Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English

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


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

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for deletion/English
add new English request | 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 verification/English
add new English request | history | archives

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

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

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

Requests for deletion/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

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

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

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

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


This page is for entries in English. For entries in other languages, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English.

Scope of this request page:

  • In-scope: terms suspected to be multi-word sums of their parts such as “green 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 "green 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 "[[green 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

September 2017[edit]

risk tolerance[edit]

Per an old RFC, if this were to be given a proper definition, it'd be SOP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, but the term is almost exclusively used in business/finance/behavioral economics with a definition like: "the extent to wish a decision-maker, such as investor or businessperson, is willing to accept more risk in exchange for the possibility of a higher return". DCDuring (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I haven't yet found a definition of tolerance that fits this, though "willingness or ability to tolerate (something)" would seem adequate. But such a definition is not to be found in most references at tolerance at OneLook Dictionary Search. Oxford has "The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with." DCDuring (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
The normal definitions of tolerance don't encompass the idea of a tradeoff between risk and return. DCDuring (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Seems like a good reason to delete. --Genecioso (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

November 2017[edit]

pick up the phone[edit]

Delete (or convert to a {{translation only}} entry if it's really needed). --Barytonesis (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

{{translation only}} seems fine to me. The translations are hard to guess. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 16:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Even though pick up has a phone-specific sense (which is reasonable, since you can “pick up” a phone by pressing a button or swiping an icon), I’d expect pick up the smartphone or pick up the mobile to be possible if this was just pick up + the + phone. — Ungoliant (falai) 11:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
These may be possible (see a cite I found below); "phone" might just be more common. Equinox 12:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • 2012, Robyn Carr, Virgin River (page 424)
    And to Sharon Lampert, RN, WHNP, for sharing her expertise as a women's health nurse practitioner, but mostly for picking up your cell phone no matter where you were and answering delicate questions about female anatomy and function with directness and honesty.
I mean this wording specifically (pick up the <type of phone>). It is odd that you can say “pick up your <any type of phone>” and “your <any type of phone> is ringing, Joe. Pick it up”, but only “pick up the (tele)phone, God damn it!” (or rather, other nouns are unexpectedly rare in this construct specifically). — Ungoliant (falai) 12:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
(note: my comments are not a vote) — Ungoliant (falai) 12:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
It does not seem to be idiomatic. Make a {{translation only}} or delete it, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 23:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Make {{translation only}} or delete. pick up + the + phone. If we deleted it, could the translations be moved to pick up as a translation of sense 13? Of the languages I know it seems acceptable, but I don't know about the rest. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 03:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

December 2017[edit]

Gibson[edit]

RFD-sense: the manufacturer. Does this satisfy WT:BRAND? PseudoSkull (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

"Does this satisfy WT:BRAND?" is a question for WT:RFVE and not for WT:RFDE.84.161.6.246 03:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
There is also a Gibson shoe, a lace-up shoe for men, so I don't know how you get on there, e.g. I'm going to wear my Gibsons today. DonnanZ (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't know but nothing good for the dictionary user is going to come out of this nomination. The challenge is how to search for quotations meeting WT:BRAND. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the problem is. I remember most BRAND cases coming to RED. What did I miss? PseudoSkull (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Here's one: 2008: Rick Rinehart, ‎Amy Rinehart, Dare to Survive: Death, Heartbreak, and Triumph in the Wild, p. xiv: "We'd like to think that his spirit lives on under the western sky he so loved, strumming his Gibson somewhere and belting out a Woody Guthrie ballad to an audience of coyotes and rabbitbrush". This is in the acknowledgments, and nowhere does the book state that a Gibson is a guitar. bd2412 T 22:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I added the common noun (i.e. "Gibsons" are guitars) when I saw this nomination. The nom is for the proper noun, i.e. the company name, not its products. Equinox 19:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I see. Delete the company name. bd2412 T 19:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, please note that the nomination is only for the company name itself. Any nouns that come from the company name aren't part of this, and can be added separately from this discussion. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull: Brand names can be included in WT, and whether or not they are attested as for WT's requirements for citations (cp. WT:CFI#Brand names) is a question of attestation, verification (i.e. for WT:RFVE). Maybe compare with Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English#Reddit above.  Or do you emphasize WT:CFI#Brand names's "brand name for a product or service"? With Gibson being a manufacturer, one could argue that it's neither a product nor service, hence to be deleted? With "must not identify any such parties [which includes the manufacturer]" it might also be impossible to attest a manufacturing company's name, even if it where only "brand name" without "for a product or service". (Well, on the other hand one could argue that manufacturing is a service but that doesn't seem to work out.)
PS: There's WT:CFI#Company names, and the manufacturer Gibson is a company, ain't it? So with attestation of a common noun Gibson (= guitar made by the company Gibson), the company name Gibson can be included as by WT:CFI#Company names, can't it?
@BD2412: And why? Being a brand name alone isn't a reason for deletion (as else WT:CFI#Brand names should read "Brand names are excluded" instead of "brand name [...] should be included [...]").
-84.161.46.194 04:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Gibson is a company that makes a product, and is not known for providing services apart from the construction of that product. It is common for brand names to enter the lexicon—Kleenex, Xerox, google, escalator, aspirin—but far less common for names of companies to enter the lexicon apart from their products or services. bd2412 T 20:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

-sion[edit]

I think this is a conceptual error. Historically English words ending in sion are actually from Latin verb stems ending s + -ion or borrowings from Latin nouns, directly or via French. I note that the only etymologically linked from this term are reversion (historically < Latin reversio) = revert/reverse + -ion and suspension (historically from Late Latin suspensio) = suspend/suspense + -ion. DCDuring (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is -ion, Delete. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 08:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Delete unless there are examples of this being added to terms where the root/etymon does not have the s. (Strictly speaking, that's an RFV question.) - -sche (discuss) 23:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I think we should keep this. In many cases in Latin these come from the combination of a number of verb stems, plus the suffix -tio (e.g. fundo + -tio = fusio, fusionis, whence fusion) In these cases, it's defensible to consider a -sion ending, as the English inheritance of that inflected -tio ending. The English version unproductive as far as I can tell, and it doesn't account for the words ending in "-sion" which are the -s--stem + -ion words. But it's a helpful linguistic unit for understanding the construction of these words, and I think the definition is very clear about the narrow scope of this suffix. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 03:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

get one's back up[edit]

Better as a redirect to [[get someone's back up]] as it is not always reflexive. DCDuring (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Keep as an altform or something. PseudoSkull (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Eh, redirect. Have both reflexive and non-reflexive usexes in the lemma entry. - -sche (discuss) 23:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Icehouse[edit]

A specific strategy game (of modern invention; more like a brand name than something like "ludo"). Wikipedia doesn't even deem it worth an article, though apparently the pyramidal playing-pieces have become popular for other games. Equinox 03:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Abstain. I'm not familiar enough with the relevance or importance of this game to make a good judgment. PseudoSkull (talk) 07:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't know. Does it (need to) meet BRAND? As an RFD question, weak keep. - -sche (discuss) 23:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

January 2018[edit]

webside[edit]

This failed RFV, but Kiwima later readded it with 4 citations. 2006 is a clear typo ("website" is used elsewhere on the same page), 2007 is an unpublished master's thesis and probably represents a true L2 error, 2008 is another typo ("website" is used everywhere else), and I can't access 2012 but the quote as input by Kiwima had obvious OCR errors. That leaves only one or two cites that are not typos. This is so uncommon when compared to website that our usual policy on misspellings would not allow for it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Not quite. A different definition (from Webside manner) was the one that failed RFV. This one has never gone through the RFV process. Kiwima (talk) 05:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
That's true, although it doesn't affect the RFD. Anyway, can you find the original text for the 2012 quote? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
2012 quote is at google books.
"unpublished master's thesis": It's published (publisher being Grin as in de:w:GRIN Verlag, compare book at Grin, google books, amazon) and just a Hausarbeit, not a master's thesis. However, is it durably archived as required by WT:CFI? (L2 speakers, self-published books and print-on-demand books aren't excluded as per WT:CFI.) -80.133.107.175 06:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Re 2012, your link does not lead to the page in question for me. Re 2007, thanks for clarifying. You seem to have misunderstood my comment about the author being an L2 speaker; I was indicating that this is the only one I could determine to be a true linguistic error rather than a typo or thinko. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Maybe changing the URL (.de ~ .com ~ .whatever) might work or using a proxy server. The google book with the 2012 quote has "[...] familiar with a webside called Craigslist.org, which [...]". However, according to google's text search the book has once "webside" and 37-times "website" (including compounds as in "a step-by-step website-building wizard" and proper nouns as "'The Amazing "Send Me A Dollar" Website'"). Also according to the starting pages, it might be from 2004 with 2012 being a wrong year given by google or being a digitalisation year or year of the e-book release: "[...] Corgi edition published 2004 [...] Copyright (C) Karyn Bosnak 2003 [...]". BTW: google might have a few more results with English and non-English webside (German Webside). German Webside could even be attestable as for WT:CFI. -80.133.107.175 10:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Do you sometimes see an entry demoted to "rare, nonstandard" and get a mental image of someone slipping off the edge of a cliff and hanging on by the very edge of their fingernails? SCRAAAAAAAAAPE. Equinox 06:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Delete. This entry is the obvious result of misprints and typos in sources. Send it over the cliff. -- · (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Can't we just add this as a misspelling and move on? ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
But it isn't a misspelling (let alone a common misspelling). It's a typo or misprint, which is different. First delete it and then move on. -- · (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. It still makes sense as a word. They are "sides" that are on the web after all. Not only that, the fact that it now says "nonstandard" and "rare" should be enough to warn others that it is not a standard, common word. - PhpBBthe2nd (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    It doesn't matter if you (or I) think it makes sense as a word. If it's almost always a typo, and a vanishingly rare one at that, then it probably doesn't belong in the dictionary. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    But it does matter if it makes sense as a word. That is more or less the whole point of words. I also think it has been written down enough to be put on here. Combine both those facts and I think there is a good reason to keep it here. - PhpBBthe2nd (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    @PhpBBthe2nd: When deciding whether a word should be included or not, it doesn't matter to this project (a descriptive dictionary) that a word "makes sense as a word"; the only criterion we are going by is whether that word is used or not. There are plenty of words that don't make sense but are used (so they belong here), and there are plenty of words that do make sense (or would make sense, if someone thought of them) but aren't used (so they don't belong here). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment: webside is also a Danish term meaning "website" or "webpage", with the synonym website. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Scanning through b.g.c I'm finding sufficient use to be convinced that it's a common enough misprint/L2 error that it's conceivable someone would want to know what it means. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 08:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm gonna abstain or whatever but I want to point out again that we are wasting way too much time on pseudo-entries for things that "look a bit like a word". This isn't something we should spend time on lexicographically unless there is an absolutely massive groundswell. We are living in a time when technologies like Google can finally deal with this kind of thing by context and work out what a typo probably meant. Equinox 08:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. I do not see this as anything other than a typo or misspelling/mishearing/misunderstanding. If it is kept on the basis that "it's a common enough misprint/L2 error that it's conceivable someone would want to know what it means", per above, can we at least demote it from a "proper" entry to just saying "misspelling". Mihia (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 16:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It probably can be deleted in English, but strangely enough this spelling is used in Danish and Norwegian, side means page in these cases. DonnanZ (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Same for German Webseite. I made the mistake, learning the calque first and didn't associated "Seite" with page, not even knowing that -site means -location (the latter aptly calqued as Webpräsenz). As ESL mistake it's obvious that the error rate would be lower than for "occurance". So I am not sure the "usual policy on misspellings" applies, which doesn't have a hard and fast threshold for notability set in stone anyway. And it's not a mere spelling mistake where the speaker is unsure how to spell site. Hence it's a misunderstandin that is perceived as spelling mistake.
The phono semantic matching works because "Seite" (and Dansk, Norsk "side") can translate to side and page as well. It would be a false-friend if webside was in the English lexicon, but actually it is an imaginary false-friend -- A mistranslation. Rhyminreason (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

keep: Not sure my vote counts anything. Attestation not withstanding, the Rational on misspelling inclusion is clear about the purpose. That is discovery for language learners. As per my argument above, due to DonnanZ, rarity has to be seen in perspective. Common mistake is a misnomer, because it's not a mistake anyone would make and commonly perceive as such, but it might be common to a subset of L2 speakers, exactly those for whom we keep the misspellings. Therefore, search statistics might be informative. Whereas, in times of auto-correct it might be difficult to get the mistake published. The necessity isn't quite there, but the etymology is interesting and somebody put work in the edits. Rhyminreason (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

wine legs[edit]

Sense 3 of legs is written almost identically, minus the wine. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: That was my doing. I've reverted it. To what extent does that change your mind here? —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Not at all. This is still SOP because that sense exists. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Sure, but as far as I'm aware, it's specifically called "wine legs", not "bourbon legs" or "whiskey legs". —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
So what? It's specifically called an "cat tooth" and not a "hawk tooth" because hawks don't have teeth. I fail to see how that would make cat tooth less SOP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
If it's called "wine legs" even when it occurs in whisky and not wine, that is a point in favour of a "wine legs" entry. I briefly looked up "whisky legs" in Google Books and found one obvious hit; there might be more. Equinox 02:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Hard redirect to the aforementioned sense of "legs". When I searched for "wine legs" on Google Books I noticed that a lot of hits are actually even more transparently SOP as "[the] wine's legs". The fact that people refer to bare "legs" or "legs of [the/a] wine" with these sense, and rarely also to "alcohol legs", "whisk[e]y['s] legs" and "liquor's legs", shows that the sense of "legs" is not limited to "wine legs", and hence the "red dwarf" test is not met. As an aside, what I expected when I saw the entry title was something like "(legs that are prone to) unsteadiness / stumbling due to drunkenness". - -sche (discuss) 16:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete or hard redirect to legs as per -sche. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

February 2018[edit]

absolute power[edit]

Strikes me as SoP. Equinox 07:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, delete for that reason. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously not literally "absolute" (i.e., godlike). Also a set phrase. bd2412 T 21:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't get this. absolute is used in its literal/etymological sense of "unfettered, unchecked". It doesn't mean "godlike". --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
      • What is it about the phrase "absolute power" that tells you which sense of "absolute" is meant? bd2412 T 22:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
        • Reason? Anyone, by looking at the 21 "different senses" at absolute, can discern the overarching etymological idea of "unfetteredness", and deduce that "absolute power" means "power that is untied, unconstrained, unbound, unlinked", etc. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
          • Hardly so. I certainly, from looking at all the senses, cannot discern any overarching etymological idea of "unfetteredness". And I don't see why I should even try to do so; when looking for semantics, I don't care about etymology, as I should not. If this is a sum of parts, it is a sum of parts with respect to some of the 21 senses. The required sense seems to be the subsense "Having unlimited power, without limits set by a constitution, parliament, or other means; independent in ownership or authority." The subsense does not match perfectly for syntactic reasons; it is formulated to fit the phrase "absolute monarch" or the like. From the usability standpoint, it does not help that someone ordered the absolute entry chronologically, so you have to wade through obsolete and archaic senses to find the most commonly used senses. The entry looked sane in this revision (2012) before someone reworked it to be more like OED, for which there is no consensus as per Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2012/December#Positions_of_obsolete_senses. Merriam-Webster[1] has a sane entry, and its exemplifications of the adjective in adj-noun phrases are excellent; so does AHD[2]. Sorry for the digression.
          • As to whether we should have "absolute power": its use of "absolute" is in the same sense as "absolute monarch", "absolute ruler", and "absolute monarchy". It reminds me a bit of Talk:free variable. If a user enters "absolute power" in the dictionary, they will be better served by the entry in that they do not need to search among the clutter that is now in absolute. Nonetheless, abstain. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
            • Yep, you're right. Just ignore our crappy/nonsensical entry absolute, look up that word in any other dictionary than ours, and you won't have any trouble understanding absolute power. In other words, the entry absolute power is currently somewhat helpful only because the entry absolute is completely unhelpful. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. I recognise this as a set phrase. John Cross (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. We don't keep set phrases merely because they are set. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't seem strongly lexicalised to me. And other dictionaries don't have it. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a bit more specific than just [[absolute]] + [[power]]. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 13:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The fact that absolute power is only sometimes godlike seems like a pragmatic rather than a lexical issue, like an absolute monarch/absolute ruler may rule only a single country or lack the power to revive the dead and reverse the flow of time, the way they could if "absolute" truly meant "godlike", and a brown car may not be entirely brown (the turn signals might be yellow, etc), and so on. - -sche (discuss) 19:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I heartily agree with that. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. SOP. -- · (talk) 07:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not even a set phrase. absolute control, absolute rule, absolute supercalifragilisticexpialidociousness. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. As per PseudoSkull. Also, there's this. Not that it helps at all, but I figured it might be useful to bring it up. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 02:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

under one's hat[edit]

I don't think this merits an entry as under one's hat in the sense of "secret" does not seem to me to occur attestably except in keep under one's hat. DCDuring (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

It could be a redirect. DCDuring (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Right, Change to redirect. -- · (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Merriam-Webster has a "keep under one's hat" entry[3]. under one's hat at OneLook Dictionary Search finds Merriam-Webster.com, Wiktionary and dictionary.com[4], which in its "hat" entry has "under one's hat" item in its Idioms section. I think both under one's hat and keep under one's hat are candidates for the main entry, and the other one could probably be a redirect. The argument that the only verb used with "under one's hat" is "keep" seems to have some force. Keep or redirect to keep under one's hat; do not delete. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep, and add a note that it's most often used with keep. It doesn't seem inconceivable that one would use other verbs--I've definitely heard it used with have. Can't find any durably cited uses of it like that at the moment, but I don't think it hurts to leave the possibility open. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

gay pride[edit]

