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

February 2015[edit]

Diet Coke[edit]

The definition says: "(uncountable, informal) A cola-based soft drink containing no or low amounts of sugar". I think this wrong in two ways (see: Diet Coke):

  1. Diet Coke is not a noun, but a proper noun.
  2. It's not informal, it is a trade mark of Coca Cola Company.

If Diet Coke has become a generalized trademark, the entry should say so. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - also it is countable ("These idiots will have two Diet Cokes please, but I'll have a proper drink.") SemperBlotto (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Comparable (and IMO equally worthless in a dictionary, as non-genericised brands): Cherry Coke, New Coke, Vanilla Coke, Coke Zero, and variants of Pepsi, Fanta, Mountain Dew, Dr Pepper, Irn Bru, 7-UP, Sprite... oh, I could go on. Equinox 13:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: This RfD reveals the fact that we didn't have "diet" as an adjective. "Diet" is put in front of words and/or brands to denote something low in fat, salt, sugar or calories. As such, I have created the adjective sense. Purplebackpack89 15:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    Good point. I'd be happy to see this entry be deleted if we can ensure the relevant sense is covered at diet. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
@PBP: I think you're mistaken there, diet is a noun and a verb, and here it's being used as a noun modifier, not as an adjective. Donnanz (talk) 10:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
@Donnanz If you're trying to make the case that diet is merely an attributive noun, I would point out to you than when diet is used as a "noun modifier" (your words), it's not used in a way consistent with any of the definitions of diet we currently have. That is why there is a separate definition of diet as an adjective, which has been attested. Purplebackpack89 13:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying diet is an attributive noun - it's a standalone noun. But when it's used to modify another noun, such as in diet cola, it becomes a noun modifier, not an adjective. But there seems to be two different schools of thought here, so if you insist in calling it an adjective in cases like this, it should at least be marked as "attributive". Donnanz (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I have very little doubt that the same people who use Coke as a genericized trademark also use Diet Coke that way. The question is, when they do so, do they spell it diet Coke (in which case it's SOP as diet + Coke) or Diet Coke (in which case it isn't SOP, but a direct genericization of Diet Coke®)? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
WT:BRAND applies. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't buy the stuff, but shouldn't anything other than the brand be called "diet cola"? Donnanz (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I would say keep this entry. Supermarket brands such as Sainsbury's and Tesco (in the UK) tend to be called diet cola, and this could be entered as a synonym. The supermarkets wouldn't be allowed to call their product diet coke. Donnanz (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
If we keep it without getting citations that show that it meets WT:BRAND, it can (and should) be RfVed. Let's skip the step and give this at least a month here to collect citations that meet WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 13:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe that's not necessary; all you have to do is check the product, which I did. Sure enough, the ® symbol appears next to the Diet Coke name on each bottle. Predictably enough the Pepsi product is called "diet pepsi" (that's the way it's spelt) but no ® symbol, even though Pepsi-Cola is a trademark. And Sainsbury's own brand is confirmed as "diet cola". How's that for an afternoon's work? Donnanz (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
  • Abstain: not sure we need this and Cherry Coke, New Coke, Vanilla Coke, and Coke Zero (mentioned by Equinox above). But I would like to see Fanta and we have Pepsi. It can be deleted via RFV if it fails WT:BRAND, I think. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

kondo[edit]

Protologism? I can't see any usage before 2014. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC) (p.s. Might need moving to Kondo if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The usage started in Japan but I don't know how far back it goes. Book was published 2001 in Japan. SageGreenRider (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Was it published in English in 2001? If not, when was it used in English for the first time? Renard Migrant (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Move to RFV. Doubt it will pass, but there is limited usage on the Web. Equinox 16:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Even if it is new, I thought we kept hot words, provisionally at least? SageGreenRider (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    I've tagged it with {{hot word|date=2015-02-26}} which is the earliest citation in the entry. There might be something earlier, perhaps on UseNet. The English translation got a rush of publicity on March 26, 2014, but I didn't find hits for kondoed or kondoing until later. DCDuring TALK 13:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

pervasive developmental disorder - not otherwise specified[edit]

