard Migrant (talk) 09:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
      • They have multiple definitions, and it's unclear for a non-English speaker or non-sports fan which one is the one used with game, team or side. Purplebackpack89 13:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Perhaps adding a "sports" context to new definitions for "home", "away", and "road" would suffice? Choor monster (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I find this nomination quite worrying. It seems to have been prompted by the recent Tea Room discussion on road game, which proved that it is a worthwhile entry. Also with all the entries lumped together here in one nomination, I think it's difficult to discuss them all fairly. Reject the nomination and keep the lot. Donnanz (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
    • What they all have in common is that the second word is obvious (game to mean game, win to mean win, team to mean team) it's just the first word that needs clarification, which can be done by looking up home, road and away. If not, why not away win, away match, away fan, away point, away fixture. These are all not just real, but common. Renard Migrant (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm not seeing the harm in creating those. Purplebackpack89 13:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Then, of course, there's w:Irish road bowling... Chuck Entz (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I think you just made the case for why this should be kept. IMO, it's not unthinkable for somebody to hear "home game" and think "a board game you play in your house", or hear "road game" and think "a game you play in the middle of the street" Purplebackpack89 22:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Why not cover this at road, home and so on? It's not game, team (etc.) that are hard to understand, it's those words. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep all per arguments above. Also, I note that per the following, hometeam is attestable:
    • 1992, George Plimpton, The Norton Book of Sports, page 271: Ten o'clock comes and goes. Dorfman's still in there, throwing breaking stuff and a little smoke at the Braves, who look as if they just stepped out of Night of the Living Dead. The hometeam isn't doing much better.
    • 2007, John Billheimer, Baseball and the Blame Game: Scapegoating in the Major Leagues, page 180: Pierzynski took two steps across home plate toward the hometeam dugout, then dropped his bat and ran toward first base while the Angels stood by and watched.
    • 2012, Garry Neill Kennedy, The Last Art College: Nova Scotia College of Art and Design, 1968-1978, page 104: You are on the hometeam, so now who do you root for?”
  • I would not be surprised if some of the others also met WT:COALMINE. bd2412 T 03:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I might have to discuss this on the tea room since apparently nobody's willing to discuss it with me here. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
      • What's there to discuss? You've said you'd rather have it at home and road; and the other participants in this discussion say they are fine where they are. IMO, it's much easier for people to figure out the definition of "home game" by actually having a definition for "home game" than it is to force people to search somewhere else. Now, we can also have a new definition for "home" that applies to home team, but I still believe that there's value to be had in keep "home game" and the rest of them. Purplebackpack89 16:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
        • I'd be interested to know why; what's the rationale? Renard Migrant (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
          • We explained that to you above, but apparently you didn't get it. In case you missed it, rationale for keeping this include: 1) value to be had from having the entry, and 2) "home" and "road" too ambiguous for it to be SOP. I don't for the life of me know why you're still talking about this entry; consensus is already pretty clear that it will be kept. Purplebackpack89 04:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
            • My point, which nobody has yet replied to, is if 'home' and 'road' are ambiguous but the second word in each case is not ambiguous, why not put the definitions had 'home' and 'road'. That's sort of the point of having more than one definition for a word, isn't it? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep all. The following terms cannot be translated word-for-word to Czech and still work: away game, away team, away side, road game. For "home team", bd2412 has shown "hometeam" is attested and WT:COALMINE applies; and it is in Collins[20]. For "home game", it is in Collins[21], so I'll use the lemming heuristic. That's it; let's back to building dictionary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

fundie[edit]

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

Keep. It's often used to refer exclusively to fundamentalist Christians. One can encounter statements like "fundies want the Bible taught in our schools," which obviously doesn't include fundamentalist Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, etc. So it would be inaccurate to define it solely as "a religious fundamentalist of any faith." Plus, when it's used to refer to Christian fundamentalists, it's often unqualified. People speak of "fundies," rather than "Christian fundies." Whereas, with other religions, it's usually qualified. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't make much sense in light of the evidence, which is that unqualified uses of the word can apply to any religious fundamentalist, e.g. "Ijtihad is the excuse the fundies use to project their corruptness onto Islam." (from The Butterfly Mosque: A Young Woman's Journey to Love and Islam by G. Willow Wilson). Just because people talk about Christians more often with this word doesn't mean it constitutes a separate sense. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
keep or merge "Fundie" almost always refers to evangelical Christians, so the definition could just say "especially fundamentalist or evangelical Christian". The example sentence created for "Jewish fundie" is very contrived. "Keeping kosher" is more orthodox behaviour than "fundamentalist" (see w:Jewish fundamentalism and rationalwiki). Pengo (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

trichocentrum[edit]

This entry is a duplicate topic of Trichocentrum. —Temporaryusernamenotreallygoingtocontinuewith (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

They're not even the same language. Trichocentrum is Translingual and trichocentrum is Latin. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Based on that assessment, keep Purplebackpack89 13:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
WF? WF.
Keep, obviously. - -sche (discuss) 18:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy RFD kept. The nom was made in diff by User:Skyllfully who used a diffent name to sign. No need to waste time on this. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

evolutionary theory[edit]