This seems SOP — if not to any sense of pride we have so far, then to one we should add, because you can have this kind of pride in a large number of attributes (possibly theoretically unlimited, only pragmatically limited by attestability?); there's "gay pride", "black pride", "straight pride", "white pride", "Irish pride", "trans pride", "pagan pride", etc. - -sche (discuss) 06:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The way it is currently defined it seems SoP, but I'm wondering whether it has some idiomatic sense, such as "a movement seeking equal rights and recognition for LGBTs". Perhaps we should find some quotations illustrating how the term is used? — SGconlaw (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
You may be right, but is that different from "trans pride", "black pride" and arguably "pagan pride"? It still seems like the set of terms which use the same sense of "pride" as "gay pride" includes many entries, possibly enough to justify just having a sense at pride, I don't know. "White pride" is possibly also a little different from other "prides", in that it often (usually?) denotes/connotes white power/racism (leading to sayings like "good night white pride"), which might be idiomatic, I'm on the fence. - -sche (discuss) 17:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Should we have entries for pride parade, pride march, pride event? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

We do have an entry for Pride as a specifically-LGBT pride event. Lowercase pride is attestable as an alt form of that, and could be made a subsense of whatever general sense covers these terms. Then the combination of the general sense of "pride" and such an LGBT-specific sense would probably cover most of those, covering general "pride parades" (including ones that happen to be for specific things), LGBT-specific parades that are just called "pride parades", and use with other designators, like "Arab pride parade". (I wouldn't mind redirecting them to the relevant [super-]sense of pride, though.) - -sche (discuss) 17:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Abstain. You can definitely have X pride for anything, but this seems to have been one of the earlier ones, or the first one: if we start with web site, and in 50 years there's only site, should we delete web site? Equinox 06:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • A long time ago, but wasn't it Gay Pride (along with Lesbian Strength, and ...) which predated Pride (in the 80s in London at least)? Did the names become genericised along the way, like hoover, or did the gay et al "trade marks" grow out of pre-existing generic phrases? If the latter, that particular meaning may have become non-SoP. --Enginear 23:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Gay pride isn't just pride in being gay, but rather it's in opposition to attempts to marginalize gays. It's not just "I'm proud of being gay", but rather "I'm not ashamed of being gay and will march in the streets to show people that I exist and won't live in fear". I know a majority of Wiktionary contributors are straight white christian males, but at least try to do a little research or learn a little history? 69.112.147.119 06:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Ironic that you make a prejudiced stereotype of the editors! But I guess you're young. Anyway, any group can do a "pride" march so this just suggests we need a sense at "pride" meaning "not just ashamed, but actively protesting/marching" which will then cover any kind of pride, whether white, black, gay, straight, trans or cis. Equinox 06:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
If kept, the definition probably needs expansion. - -sche (discuss) 16:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep if "gay pride" does in fact predate "pride" in the relevant sense. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

No consensus to delete (even discounting the IP !vote). The content of the definition may need to be revisited. bd2412 T 02:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

white supremacy[edit]

black supremacy[edit]

Arab supremacy[edit]

Jewish supremacy[edit]

racial supremacy[edit]

heterosexual supremacy[edit]

white Christian supremacy[edit]

To me, these are transparent sums-of-parts, using the same sense of supremacy that's also combined with many other terms: google books:"Caucasian supremacy", google books:"Negro supremacy", google books:"Germanic supremacy", google books:"German supremacy", google books:"straight supremacy", google books:"heterosexual supremacy", google books:"gay supremacy", google books:"Christian supremacy", even combinations, e.g. google books:"white Christian supremacy".
"White", "black" and "Arab supremacy" were kept after an RFD with moderate-to-low participation despite running from late 2012 to early 2014; "Jewish supremacy" failed RFD; "racial supremacy" has apparently never been RFDed, or updated much, since its creation in 2005 with excessively many senses, as discussed in Wiktionary:Tea room/2018/February#racial_supremacy. The others haven't been created yet. (I'm listing them all because presumably they either all merit entries and the redlinks should be restored, or they all merit deletion.)
- -sche (discuss) 05:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Delete. These, being short, sound good as titles of Wikipedia articles; that doesn't make them lexical and entryworthy. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Delete them, except white supremacy. There was also European supremacy at one time. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Keep white supremacy per Dan Polansky. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete 'em all. -- · (talk) 07:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Got some reasoning but I'm tired. Will share on demand. Equinox 06:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Keep white supremacy with the use of lemming heuristic. I feel that especially "white supremacy" is something of a unit, based on the use I heard in U.S. media. And when I look at white supremacy at OneLook Dictionary Search, I see it in multiple dictionaries including Merriam-Webster. The other supremacies appear to be something of snowclones, where "white supremacy" would be the parent of them all. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Sum of parts. Nicole Sharp (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete all as sum of parts as well. I think, in accordance with on what Dan said, that there is snowcloning afoot here, but I don't think that even though a term is a parent of a snowclone that it necessarily merits its own lexical entry. Maybe create a snowclone and note that white supremacy is the likely parent? --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    @SanctMinimalicen: But how do you make the snowclone accessible to the reader? Wouln't it be better to keep "white supremacy", redirect the others to it, and, in white supremacy, make a usage note stating that this has been snowcloned into X, Y, Z? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    @Dan Polansky: I definitely see the merit to that as well. I'm feeling a tension here between the ideals of usefulness and proper accuracy of lexical inclusion...my natural bent is towards the latter but the former certainly has weight. I noticed that on the entry for supremacy, sense three is pointing at what we're discussing. Could we make a usage note there that directs the readers to the "white supremacy", etc., snowclones? That might reconcile the two ideals I mentioned. Additionally, we could perhaps redirect "white supremacy" to "supremacy", where they would find the usage note and thereby the snowclones. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I've deleted black supremacy, Arab supremacy and racial supremacy, and brown supremacy and brown supremacist (SOP PAM creations) on the same model. There would seem to be consensus (6-2?) to delete white supremacy, too. - -sche (discuss) 01:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Keep White supremacy exists in America in the context of subjugation of minorities, historically being African Americans vis-a-vis slavery. Black supremacy rose alongside the black power movement as a reaction to white supremacy. These terms contain a lot more than just the mashing together of two words. Do people here not bother researching the terms they vote on? Reading some of these discussions, it seems like context or history don't even seem to matter. When someone uses these terms, they're doing a lot more than childishly combining two terms; the phrases have a lot more weight than that which is why they have so much rhetorical power. 69.112.147.119 06:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Context and history, surprisingly, change over time!! Which is why we try to reduce definitions to their actual meaning and not the most current political fad. Equinox 06:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Keep 69.116.145.18 12:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Striking the IP votes. It concerned me that these IPs both look very similar, but also that according to WT:Voting policy IPs are not allowed to vote. As stated by JohnC5 on Discord: "I'd say they are allowed to provide input but not vote." Therefore, leaving the comment above alone, but the keep votes don't count. To anonymous editors, please create accounts in the future if you want to vote in discussions. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Since sockpuppet voting is a very serious accusation, I checkusered both IPs. Based on public geolocation tools, they're both with the same ISP and geolocate to Brooklyn, NY, and Milford, CT- close enough to be the same person. That said, there's no evidence a checkuser can see of the same device using both IP addresses (that doesn't rule out one person using a different device for each IP address, or having someone else make the edit for them, but no evidence is no evidence). Chuck Entz (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep white supremacy per Dan Polansky.  --Lambiam 13:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

white supremacist[edit]

Per white supremacy. --Atitarev 01:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just about to bring that up for discussion myself. :) It seems to be the only "supremacist" term with an entry, besides "brown supremacist" which I mentioned above. - -sche (discuss) 01:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep if white supremacy is kept.  --Lambiam 13:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

osthya[edit]

I'm not convinced this is an actual English word; it looks rather like code-switching to me. The use of italics is telling.

See also Talk:mahā.

@DerekWinters --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Per utramque cavernam: To be honest it might be. I'll leave the decision up to you all. But there are quite a decent number of uses, strictly in Indian linguistics. DerekWinters (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not convinced it's citable; every cite I see on Google Books is oṣṭhya, not osthya. But I'll push my standard position; if osthya is verifiable as a word, I don't care much about exactly what language it's under, but I think it highly inappropriate to delete and leave no entry. "oṣṭhya" is an easily attestable word, and thus shouldn't be deleted over an argument about a header name.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I honestly think it's nothing else than Sanskrit (in transliteration, but still). It's the same deal as having Latin words in French sentences: l'ager publicus. That doesn't make ager publicus a French term.
We then have three options: 1) rely on the search engine, which will redirect us to the Devanagari-script Sanskrit entry; 2) create Sanskrit transliteration entries which are attested, or 3) always create Sanskrit transliteration entries, regardless of whether they're attested or not. I don't like 2) because of its randomness, and 3) is more or less out of the question (cf. this discussion). That leaves us 1), which is fine by me. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Delete - all cites I could find were in italics and with dots underneath (i.e. oṣṭhya) to signify cerebral consonants which are not part of English phonology. The authors are making it clear that these are Skt words used in English sentences. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's[edit]

Tagged but not listed. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Abstain. I don't know how it's used in English, so I'm not casting any vote yet. Is render unto Caesar better? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think render unto Caesar is better. I doubt that the line is often quoted in full. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
It could be an alternative form of render unto Caesar. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The King James Version has unto.  --Lambiam 13:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, I prefer the full version, it makes more sense. It's certainly not gibberish as suggested in the RFD notice (what cheek!). DonnanZ (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
    An inexperienced puppetmaster trying to play innocent... —suzukaze (tc) 02:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
If it's attested, keep it. Whichever form isn't lemmatized can soft- (or hard-) redirect to whichever form is lemmatized. - -sche (discuss) 17:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
It's attested in millions of bibles, I would have thought. And it doesn't stop there... DonnanZ (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

As a translation of a Greek phrase (Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι) there are a range of variations in how it is written in English. Here's a Google Ngram of some (constrained by the five word limit in search terms) to consider as alternative formations. The term render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's is the most common. -Stelio (talk) 09:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Kept. No consensus.--Jusjih (talk) 03:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

car wheel[edit]

Per Talk:motorcycle wheel. It's been around since 2006 though and has 2 senses. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The 2nd def can be compared to wagon wheel in British railway terminology. DonnanZ (talk) 12:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as SOP; I don't see any redeeming qualities. There are two senses matching this sum of parts term, depending on which "car" you mean, but that does not make it any less SOP. car wheel at OneLook Dictionary Search does not find any of the dictionaries which we like to follow in a lemming manner. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete - but, that said, in the past it was decided car door should be kept.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. In Talk:car door, there is a RFV discussion from 2006. That was RFV. Time to send car door to RFD, I think. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete – SOP.  --Lambiam 17:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

bond for general purposes[edit]

Not actually a set term in legalese. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Abstain. I actually have no idea, I shouldn't vote on that. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 09:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. It appears in some law dictionaries. I have added these to citations. John Cross (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC) [typos corrected subsequently.]
    These are mentions, not uses. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 09:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

voice call sign[edit]

A call sign that uses the voice. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

international call sign[edit]

A call sign that's international. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep This is a specific technical term rather than SoP. The fact that it's international refers to it abiding by the International Telecommunications Union and affects the formatting of the call sign itself. Means much more than a call sign that's not domestic. 69.112.147.119 05:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

tidal current[edit]

A current that's tidal. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The def in the entry is OK. I would keep this. DonnanZ (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Are you voting keep because the def in the entry is correct? How is that relevant? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I am voting "keep" because it should be kept, and I may be able to find a translation or two. DonnanZ (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Delete, because it should be deleted. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
IMO, that is terribly negative, why don't you add some translations like I have? It is no more SOP than ocean current and other terms at tidal. In any case, I think Metaknowledge was targeting entries created by one particular user, but it doesn't mean it should be deleted. DonnanZ (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep using the lemming heuristic; is in Merriam-Webster[5]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

baby show[edit]

kid show/kid's show[edit]

adult show[edit]

I can't believe I was the one who made this (a long time ago). Seems pretty SOP, you could deduce this to "a show for babies", "a show for adults", etc. Compare adult comedy, adult cartoon, etc. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Huh. When I saw the title of this thread, I figured a baby show was like a dog show (should that be made blue?) but with babies instead of dogs. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 21:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
What about conformation show? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
What are you like? RFDing your own entries? Like Mahagaja, I thought a baby show is a beauty contest for babies. You never listed them as derived terms, but TV-related ones are talk show, television show or TV show. DonnanZ (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@Donnanz People change over time. Some of those entries I made bordering on 4 years ago aren't ones I'd necessarily agree with today, esp. since at the time I was fairly new to the project. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, OK. I try to make my entries "stick", only one deleted so far, touch wood.... You can pass your critical eye over tidal flat. DonnanZ (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

March 2018[edit]

baby on board[edit]

Not lexical, doesn't make sense as a translation target. DTLHS (talk) 05:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Dunno about translations, but the wp article is interesting. DonnanZ (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete per the proponent. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Isn't this also used, idiomatically, to refer to being pregnant? bd2412 T 21:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't know- any evidence? DTLHS (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, there is, from Wikipedia: "Following popular request and trials in 2005, Transport for London (TfL) began issuing badges with the TfL logo and the words "Baby on board!" to pregnant women travelling on the London Underground, to help other passengers identify pregnant commuters who would like to be offered a seat." Sorry, forgot to sign. DonnanZ (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Here's a cite - 2016, Victoria Pade, A Camden's Baby Secret: "And even if there wasn't a baby on board, I'd still be here telling you this and asking you to give me another chance". bd2412 T 22:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't doubt the existence of that sense, but I don't see it as idiomatic; it's simply a metaphoric use. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
If so, it is not a transparent metaphor. If I say someone "has a baby", the presumption is that they have given birth to a child. If I say someone "has a baby on board", the addition of "on board" alone changes the meaning to indicate a current pregnancy, which is also not the sense of a vehicle having a baby on board. bd2412 T 17:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I didn't understand a word of what you just wrote.
on board = aboardinside. "She has a baby on board" = "she has a baby inside [her]". I don't see what's not transparent about it. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Just imagine you're heavily pregnant carrying a baby, if that's possible. You would feel the weight and definitely know you had something "on board". DonnanZ (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm confused, are you answering to me or to BD2412? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
You, it's indented after your comment. DonnanZ (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
"On board" is not generally used to mean inside with respect to a living body. Would you refer to kidneys or a liver as being "on board"? bd2412 T 14:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Used in the same jocular way as "baby on board" seems to me to be employed, I wouldn't find it terribly shocking. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not just because it's very SOP, but because it's pretty specifically on signs. Signs aren't things we can or should cite, and most reference to this phrase as the definition is written would be mentioning the content of the signs. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pretty obvious sum of parts. "Dog on board," etc. Nicole Sharp (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm tending towards Keep here ... maybe. Foremost, there is the metaphorical use "She has a baby on board" = she is pregnant. Was easy to find cites for this. But perhaps that should best be entered as "have a baby on board" - for which the present info about the car sign should be included in the etymology. As for the car sign, well, perhaps an entry for "on board" would cover all the possible variants (I found "dog on board", "cat on board", "camel on board", "Mickey/Minnie on board", ... but did not find "gecko on board", "fish on board", unsurprisingly). - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Such an entry already exists, with the definition "on or in a means of transportation". I think perhaps the "have a baby on board" figurative option suggested by Sonofcawdrey is reasonable, especially mentioning it in the etymology; I think otherwise it's definitely SoP. So Delete; also possibly adding a "have a baby on board" entry to cover the figurative meaning. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

dustbowl[edit]

“The central region of the United States during the 1930s.” and “The 1930s period.”