Highly doubtful we need this as an entry. It basically means what it says on the tin. -- Liliana 12:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom. DCDuring TALK 13:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Note that a lot of diagnostic names include "Not Otherwise Specified". Equinox 15:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I wrote that Wikipedia page. bd2412 T 19:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
not otherwise specified seems like a candidate for an entry, as does not elsewhere classified (nec). DCDuring TALK 20:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Also not elsewhere specified. A little coverage for these at OneLook. DCDuring TALK 20:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep. The current definition is inaccurate. "Pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified" is considered both an autism spectrum disorder and a pervasive developmental disorder in its own right (see the Wikipedia article), and not just a description applied to other disorders. At least it was pre-DSM5. Basically, the DSM5 rolled the separate diagnoses of autism, Asperger's, and PDD-NOS into a single "autism spectrum disorder" diagnosis. There's been some controversy over this change, particularly in the autistic community. Anyway, searching Google Books for "with PDD-NOS" yields results like "children with PDD-NOS" and "individuals with PDD-NOS," further establishing its status as a discrete disorder/diagnosis. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Obviously delete. And correct the plural if we keep it. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
This reminds me of the use of incertae sedis in taxonomy. I sure don't think that every taxon ("Taxon") that has some direct members that are of a lower rank than other direct members needs to have "Taxon incertae sedis" as an artificial taxon. That Wikispecies needs such things for presentation purposes does not make them real.
Similarly that DSM publication formatting needs a heading doesn't give any reality to it. DCDuring TALK 21:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete per DCDuring and per nom. - -sche (discuss) 07:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as etymon of PDD-NOS, which is what people actually use in conversation and most writing. ("My kid has PDD-NOS, but he hit all the goals in his plan last year.") However, there's no overwhelming reason PDD-NOS couldn't just link to w:pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified. ... There are a lot of interesting definitional questions around this and other autistic spectrum conditions, especially in the aftermath of the DSM-V; but they tend to be the kind of messily prescriptive definitional issues that Wiktionary and Wikipedia each prefer to leave to the other. -- Visviva (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, and historically User:Visviva's reasoning for keeping has not been seen as valid in RFD discussions. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 17:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

March 2015[edit]

negativity thinking[edit]

I'm feeling somewhat borderline about this entry. So I'm not advocating deletion, but it still smells a bit SOPpy. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

ː For sure, it is easy enough to deduce the meaning from the parts, but if it was purely SOP, wouldn't it be "negative thinking"? Partly, it may be my definition does not do justice to the jargon-y way it is used. I was trying to avoid sounding judgemental one way or the other, but it is used by the "Postive thinking" people as a put-down of any sort of criticism, or questioning of the doctrine of positive thinking̃

Posterity will thank us for attesting this awkward bit of minor-league psychobabble, won't it? DCDuring TALK 11:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
It sounds so weird I'd actually keep it. Because to me it doesn't make any sense. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The more usual form is negative thinking. I don't see much value in this entry. Donnanz (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
That is just the reason for this entry. I'm the one who added it, and I did so because I stumbled on it while reading and thought it sounded weird and awkward. I figured there must be something more to it than just negative thinking, or why would it be such a strange wording. That led me to do some digging and then create the definition. I think it of use to others who, like me, run across the phrase and think - am I missing something here? Kiwima (talk) 02:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
If we keep positive thinking, why don’t we keep the antonym too? Actually I don’t know why we have negativity thinking instead of negative thinking. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

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)

nicht zutreffend[edit]

clear case of SoP -- Liliana 22:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

  • You obviously didn't look to see whether there is an entry for n. z., (not to be confused with NZ). But maybe not applicable should be allowable as a common term. Donnanz (talk) 08:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
It's common but nothing more than the sum of its parts. Green grass is a common term, too. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@Donnanz: One could create the entry n. z. where it then could be "abbreviation of nicht zutreffend, but there's no need for the entry nicht zutreffend which is "SoP". 93.196.243.56 12:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: present in translation dictionaries. google:"nicht zutreffend" dictionary finds dict.cc[3], and bab.la[4] (has two senses as translations); further in Wörterbuch der Schmierungstechnik, Wörterbuch Maschinenbau und Tribologie, Langenscheidt Dictionary Technology and Applied Sciences. In the role of N/A, I wonder whether "nicht anwendbar" is used as well. Furthermore, I find uses of "nicht zutreffend" as "not true" or "not the case", which are quite distinct from N/A, making the use of "nicht zutreffend" for "not applicable" rather unobvious; one might argue that it is just polysemy at the level of "zutreffend", though. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Interix[edit]