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

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

accordion player[edit]

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

If there was a prize for the most useless user page, I think you would win it. Donnanz (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
You think?! I better win it, I've worked hard to make my userpage useless. Just point me at whoever has a more useless user page. As God is my witness, I'll find a use for it! WurdSnatcher (talk)
Uh-huh. The result is a damp squib, and the page has never been changed since creation. At least it keeps your user name "out of the red". Donnanz (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
It seems so to me too, but is it a profession? I believe we have claimed that being the name of a profession is sufficient, as in the case of tennis player. See Talk:tennis player. DCDuring TALK 01:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but I don't think so: street performers can be accordion players (and another)), a "piano player" can become an "accordion player" just by picking one up; Clifton Chenier's father seems to be universally described as an "amateur accordion player" (and he's not the only one by any means). WurdSnatcher (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Few more: a boy can be an accordion player, morris dancers are accompanied by one (as a folk dance, probably very rarely a pro); this guy is professionally a vaudeville performer and music teacher, but it is also noted was known as an accordion player, suggesting he was not a professional at it. This contest is open to "both amateur and professional" accordion players. WurdSnatcher (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete. I get that many languages have a one-word equivalent of this, but that isn't a keep argument for me. Languages like Finnish and Hungarian can have very long words for things that we'd never consider creating English entries for. Equinox 02:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete or perhaps soft redirect using {{no entry}} like so to accordionist, and put translations there. If we had a collocations namespace (weigh in if you think we should or shouldn't have one), we could mention this as a collocation of accordion (and perhaps also player). - -sche (discuss) 03:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
There is, in effect, already a redirect. If we can't have two-word synonyms there is something fundamentally wrong with Wiktionary. Does anyone know whether the silent majority of users look at or for entries like this? Do you use cookies for successful searches? Donnanz (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I would not expect to encounter a two-word entry for something as simple as this. If I didn't understand "accordion player", I would check the components separately. If I wanted to know how one says "accordion player" in French, I would learn that "accordion" is "accordéon (m)" and player is "joueur (m)" or "joueuse (f)" and then I would just deduce that the answer to my quest is "joueur d'accordéon" or "joueuse d'accordéon"- bingo! Also, the potentially huge number of this sort of entries makes them pointless as translation targets, because our limited supply of editors is not going to have the time to fill in all the translations. --Hekaheka (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
And this entry doesn't take up a helluva lotta space, under 250 bytes. Donnanz (talk) 09:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
If you're actually worried about disk space, that's not remotely accurate; I would estimate between rounding up to block sizes and a plethora of indexes, that we're looking at least 64K. Much of which wouldn't change if it was merely deleted. Disk space is just not a factor in Wiktionary deletions.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete SOP.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Reference added. Donnanz (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. The practice of including phrase that describe professions without regard to the SoP nature of the phrase should be abandoned and the argument given no weight in RfD discussions. It was never policy. DCDuring TALK 14:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I changed my mind from abstain. First of all, one lemming has it: oxforddictionaries.com[23]. Second, another lemming has something similar: Collins has "percussion player"[24] in a minimal entry directing the reader to "percussionist". Even minimal entry using {{synonym of}}, having no synonyms and no translation section, would add value to the user by directing them to accordionist for translation. Note that this entry is a noun-noun compound, many of which are keen on appearing as closed compounds (space-less compounds), which we keep; "player of accоrdion" does not have a chance of appearing as *"playerofaccоrdion". On one last note, I found occurrences of "accordion-player" with a hyphen, although search is hard, which suggests to me this is thought of as a single concept. All of this is not strongly compelling, but I think our users are better off with our having this entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is as SoP as it is possible to be, and one lemming does not a Disney documentary make. Keith the Koala (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015[edit]

無法無天[edit]

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

temperance[edit]

"One of the seven heavenly virtues." That's not actually a definition, is it? Temperance as in moderation (definitions #1 and #2) is one of the seven heavenly virtues. No defintion at greed "one of the seven deadly sins". Renard Migrant (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

specific address[edit]

Useless blank {{rfdef}} entry. All Google Books hits are SOP as far as I can tell. There's zh:specific address, but both defintions appear to be SOP Chinese 特定 ‎(specific) 位址 ‎(address). Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

IMO any rfdef entry that has no content (no citations, no pronunciation, etc.) should just be speedied: "no usable content given". We have the request pages for this. Equinox 14:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted Doesn't mean anything. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

TCP segmentation offload[edit]