  • I don’t think these are common nouns. Dust Bowl has both senses (and they are better written there). — Ungoliant (falai) 21:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's no need to have these, even as altform defs. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is a distinct difference between "a dustbowl" and "the dustbowl." Though it would be less ambiguous if capitalized as Dustbowl. Nicole Sharp (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I suppose these should be sent to RFV to look for any usage where the lowercase form means one of those things specifically and can't just be taken as a use of the general sense. (If not such usage exists, delete.) - -sche (discuss) 19:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

light roller[edit]

heavy roller[edit]

SOP: sense 3 of roller, "large rolling device used to flatten the surface of the pitch". These were RFDed ten years ago and kept; one person suggested "they name specific physical items": but as can be seen from the two pictures I just added to "roller" and more you can see if you Google "cricket"+"light roller" and "cricket"+"heavy roller", rollers actually come in a variety of designs, including ones that are hand-pushed and ones than are driven like steamrollers, and the only consistent distinction between the light and heavy roller I see is that the light one is lighter than the heavy one. - -sche (discuss) 22:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep both. They have pretty specific meanings in cricket. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • That's what I thought. Cricket is a game of tactics, and which roller is used depends on circumstances. I would imagine it would only be the larger county cricket grounds that have a choice of rollers, and smaller village and town grounds would have only one (looking at those images). I must have a look on my local cricket green next time I go past it. DonnanZ (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

mortality rate[edit]

The rate of mortality. Note that death rate can serve as a suitable translation target (and is protected by COALMINE, unlike mortality rate). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

What about fertility rate? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
And then there's interest rate. Strangely enough, mortality rate is treated as the main entry, not death rate. Either way they are synonyms, and I would keep both. DonnanZ (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

For context, coordinate terms used in the insurance industry for transitions from one policy state to another include divorce rate, lapse rate, morbidity rate, PUP rate, recovery rate, remarriage rate, retirement rate, surrender rate. I suppose the wider question is, given a term for an activity, should we also have an entry for activity rate (which seems like a sum of parts construction)? Should it depend on whether it can be attested or not (PUP rate may be hard to attest outside of internal company documentation, and lapse rate gets drowned out by geographical texts, but the others are probably easy to cite)? Should it depend on whether we have translations of the term into other languages (where the translated terms are themselves not SOP)? I'm neutral on this question, and happy to abide by site policy. -Stelio (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Note that mortality also has the exact same sense and its translations. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete. You could have a rate for lots of things. Nothing particularly special about this one over the others either. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete (or maybe redirect, to death rate). - -sche (discuss) 19:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep. Otherwise, where do we put the antonym for birthrate? ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
At death rate, as it was suggested above. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Standard Estonian[edit]

SOP; not dictionary material. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

What about standard language and the related terms there like Standard German? -84.161.29.236 21:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep standard language, delete Standard German and the others. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep. 86.138.231.153 00:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Why? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
My instinct is to say delete, because this is just standard Estonian (plus capitalization because it's being used as a proper noun name of a lect), and the meaning is more transparent than North Estonian, where the division between the lects doesn't necessarily have to match a geographic decision with all North Estonian speakers or areas located further north than all natively-South Estonian-speaking areas. You can have Standard Anything. OTOH, we do have Standard English and it passed RFD... - -sche (discuss) 19:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

mechanical mouse[edit]

SOP. @John Cross, maybe hold off on creating entries relating to your upcoming vote, especially ones that other people say probably shouldn't have entries... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Aside from the vote that is currently in place about retronyms, let's talk about this entry as if that doesn't exist. Can someone please explain the lexical nature of this lemma? Is it deducible from its parts (i.e. mechanical + mouse)? The current definition (as of the time of this post) says "A pointing device which uses a ball to detect movement." That's the part that's leaning me right now towards a keep vote, since no sense at mechanical very specifically covers the usage of a ball to detect movement (as I expected). Does what is now called a mechanical mouse specifically and only include this feature, as suggests the current definition (as I've loosely gathered from my bit of reading up on the topic)? If so, I will vote keep (later), since this can't be assumed just by looking at the two words mechanical and mouse as fit together in that order. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
A mechanical mouse is just a mouse operated through mechanical means. The details of what these means are will vary from one contraption to the other, but this has nothing to do with lexicography; "mechanical" doesn't have ten thousands different senses... --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I first thought "clockwork mouse", but reading the entry more closely it dawned on me, it's a computer mouse... DonnanZ (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I enjoy contributing to Wiktionary and I think that the community behind the site matters. With that in mind, I will refrain from creating new entries related to the vote for the remainder of the month. I thought that the mechanical mouse entry would be acceptable irrespective of the retronym vote as it appears to satisfy the so-called Lemming test - the term appears in specialised dictionaries. John Cross (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
The formulation "Terms with little of their own merit for inclusion except that they have entries in specialized dictionaries" (italics mine) is wrong as per Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/January#Proposal: Use Lemming principle to speed RfDs. So you have been mislead. This discussion allows general, not specialized, dictionaries to be used, as per "Initially, I would suggest that we include only general monolingual dictionaries and exclude idiom dictionaries, phrasebooks, technical glossaries, and WordNet." I have edited Wiktionary:Idioms that survived RFD to correct the issue, and it now says "Terms with little of their own merit for inclusion except that they have entries in general monolingual dictionaries." --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I was misled. I expect others are confused also. There seem to be two versions of the Lemming Test (A) that allows for specialised dictionaries and possibly even prefers them to general dictionaries and (B) that only allows general monolingual dictionaries. This is all before my time but looking back I can see that in September 2007 there was an 'if your dictionaries jumped off a cliff test' that refers to specialised dictionaries and predates the lemming 'general dictionaries' vote in January 2014 by about six years. [6] See also talk pages of technological unemployment (discussion references "Dictionary of Business Terms" and of "The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy") and genuine issue of material fact (discussion references Black's law dictionary). There does seem to be some precedent for the approach I have taken but it is not as solid as I thought based on reading Wiktionary:Idioms that survived RFD. John Cross (talk) 07:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep for the interim. I think the vote starts tomorrow, and wannabe deletionists should hold off RFDing any more SoP entries for the time being. DonnanZ (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep and clarify community policy. The main aim of the Lemming Test seems to me to be reducing the need for long debates/detailed analysis - clarity is essential to achieving that. John Cross (talk) 07:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, SOP. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Personal Social Health Education[edit]

I sent this to RFD, because I'm more leaning towards delete than keep on this one, but...this entry just confuses me. Do we really need an entry for this? And, according to the Wikipedia article, this isn't even a common form; it at least usually has a comma. If this does get kept, the entry's titling needs some serious cleanup to say the least. PseudoSkull (talk) 08:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The only opinion I have at the moment is it shouldn't be capitalised. DonnanZ (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, when I was at school it was PSE; the health bit is new (lol obesity epidemic). I think move to RFV if you doubt the commonness of the form. We have plenty of other set-phrase subjects like gender studies. Equinox 19:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

in two days[edit]

This seems redundant to both day after tomorrow#Adverb and overmorrow. I suggest redirecting it to the first of those pages (or the second, I don't care). (The reason for redirecting is that we also have in three days, so it makes sense to keep a redirect of the same form for this concept.) - -sche (discuss) 18:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I have never ever heard overmorrow being used. Maybe I'm not old enough. DonnanZ (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
    I think it's just always been very rare (Google's Ngram Viewer can't even plot it). - -sche (discuss) 04:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect to day after tomorrow. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • In my opinion the present entry is misconceived, as there is no definition. Even if it is "for translation purposes only" there should still be a definition. As far as redirection is concerned, I am not in favour of unexpected or "what happened there?" automatic redirects, if that is what is being suggested. In fact, I am not in favour of automatic redirects at all. Mihia (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only possible use of this entry that I can think of is as an antonym for nudiustertian. Nicole Sharp (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I've centralized the translations, effectively turning this into a soft redirect to day after tomorrow, but IMO it should be a hard redirect, as it is SOP, it accordingly has no definition, and its only claim to entry-worthiness is as a translation hub, but the translations are in another hub. I think there is enough support above to do that, but I'll leave this thread open in case anyone else wants to comment. - -sche (discuss) 19:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

personal data[edit]

All translations are literal, including Finnish (which is written as a single word). Don't think it is a good translation target.--Zcreator alt (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete, I think. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep. 86.138.231.153 11:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Why? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom, not a particularly suitable translation target. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep. It sounds like it is 'sum of parts' but it is really a legal term that has entered common usage at least in the UK public sector - it really means any information, truthful or otherwise, relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (usually a living person). When used correctly the term would exclude data about a person who was not identified or identifiable. It includes opinions which not everyone would consider to be data. I appreciate that this is quite a subtle distinction but I think it is worth making. John Cross (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • On WP, W:Personal data redirects to W:Personally identifiable information. The PII is there defined as "information that can be used on its own or with other information to identify, contact, or locate a single person, or to identify an individual in context". If "personal data" is used to mean the same thing, then it is not a sum of parts, IMHO. That would require replacing {{translation only}}, currently in the entry, with an actual definition. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
The meaning of 'personal data' in Europe is strongly influenced by the Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC) and associated legislation (e.g. in the UK, the Data Protection Act 1998). It is comparable to PII in US privacy law. John Cross (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep. If you use Google translate to translate personal data to Dutch, you get a word-by-word translation: persoonlijke gegevens. That is perfectly clear and understandable Dutch, but it is not the term used in official laws and regulations governing the protection of personal data. So the presence of this entry as a translation hub is defensible.  --Lambiam 18:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Keep. The situation in Danish is identical to the one described for Dutch. A word-by-word translation would be "personlige data". While comprehensible, that is not the term used. The correct translation is "persondata"; which is used when referring to GDPR and for person specific data concerning health, financial information, criminal record, religious affiliation and political observation. So a sum of parts translation doesn't work here. Valentinian (talk) 09:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

pharmacological agent[edit]

Same reason as Talk:chemotherapeutic agent. Equinox 23:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks and delete. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
The substance, not the salesperson, right :)? Present in The Oxford Dictionary of Sports Science & Medicine[7]. Also in Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 9th edition. © 2009, Elsevier[8]. These are not the typical lemming-heuristic dictionaries, but they do give me a pause. Are our users really better off when the entry is deleted? --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. They won't be misled into thinking that "pharmalogical agent" has an idiomatic sense that it doesn't have. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep then. 86.138.119.226 17:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Why? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

low-priced[edit]

Seems completely SOP to me. --WikiTiki89 20:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete per Talk:short-legged, but this is possibly coalminable... Sigh. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep. Forget about coal mines, it passes the lemming test. DonnanZ (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete of course. You can be high-priced, average-priced, reasonable-priced... We have to credit our users with some basic degree of intelligence, even if we don't have it ourselves. Equinox 02:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. The hyphen makes it a single word, not a phrase. And we keep all single words no matter how SOPpy they are. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 10:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Fortunately there's no entry for lowpriced. DonnanZ (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Hmph, there is now. That'll teach me.DonnanZ (talk) 12:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep per COALMINE. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Also per the lemming heuristic. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
You have to justify this: lowpriced without a hyphen is not (AFAIK) standard English. Are we gonna find three stupid cites by foreigners? Fuck coalmine. Equinox 15:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Oops, spoke too soon, someone already found three non-standard shitty cites by foreigners. Equinox 15:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
My fault, I should have kept my big gob shut, you can always RFD it. DonnanZ (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
@Equinox " [] by foreigners." Incorrect, two of the three Usenet cites are from English-speaking countries. "Macdiarmid" even seems to have been a far-right xenophobe. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete. DTLHS (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep using the lemming heuristic (also lemming test): is in Collins[9]. The WT:COALMINE argument is weakened by the dubious quality of the attesting quotations at lowpriced; they are all from Usenet, which is not copyedited, and one of the quotations contains the lowercase "canada". --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
    I have added three published citations, if that addresses your concerns about COALMINE. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Dan Polansky. John Cross (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I consider hyphenated terms to be single words, so keep. This probably also passes under COALMINE. Ƿidsiþ 09:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
It seems very SOPpy, but keep because it does seem to be regarded as a single word often enough to be found both in unhyphenated form in books (thus passing the WT:COALMINE test) and in other dictionaries (passing the WT:LEMMING test). - -sche (discuss) 18:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC) Switching to abstain because of the very low quality of the citations of the unhyphenated version. - -sche (discuss) 18:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

paper book[edit]

SOP. And the vote to allow retronyms has neither passed, nor is it likely to pass. --WikiTiki89 14:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Abstain for now. I am sure Semper is up to something, and I respect him for that. DonnanZ (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Semper is certainly up to something, and that something is creating a SOP entry that nobody would think to look up. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. - -sche (discuss) 18:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as bad-faith politics. I don't care whether this entry should exist or not. Creating it in response to an ongoing vote is fucking tacky. SB I thought better of you. Equinox 23:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't find this SOP. And I don't agree that no would would ever look it up. Quite the contrary.- Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Abstain. I personally call them printed books. "Paper book" just seems so ridiculously redundant. And there is such a thing as e-paper also. Nicole Sharp (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
    Keep, there are now two additional senses, so I think this is sufficiently distinctive. There is also at least one occurrence of "book in newspaper format" on BGC. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, SOP. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
    • To clarify: per Metaknowledge below, delete the second sense only. Use {{&lit}} seems acceptable, but I oppose having a full-fledged definition: "well, since we'll have an entry anyway, we might as well keep that sense". --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • paper book at OneLook Dictionary Search shows Merriam-Webster[10] has two legal definitions; these are not what we have now, that is, a book like it used to be before electronic books. Legal definitions are also in A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.[11]. If someone adds more definitions, we could unambiguously keep the entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
    Keep the entry since there is now a second definition. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, especially per Dan. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The disputed sense has three citations. How many more do you want? Keep SemperBlotto (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
    This is RFD, not RFV. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Now that there is another definition, I have made it into an rfd-sense (when the RFD was started, there was only the one sense in the entry). The existence of the entry as a whole and the sense in question in particular are independent, so I would not consider @Dan Polansky's vote to be countable here unless he clarifies his position on the sense in question. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
    Keep the sense of "A traditional hardback or softback book, as opposed to an e-book" as well. What could be done is replace it with {{&lit}}, but I am no fan of that template, finding it user unfriendly. Elsewhere, Andrew Sheedy writes '"Paper book," if e-books, etc. didn't exist, might be taken to mean a paperback book, or a book made entirely of paper. As with many retronyms, the term would likely have been confusing had it been introduced before other types of books were introduced.' In M-W[12], there is entry "paperbook" defined as paperback, which reinforces Andrew's idea that "paper book" might otherwise be understood to refer to paperback. A next move in the game would be for someone to attest paperbook, and see whether coalmine could apply. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak keep John Cross (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

apple-bearing[edit]

  • I can't think of a reason to save this one, as an apple-bearing tree is normally called an apple tree. On the other hand, I agree with the entry for fruit-bearing, which covers all fruit-bearing plants. DonnanZ (talk) 09:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep all such, if really cited. There may even be separate senses here. Ƿidsiþ 09:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
    Changing to keep per -sche. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • There is Old English æppelbære. This could recommend keeping, or not. Like, keep it if it has a solid-written ancestor term. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
    I don't think it can be a direct ancestor. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
    I think it could be, albeit an altered one--made over to fit modern word formation. As it evolves into Middle English, it would be *appelbere, then into EME as *applebeare, which doesn't make much sense according to modern usage...it would then , naturally, have to be altered to fit current ways of expression by appending an -ing to it, making apple-bearing--now it sounds sensible. Of course, none of this is recorded for our ease, but that's no matter. One cannot convince me that during Middle English there was no term meaning "apple-bearing". There had to have been. We just don't see it recorded. It's a mundane and quite ordinary concept Leasnam (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
    @Leasnam I found attestation for "olive-berende" in ME, so the one-word structure did exist then--and with the participle ending -ende which later gave way to -ing. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
This does seem SOPpy, but... although it ain't common, I just cited applebearing with citations from the 1600s through the 2000s, which lends support to keeping this per WT:COALMINE, and to the idea that it's sometimes regarded as a single word, and even lends some support to the possibility that it's an inherited form (one would need to look for Middle English examples to find more evidence of that). - -sche (discuss) 18:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep, then, via coalmine. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is nothing more than "apple" + "-bearing". "apple" could be replaced by anything that can be borne. Create -bearing if need be. Mihia (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
We had -bearing, and we deleted it ! :-o Leasnam (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
It's not a suffix. DonnanZ (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
On reflection, probably the right decision, else where would it end ... Mihia (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no consensus for deletion, and policy (WT:COALMINE) backs keeping it. - -sche (discuss) 18:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Orthodox Christian[edit]

It seems idiomatic inasmuch as it typically refers to the specific (family of) denomination(s), and not to any orthodox Christian. - -sche (discuss) 17:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Abstain for now. It strikes me as SOP, Orthodox (adj., senses 1 & 2) + Christian (n., sense 1), but I nonetheless tend towards keeping it, probably because of its paraphyly. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete. I've added an additional sense to Orthodox (adj.), which should now cover (almost) all the previously existing exceptions. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
@Lingo Bingo Dingo: That looks good--can we add a usage note though to the noun sense that indicates that its highly common to refer to these people as "Orthodox Christians" rather than as "Orthodoxes", which is a rather uncommon term in English? That, I think, would fully satisfy what Orthodox Christian seeks to offer. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
@SanctMinimalicen That's a good idea. Yes check.svg Done. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
@Lingo Bingo Dingo: Thank you! With that I comfortably support delete. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Can you explain why paraphyly is a reason for keeping? --WikiTiki89 19:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89 Why would I? I haven't claimed anything of the sort. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
"but I nonetheless tend towards keeping it, probably because of its paraphyly" --WikiTiki89 13:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89 You are quoting me as I described. I'm describing a cause, not a reason. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Why does its paraphyly cause you to lean towards keeping? --WikiTiki89 14:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89 Mostly because it is an unusual feature in diachronic typologies of Christianity, which tend to be grouped by split, creed, etc. That said, I was also curious if there is a distinction in use between Orthodox and Orthodox Christian for the groups to which it can refer, e.g. with respect to sects like the Old Believers. There doesn't seem to be one. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete, per Wikitiki89. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

-zoan[edit]

The etymologies of the derived terms don't use this suffix. It seems to me that this page is a misanalysis. DTLHS (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow, the (early) edit history is weird, displaying the unlinked text "imported>SP-KP‎" in the space where the username of the creating editor should go. - -sche (discuss) 02:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
It is the username of the creating editor- with the prefix "imported>" tacked on. That's how they must have handled edit histories of interwikis in those days. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete. As mentioned above, this is not a true suffix. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm conflicted: on the one hand, this is obviously bogus. On the other hand, it would be nice to have someplace to explain the invariant pattern of individual members of taxa with translingual names ending in -zoa being called by an English name ending in -zoan. This is the same as with the taxonomic sense of -phyte (which also has other problems) and -phyta. Then there are -ids, -ines and -forms, as well as -aceous adjectives. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Well the OED has it. Ƿidsiþ 06:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, we do use "suffix" in etymology sections to describe endings that are not strictly suffixes (Category talk:English nouns ending in "-ism" has some discussion of this). And while I've opposed entries for some in the past (Talk:-oth, Talk:-os), they've been kept for lack of consensus to delete. I even created a suffix section for -x, which replaces the arguably non-suffixal endings -o/-a on e.g. amigo/amiga. In this case, even major lemmings like the OED and Merriam-Webster (and Collins) have entries for this (MW and Collins also have -zoon, but not -zoan). And it comes from a Greek word zoion, so the only leap is in analysing the ending as a suffix; it's not a case of a word being broken up "incorrectly" like adder being extracted from nadder. And it's useful, as Chuck says. So, weak keep. - -sche (discuss) 18:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

car door[edit]