Sae1962 (surprise!); another software product. -- Liliana 18:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep; a single-word attested term that can host such lexicographical content as pronunciation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015[edit]

onomatopoeïa[edit]

Bad character in name. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not "bad", that's a trema. Also, though it should be common sense, the use of trema is not limited to dictionaries, but does also appear in normal texts. -IP, 01:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
But Wiktionary:About Latin says "Do not use diacritical marks in page names". SemperBlotto (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
That should be limited to macrons (and breves), which aren't part of usual Latin writing. Trema (as in onomatopoeïa or poëtica) and circumflex (as in deûm, short for deorum) should be treated differently. In poëtica (that does even exists here in wt: poëtica) oe is not a diphthong, but two vowels, which is indicated by the dots above e. In case of poetica one could get the false impression that oe is a diphthong. (poetica most likely was also used, most likely because some printers didn't have tremas and umlauts and because with some knowledge one knows that the word doesn't have a diphthong.) -IP, 07:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
RfV? poëtica is a SemperBlottoBot creation, after all. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
No. The actual term is poetica but the headword has the diacritic added. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe not. It's a tough one because I know that diacritics are often added when typing manuscripts up. s:fr:La Chanson de Roland is a particularly good example because it has the original manuscripts and the typed-up versions. Not only are the typed-up version not all the same, they don't match the manuscripts verbatim. The de jure ruling is that if WT:ALA says to exclude them, we can, as WT:CFI recognises language-specific instructions. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
WT:ALA is a think tank so I am surprised to hear de jure in connection with WT:ALA. The editors of Latin and other interested editors have to make the determination; WT:ALA cannot do it for them. To me, the argument that macron should be excluded because it does not appear in the actual printed text whereas trema (¨) should be included as long as it appears in the actual text sounds convincing. But there may be good counterarguments. I checked google books:"onomatopoeïa" and it may be borderline attested, or not; it has to be in use. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Wiktionary:About Latin might consider itself a think tank, but WT:CFI#Language-specific issues says otherwise. Which has more gravitas, hmm. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that the mentioned part of CFI makes these think tanks automatically into policies; that would be outrageous, to me anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Isn't the common practice to include diacritica in the page name when their absence constitutes an orthographical error and otherwise link as alternate spelling? _Korn (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
No. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Abstain. I wonder whether this is attested anyway. More of my thought are above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Pinging Latin-speakers @JohnC5, I'm so meta even this acronym. I believe one of you had been going to rewrite WT:ALA's diacritic guidelines based on the two discussions of duûm. Whatare your thoughts on tremas? - -sche (discuss) 06:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
@-sche: I'm sorry that I still haven't finished that rewrite; I made good progress, but then got distracted rather a lot… Per the guidelines I'm drawing up, onomatopoeïa is not permitted as a lemma, but it is inclusible as an {{alternative typography of}} kind of entry. As for the concern about attestability raised by Dan Polansky, if one includes google books:"onomatopoeïam", the form is attested in several sources. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

clases particulares[edit]

Looks SOP to me --Type56op9 (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Delete, see particular. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
If someone does not know the meaning beforehand, they probably will not figure it out by looking up the words separately. However, there are other resources on the internet that offer the correct meaning, so we don’t have to host the difficult cases (multiword terms) on Wiktionary. —Stephen (Talk) 09:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per presence in translation dictionaries: google:"clases particulares" dictionary finds wordreference.com[5], bab.la[6], easytrans.org[7], dict.woxikon.com[8].