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

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

MVC[edit]

opcode for "move characters" in IBM Assembler. Got a feeling we've deleted this kind of thing before. For those not technically inclined, this is akin to a keyword in a programming language, and probably isn't used in running text. Forgetting all higher-level languages and considering only assembler, there are all kinds of varieties. For example, here's a nice table of all the opcode mnemonics (abbreviations) for a Z80 processor: [25]. Equinox 00:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete. The same sequence of characters can have quite different meanings in different assembly languages, depending on the architecture of the processor- and there are lots of different processors. Plus, there are only so many short sequences of letters that evoke words and phrases, so one assembly language may use the same three letters for a completely different concept from another's. We don't want to get into the business of providing a keyword glossary for every assembly language that ever existed, and I don't look forward to verifying usage of assembler keywords for a processor that was only sold for 3 years 15 years ago. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • This seems like an RFV question to me. If it is not used in running text, delete. bd2412 T 04:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • In case it goes to RfV - I have added three citations that use the term in running text. (so Keep) SemperBlotto (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
delete because this is not a word in a language (where "language" refers to natural languages only and not to programming languages) -- Liliana 18:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The three citations added are definitely English language sentences, not programming language statements. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
It's still not a word because it doesn't convey any meaning. It's actually akin to a symbol, like . That symbol doesn't convey any meaning, it's just that, a symbol, and that's why these don't have entries here (or at least, shouldn't, seeing as that link appears to be blue). The same applies to MVC, it doesn't have any specific meaning, it just symbolizes an operator. -- Liliana 19:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

LiBr[edit]

Chemical formula. Not a "word in a language". Equinox 10:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Do quotes like these cite it?
  • 2013, Werner R. Loewenstein, Principles of Receptor Physiology, Springer Science & Business Media (ISBN 9783642650635), page 6
    Surprisingly, it was found that the addition of LiBr to dry acetone had no effect on the length of the collagen fibers, whereas subsequent addition of small amounts of water caused a powerful contraction to about one-third of the original length.
  • 2002, Leo Mandelkern, Crystallization of Polymers: Volume 1, Equilibrium Concepts, Cambridge University Press (ISBN 9781139436359), page 400
    The initial addition of LiBr to the supernatant phase results in a depression of 7"m. A minimum in the melting temperature is reached, at about 7M LiBr.
  • 2013, Raphael Ikan, Natural and Laboratory Simulated Thermal Geochemical Processes, Springer Science & Business Media (ISBN 9789401701112), page 129
    The addition of LiBr to NMP also caused a partial breakdown of the size exclusion mechanism, with chromatograms extending to well beyond the permeation limit of the column, similar to results from eluents of insufficient solvent strength
  • 1994, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Papers
    If a system could be designed to add the LiBr to a bath of water the process could work.
We have H₂O, CO₂, O₂, NaCl and so on (just see Category:mul:Chemical formulae). Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
H₂O, CO₂ etc - these terms may be encountered in everyday life and I'm not sure that LiBr is (until we invent an LiBr-cooled nuclear reactor, but it melts at 500+deg). A quick look at the literature produces a few more possible entries: "The results show that 10 min exposure to TNF-alpha (0.5-50ng/ml) of F508del-CFTR-transfected HeLa cells and human bronchial cells expressing F508del-CFTR in primary culture (HBE) leads to the maturation of F508del-CFTR and induces CFTR chloride currents." And I'm not familiar with our rules to make a judgement, a line may have to be drawn.   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 11:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Does the size of the using community matter? Should we have Torre Straits Creole but not chemist's or geneticist's vocabulary or abbreviations thereof?
Some discretion is necessary with respect to hyphenated compound IMO, so F508del-CFTR-transfected seems prima facie to be less inclusion-worthy that F508del-CFTR, which seems less inclusion-worthy than F508del. I doubt that there is a simple, universally acceptable rule for such compounds however. With less technical terms we bend over backwards to include compounds on the flimsiest of pretexts. DCDuring TALK 11:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
IMO: keep. DCDuring TALK 11:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
keep - but hyphenated terms may be different.  — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 11:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

delete as per AsH₃ -- Liliana 18:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, if Li and Br are "words in a language" then LiBr must be as well. Keep all (or delete all). SemperBlotto (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Talk:AsH₃Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Question. Let's say, for the sake of argument, we were to include all chemical formulae that are attested in running text. Can someone give me a rough idea of how many entries we would be looking at? bd2412 T 01:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
    There are more than 71 million chemicals "registered" in the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) DTLHS (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't buy Blotto's argument (i.e. Li and Br are okay, so LiBr must be okay). Consider the MVC opcode that's undergoing RFV, and suppose we can write the instruction MVC 5. Well, MVC is a dictionary term (for sake of argument) and 5 is a dictionary term (apparently, being a number), but that doesn't mean MVC 5 gets an entry, since the rules of composition are not English language but rather programming-language rules. Similarly here, the rules of composition are those of chemical formulae. Equinox 01:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
"MVC 5" wouldn't be included because it doesn't make any sense. The MVC instructions takes three parameters, the addresses of the source and target, and the number of bytes transferred. And anyway, it would be sum of parts. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
As a practical matter, we can't make 71 million entries, much less police that number. What standards would we use to sort out a reasonable number to work with? bd2412 T 02:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
We could include only compounds which have a common (not IUPAC-derived) name. DTLHS (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd only keep chemical formulae that are used in English outside of a chemistry context. H₂O and CO₂ would certainly meet that rule, along with others. -- Liliana 08:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I'me not advocating that we add the chemical formulae of all those 71 million compounds, only that we don't delete any that somebody has taken the trouble to add. Personally, I've got better things to do with my time. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)