Could be a sum of parts. There is a 2006 discussion at Talk:car door. Can someone attest cardoor so that WT:COALMINE applies? And does translation hub argument apply, via French portière and Spanish portezuela? car door at OneLook Dictionary Search does not find the classical lemming dictionaries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
cardoor? Ugh. DP wants to use coalmine for all the wrong reasons. Just keep it. DonnanZ (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
@DonnanZ: In the spirit of substance-based discussion seeking arguments and evidence, keep it why? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
It does appear to have two senses, one automotive, the other a railway carriage door, especially in American English; the quote appears to bear this out. DonnanZ (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I cannot see any reason why this is not sum of parts. Mihia (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Abstain. It probably passes COALMINE, but a problem is that most appearances on BGC are in snippet view and that in many cases where "cardoor(s)" is attested, there are also unverifiable hits for "car door". Leaving those out, some results where "cardoor(s)" is the most common are: [13], [14] (messy, 3 hits for "cardoor(s)" and 2 for "car door(s)"), [15], [16] ("car door" could be a less common variant), [17] ("car door" is less common than "cardoor"). Many hits refer to agricultural suppliers operating from their car in the US ca. 1910 to 1960.
The sense "carriage door" can be attested for "car door" (probably not for "cardoor"), but consider car senses 3 to 5. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Otherwise we need truck door, etc. Nicole Sharp (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
If "car door" exists as an elision of carriage door (as opposed to just being "the door of a car"), then keep. Nicole Sharp (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not in America, but what about a boxcar door? Can it also be called a car door? DonnanZ (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Leaning keep. I would think that on an automobile, "car door" refers to the driver and passenger doors, but not to a rear door like a hatchback. I would agree that the door of a boxcar is also called a car door. bd2412 T 14:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
    Here and here, "hatchback door" is defined as "a sloping rear car door that is lifted to open".  --Lambiam 17:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete – sum-of-parts. The argument (offered at the 2006 RFV) that a car door differs from a bathroom door in being specifically designed for a car does not cut it, as far as I'm concerned. The same is true for car fender, which is a fender specifically designed for a car. Likewise for car axle, car engine, car tyre, car spoiler, ..., all of which are in actual use.  --Lambiam 17:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

less-than-stellar[edit]

  • Can we do an RFD for the word of the day?  :-O It seems like sum-of-parts to me, e.g. "less-than-awesome," etc. Nicole Sharp (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Heh, is there a precedent? 'DonnanZ (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)'
      • I would describe it in the same vein as the RFD for "low-priced" above. The antonym here would just be "beyond-stellar." E.g. "a beyond-stellar performance," "a less-than-stellar performance," etc.—seems to be pretty clearly sum-of-parts. Nicole Sharp (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: there is the sarcasm element, though. Stellar usually means "exceptional, wonderful", and less-than-stellar doesn't simply mean "slightly less exceptional or wonderful" but actually "mediocre" or "poor". That, to my mind, may make it non-SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
    • The sarcasm element is true, but isn't that kind of verbal irony element applicable to just about anything? I could be stuck in traffic and say "this is great", but one wouldn't include a "(sarcastic) undesireable, inoptimal" definition to the entry for great. Sarcasm, understatement, etc. being sources of definitions seems slippery and difficult to discern/regulate. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I agree with SanctMinimalicen. "Less-than-awesome" has the exact same sarcastic meaning as "less-than-stellar," and you can create many more such terms that include a sarcastic emphasis. Also, it can be argued that the word automatically implies sarcasm, since "stellar" can be defined literally as "astronomically great," such that being slightly less than stellar but still much greater than sky-high is relatively meaningless, unless it is a sarcastic sense to mean a much lower metaphorical height than the height of stars above the planetary surface. Nicole Sharp (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
        That brings to mind Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Sarcastic usage:
        The straightforward sarcastic use of irony, understatement and hyperbole does not usually qualify for inclusion. This means, for example, that big should not be defined as “(ironic) small”, “(understatement) gigantic” or “(hyperbole) moderately large”. Common rhetorical use can be explained in a usage note, a context tag (such as (Usually sarcastic)) or as part of the literal definition. Terms which are seldom or never used literally are not covered by this rule, and can be included on their own merits.
        Thus, the question is whether less-than-stellar is a term which is "seldom or never used literally", and I have a feeling that the term does meet this criterion. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Hm, yeah, it does seem to fit that criterion--as Nicole pointed out, the word basically only exists in a sarcastic capacity. I'm okay with this in principle, but I'm uneasy that one could apply the formula to any adjective for the same ironic/sarcastic effect. It's still a slippery slope. I'm wondering if it wouldn't potentially be more appropriate to formulate this as a snowclone: "less-than-X"? --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree, it's completely normal litotes. Don't know if I'd push for deleting it, but certainly a weird choice to highlight for WotD. Ƿidsiþ 05:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
    It was on the nomination list, so I featured it. Can't say I gave it much thought at the time. — SGconlaw (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per SanctMinimalicen. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete per "less-than-X" being a general construct as discussed above. Equinox 22:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete. How about we include less-than-great, less-than-fascinating, etc.? PseudoSkull (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Or less than impressed? That's me quite often. DonnanZ (talk) 09:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, if it is meant to be sarcastic (it's not a term I am familiar with), I would keep it, I'm not sure whether it is used globally. DonnanZ (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

But any phrase can be used "sarcastically" (it's really litotes rather than sarcasm). Not exactly Brad Pitt gets more than 120 Google Books hits. You can't codify irony. Ƿidsiþ 13:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I see only 12 actual hits.  --Lambiam 18:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

fault tolerance[edit]

Sum of parts? (Pretty sure that it is not German) SemperBlotto (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You're right, I changed the header. German Fehlertoleranz is included in the translations. DonnanZ (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Correct language headers are quite important actually, as I have found out. DonnanZ (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
But if it's a technical term, maybe we should keep this. DonnanZ (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
It is a technical term, so we should keep it.--Sae1962 (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Fault Tolerance exists, so keep it!--217.116.183.201 13:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

money[edit]

Rfd-sense 9: "(as a modifier) Of or pertaining to money; monetary." --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Definitely not, keep. Check derived terms. Maybe "monetary" can be removed. DonnanZ (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
EDIT CONFLICT: ::The two examples listed (money supply and money market) are both compound nouns. This is just attributive use. The definition is worded as if money were an adjective. I would be inclined to delete Leasnam (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Comment: isn't that just an attributive use? — SGconlaw (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes it is. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete, the usage examples of 9 aren't even in the same sense. This sense purely exists to cover attributive use. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
It is correctly shown as being a noun modifier, which happens to be used attributively, but it is not an attributive adjective. Money supply is a supply of money, money market is a market for money, a money bag is a bag for money. DonnanZ (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Almost any noun can be used attributively, as a regular feature of the English language:
cupboard: Of or pertaining to cupboards (cupboard door)
cabbage: Of or pertaining to cabbages (cabbage soup)
and so on, about 10,000 times. I don't think we need that. Mihia (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
If it prevents an adjective being added it's worth keeping. DonnanZ (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
If there is a true adjective sense then that should be added. I can't think that there is, but if anyone wants to make a case for it ... Mihia (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete. There are already senses that cover the two usexes and any adjective-like use, namely the other senses, which are being used attributively. As Mihia says, this sense would be like adding a sense "of or pertaining to cabbage" to cabbage: unnecessary, because it's just the existing sense(s) being used attributively. - -sche (discuss) 21:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 18:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

all-pervading[edit]

This is one of many entries in Category:English citations of undefined terms (see Citations:all-pervading) which are trivially attestable but not obviously idiomatic. So: should it be created, or is it just a SOP of the sort that would be RFDed and deleted if it were created? I'm not going to spend time creating the entry if you agree it's SOP, so this is a pre-RFD of sorts. (The aim is to remove it from being "requested" by Category:English citations of undefined terms, either by creating the entry if people think it's idiomatic, or suppressing the categorization / [re]moving the citations if it's not idiomatic.) - -sche (discuss) 19:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

ever-gentle[edit]

As above. - -sche (discuss) 19:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

ever-moving[edit]

As above. - -sche (discuss) 19:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Add, it looks like this passes COALMINE. [21] [22] [23] [24] ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Conditional support: That's "evermoving", "ever-moving" needs quotes as well. And another one. DonnanZ (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Just done ever-shifting, which could well be a synonym of this. DonnanZ (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Add per Lingo and thus COALMINE. Here's ever-moving, evermoving at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

ever-varied[edit]

As above. - -sche (discuss) 19:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I would go for ever-varying, which is more common although not the same, and is more or less a synonym of ever-changing. DonnanZ (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

leave in[edit]

Allow to remain (e.g. shampoo in hair, or a joke in a speech). Isn't a special verb construct like "take in (the scenery)" or "drop out (of school)", as far as I can tell. More an SoP like "leave there" ("I left the book there overnight"). Equinox 22:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete, seems SoP to me. Similar to the first sense of take out, which seems to me also to be SoP, which I'm going to nominate here as well. The others seem properly idiomatic. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Regarding shampoo, it can be compared with the adjective leave-in. DonnanZ (talk) 23:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
It looks like just leave (verb) + in (adverb) rather than anything idiomatic, but we don't seem to have a fitting definition for the adverb. Delete, because this is rather productive. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Abstain for now. I think this entry (and others) would be more useful if it (they) gave some usage notes about the separability of the particle: can you say "I left the one about my mother-in-law in"? Is it natural? Which option is more common? It might be grammatical more than lexical though. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

take out[edit]

Verb, sense 1. Along with entry for leave in above. Seems SOP to me. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't make much sense to delete this and leave the rest in (pun intended). DonnanZ (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
If this sense is felt to be non-idiomatic then it may be better to keep it under the "&lit" template, as is done with various other phrasal verbs? Mihia (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I wasn't aware of that option. That would make sense. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

sexual frustration[edit]

frustration sexuelle[edit]

seksuel frustration[edit]

frustración sexual[edit]

frustração sexual[edit]

frustrazione sessuale[edit]

sexually frustrated[edit]

SOP. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Abstain. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • sexual frustration has been here since 2006. What's wrong with the geezer? Keep the b****y lot, providing they are correct. DonnanZ (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Precision: I nominated the French and English terms only; PseudoSkull added the rest in this edit.
    I don't see how "it's been here since 2006" is an argument. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Probably keep both, but they might just be SoP. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
As I have said before, SoP is not always a good reason for deletion. DonnanZ (talk) 10:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, but what's your reason for keeping these? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Seems SoP to me. Note how all the translations are also noun+adj pairings. Also the top of this page says: "One of the reasons for posting an entry or a sense here is that it is a sum of parts, such as 'brown leaf'." Equinox 10:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Then it hinges on how important an issue this is globally. I can't help noticing the Chinese entries (not that I can read them). Can it be categorised as an emotion? DonnanZ (talk) 11:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete: also seems SoP to me. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete all as SOP. These entries would probably become PaM magnets anyway, there's no harm in taking away the chew toy before it is noticed. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Too late: diff and diff Chuck Entz (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah, sod that blighted little bugger. At least we'd be throwing away actual chew toys. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete all as SoP. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 03:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

wait a minute[edit]

verb. SOP --Otra cuenta105 (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

  • keep. I agree it's SOP, and if it were the only definition in the entry, I would agree it should not be included, but given the use as an interjection, does it not make it in the same way we include literal senses of phrases that are also idioms? Kiwima (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    I'm not convinced, KW. --Otra cuenta105 (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak delete--I was leaning towards keeping at first due to the unliteral use of the phrase, but sense two of minute allows for the nonliteral use to be SoP, and even includes the phrase as its example with "minute" as the part. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd be inclined to keep both senses. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep it, and what about hang on a minute? DonnanZ (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete; see sense 2 of minute: "(informal) A short but unspecified time period." It even gives this as a usage example! "Wait a minute, I’m not ready yet!" PseudoSkull (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Convert to {{&lit}}. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Convert to {{&lit}}. Per utramque cavernam (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep the nominated verb sense "Wait for an unspecified short period of time" without conversion to &lit. It may be SOP with respect to the particular definition of "minute", but it is unclear how much that sense of minute is used outside of "wait a minute" phrase. http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/wait+a+minute gives multiple idiom dictionaries (which do not count for WT:LEMMING as proposed, but anyway). --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
(Wait | hang on | hold on | just) a (minute | moment | mo | jiffy)... nothing special about this one. Delete. Equinox 22:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete/Convert to {{&lit}}. Equinox has demonstrated convincingly that this is SOP. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Convert to {{&lit}}. The interjections are idiomatic, but the verb sense is literally wait a minute. bd2412 T 15:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

man-on-man[edit]

woman-on-woman[edit]

girl-on-girl[edit]

boy-on-boy[edit]

gal-on-gal[edit]

Wonderfoolisms. He also made orangutan-on-orangutan, which sums up perfectly how transparent these are. (I believe the 15th sense of the preposition on covers this; "Denoting performance or action by contact with the surface, upper part, or outside of anything; hence, by means of; with." Do we need an extra sense covering sexual acts?) PseudoSkull (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Move to RFV and keep if they pass. Ƿidsiþ 13:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
This isn't a question about whether or not they're attested; they most certainly are. This is a question about how transparent these are; i.e. I forgot to mention guy-on-guy but there's no entry for it yet. You could essentially say X-on-X for just about anything. It's SOP! PseudoSkull (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
You could say it, but could you find three durably archived cites for it? Ƿidsiþ 08:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
The anything-on-anything point is well-made. Perhaps--though I hesitate to offer this again for fear of becoming the neighbourhood snowclone vendor--this is best as a snowclone? I'm not sold in any direction yet. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
My first impulse was delete as transparent, but thinking about it, I realize that the sexual implication is only for certain values of X - for example "white-on-white" has a definite, but very different meaning. Kiwima (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
These have generally previously been discussed and kept pursuant to that discussion. See Talk:man-on-man (discussing all of the above except gal-on-gal, which is a variation of a discussed term). bd2412 T 14:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Add relevant sense(s) to on and delete these entries. Could be something like "Denotes sexual engagement between parties" and "Denotes engagement between parties, often of a physical or violent nature" and some of these could be cited as usexes. Furthermore, because it's not a snowclone, it allows for instances where the two parties mentioned may not be the same (e.g. boy-on-girl) --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

death to[edit]

I think this interjection is a normal use of to. Compare "good luck to them!", "many happy returns to you" (on a birthday), etc. Equinox 14:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Is down with a synonym (more or less)? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
They're related, but I feel like synonym is a stretch. "Death to" is more specific--"down with" could just mean a removal from power, a defeat, etc., not necessarily death. It's almost like "death to" is hyponymic to "down with".
But yes, I agree with Equinox. In the same vein there are "happy birthday to you", "congratulations to her", "kudos to him", etc. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Abstain for now. This might have non-trivial translations that cannot be covered by down with. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

fan translation[edit]

SOP, afaict. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

It should be considered alongside its synonym, fanslation. DonnanZ (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

No, it's one word, not a sum of parts, so the rationale for deleting "fan translation" does not apply at all. Equinox 19:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
That difference shouldn't apply, but I will let other editors decide. I'm neutral. DonnanZ (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
No, because fanslation is one word. For instance, Japanese animation does not get an entry, but anime does. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Definitely keep fanslation if its CFI-compliant. Neutral on fan translation; I couldn't imagine what it meant until I read the definition, but now that I know, I suppose I could have figured it out if I had encountered it in context. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 20:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, but if you're not an -aholic where computer games are concerned, you can be excused for not having any idea what it means. This is where the link to Wikipedia comes in handy. DonnanZ (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Possible keep. The definition seems too narrow though, per the Wikipedia explanation. Ƿidsiþ 17:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete the definition of "fan translation" should be "a translation done by a fan". That's SoP. Fan translations into a language the game was released in probably exist, due to bowdlerism or inaccuracies in the official translation. Kristin Anderson Terpstra's doctorate thesis about manga translation says "The first recorded fan translation occurred as early as 1977, that of Osamu Tezuka’s Phoenix, by fan translation group Dadakai (Palmer & Deskins, n.d.)." This (non-durably archived) article says "Fan translation, in general, refers to the unofficial translation of media, mostly computer games, films, books and music, from one language to another. Fan translations are distributed by fans for free." This (possibly durably archived) article talks about "fan translations" in the context of K-Pop.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Um, what kind of fan: hand-held, electric, a fan-atic? DonnanZ (talk) 09:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Any type of fan that translates. I'm sure with enough work you could come up with sentences that talked about a fan translation using many senses of fan and translation, but most are going to be talking about fanatics converting stuff from one language to another, not electric fans moving things in a straight line motion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I must confess that when I first looked at this I naively thought of a hand-held fan. DonnanZ (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018[edit]

sexually mature[edit]

sexually + mature. The translations look straightforward. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Agreed, Delete. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I was hasty to make a judgement on this one--Enginear makes an important point, and it is a specific scientific term. If we do keep it, it's behovely that we add sexual maturity as an entry as well. I'm going to abstain for now and wait to see what some others say. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, keep as a translation target for the very translations the nominator rubbishes. Not every user is as "clever" as him. DonnanZ (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
    • You're starting to irritate me with your barbs. This is not the first time I see you make this kind of comments (diff).
    As for the translations, the emerging consensus is that "A translation does not qualify to support the English term if it is: a closed compound that is a word-for-word translation of the English term". --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
If you study the translations more closely, you will find that some are noun+adj compounds, not adv+adj compounds, so they are not word-for-word. DonnanZ (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep -- both sexually and mature have several definitions, leading to several reasonably possible SoP definitions, eg [of a show] erotically adult, or [of a person] having pubes smelling like rotting fish, careful/considered regarding sexual intercourse (aka practising safe sex and/or never-on-the-first-date?), beyond "beginners'" sex and wanting more advanced positions from the Kama Sutra, a MILF or sugar daddy, etc. Personally, until I learned the technical meaning, I always assumed "sexually mature" meant "with sexual organs looking like an adult" but even that is not correct. The real meaning: "having become able to reproduce" does not occur at exactly the same time as the organs begin to look fully adult -- and indeed, in some animals it is famously impossible for experts to visually identify sexual maturity. So while "sexually mature" is indeed an SoP definition, it is also NOT several other SoP definitions, and is a useful entry. --Enginear 22:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I tend toward keep as a translation target, Dutch geslachtsrijp is not a "word-for-word translation of the English term" and it is even idiomatic (geslacht does not mean "coitus, sex, sexual reproduction", it means "biological sex (category), gender, generation, lineage, genus, etc."); I suspect the same is true for several of the other Germanic translations that are listed. However, I would like to see whether there are similarly not-word-for-word translations from other language families. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
    I overlooked the Finnish translation sukukypsä, which seems like just such a case. @Hekaheka, does the above also apply to sukukypsä? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
    It apparently parses as suku (≈ geslacht) + kypsä. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

be one[edit]