    Note: Says "private tuition". clases says "tuition" and particulares says "plural of particular" and particular says "private" in the 3rd sense, and "specific, particular" in the 1st sense and "personal" in the 2nd sense. wordreference.com[9] gives a difference translation than we have. I see, in the provided translation in Wiktionary, the word "tuition" is intended to mean "The training or instruction provided by a teacher or tutor" rather than "A sum of money paid for instruction". The entry clases should be expanded to become unambiguous. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

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)

شومېر[edit]

Implicitly nominated for deletion by User:عثمان_منصور_انصاري, giving reasons at Talk:سومر. -- Gauss (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Adjutor101 User:عثمان_منصور_انصاري moved شومېر to سومر. He wants to delete شومېر. Which word is correct, or are both of them correct? —Stephen (Talk) 14:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
@Stephen G. Brown The source: http://thepashto.com/word.php?pashto=%D8%B4%D9%88%D9%85%DB%90%D8%B1 Its a modern borrowing from Akkadian Adjutor101 (talk) 05:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The word سومر is a Pashto writing of the English word IPA(key): /sumər/ but the word Shumér IPA(key): /ʃumer/ is used in Pashto only. This word is rarely heard in normal speech and more in academic discussions thereby probably giving rise to the user's confusion. Adjutor101 (talk) 05:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
@Stephen G. Brown there is no a single book, authenticated & accurate website, academic research... in which found shumer!?

mostly we borrowed the therms which related to literature, historical, philosophical, related to logic, Islamic jurisprudence, theology etc from Arabic and Persian. related borrowed terms are always written as in its first source. Sumer or سومر is a term of Persian histroy, so we should used it as its in Persian. Pashto and Persian are sister language, mostly its literature have same contexts... same culture, same history, same Religion, same people, same ethnic groups ...

i will give you some books, authenticated & accurate websites links:

  • In Famous Persian Dictionary of Dehkhuda:

لغت نامه دهخدا سومر. [ م ِ ] (اِخ ). کشوری باستانی در قسمت سفلای بین النهرین ، مجاور خلیج فارس و درجنوب کشور راکد. شهرهای سومر عبارت بود از «اور»، «اوروک »، یا «ارخ »، «نیب پور»، «لارسا». در سفر پیدایش این ناحیه را سرزمین «شنعار» نامیده اند. سومریان از 5000 ق .م . در سومر سکونت داشتند و آنان یکی از تمدنهای بسیار قدیم را در بین النهرین ایجاد کردند. حکومت آن در حدود 3000 ق .م . تشکیل گردید و در هزاره ٔ دوم (2115 ق .م .) منقرض شد و قلمرو آنان ضمیمه ٔ آشور و بابل گردید. دین سومریان پرستش ارباب انواع بود. رئیس شهر را پاتسی مینامیدند، و او امور دینی ، کشوری و لشکری را اداره میکرد. پادشاهان سومر و اکد غالباً با یکدیگر در جنگ بودند و گاه غالب و گاه مغلوب میشدند وربقه ٔ اطاعت رقیب را بر گردن مینهادند. و ملوک سومرپیشوای دین هم بودند و خود را قائم مقام و کاهن اعظم خداوند شهر خویش میخواندند و بیشتر دارائی خود را صرف ساختن معابد وی میکردند و تا میتوانستند عبادتگاه را بزرگ و زیبا میساختند. (از فرهنگ فارسی معین ).

http://daneshnameh.roshd.ir/ Sumer سومر

  1. we have an article in Persian language titled: سومریان.
  2. we have an article in English language titled: Sumer or سومر
  3. in Arabic we have also: سومر

note: in english Srilanka, but its pronounciation is shrilanka, Indians, Srilankans, Bengalis called it Shrelanka, but in Pashto we pronounce it as srilanka, سریلنکا. Indonesia, Malesia, its sounds shia, but in Pashto we dont write it shia, it sounds like Zia (indonezia) اندونیزیا، مالیزیا. --عثمان منصور انصاري (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Persian is significantly different from Pashto [grammar, vocab, pronunciation], Persian sources can not be used in Pashto. We can have words of Persian etymology like فردوس but then we even have words of Sanskrit origin like سمندر; and we obviously do not use Sanskrit sources in Pashto. Also even if the word is present even in an "non-authentic" dictionary it at least shows the word is used in Pashto. By comparison the English word on fleek is not present in Oxford English Dictionary but modern-day slang and is hence present in wiktionary. Adjutor101 (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

thepashto.com is not an authenticated website!?[edit]

@Stephen G. Brown, @Gauss! dear Adjutor101! the source you mentioned is a free website where everyone could come and contribute... i have checked that. most of the contributors are teenage boys who even do not know how to write pashto correctly. writing on a historical topic is so far from there level!

no academic, no literary, no any cultural soceity is involved in its contribution. this is the pashto academy Website and this is there Peshawar University page of Pashto-Academy. plz go and ask your Shumer there. if they approved that is a pure and the only one Pashto term. then your claim will be 300% right!!.