I find this whole entry unclear; I don't see how the English term is supposed to be used ("I'm one with you"?), and the translations seem like they could/should go to agree. And "être unanime" in French isn't used that way (edit: it's indeed a very old-fashioned way of saying "to agree with sb"). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Abstain for now to see what others come up with. But I want to note that I'm not familiar with this sense of "be one"--whenever I've heard it used, it's meant either to mean some kind spiritual union (e.g. "Through the decades our friendship deepened, and in our old age we were one."; "She was one with God.") or sexual union, typically archaically (e.g. "And he lay with her and they were one.) With agreement, I've heard such things as "They were of one mind" or "They were of one accord", but never simply "They were one." --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Something like "On this question they were one", meaning that they were of the same opinion, seems feasible to me. Whether this justifies the entry I'm not sure. Also, I don't understand why the heading for the translations is "be fit". Where does "fit" come from?? Mihia (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
It's probably a copypasto. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

computer game[edit]

At #fan translation, DonnanZ said "if you're not an -aholic where computer games are concerned, ...". I went to make a comment about not needing "computer game", but then noticed that we had it. And that he didn't use the word with our narrow definition; fan translation refers largely to translation of console games, not computer games. Arguably we're missing a sense at computer that excludes video game consoles and cell phones; when I was trying to figure out where my computers were when moving, my inner pedant started talking about cell phones and Blu-Ray players but never even thought about the Nintendo Wii.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

That more or less proves that I am not a fan or an -aholic (as I put it) of video games, console games, computer games, arcade games etc., so it is probably better to keep the entries we have to explain the differences between them, but not just for myself. It definitely passes the lemming test, I added a ref to OneLook. DonnanZ (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
computer chess was kept (IMO wrongly). Equinox 15:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
One of my sons used to play that all the time, on a small electronic chessboard if I remember correctly. DonnanZ (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
BTW, in my personal experience ('80s kid), "video games" were sort of pre-built games that were just "there" and you couldn't load or modify (like coin-ops), while "computer games" were the ones you would load and play on your 8-bit machine (ZX Spectrum, Commodore 64, Amstrad CPC). I played games heavily in the '80s and early '90s and they were definitely "computer games" to me; the "video game" term still feels a bit new (or else reminds me of 1980-era Space Invaders) but I am absolutely aware that this is overwhelmingly now the term for any kind of game you play on a screen with an input device. Things have changed. Just saying this so that it gets onto the archive page, I guess; nobody was recording our language in those pre-Internet days. Equinox 08:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Pre-Internet our language was being recorded in heavy tomes... you can still buy dictionaries in book form. DonnanZ (talk) 09:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, part of my interest in this project is the fact that I memorised significant portions of Chambers, and actually wrote to them in my early teens and suggested some missing words. Their definition of "playability" is still, IIRC, my exact childish wording. -- Anyway, paper dicts have always been slow to add subcultural and minority stuff, so the punks and Goths and computer nerds of the eighties didn't get much love and certainly weren't documented there. Equinox 09:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Funny you should say that: I suggested some missing words to Det Norske Akademis ordbok, as they ask for suggestions, and they have adopted three of them so far. Getting back to computer game and video game: both are listed in my 2005 Oxford Dictionary of English (the back cover fell off ages ago); I have an older Oxford somewhere, probably up in the loft. DonnanZ (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Getting off-topic a bit: the last time I checked Chambers, they still defined platform game along the lines of "a video game where each new level is harder than the last". What?! It's a genre that involves jumping or traveling between platforms suspended in the air. It's not about difficulty! Equinox 12:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I've never been a video game player, but isn't it true of all (or virtually all) video games that each new level is harder than the last? It would be kind of boring otherwise. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 12:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Not per se, sometimes easier levels deliberately follow more challenging ones or if not intended the difficulty curve could be bad. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Earlier in my life I was a big game player (typically early 90s games) and I have to admit that I've always thought platform game referred to games where there was a kind of non-playing overworld whence you selected levels that were of increasing difficulty (I thought of these as metaphorical 'platforms'). Take for example Super Mario World. It never occurred to me that 'platform' would be literally things you stand and jump on. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd say that's because coin-ops and consoles aren't computers and the Amstrad CPC is, for a definition of computer that we don't seem to have. (Does it normally run BASIC? If not, not a real computer. At least for that day, it's a silly but not inaccurate definition.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. I would at least call this a set phrase. Also, if I set up a giant chess board and use computers as chess pieces, it would not fall into this definition of "computer game". bd2412 T 12:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep. Maybe unrelated, but Danish seems to use computerspil (a direct cognate) much more often than videospil even in the modern day. I mean, think about it, every video game is run on some kind of computer by definition or it wouldn't be a video game. To say the very least, it seems to be a set phrase, though I guess if you boil it down it means "a game played on a computer"... But this is one of those rare cases where I think it should stay. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Could a case be made of the possibility that "computer game" was used before "video game"? PseudoSkull (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I have the impression that "computer game" is used in British English in contrast to "video game" in US English. -Stelio (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

to-gloried[edit]

The term is attested only once (in the quotation I have duly moved /having corrected it/ to the citation page); it is neither in the OED nor in the Middle English Dictionary. As it does not meet the criteria for inclusion, the entry can now be deleted without further ado. Jiří Bezděka (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Move to WT:RFVE? "Mankind: 1470" -- is it attestable as Middle English (requires only 1 cite)? -84.161.49.148 14:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Middle English does have the prefix to- (orange-linked, but I plan to add it soon) as a common prefix applied liberally to verbs and participles, including the function as an intensifier. It wouldn't be totally out of place considered as Middle English; that said, 1470 is pretty late and very ambiguous between ME and EModE. I can't find any other usage of in the more typical chronological range that would make a placement into ME more comfortable, and because I can't find a version of the cited text that isn't "updated" English, I can't really see how "Middle" or "Early Modern" the tendency of the original is. So I don't know. The formation of it would have been pretty commonplace and definitely unsurprising in ME, so I guess I lean slightly towards accepting it as ME, at least in theory. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
ISO 639-2 defines Middle English as existing 1050-1500. We've usually gone along with that definition, because there is no hard line, at least at the modern end, and an arbitrary round and standard 1500 is as good as anything.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. I just like to approach ~1450-1530 with wariness and deliberation for exactly the reason you stated. This is just an odd case because often one can look forward or backward and see where the trend is with the word's use, but one data point obviously doesn't allow that.
Given this, and considering that the to- prefix tapered during EModE into rarity during ModE but was productive and common both in OE and ME, I think that including it in ME is valid. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I've never seen that done on Wiktionary. A work written in 1510 by a native English speaker in their native tongue is written in one language, not a mixture of two. Listing some words as Modern English (and not Middle) and some words as Middle English (and not Modern) does violence to the unity of the language. If necessary, I'd go the other way; a word in an intermediate text should attest both Middle English and Modern English, effectively calling the text simultaneously ME and ModE if we can't resolve it one way or the other.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

level[edit]

Sense:

  1. (nonstandard, rare) To levy.
    • 2007, Mary Jacoby, EU investigators endorse charges against Intel, Wall Street Journal Europe, 17 January, p.32, col.5:
      Ultimately, Ms. Kroes [European Union Antitrust Commissioner] could level a fine and order Intel to change its business practices.

As far as I can see, the example quoted is nothing more than an error: mixing up two words that are a bit similar. If the confusion is sufficiently common then I guess a usage note could be added, but I don't think that people's errors deserve to be mentioned in the list of definitions. Mihia (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I don't think it's an error, I just think it's use of of "level" meaning "to direct (something at someone)", perhaps following the idea of levelling a weapon at someone; you do see this use sometimes. I don't think "level" means "levy" however. Ƿidsiþ 08:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
It could be, I guess. I think it's probably impossible to say without asking the author. However, even if you're right, the definition "to levy" is still invalid IMO, as you also suggest. Mihia (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
It needs an {{rfd-sense}} added to it. I think Widsith is partially right; when you've got two similar words and two similar meanings, I don't think clearly disentangling something like this is possible; except for people who write at the speed of James Joyce, who apparently felt he was writing quickly when he got two sentences done in Ulysses in a day, people don't usually think that precisely in the first place.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

distributive property[edit]

SoP SemperBlotto (talk) 05:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

sinusoidal function[edit]

sinusoidal functions[edit]

The phase "sinusoidal function" does not require a definition. It can be understood fully from its constituent words; the word sinusoidal only really makes sense in the context of a function of some sort. GKFX (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Non-mathematically, I think the phrase could also be used medically with regards to the sinusoids in the cardiovascular system-- a sentence like "The admission of albumin into the bloodstream is not arterial, but rather is a sinusoidal function." would not be all that abnormal. Other than this, I think 'sinusoidal' can also be descriptive of things other than function that resemble the shape of the function, e.g. sinusoidal clouds, sinusoidal waves (the water variety), and might even be used figuratively for rising and falling.
That said, I don't think that these other uses necessarily gainsay the SoP, but they're worth considering. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
It could mean more than one thing but I think all are SoP; I lean towards delete. Equinox 00:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know. Redirect to sinusoidal? I considered the Talk:free variable argument, but found in sinusoidal wave, sinusoidal function at Google Ngram Viewer that the wave is even more common than function. Note that the definition would need to be ajusted to cover both waves and functions. For sine wave, sine wave at OneLook Dictionary Search finds multiple lemming dictionaries, including M-W[25].--Dan Polansky (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Taken literally as a sum-of-parts, '"sinusoidal function" should mean: a function that is sinusoidal. So (discarding the anatomical sense) this would be a function in the form of a wave. But functions do not have a form. The graph of the function does, and if it is a sinusoid, by extension the function is called suicidal sinusoidal. So, strictly speaking, this is not a sum-of-parts; you need a modicum of mathematical literacy to apply the right amount of sloppiness that will lead you from the parts to the meaning.  --Lambiam 13:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

brown leaf[edit]

sense: (biology) a disease of plants, characterised by the presence of brown leaves

I see no evidence that brown leaf is a specific disease, rather than a condition like dry skin in humans.

Thus, this sense would seem to be NISOP. Contrast it with the other definition of a specific condition affecting a specific product of timothy grass. DCDuring (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

What does NISOP stand for? --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Non-idiomatic sum of parts. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Ohh, gotcha. Thanks. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I like that. From now on I'm using NISOP rather than SOP. bd2412 T 17:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Ulster[edit]

I am sure the "adjective" (Ulster#Adjective) is purely a noun modifier. The translations could be a problem though. DonnanZ (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

New Zealand is a similar case which isn't an adjective. DonnanZ (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

blanket[edit]

Delete the adjective section, and add a new sense to the noun section. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

A possible keep, shown as an adjective here. DonnanZ (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
But it doesn't pass the tests for adjectivity. You can't say "**this ban is blanket" or "**a very blanket statement", for example. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
No it always seems to be attributive, found a couple more refs where it is listed as an adjective, Cambridge and Collins. It appears to be figurative usage of the noun; even the noun can be used figuratively, e.g. wet blanket. I'm not sure about blanket bath, which needs an entry (an all-over wash given to a person confined to bed); whether it's a literal or figurative sense I don't know. DonnanZ (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep the adjective section using the lemming heuristic: M-W[26], Macmillan[27], oxforddictionaries.com[28], dictionary.cambridge.org[29]; Collins[30] says "adjective [usually ADJECTIVE noun]", which I don't know that that means. On a marginal note: these dictionaries used to have such beautiful websites, before this pernicious tabletty design fashion came. Wiktionary still keeps its beautiful design free from locked in top search bars. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
So we're just going to propagate the mistake of other dictionaries? In fact, I'm not even convinced this a genuine mistake on their part; rather, it looks like an intentional shortcut, to avoid having to explain why it can't be an adjective (their websites aren't really suited to that). As we're more linguistically minded, do we really want to do that too?
Collins is probably saying, like the others, that this "adjective" is always found before the noun it qualifies. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 07:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: Please see this revision for what I think would be the best solution. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 07:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Not my favorite; keep as is. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
How do you know it's a mistake? There is no ultimate test of adjectivity in English: obviously, not all adjectives are comparable, forming comparatives and superlatives. Note that the etymology of the word seems to be adjectival. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
There might be no ultimate test of adjectivity, but that this word passes none of the usual ones (as I said above, I don't think you can say "**this ban is blanket", nor "**a very blanket statement"; and you certainly can't say "**blanketer/**blanketest/**more blanket/**blanketly" (edit: actually you can, which seriously undermines my point...)) seems like a pretty good indicator that it's not an adjective. If I'm wrong, please show me why.
As for the etymology: that the word is of adjectival origin is irrelevant. Or are you arguing that that sense of blanket is actually a remnant of that? I very much doubt it, but again, I'm willing to be shown otherwise. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I delegate the lexicographical research to lemmings in this case. I do not have access to their internal records and deliberations. I point out again to there being no conclusive test of adjectivity since non-comparable adjectives exist. In Czech, the situation is very different: there, adjectivity is seen from the surface morphology. Thus, lumbální looks like an adjective and inflects like an adjective, and is non-comparable. In English, adjectivity is more difficult to recognize. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep. Equinox 10:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I had a go at adding missing derived terms, and found it difficult in some cases to separate between noun and adjective, so in the end I lumped them all together. Perhaps another editor can do a better job. DonnanZ (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

royal family[edit]

SOP, the translations look straightforward (except perhaps the Hindi and the Chinese). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't quite understand why Japanese 王室 is SOP but Chinese 王室 isn't. They both literally mean "royal room", don't they? —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 20:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, brain fart. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I mean "Sorry, that was a brain fart." I'm not calling you a "brain fart". --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

And perhaps the Scandinavian translations too: Danish kongehus, Swedish kungahus. Though in that case I'm not convinced (English housefamily (sense 8)). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

"Royal house" is used in English as well, totally synonymous with "royal family". That may support what PUC was saying. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Is it? I would say the royal house of the UK is the House of Windsor, which is by no means synonymous with the royal family. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 21:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I suppose not. All of the instances I was thinking of were, but they were limited. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep. konge- (etc.) compounds are derived from king, and can mean royal, not what the inexperienced user would expect. DonnanZ (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Can you call the royal families of Luxembourg, Monaco and Liechtenstein kongehus/kungahus even though they don't have kings? (For that matter, can you call them royal families in English?) —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 10:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
@Mahagaja: It may be fyrstehus in those cases [31], [32]. DonnanZ (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep as translation target. Wyang (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
@Wyang, why did you do this? I think my concern about dumping qualifying and non-qualifying translations in the same place is a legitimate one, and I would like more people to see what I'm proposing. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
It's a Eurocentric split. Wyang (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@Wyang: I don't understand. If some European language had a "non word-for-word translation" (for lack of a better wording), then I'd put it in the first box; the fact that there's none in this specific instance is completely accidental. The point is definitely not to say "look at how Asia/Africa/Oceania/America does it, and how Europe does it". --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
What is a word-for-word translation anyway? It makes no difference- a translation is a translation. The fact is that multiple languages have words that are perfectly valid and includable to refer to "royal family", thus it is a translation target. Sure, in European languages you can have words characteristically thought of as equivalents of English words (e.g. family ~ famille), but most languages don't. Are 皇家, 皇室, 王室, etc. word-for-word translations of 'royal family'? I don't know, because there are no word-to-word correspondences between English and Chinese. The JKV words are borrowed from Chinese, so are they "word-for-word translations"? Wyang (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@Wyang: As I only speak French and English fluently, I lack the knowledge and cognitive baggage to answer your questions properly.
You might want to weigh in on the Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-03/Including translation hubs vote (I've voted against the proposal) though. It states that "A translation does not qualify to support the English term if it is: 1) a closed compound that is a word-for-word translation of the English term 2) a multi-word phrase that is a word-for-word translation of the English term". If the distinction is worthless to you, your definition of a translation target is different than most other people's. --Per utramque cavernam 19:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
@Wyang: Thanks for voting. I've opposed in part for the opposite reason than you: the criteria aren't stringent enough to my taste :p. If I understood correctly, you're thinking more along the lines of Widsith's message? --Per utramque cavernam 10:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, largely. Well, this is what happens when discussions don't happen and votes are used instead to make decisions. Mob ignorance. Wyang (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Keep using the lemming heuristic (WT:LEMMING): in Collins[33] and Macmillan[34]. As for translation hub (Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-03/Including translation hubs), I have doubts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

May 2018[edit]

tits and bums[edit]

See tits and ass above. – Gormflaith (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Tits and ass is no longer above (having survived RFV), so this should probably be addressed separately. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

daily paper[edit]

Entered as a synonym of daily. Seems to me akin to "monthly magazine" or "twice-yearly newsletter". (The fact that there are non-newspaper kinds of "paper" is IMO a red herring, as that argument equally supports entries for things like "conservative paper", "sensationalist paper".) Equinox 21:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Weak delete. It would be interesting to know whether "daily" as a noun in this sense is a direct shortening of something like "daily paper" or "daily newspaper". After a cursory look I didn't find anything in support or contrary to that, but it may have some bearing on whether to keep daily paper. My inclination is to see it as SOP daily (adjective) + paper (sense 2). --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Keep as a synonym. I don't think anything will be achieved by deleting this, and it may be helpful to those whose native language is not English. DonnanZ (talk) 07:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Keep because paper has multiple meanings. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Did you even read the-- oh well. Equinox 02:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Just chalk it up alongside that rain triple entry.--SanctMinimalicen (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

barbecue cottage cheese salad[edit]

Strikes me as SoP. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 12:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

  • How can you barbecue cottage cheese? Sounds horrible, anyway. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
    • It sounds revolting, but not SoP since the word "sauce" has been omitted from barbecue sauce. Looking through b.g.c, however, I'm not convinced it's attestable. Move to RFV, perhaps? —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 13:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I would be tempted to nuke it, bearing in mind there is no entry for cottage cheese salad anyway, but RFV is probably the best solution. DonnanZ (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
... and perhaps someone would like to provide an image for cottage cheese ass... DonnanZ (talk) 09:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Lol, very classy! --Per utramque cavernam 20:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Nuke it, eh? Sounds even more delicious. Equinox 21:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Per utramque cavernam 13:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The Rock, the Rock[edit]

The senses provided here are already at Rock and my understanding is that we note the use of articles at the base term outside of phrases (the rubber meets the road, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, etc.). — LlywelynII 08:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I think a separate header at Rock (en-prop|head=the Rock) would be needed. DonnanZ (talk) 09:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Redirect: Terms that include "the" are always a bit tricky, but I suspect these can be used without "the" some of the time, like "a Rock spokeswoman said...", "Rock officials asked for...", in which case redirecting these seems best. Having two Proper noun sections so one can have "the" in the headword is one possibility, but probably just having a label "with 'the'" / "with definite article" like [[Rock]] currently does is sufficient. (If these aren't deleted, some of the senses at [[Rock]] should be switched to "see the Rock"; the definitions don't need to be in two places, one with "the" in the pagetitle and one with a label saying "with 'the'"...) - -sche (discuss) 21:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I doubt that a formal sense would use "Rock" without "The", since formal uses would just refer to "Gibraltar" or "Alcatraz". bd2412 T 23:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
But newspapers etc might well use "Rock". - -sche (discuss) 19:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
That sounds more like an RfV matter. What newspapers might hypothetically do is outweighed by what they actually do. Is it possible to find examples of newspapers referring to either Alcatraz or Gibralter as "Rock" without "The" or "the"? bd2412 T 11:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Sandy Hook[edit]

Sense: "a school shooting that took place in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012."

Not to be crass, but if we were to add "memorable" shootings as definitions from now on, we would soon flood entries with horrible tragedies. Columbine, Bataclan, Orlando, Parkland, Las Vegas, Charleston, San Bernadino, the list goes on and on, and on... --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Should be kept if we can find three citations for the sense. Lockerbie got through the RfD process some years ago. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, but I think there is a difference - Lockerbie became a common noun hence the plural forms ("[...]to prevent Lockerbies", "[...]another Lockerbie", "[...]to stage seven Lockerbies"). I'm not sure Sandy Hook has had the same linguistic development. Don't get me wrong, a horrific event but I still don't think that it belongs here. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
It's not the kind of information I wanted to include, and Semper did this with Dunblane. DonnanZ (talk) 09:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Robbie--it doesn't seem to me that it's gotten the same linguistic quality. Of all of the aforelisted shootings, the only one that seems to come close in my experience is Columbine--I hear people saying things like "It's just another Columbine" or "How many Columbines will we have to suffer?"--but I'm not sure that even that is mainstream enough to consider a lemma like this. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
The main problem is that we don't have a notability requirement, and there are huge numbers of events that have entered the discourse of local communities in the form of a short-hand references to a place, a person, a date, or some associated phrase, especially since news media need these to save space in headlines and titles. Dunblaine and Sandy Hook are particularly notable because they have been the subject of much debate in important and influential countries, but I'm sure there are terms we've never heard of with similar significance for many, many other places in the world. It's true that we're not paper, but I can see how this kind of thing could really get out of hand with only a 3-attestation requirement. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Does CFI have anything on this? I can't be bothered to look. DonnanZ (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I would keep this and add Columbine. I think that the distinction here are that the place names are obscure enough that they are only popularly known for having mass shootings. bd2412 T 13:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Columbine, Colorado is the place where it happened, so that can be added at least. DonnanZ (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
The event is fairly universally known as just "Columbine". bd2412 T 22:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Keep. We do keep significant events, and this is definitely one, known colloquially by this name. Also keep Columbine in the sense of the event. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

phono-semantic compound[edit]

Looks SoP. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I think a "compound" does not necessery mean a character.--Zcreator alt (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

aim to[edit]

I don't see the point of this, and apparently I'm not alone. --Per utramque cavernam 13:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

admire to[edit]

Move to admire. --Per utramque cavernam 13:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It may not be as easy as that. Equinox did add a quote, and it seems to be an unusual use of English. DonnanZ (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Sure, but we can very well handle that at admire. --Per utramque cavernam 15:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be possible to use it without "to", so I do think it should be moved (at this point, merged) into admire. - -sche (discuss) 19:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Merge with admire, as per -sche. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

report to[edit]

Move to report (or do we already have a relevant sense there?). In any case, delete. --Per utramque cavernam 13:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, merge into report (sense 8 "to be accountable", with the usex "the financial director reports to the CEO", seems intended to cover this, although it might benefit from report to's longer definition). - -sche (discuss) 19:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I second -sche's idea. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

crash together[edit]

WurdSnatcher (talkcontribs) created dozens of entries like this... I don't understand. --Per utramque cavernam 13:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Delete. This is manifestly SoP. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

grow fond of[edit]

This was entered as a translation hub, but I don't really see the point; surely we can put the translations somewhere else? At take a liking to, for example? --Per utramque cavernam 14:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a suitable place. DonnanZ (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Why? --Per utramque cavernam 13:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
IMO they are not the same. DonnanZ (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

fcuk[edit]

This has no lexical significance. DTLHS (talk) 06:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep. Initialisms do technically have lexical significance here, even if standing for companies alone. See also similar entries such as AVGN, SDA, and all sorts of others. Reason? People can't deduce them as company name initialisms from simply looking at them. I think if you want to make a serious effort to change this, you should bring it up somewhere bigger, like the Beer parlour, instead of tackling a single lonely entry, since tons of these entries already exist and it would be virtually impossible at this point to find every one. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
It's not an initialism, and I'm not interested in policies. I just want this particular entry deleted. DTLHS (talk) 06:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Why? Because it's weirdly used in the lowercase? "I'm not interested in policies" sort of defeats the purpose of RFD, too. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Isn't it also used as a euphemism for the F-word, for example, to avoid NSFW filters? — SGconlaw (talk) 06:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, yeah, but that doesn't really make a word; it's on-the-spot messing around to dodge the filter, like bithc or w&a&nker. Equinox 06:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Inclined to delete: if it were the same thing (a clothing brand) and not an initialism, there'd be no reason to keep. As it is, it's not particularly understood as "standing for" French Connection United Kingdom; it's more like a logo. Equinox 06:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
WT:CFI says, and I quote:

"A term need not be limited to a single word in the usual sense. Any of these are also acceptable:

[...]

Then the brand name section goes on to say:

"A brand name for a product or service should be included if it has entered the lexicon. Apart from genericized trademarks, this is measured objectively by the brand name’s use in at least three independent durably archived citations spanning a period of at least three years."

Then we must consider the line about usage:

"This filters out appearance in raw word lists, commentary on the form of a word, such as “The word ‘foo’ has three letters,” lone definitions, and made-up examples of how a word might be used. For example, an appearance in someone’s online dictionary is suggestive, but it does not show the word actually used to convey meaning. On the other hand, a sentence like “They raised the jib (a small sail forward of the mainsail) in order to get the most out of the light wind,” appearing in an account of a sailboat race, would be fine. It happens to contain a definition, but the word is also used for its meaning."

Having all these things in mind, I think our mission now for anyone actually advocating this entry would be to see if anyone refers to this initialism outside of any reference to the company or anything related? This is sort of contradictory when using this approach, though, because it says that in the first quoted line that any initialisms, abbreviations, or acronyms are allowed, and then never mentions initialisms, acronyms, or abbreviations again on the entire page. There's no "unless" in that line, so... To those opposing this entry, should we change that part of CFI? PseudoSkull (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep and add a sense for the euphemism. Let's not pretend that the word isn't used as a euphemism, or that the euphemism isn't derived from the acronym, or that the creators of the acronym didn't intend precisely that outcome. See Gaynor Lea-Greenwood, Fashion Marketing Communications (2012), p. 11: "Every time a new version of the fcuk slogan was released, it was considered relevant to the target market, which enjoyed the iconic and cheeky slogans"; Thomas Riggs, Encyclopedia of major marketing campaigns, Volume 2 (2006), p. 580: "French Connection was rebranded as FCUK, a move that generated extensive controversy while fueling unprecedented company growth. Outdoor advertisements in London, tagged "FCUK fashion," were outlawed by Britain's Advertising Standards Authority after widespread outrage". bd2412 T 22:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

cocolture[edit]

Rare misspelling. --Per utramque cavernam 10:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

  • I can provide four citations from [35] if you really want them. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't feel like that's sufficient to make this a common misspelling. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 10:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Del as an overly-rare misspelling. - -sche (discuss) 01:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

guisto[edit]

The entry is misspelt; it should be giusto, which I have added. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

  • I've converted it into a misspelling. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as a rare misspelling (and some of those are clearly typos: an example, where giusto is spelled correctly most of the time.) --Per utramque cavernam 17:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per PUC. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 18:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep as a very common misspelling: the frequency ratio is about 100, which is very favorable for a misspelling. (guisto*100),giusto at Google Ngram Viewer. By the way, the entry is entered as English. Policy: WT:CFI#Spellings. Frequency ratio calibration: User talk:Dan Polansky/2013#What is a misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as a rare misspelling. @Dan Polansky, did you see PUC's links above? When I actually page through BGC results, I see that the misspelling is really quite rare, and other usage seems to be getting in the way. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
    The first link by PUC is GNV without multiplication by 100, whereas I have posted the same with multiplication by 100 to show the ratio. The other PUC link shows text that has both "guisto" and "giusto", which only confirms this to be a misspelling rather than an intentional spelling by the author of the text. I don't see any negative bearing of this on my conclusion. Note that even if the frequency ratio were wrong by factor of 10, it would be 1000, which is still good for keeping a misspelling, per my calibration. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
    In the text I've linked to, "guisto" is a typo, not a misspelling. Per utramque cavernam 15:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

surprise[edit]

Sense 2: "(attributive) Unexpected". --Per utramque cavernam 17:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I would keep it as it is. Surprise is not an adjective, but can be used attributively. Other examples are "a surprise visit" and "a surprise present" DonnanZ (talk) 10:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete per Donnanz: this is attributive use...of sense 1. It's not a separate sense; that's the nature of attributive use. "Her visit came as a suprise; it was a suprise visit." "The attack was a suprise; it was a suprise attack." "The enemy's artillery fired a shell at us; we were hit by their artillery shell." Notice we don't have a separate sense at "artillery" for "attributive: fired by artillery". - -sche (discuss) 01:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Um, I said "keep". DonnanZ (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
And your logic explained why it's not a separate sense. Delete per Donnanz. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 13:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete per -sche. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

A question though: what should we do with the translation table pertaining to that sense? I think it's pointless but I dunno. Per utramque cavernam 13:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

It wouldn't bother me to just drop the table--a number of those words, especially in the Germanic/Scandinavian sphere, use that form of compounding as a normal construct that isn't really a special, ad hoc affix, so designating them in a translation table seems needless. And some of them may also belong in the translation table for sense 1, depending on the language. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
User:DCDuring and I have talked about the question of what to do with translations of "attributive" uses of nouns (especially ones that are adjectives in other languages) from time to time. One simple idea is to put the translations in the table for the relevant noun sense and {{qualifier}} them, like in cork. Another idea is to have a separate table for attributive use, as in brass. (Another approach, which is less helpful but more common at the moment, is to omit such translations entirely.) - -sche (discuss) 19:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

My point is that showing attributive usage is useful to readers in cases where there is no adjective. IMO the nomination is rather silly. DonnanZ (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

As I understand it:
1. For any English speaker (say, EN-3 and up) decoding or encoding in English such adjective sections are not at all useful
2. For an English speaker wanting to go from an English word to an FL translation in a given language, then a translation table indicating how the FL delivers the meaning might be useful for encoding into the FL, if it were complete or at least handled many common cases. The adjective section is not of any use for decoding because that job is undertaken by the FL entry for the word.
3. For an FL speaker seeking to decode an English expression using a noun attributively, I don't see how the adjective section is much help that could not delivered by using {{label|en|often used attributively}} in the noun definition. For an FL speaker seeking to find how to express a thought in which attributive use of a noun is normal English usage, finding the English noun should be all that is necessary, if the user were not able to use the gloss in the entry for the word appropriate in the FL.
I suppose a hard case is one in which the most natural translation of an SOP multi-word expression in one language is an SoP multi-word expression in the other language. This seems to bring us up against a combinatorial explosion of the number of entries potentially required. DCDuring (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018[edit]

national supremacy[edit]

SOP, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 01:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, delete. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete per proponent. Per utramque cavernam 09:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

garage door[edit]

garage + door. --Per utramque cavernam 09:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment: It might pass the fried egg test. In my house we have a door that leads to the garage from inside, which is a "garage door", but not the big type that you think of when someone says garage door. Often called a "garage entry door". – Julia • formerly Gormflaith • 22:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Julia--she makes an important point. My garage actually has three different things that we might call the "garage door"--the ingang door into the house, the outgang door to the yard, and then the actual proper garage door that the car comes in through. I definitely think it passes the fried egg test. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - per Julia. John Cross (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per SanctMinimalicen. I grew up in a house with a similar set-up, with a door leading from the house to the garage, another leading from the garage to the side of the house (the strip of land between houses), and the main "garage door" for cars to pass through. bd2412 T 12:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

This is similar to car door, which is still in RFD. DonnanZ (talk) 08:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep per Julia. And also worth pointing out that there are several definitions of garage. Have added 'residential' to definition. --Dmol (talk) 09:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure the residential distinction is necessary: while I agree that in most cases garage door refers to residential cases, these kind of doors are also common on commercial car repair garages. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

full to the brim[edit]

full + to the brim. Per utramque cavernam 19:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete per PUC. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

make a mistake[edit]

Sum of parts, IMO. Created by WF with comment of "common collocation", which isn't inherently enough for an entry. Move translations over to err, and maybe move Thesaurus:make a mistake to Thesaurus:err as well? – Julia • formerly Gormflaith • 12:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Abstain. At Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-03/Including translation hubs, the last rule states that "The existence of a rare single-word English synonym of the considered English term does not disqualify the considered English term". While I'm not too keen on those translation targets, I think this one is all right (err isn't rare, but it's not the most common term either, I'd say). But whatever the outcome, let's put all the translations in a single place.
However, I oppose moving the Thesaurus entry. Per utramque cavernam 13:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
According to make a mistake at OneLook Dictionary Search, general dictionaries don't have this, though I've found usage examples at entries for make in some I've looked at. One legal dictionary offers a list of synonyms (presumably to help lawyers write more formal-sounding briefs); McGraw-Hill idioms has it; and WordNet (a semantic net-based reference, more conceptual than dictionaries) too. I'd say this represents close to the outer limit of what I'd call entryworthy. There are many synonyms for mistake that can be found (eg, error, faux pas, blunder, ?miscue); additionally many specialized hyponyms (eg, wild pitch, foul). I think a usage note indicating that there are numerous terms that substitute for mistake and a reference to a specific definition of make, such as MWOnline's "14a: to produce as a result of action, effort, or behavior with respect to something" make a mess of the job; tried to make a thorough job of it. I don't think we actually have a definition of make that fits make a mistake ("err"), make a throw ("throw"), make a turn ("turn"). DCDuring (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
@DCDuring Sense 1.3 "to bring about" might fit. It has "to make trouble" as one of its usexes, which seems to be in the family of the ones you mentioned. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I added a clause to that sense which might clarify its use as well, and may cover the usage mentioned above. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Maybe. Usually I would say that we need a substitutable definition, but I doubt that we can do that for the most common senses of make. (MWOnline's definition seems awkward when substituted as well.) In make a throw (or mistake, turn, about-face, leap, attempt), there is an element of performance, rather than creation. DCDuring (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
That's true. I'm inclined to treat the "to perform a feat" sense of make as a separate sense from the effect, bring about sense. There are a lot of instances of it: make a pass, make a goal, make an attempt, make a start, make a basket (as in basketball), make a turn, make a leap, make a jump, make a feat, make a stop, etc. I might add a sense for that. Make a mistake could arguably belong to either sense. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, along with everything else that WF ever made. --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 10:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
    •  :-| Julia • formerly Gormflaith • 12:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • New proposal: Keep as a translation hub; move err translations over; keep thesaurus entry. Now that there's a sense at make I think it should be good. (thanks PUC for this idea, and StMin for the sense) – Julia • formerly Gormflaith • 12:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
@Julia Nobody's used that abbreviation before--I love it. :) --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • That seems reasonable to me--I can get behind that.--SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
A tentative keep. It can be compared with make no mistake. DonnanZ (talk) 10:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
make no mistake seems more idiomatic, though–it only refers to a certain type of mistake, and I feel like it would be a bit odd if used as a command in a more literal sense: "Make no mistake! Read very carefully, please." – Julia • formerly Gormflaith • 15:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreed--it may have originated more literally, but now the idiomatic "believe me" kind of meaning is well departed from a literal injunction not to err--whereas "make a mistake" is simply literal. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

political spectrum[edit]