--عثمان منصور انصاري (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

We don't care about any concept of "pure and the only one Pashto term". We are a descriptive dictionary describing what is actually used in languages, not what some academy says should be used.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
  • Keep this term entered as Pashto until RFD-relevant reasons for deletion are stated on the nomination page here at RFD. RFD-relevant reasons: 1) sum of parts, 2) rare misspelling, 3) other that I don't recall right now. If the form is claimed not to exist, that is a RFV case. Furthermore, the RFD nomination was made to represent a page move made by User:عثمان منصور انصاري who above presents reasoning using predicates that are inapplicable to English Wiktionary, including "approved that is a pure and the only one Pashto term". Some background about Pashto: Per WP, Pashto is an Eastern Iranian language that is one of the two official languages of Afghanistan and a significant regional language of Pakistan. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

duûm[edit]

Wiktionary:About Latin specifically says "Do not use diacritical marks in page names". That, surely, includes the use of a circumflex. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't quickly find any discussion about Latin and the use of circumflex. WT:ALA is a think tank. The key question is, do editors of Latin really want to forbid circumflex despite its attestation, and why. Furthermore, Wiktionary:About_Latin#Do_not_use_diacritical_marks_in_page_names does explicitly discuss macron and breve, but not circumflex; could the author accidentally forget about circumlex? --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto, Dan Polansky: As an editor primarily of Latin, I don't "want to forbid [the] circumflex despite its attestation". I agree with WT:ALA's general principles for lemmatisation (except for the J-ban) only. These diacriticked variants should be soft redirects, but they should definitely exist. Thus, keep.
Also WT:ALA is long overdue for rewriting. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. And I agree with you about J-words - I create then as "alternative forms" of the corresponding I-word. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think EncycloPetey would allow any edits to WT:ALA, now he's quit it gives us the opportunity to update it. J-forms have been used for years now, if WT:ALA still says they aren't allow then it's literally years out of date. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, some of WT:ALA's proscriptions against using macrons in quotes and diaereses elsewhere are ridiculous and should be removed. —JohnC5 15:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I say go for it; mark clearly in your edit summaries what you're changing and if anything gets reverted, go to Wiktionary talk:About Latin to try and thrash out a consensus. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @SemperBlotto, Renard Migrant, JohnC5: I shall devote tomorrow to rewriting WT:ALA. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

My 2c: lemmatize the diacritic-less spellings, but soft redirects for the diacritical spellings are OK. I suggest using either {{alternative typography of}} or a to-be-created dedicated template like Yiddish's {{yi-unpointed form of}} for them, though, rather than just using the general {{alternative form of}}/{{alternative spelling of}}. "Alternative form/spelling of" sounds like authorial preference, IMO — it sounds like maybe Caesar wrote his works with macrons and Cicero didn't — when it's my understanding that it's actually a matter of editorial preference (some editions of works add macrons, some omit them). - -sche (discuss) 18:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
See also: Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#onomatopoeïa & onomatopoeïa -- and also poëticus (created by SemperBlotto who wants onomatopoeïa and duûm to be deleted), deûm and most likely other entries.
  • There is a difference between macrons/breves and circumflexes/tremas (&c.): Macrons/breves are often used in Grammar books, but never or rarely in Latin texts, while circumflexes/tremas (&c.) do occur in (New) Latin texts.
  • "duum" (without circumflex) might also exist. So how should two forms (duum, duûm) be included in one header?
    • Maybe related question: What's when a word's vowel has different lengths or when linguists aren't sure about its length? Example (maybe not the best one): stella here is "stēlla" (long e), while Lewis & Short (which might be outdated or wrongly OCRed) have it as "stella" (short e). Even when the other form is mentioned in a usage note, only having one form in the header might be arbitrary. (It's justified to put one form into a usage note, if it is poetic or if only a few linguists think that it's the correct form while many think that the other is correct.)
  • Given that they are attestable, would English "poëtic" or German "poëtisch" be excluded, even though they would exist? (In German tremas weren't uncommon and at least some words with tremas should be attestable, even though they might be obsolete/dated.) I doubt that they would be excluded, so why should Latin words be excluded? Because they might be New Latin and not Antique Latin? That's no good reason. (That's also no good reason as Antique Latin usually isn't mentioned here in wiktionary, but some New Latin or maybe post-Latin/un-Latin forms, e.g. it's "adverbium" [New Latin] and not "ADVERBIVM" [Antique Latin] and like "interiection" [maybe New Latin, maybe just some post-Latin/un-Latin invention] (besides "interjection" [New Latin]) and not "INTERIECTION" [Antique Latin].)
  • Also does the inclusion of circumflexes/tremas hurt anyone? It's hard to input tremas (as it isn't present on most keyboards), but the same is true for e.g. æ as in præ- or German umlauts ä, ö, ü in case of non-Germans users.
    • The inclusion of macrons/breves would hurt: Latin texts are usually without them, so one wouldn't know what one has to search for. E.g. when reading "stella" somewhere, one would have check the variants "stella, stēlla, stellā, stēllā" only to find out that "stēlla" is the correct basic form.
-91.63.230.4 09:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC) & 09:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Most people are going to try the plain version first, because it's easier to remember and to type. It's only the ones who copypaste the actual text from the page who might run into problems, and even then the circumflex version is going to be near the top of the search results. Besides, the copypasters are going to have their own problems with scannos on most Google Books documents- they might find themselves accidentally searching for du0m or something along those lines. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone actually proposed putting them into pagenames of the actual entry. Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the nominated page has the circumflex in the page name- which is why it's nominated. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Regarding Chuck Entz's comment:
  • Maybe Korn was refering to putting macrons/breves in the header?
  • I doubt that "Most people are going to try the plain version first" is true resp. I doubt that it is an argument.
    • In case of macrons/beves it's most likely true that one would use the plain version - macrons/breves usually aren't present in real Latin text anyway -, also it's most likely true for tremas as one can't input them easily. But some diacritical marks can be entered easily. So in case of e.g. circumflexes it's not unlikely that one would input them. Reasons why circumflexes &c. might be used: 1. "duum" and "duûm" could be different words, or one could think that they're different words. 2. Most people most likely input the word they found in some text - at least when they can input it (&c.).
    • In case of "æ" one most likely would type "ae" (or "e") too, but prae- and præ- are different entries (though their content is pretty much the same). Also in English one would most likely omit tremas, but still there's naïve besides naive. So, if "duum" does exist (a short google books search for it shows that it does), there should be no problem in having both entries.
Regarding the entry header if there should only be one entry:
"duum" (without circumflex) mightdoes also exist. So how should two forms (duum, duûm) be included in one header? (Putting one form in a usage note obviously is (usually) an arbitrary discrimination of one form.)
-80.133.111.227 16:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015[edit]

annotinata[edit]

Translingual. This is just an inflected form of Latin annotinatus. DCDuring TALK 23:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Do we want to delete this, or do we just want to change it from Translingual to Latin? bd2412 T 13:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
We could change it to Latin. I can't find any other form of it at Books, Scholar, or the Web. I haven't searched all taxonomic databases and don't have access to the references at Wikispecies-logo.svg Xanthorhoe on Wikispecies. Wikispecies: Xanthorhoe which has a redlink for Xanthorhoe annotinata. DCDuring TALK 16:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I presume that if we are to keep this as a Latin inflection, then annotinatus will need to be created. bd2412 T 14:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what our Latinists require. As it isn't clear that there are other attested forms either as species epithet or in scientific Latin, perhaps we should keep it as is. DCDuring TALK 15:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

  • Delete Should social anxiety be anything but a redirect to social anxiety disorder, which is a recognized disorder with explicit criteria? DCDuring TALK 13:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Redirects here are almost always not a good idea, in my opinion. We should basically only have redirects for phrase-verbs with a pronoun that could be changed into like 25 different forms. NativeCat drop by and say Hi! 21:35, 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)

every swinging dick[edit]

SoP: every + swinging dick? Keith the Koala (talk) 07:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I'm sure we could find any|no|some| swinging dick and others with plural dicks. DCDuring TALK 13:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete. -- · (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

WikiWikiWeb[edit]