"The spectrum of political viewpoints represented as a continuum..."
Seems SOP. Many spectra are represented by continua, and have extremes (e.g. the spectrum of visible light), so those aspects of the definition don't seem to confer any idiomaticity. - -sche (discuss) 02:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, but there's also light spectrum--should that be treated the same? --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 03:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
There are also electromagnetic spectrum and visible spectrum (and also optical spectrum, nuclear spectrum, hydrogen spectrum, mass spectrum, first-order spectrum).
Maybe at least light spectrum could become a translation hub (there's Lichtspektrum which is a single word)? -84.161.37.130 03:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

individual racism[edit]

institutional racism[edit]

SOP. - -sche (discuss) 02:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree, delete. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 03:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't the same apply to institutional racism, i.e. shouldn't it be deleted as well? -84.161.37.130 03:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
That's a good point. I'll add it. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 03:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete both. But @-sche, are you ok with adding institutional racism to your nom? Per utramque cavernam 09:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry--I should have asked first. We can definitely separate it out as a separate nom if you prefer, -sche. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
It may have a bit more claim to idiomaticity than "individual racism" does, but it's fine to add it to this section—people who want to vote to delete one and keep the other can do that. - -sche (discuss) 16:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Can't really believe that "individual racism" merits an entry. It's one of those hot/trending topics but that doesn't make it not SoP. Delete. (Probably "institutional racism" too but that's more arguable.) Equinox 20:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Keep institutional racism - it is a term defined in the 1999 Lawrence report (UK) (though that wasn't the first usage). John Cross (talk) 10:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

teacher's desk[edit]

Inappropriate and misleading title; “teacher's desk” is not in a classroom by default. Either define it clearly in the title (as a translations-only entry should), or convert it into a non-translations-only entry for it to be kept. Wyang (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

(See also a discussion at #teacher's desk in a classroom.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC))
Personally, I believe that this entry is a WT:SOP, as the definition is simply "a desk that belongs to a teacher". EhSayer (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
It is. However, the entry is supposed to be for translations. —Suzukaze-c 00:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
That's not what the def says. Equinox 00:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Translation hubs are subject to slightly different rules of inclusion--reference WT:THUB. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is not a desk that belongs to a teacher or even one necessarily assigned to a particular teacher. It is a feature of a classroom. It isn't necessarily even a desk. bd2412 T 02:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Do you mean this is not a translations-only entry? At the moment it is saying a "teacher's desk" is literally a desk used by a teacher in a classroom (which it isn't), with no idiomaticity of the phrase. Wyang (talk) 06:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
If it literally isn't, then it is idiomatic. bd2412 T 16:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

show up as[edit]

SoP show up + as. (If kept, might need to fix the past tense to include shown.) Equinox 00:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete per above. Mihia (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete PseudoSkull (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

bow grip, bow hold[edit]

Both sum of parts. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Without hesitation[edit]

This seems SoP and not sufficiently idiomatic to me. One also sees constructions like "without pausing", "without pausing to think", "without waiting", "without another moment's time", etc. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 02:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete without hesitation! – Julia • formerly Gormflaith • 03:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
:] --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Without delay is also common and also SoP. Wonder if we can move the translation somewhere. Equinox 04:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking about that. Looking at a few Maori dictionaries, it looks like the creator of the page didn't even fully understand the word--it's more like "steadfast, unwavering" than it is "immediately", but seems to apply to both senses. I don't know Maori really at all, but based on the dictionaries, I think that "unwavering" is a good choice because it covers both the immediacy and the firmness. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
It's actually a verb: "to be steadfast, unwavering". Perhaps move the translation to stand firm, or something like that? --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I believe all Maori adjectives are stative verbs, and I'm not sure what our convention is with such languages- it would be odd to have no translation for green because Maori treats it as "to be green". Chuck Entz (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
That's fascinating--taking the "green" example, we currently have the Maori word for "to be green" as a translation of our adjective "green"--so to mimic that we could go with the first idea I put forth (which is now unstricken), and put it in "unwavering". --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Per utramque cavernam 14:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

American option[edit]

Bermudan option[edit]

European option[edit]

These are not the only collocations. One can talk about American options, American calls, and American puts. Better therefore to move the definition to American as an adjective applying to financial options. The equivalent is true for Bermudan and European, as well as a range of other option types that I haven't yet added as entries (I'm holding off pending this decision, but other types include: Asian, Boston, Canary, Evergreen, Israeli, Parisian, Russian, Verde). -Stelio (talk) 11:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep using the talk:free variable rationale. I would never look up Bermudan option under "Bermudan", and I think "Bermudan call" and "Bermudan put" are basically derived terms of Bermudan option. If keeping is not feasible, at least redirect, but we can serve our readers best by keeping, I think. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

eatin' like a bird[edit]

eatin' and eating like a bird seem sufficient. Equinox 22:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Definitely. Delete. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete. DonnanZ (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Abstain. I don't see any harm in it, and it might even be helpful (saving someone the bother of first looking up eatin' and then eating for two), but see Talk:eatin' for two, which was deleted. - -sche (discuss) 05:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete for nominator's reason. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Jew-free[edit]

Jew + free. I don't think the translations support making this a translation hub, since "A translation does not qualify to support the English term if it is: a closed compound that is a word-for-word translation of the English term: German Autoschlüssel does not qualify to support the English "car key". DTLHS (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you're right on both counts--delete. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not Jewish, but to me it sounds a little anti-Jewish. But on the other hand we would end up deleting all terms suffixed with -free, whether they have a hyphen or not. That is a rather slippery slope. Keep, I think. DonnanZ (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
But when an apparently Israeli source uses the term [36]. Hmm. DonnanZ (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
How is that relevant? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 11:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Referring to my comment about sounding anti-Jewish. DonnanZ (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
How is that relevant either? We're a dictionary. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete, unless WT:COALMINE applies. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 11:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
There are a number of instances of Jewfree, though most of them are calques of judenrein provided to translate the word in context. There may be enough though to justify Jewfree, though--but I suppose that's an RFV matter. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I retract that--I looked back at the sources I had mentioned and they were all hyphenated. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I just watched the film Conspiracy, about the w:Wannsee Conference, and the term "Jew-free" was used about half a dozen times.--Father Goose (talk) 03:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
It's not worth anything. Nobody doubts that it's real; we doubt that it is a single word, rather than two words hyphenated. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Someone mentioned judenrein but there's also judenfrei from which this may have been calqued. In general it seems like one of those things that may slip through due to three people sloppily hyphenating, alas. Equinox 03:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Keep if attested. Ƿidsiþ 11:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

XML-based[edit]

XML + based. DTLHS (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox 11:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

half-free[edit]

Seems like an entry created solely for its etymology. DTLHS (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Isn't it still a word though ? Leasnam (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that's a useful question. I hope we can come up with better criteria for suffixed words than "is there an unsuffixed form" (COALMINE). DTLHS (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Suffixed? do you mean prefixed (i.e. half-) ? Leasnam (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
We have the page -free, so I guess you could say both. DTLHS (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
It would appear to be a synonym of semi-free or semifree; I don't think the suffix -free should be used here. DonnanZ (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
In ice-free, -free has the meaning we give it in [[-free#Suffix]]. The meaning in half-free is one of the meanings in [[free#Adjective]]. I wonder if anyone has ever used the expression to mean "free of half/halves". DCDuring (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Keep, considering the OE origins. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

disease-free[edit]

Free of disease. DTLHS (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Keep, per lemming principle. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Keep, along with all other hyphenated adjectives and verbs. They count as one word. DonnanZ (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Something doesn't become includable just because you've declared it a word. That's a circular argument and you should stop making it. DTLHS (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
To be fair, I didn't invent the word. I did find a couple of hits on Google Books for disease free; diseasefree can also be found, some are scannos for disease-free, but I did find one instance of diseasefree and disease-free both occurring in the same article. Looking at CFI, I don't think anything in there goes against this word. DonnanZ (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
That's true. I really think we need to agree on something that can be written down in CFI that applies to hyphenated compounds. DTLHS (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
If you do that, you have to bear in mind that certain words are more likely to be hyphenated in British English than in American English, one exception is seamfree for some reason. DonnanZ (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreed about somehow codifying CFI on hyphenated words. They play so many semantic roles and enjoy such broad productivity that I think it behoves us to have a consistent policy as to when they count and when they do not. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest as a first step a provision that phrases which are hyphenated due to being used attributively should be treated as if the hyphens were spaces for purposes of determining whether they're SOP. That would prevent deletion of hyphenated true compounds and of all phrases that are idiomatic, but would get rid of the "it-must-be-a-single-word-because-it's-hyphenated" argument (yes, I did that on purpose...). It wouldn't cover this type of construction, but it would be relatively easy to apply, and it might be accepted by some who would object to a more sweeping proposal. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I think that's prudent--it begins address the problem of any-word-can-be-made-up-with-a-hyphen-ism, but cautiously and only in a narrow sphere. From there at some point we can move maybe to illegitimate uses of suffixes using hyphens (like the one I just used), to separate them from legitimate ones somehow (as Donnanz mentions below). --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
A good yardstick is whether a term appears in a reputable online dictionary, as disease-free does. If it doesn't, more thought has to be put into whether it is entry-worthy or not. The attributive-only argument doesn't always work with hyphenated adjectives, see rent-free which is also an adverb. DonnanZ (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that lemming principle reminds me of the above discussion about "ever-X" words. Which dictionary did you find had disease-free? --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Oxford Online, the reference has been there since day 1. DonnanZ (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Don't know how I missed it. I'll accept the lemming principle here. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
words-formulated-with--free-free... --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I would like to include weed-free as it is quite common. I have been spending time lately tackling the weeds in my own garden. DonnanZ (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Is being common or uncommon a factor in the decision to include an entry? Mihia (talk) 02:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
It's not uncommon to see DonnanZ give some detail about their personal connection to the thing referred to as a reason to keep the phrase referring to it. Sometimes I wonder if they look in the mirror to see what the weather's like outside... Chuck Entz (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh yes, the possibilities are endless, giraffe-free, idiot-free, traffic-free, Irish-free, it's knowing where to draw the line. We should refrain from joining -free compounds up in an effort to get round the problem, as I suspect has happened in the past. DonnanZ (talk) 07:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Unlike weed-free, the other two terms do not appear attested, and attestation is a prerequisite regardless of sum of parts: football-free, buffalo-free at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
The world does not begin and end with 'Ngram' viewer, and, in any case, as explained in the docs, "we only consider ngrams that occur in at least 40 books". That's 40 books. It is easy to find examples of "buffalo-free" and "football-free". You can start by searching for "buffalo-free zone" and "football-free zone". Mihia (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep (I consider hyphenated compounds to be single words). Ƿidsiþ 07:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
So you would support an entry for "buffalo-free", defined as "free of/from buffalos"? Mihia (talk) 01:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I mean I wouldn't add something like that, but if someone else had, and it had three citations, then yes. Ƿidsiþ 06:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

ice-free[edit]

Free of ice. DTLHS (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Temporarily abstain until icefree is verified. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Keep per WT:COALMINE, as icefree has sufficient citation. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
What would you prefer - icefree? It is often used when referring to areas of water. Reference added, keep. DonnanZ (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Keep since icefree seems to be attested, counterpart to icebound. - -sche (discuss) 19:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
It looks like we have two cites for icefree--if we can find a third that would be good. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Ironically, it shouldn't make any difference, as ice-free is still a single albeit suffixed hyphenated word. DonnanZ (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

various computing related -based entries[edit]

JavaScript-based, Java-based, Linux-based, PHP-based, Perl-based, HTML-based, XHTML-based, Web-based, browser-based DTLHS (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox
Delete all. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't they be treated in the same way as compounds of shaped? DonnanZ (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, those should be deleted as well. DTLHS (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. Mihia (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete all entries of the form "X-based" where the meaning is no more than "based on/around X". If necessary add -based, or note the combining form at based. Mihia (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Keep Web-based - I think I can cite Webbased. John Cross (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
The fact that "Webbased" may be citable does not directly bear on the question of whether "Web-based" should be kept. We also need to keep in mind that many people have no clue how to use hyphens. I would not accept "Webbased" on the basis of one or two random Googled instances, if that's what it amounts to. Mihia (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I keep thinking that webbased should be the past form of the verb *webbas Chuck Entz (talk) 05:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Delete all. Per utramque cavernam 09:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete all, but archive properly to each one. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

anglecized[edit]

Seems to be an overly rare misspelling. Paging through to the end of the Google Books hits, I count 74 books using this spelling. ("Anglecize" and "anglecizing" also get a few hits, from as far back as the 1700s, so perhaps the argument could be made that this should rather be labelled an obsolete spelling, but its continued erroneous use seems to argue against that.) - -sche (discuss) 19:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

No hesitation, delete. A possible confusion with angle. DonnanZ (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
74 cites seems like a lot to me, I would keep. Ƿidsiþ 06:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I would keep per Ƿidsiþ, especially considering that it appears as early as 1700. ----SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I would also keep per the above Leasnam (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

mark as[edit]

SoP, like "flag as", "dismiss as", "categorize as"... Equinox 18:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Not yet, because we have no corresponding sense at mark down, but I suspect we should! Equinox 08:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Sense at mark down: Yes check.svg Done. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

floating palette[edit]

"A palette window that floats above other standard windows." Floating above etc. is what "floating" means; we can also easily find floating toolbar, floating window, and so on. So: SoP. Equinox 08:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I haven't got a clue, but shouldn't it be kept as a technical term? DonnanZ (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
No, because it's made of two words whose sum is the same as the two-word phrase. For example on your computer you can open up a new "window" (technical term) and you can maximise/expand it to fill the screen ("maximise" is another tech term): then you have a "maximised window". But because a maximised window is nothing beyond "a window that has been maximised" it's not worth an entry, any more than "pink flower" for a gardener's term for a flower that happens to be pink in colour. This is the same. Anything can "float": that means it hovers/exists over the main window/interface without being visually connected to it. A floating palette is no different from any other floating thing, lexically. Equinox 09:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I can see where you're coming from, however I found and added a Wikipedia reference, for what it's worth. DonnanZ (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
And what does "floating" actually mean here? Looking at floating (sense 2) I assume it doesn't float of its own accord, like a floating leaf on water, but has to be dragged to "float". DonnanZ (talk) 12:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
But you're asking what "float" means, not what "floating palette" means. Anything that does "whatever float means" is "floating". So the entry is still sum of parts. As someone who has spent decades writing code for Windows I could tell you in horrible detail what "floating" means. Let's say in short it means that something BELONGS TO a parent window or application (which is usually "underneath", meaning that it is covered by the floating thing), AND that the floating thing has its own free position on the screen that doesn't automatically change when you move the parent. (For example, if you open some tabs in your browser, and move the browser, then the tabs move too; but if something is floating over the top, then it stays still, even if that thing was created and is owned by the browser.) Note that NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH PALETTES: it is just a generic sense of "what it means to be floating". So having an entry for "floating palette" (versus floating window, toolbar, editor, etc.) is as silly as having an entry for "brown hair, dog, potato" instead of just saying what "brown" means. PLEASE don't make me explain this again. Equinox 14:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
It may be obvious to a professional, but not to a layman. DonnanZ (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete: float (verb sense 17, or perhaps nouns sense 25) + palette (sense 3). --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
IMO having to go to float is too far to look, float usually implies it is free to move, but I get the impression it's static and has to be physically moved. Correct me if I'm wrong. DonnanZ (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
If it's too far to go from floating palette to float then it's too far to go from brown leaf to brown. Our entire SoP policy uses brown leaf = leaf that is brown = (no entry required) as a basis. So if you are disputing that then you need to bring some strong arguments. Saying "I don't know about computers so I don't know a two-word computer term" is not sufficient. I know nothing about genetics therefore I don't really know what a "non-repeating nucleotide" is; however, it's pretty fucking clear that it must be a nucleotide (and I can learn what that means, if I choose to) that does not repeat. Equinox 14:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Going from brown leaf to brown is one step. Going from floating palette to floating, and then having to go to float is two steps. DonnanZ (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely true, but I am not sure that this is something that should dictate our entry-making. Perhaps what this tells us is that going to a page floating and seeing present participle of float and having to do an extra click/tap is not good enough. The main point is not to duplicate information: we need to keep things clear and simple AND to reduce editor effort: that doesn't mean I'm placing editor effort above learner/user reward, but it means that we might e.g. need to merge forms of a verb into a single page, instead of having the "islands" we have now. If there are generic problems like this, we should 1. address them and 2. not punish individual cases like "floating palette" because of them. Equinox 15:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
In this case floating is a common adjective anyway, and I have just updated the derived terms. I think it has to be considered separately from float. Comparing with Oxford Online, there's a few missing that we may be interested in: floating charge, floating cloche, floating debt, floating holiday (not a holiday afloat!), and floating restaurant, but floating toolbar or floating palette aren't listed. DonnanZ (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I would send to RfV to see if citations support the use of this as a set phrase (i.e. used outside of a context that explains the meaning), but would otherwise keep. It combines an unintuitive sense of "float" with an unintuitive sense of "palette", which is itself easily confused with "palate". bd2412 T 14:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The palette-palate thing is at least measurable. Presumably that would require redirects for all phrases with either of the confusable words (e.g. palate knife -> palette knife; soft palette -> soft palate). As I've said before, I think this is the point where we need to rely on the search engine (which may use spell-checking and soundalikes: I recently in my real-life job implemented Double Metaphone, which is damn good at matching up "close enough" surnames): to create extra entries for every entry whose headword includes any of the disputed words is a scary ballooning. Equinox 15:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 16:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't exactly on the fence, but keep, I think. DonnanZ (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
IMO, being a technical term makes it (automatically?) keepable. DonnanZ (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete for the reason given by SanctMinimalicen. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Per utramque cavernam 10:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

sucker trap[edit]