Okay we're a wiki and we like wikis, but this is just the name of a Web site. "All Web site names in all languages"? Equinox 23:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete, historical tribute notwithstanding. -- · (talk) 22:52, 15 July 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)

find guilty[edit]

Contains an rfdef and translation, but I'd say it's SOP --A230rjfowe (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Sort-of a special legal use, but not special enough. "Pronounce guilty", "judge guilty", "adjudge guilty", "decree guilty" are all equivalent. -- · (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Lots of "finding" occurs in law, e.g. one can find for (or against) the defendant. Equinox 22:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete. If we don't have the right sense at find#Verb, I will add it or reword a near-enough sense. DCDuring TALK 23:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete. - -sche (discuss) 07:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. Clear consensus at this point. bd2412 T 14:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

global warming denial[edit]

evolution denial[edit]

I guess you can be in denial about just about everything. These aren't any more idiomatic than Holocaust denial which was deleted. -- Liliana 23:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

big balls[edit]

See the RFV discussion. This is just big + balls, where balls carries the meaning ("courage, chutzpah") which our entry formerly ascribed to this term. That it is not a fixed phrase can be seen from the various citations where big is modified (some available in the entry and others on Google Books), like "pretty big balls", or where other modifiers come between big and balls, e.g. google books:"big fucking balls". - -sche (discuss) 18:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

See also Talk:big_balls#RfD discussion, closed on 21 August 2014. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Interesting: the previous RFV and RFD show majority agreement that the collocation is SOP and support for deletion (even one of the keep voters at the RFD, a now-banned vandal, said in effect that it was SOP), yet the RFV was closed without the term being cited and the RFD was closed without the term being deleted. I think it's good that we're having a new RFD now that the term has been cited and the citations confirm (IMO) its SOPness. - -sche (discuss) 23:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete (this time in so many words) DCDuring TALK 21:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, as before. bd2412 T 13:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • While I agree that it should be deleted, being able to put a swear word in a phrase doesn't automatically make something SOP. Expletive infixation can break up fixed compounds and even individual words. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

freeze baby[edit]

Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Requests for verification#freeze baby.

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)

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)

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)

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 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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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[10]. --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)

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)

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)

am schaurigsten[edit]

We don't include am as part of the page name for German superlatives. —CodeCat 21:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I moved it to schaurigsten to match all the other German superlatives. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System[edit]

Specific thing; encyclopaedic; not a general term. Equinox 23:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete without question. DCDuring TALK 03:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes - deleted. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Remember to do the "what links here" check. We had NPOESS. I've fixed it. Equinox 06:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Roger - wilco. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:41, 25 July 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)
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)

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)

NATO state[edit]

Just as SoP as EU state, UN state, ASEAN state, NAFTA state etc. Keith the Koala (talk) 06:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete, daft entry. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 06:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 12:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete Unexceptionally SoP. DCDuring TALK 15:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

г. Нью-Йорк[edit]

г. means ‘city’. It can be used with every name of city, not only for New York.--Cinemantique (talk) 08:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedied as well. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

デスノート[edit]

It specifically refers to the manga Death Note. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Technically, this is an issue of WT:FICTION and thus belongs at WT:RFV, but I think we can just say delete and get this over with. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete: the English (to which it links as a translation) already failed. Equinox 15:43, 30 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)

لا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله[edit]

It's a phrase, sure, but I'm not exactly sure why it would be dictionary-worthy. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Because it looks like a set phrase. Is it? Using it might a speech act, like use of virtually any other proverbial expression.
AFAICT, the biggest reason we exclude religious set phrases is that there is a bias here against religion, though it could be a lack of the courage to face religious controversy. DCDuring TALK 13:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 14:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
@Atitarev: On what part of WT:CFI? DCDuring TALK 15:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion on this but it doesn't seem to fit any part. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 15:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
It is a phrase and a sentence. See Category:English phrases and Category:English sentences. DCDuring TALK 16:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. CFI permits idiomatic phrases (including sentences), but I'm not seeing evidence that this is idiomatic, nor do I see anything in CFI that even defines what a "set phrase" is, let alone anything that permits them when they aren't idiomatic. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Angr. - -sche (discuss) 00:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Would feel the same about most full sentences from the Bible, etc. Equinox 00:06, 5 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)
  • 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)

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)

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)

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)