Created this but I don't know. sucker + trap? Per utramque cavernam 10:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The plural is wrong, but I have never heard of it. DonnanZ (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Plural corrected. It is also a term used in fishing. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Whoops, made a copy paste from another entry and forgot to change that. Thanks. Per utramque cavernam 11:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

fuck this[edit]

screw this[edit]

As seen from the talk pages, these were previously deleted back in 2013, but I'd like to charitably interpret Nicki's recreation of them as a request for undeletion. I think it's at least worth discussing (even though Nicki is a global-block-evading user), since it's not entirely obvious why "fuck this" and "screw this" are more SOP than "fuck you"/"screw you", which we have long had entries for and have not deleted. So: are these SOP, or not? - -sche (discuss) 19:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Dunno, I'm personally not bothered, but it's language I wouldn't use. The usage examples are interesting. DonnanZ (talk) 10:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd say weak keep. It does seem like an idiomatic expression, and I'm surprised so many people voted to delete it without any discussion or reasoning last time. @Equinox, Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV (two of the deleters last time who are still around), what do you think now? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

fundamental theorem[edit]

"Fundamental theorem of arithmetic", etc., so it's somewhat of a set phrase in mathematics, but still just fundamental + theorem. DTLHS (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep. As is made clear in the Wikipedia article, fundamental here is not used in the obvious sense ("serving as a foundation"). It is a fairly vague considered central - admittedly, in some cases, having been thus considered for a long time. For newer usages, even this sense is watered down. It is emphatically not necessary that the theorem form the basis of a logical exposition of the related theory.— Pingkudimmi 05:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Keep. There may be translations anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 08:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
In another place I found Grundsatz (being used this way) Hauptsatz (oops) and Fundamentalsatz. Neither is word for word. DonnanZ (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
From Satz one could - if the entry were more informative - find types of Sätze, but one has to differ between linguistics (Hauptsatz, Nebensatz, Fragesatz, ...), mathematics (Fundamentalsatz, Hilfssatz (Hilfsatz), Lehrsatz, ...) and others. -80.133.107.120 13:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

fake family unit[edit]

As the etymology says, fake + family unit. DTLHS (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete. -SanctMinimalicen (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete. The best of the quotations can be moved to family unit, which doesn't really have any. DonnanZ (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete. why do I think we found a new PaM? Don't use Wiktionary to make super-passive-aggressive judgements. Equinox 01:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
What does PaM stand for?
There was a user called Pass a Method who would pick certain topics and create a lot of bizarre stuff to push the topic. For example he had an "Islam" period and he would create entries like (maybe) Muslimistically... there's loads of history but I can't pull it immediately from my head. By PaM I mean creating entries not because you think "here's a real word that isn't documented" but because you think "here's a [possibly not-at-all-used] word that will promote my agenda". Equinox 02:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Uff da, yeah...the contribs list is an RFV nightmare. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 02:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Not like PaM- they don't really have any agenda beyond wanting to create entries for everything that doesn't get out of the way fast enough. Their problem isn't bad faith, but poor judgement. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I think they're acting in good faith and just (like some other contributors) including the kinds of common (by a flexible, situational definition of 'common') collocations that a translation dictionary would include, rather than strictly idiomatic things that a dictionary would include. (Strikes me as a Wikipedian; Wikipedia often might have separate articles or sections for "individual racism", etc.) I left a message on their talk page about SOP. Btw, the question about PAM comes up often enough that maybe we should have WT:PAM and WT:WF explainers... ;) and I'm only half joking. - -sche (discuss) 19:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@-sche: Honestly though. I've been trying to piece together the WF narrative since I've started here, and I had given up on understanding what PaM meant until Equinox's explanation above. >_<' --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm still trying to work out what POV means, which has been used against me in the past. At the time I was probably too overawed to ask. DonnanZ (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
It stands for "point of view", but also gets used like an adjective roughly meaning "biased". Wikipedia makes much ado about trying to maintain "NPOV", a "neutral point of view". - -sche (discuss) 05:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, that would explain it, I do tend to have points of view... DonnanZ (talk) 09:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

sneak out[edit]

Kinda dumb, it's just sneak + out (like jump out of the hot-air balloon, or fall out of the rollercoaster, or wriggle out of obligations). Equinox 03:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete. I almost wanted to keep it because in my mind the phrase sneak out by itself implies sneaking out of one's own home ("We had to keep a close eye on Ryan because he was always sneaking out."), which might make it not exactly sum of parts, but this entry includes all venues of leaving surreptitiously, which does make it SoP whilst also accounting for my definition above. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, it has a couple of older brothers, sneak in and sneak up on. DonnanZ (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Good point. Sneak up seems to operate the same way as sneak out, and probably should be investigated together with it. Sneak up on may have a better case for inclusion, but still might be accountable by means of sneak + up (sense 12) + on (sense 2). But it's up to Equinox if he wants to discuss those as well. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
And then there's sneak away. But in the absence of any other RFDs for sneak derivatives I would keep it. DonnanZ (talk) 10:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I think it's better that we consider them all then keep one simply because we didn't. See #sneak in below. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

feed out of[edit]

Sometimes people don't understand prepositions. Equinox 03:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, I feel like there might be something to this one. "The cows were fed out of troughs" is very different from "The cows were fed out of the chute into the slaughterhouse". The former seems clearly SoP, the latter not so much, at least based off of our current senses of feed. In any case, entry doesn't cover the distinction...so maybe add sense to feed that covers the regular, constant transmission of material from one point to another, and then delete. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
In "fed out of the chute into the slaughterhouse", feed is used in sense 4: "To give to a machine to be processed". Of course a slaughterhouse is not literally a machine; this is a metaphorical use. You could also say, extending the example at feed: Feed the paper gently out of the waste basket into the document shredder.  --Lambiam 01:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

proton mass[edit]

neutron mass[edit]

electron mass[edit]

Seem SoP to me. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Does the fact that they have specific values mean we should keep them? DTLHS (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps--though at the moment, the entries don't provide that information. If we were to include these, would that put us at risk for a slippery slope with descriptive terms with specific numerical values, e.g. boiling point of water, freezing point of water, ice density etc? --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Are any of these used as units? Would you say "twenty electron masses" or "two ice densities"? DTLHS (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but uncommonly. It wouldn't be a reason for keeping, since anything can be used that way, and the first two have an actual unit derived from them (atomic mass unit/dalton). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

bird's nest[edit]

SoP and pretty transparent. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to keep it. There is also bird's nest fungus, which should link to this (but doesn't), and I'm surprised there's no entry for bird's nest soup. DonnanZ (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I didn't realise at first this is a new entry, but I'm still saying "keep". DonnanZ (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Definitely delete the current sense. We should probably add a sense for a metaphoric tangled mess, as in "on windy days her hair was an absolute bird's nest". Chuck Entz (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • We lacked any of the metaphor-derived definitions, for example, the six that MWOnline has. They may be hard to attest. DCDuring (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete the current SoP sense, but add an edible bird's nest sense (probably a short form of that term). This is a common usage in Malaysia and Singapore: see for example [39], [40], [41]. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Even if that were to happen, somewhere is still needed to record terms that include "bird's nest" (and translations of course). DonnanZ (talk) 10:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Clearly keep. It's in the OED, Merriam-Webster, Collins, and dictionary.com. It is also stressed in speech as a compound noun. ("This is an ˌanimal's ˈnest" v. "This is a ˈbird's nest"). Ƿidsiþ 11:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I see we don't have birdnest or bird-nest. Perhaps the defs can be moved there Leasnam (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I've created birdnest and moved all content there. I've left bird's nest as an alt form. Leasnam (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Um, are there any lemmings for birdnest? Not a term I use, and not a good move, IMO. DonnanZ (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps, but birdnest is an entry we needed to create anyway, as we are missing it. This way, we can care for both issues at once Leasnam (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
You can have birdnest by all means (birdnesting also springs to mind, I'm sure that's a word), but I don't think it should be the main entry. DonnanZ (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Okay, well it's easily movable to one of the other forms if deemed more appropriate... Leasnam (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
If birdnest is an alternative of bird's nest there is now no reason to delete that. Apparently birdnest is also a verb, and birdnesting is what I thought it was, although there is apparently a new sense related to divorce. DonnanZ (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I reinstated bird's nest as the main lemma, since it was created first and is also orders of magnitude more common. Ƿidsiþ 09:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
    I agree. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

tool of choice[edit]

SoP "tool + of choice". (I'm also not sure that the "mostly software" remark is particularly true.) Equinox 17:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

fire[edit]

Rfd-redundant interjection sense 2 ("A signal to shoot") -- this is just verb sense 6 being used in the imperative, not a separate interjection Pppery (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

sneak in[edit]

sneak up[edit]

sneak away[edit]

sneak off[edit]

sneak up on[edit]

Each as SoP. See conversation at #sneak out.

  • sneak in (sense 1) is purely sneak + in. Sense 2 is more idiomatic, and may end up warranting to keep the entry with the &lit designation on sense 1--but I think it would do better to add a relevant sense to sneak.
  • sneak up is simply sneak + up (sense 12)--up can be used with just about any movement verb in this sense: I snuck up to the house, I walked up to the house, I ran up to the house, I drove up to the house, I bicycled up to the house, I roller-skated up to the house, I crawled up to the house, etc.
  • sneak away is similar: sneak + away. E.g., I snuck away from the crowd, I ran away from the crowd, I somersaulted away from the crowd, etc.
  • sneak off is the same thing: sneak + off (adverb sense 1). Sneak off, drive off, stomp off, etc.
  • sneak up on, even though it has a narrower definition, is still simply sneak + up (sense 12) + on (sense 2).

--SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

feel froggish[edit]

Sum of parts. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Right now, froggish is only defined as resembling a frog...so if it is SoP we will want to add a relevant sense there. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 04:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • It's plainly idiomatic, per Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Idiomaticity, as it doesn't mean "to feel like a frog" or "resemble a frog". In this idiomatic form, it's generally paired with "feeling": "he was feeling froggy" means he wanted to fight; "he was froggy" doesn't. Here's two more examples of its use (definition 1): [42] [43].--Father Goose (talk) 05:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Generally paired, no doubt- the alliteration sounds better. If you look long enough, though (especially on Usenet), you can find "get (all) froggish" or "be froggish" based on the same idea. If it were truly an idiomatic set phrase, you wouldn't see that. I also have my doubts that we've got two senses here. It looks to me like froggish would be better defined as something like "compelled to do something impulsive"- to "jump", metaphorically speaking. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
      • All right, with a Usenet search I'm starting to be convinced "getting froggy" is also common. I'd add your suggestion "want do something impulsive" as a sense, but it's not the same as "feel aggressive or hostile". Here's an example that doesn't match with "impulsive": [44]. That use aligns with aggressive or bold; it's even closer to feel one's oats. I've also seen froggy used/defined as "anxious" or even "horny". Related senses all, but still distinct.
        Then there's the full phrase (seemingly the origin of these senses in general), "if you're feeling froggy, jump", which is almost always a challenge to fight, like "you want a piece of me". I think that one's covered by definition 1, "want to fight". At this point I'd agree to moving it all to froggy, with redirects at feel froggy and feeling froggy. I'm still not sure how to handle the froggy/froggish divide; 'froggy' seems way more common but the two solid cites I chose use 'froggish' (see feel froggish).--Father Goose (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Never heard of it. Three senses?! Needs major cleanup anyway: #2 says being aggressive, but the cite doesn't seem to show this -- it's feeling, not being. The overall sense seems perhaps to be a pun along the lines of "act like a banana and split": if you feel froggish, then hop/leap/take action: shit or get off the pot...? Equinox 01:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm glad you said that--that's the sense I had when I initially looked at it. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Taking Chuck's and Goose's comments into account: "if you feel froggy/ish, jump" would explain fighting ("they jumped me in an alley") and also sex ("I want to jump his bones"). Equinox 04:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd never heard of it either, but from the usage on Google Books I think it's AAVE or maybe (US) Southern and AAVE. Of course, there's a lot of AAVE that finds it's way into mainstream slang these days... Chuck Entz (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Here's a North Carolina newspaper from 1955 identifying it as "mountain speech". The earliest cite I can find is in w:Herman Wouk's novel Aurora Dawn from 1947 ("Now jump, if you still feel froggy"). It's voiced by a character from West Virginia. Wouk from the Bronx, but maybe he picked it up in the service.
Here's a modern use which I'd say verges on "amped up": "Started feeling REALLY froggy so I slapped another ten lbs on it and got 145x3 fairly easily - bam."[45] (Oh, and look, we're missing amped up, which is a thing: [46].)
My guess is that it started with the "You wanna fight?" stock phrase, then became "wanting to fight", then got diluted to "aggressive", and even to just "energetic".--Father Goose (talk) 05:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

twenty[edit]

"(military) A set of twenty push-ups." This is not specific to the number; any number can be used, e.g. "give me forty". Equinox 01:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Sense deleted. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
BTW: the example sentence used "ric" as a slang term for "recruit" ("give me twenty, ric!"): is that real? We don't have it. I couldn't find it even in a Google Web search and even dialling the Equinox creativity meter up to about 8. Equinox 04:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I suspect there's a lot of military slang that doesn't make it into print. There seems to be a general tendency to make everything as short as possible in the military, so I wouldn't be surprised if this is a real word that just hasn't found its way into a book yet. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I added a sense to give me to cover this expression.--Father Goose (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

debug menu[edit]

I think this is SoP. The creator evidently knows the term from video games, but any kind of menu used for debugging is a "debug menu", e.g. in Microsoft's Visual Studio IDE. Equinox 01:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

In video gaming contexts at least, a debug menu and a debug mode are practically one and the same. But debug here doesn't mean looking through the code as it does in programming contexts. When debug menus/modes are left in video games and accessed by players, they are not technically used for debugging (although that would have been its original purpose), but for cheating and other such stuff, but they're still called debug. Adam9007 (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, I was reminded of sound test: a lot of 1990s console games have a "sound test" openly exposed in the options menu that will play all the sounds and music of the game. This could be used for testing but clearly anyone messing with it on a final released game isn't doing testing in that sense. Hmm. Maybe opinions from people who aren't either gamers or programmers? Equinox 22:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
To my knowledge, such sound and music tests are not called debug menus, although they can sometimes be found in debug menus. My understanding of it (but I could be wrong) is that in general, if it's not hidden in any way (that is, if it's clearly intended for the player to access it if they want to), it's not debug. Debug stuff in video games is almost always hidden from the player and accessible only by doing things like entering a code, adding of modifying an out-of-game setting, or in extreme cases, hacking. The hidden sound test in the PlayStation version of Ridge Racer may be considered debug as you cannot access it without hacking. But the one in the Mega Drive version of Puzzle & Action: Tant-R is not, as from the main menu all you have to do is go into Options and there it is. Also, unlike sound tests and say, cheat menus (I don't think anyone with any common sense would need further explanation for those), what you get in a debug menu can vary considerably depending on what game you're playing. Sometimes it's stuff that can be used to cheat, sometimes it's extra configuration stuff, sometimes it's tests, sometimes it's a mixture etc. In fact, one of the citations felt the term needed explaining. Adam9007 (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

war of attrition[edit]

WF created this already knowing somebody would RFD it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Once upon a time I started automatically deleting WF entries that were just rfdef, so he started putting cites in. The only thing WF ever reads is the back page of the Sun where it says "GO ON MY SUN: KANE SMASHES BALL INTO NET". So now he creates stupid "figurative sports language" entries of this kind. This is a hugely common phrase but the meaning is pretty obvious from the parts (cf. "war of espionage", "war of stealth"). So weak delete. Equinox 04:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
In other WF news I wish to thank the IP who finally bit the bullet today and removed WF's "woman who microwaved a kitten" citation from the kitten entry. Where can we get IPs who want to add citations? Equinox 04:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
In this case rfdef was replaced by Semper. There's plenty of "war of" entries though, abstain for now. DonnanZ (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh my, LOL! That has only just been removed! --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 08:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
And from now on I'll endeavour to add a wider range of quotes. The Telegraph's sports articles are never as well-written as the Guardian's. --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 08:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, despite bad-faith creation. A very common collocation which might well be considered a set phrase. Ƿidsiþ 19:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per WT:LEMMING: in oxforddictionaries.com[47] and dictionary.cambridge.org[48]. Note, however, that the dictionaries have a somewhat different definition. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. The definition we have is not one I'm familiar with. I've only ever heard of the one given by the two dictionaries Dan links to. I don't think "war of attrition" is truly deducible from "war" and "attrition." None of the definitions we have for the latter cover the specific sense used in the phrase. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Keep per DP (changed from abstain). DonnanZ (talk) 10:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

people are people[edit]

Googling phrases of the form "X are X" or "X is X" tends to produce hits, usually with a meaning like, "the nature of X is what it is". Examples are "men are men" and "dogs are dogs". What makes a Randian phrase of the type "A is A" worthy of inclusion? In some cases (e.g., boys will be boys) this may be an established saying, but in general it is a snowclone whose meaning is basically a sum-of-parts and not idiomatically fixed. Compare the present sense ("People are basically the same everywhere") with the sense supplied by the original creator ("People are inherently imperfect, and thus should be expected to make mistakes"). While I contend the first one is more commonly implied, both are within the vague spectrum of meanings of phrases of the form "X is Y" for the case where Y is the same of X, depending on the speaker's incidental notion of the nature of X. Lambiam 10:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused, wasn't this added by User:Lambiam? DonnanZ (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, wrong revision. —Suzukaze-c 00:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I merely edited it, after it had been added by another editor. See also Wiktionary:Tea room/2018/June#people are people.  --Lambiam 01:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I think DonnanZ was referring to the username I attributed to the post? You forgot to add your username (one too many hyphens). —Suzukaze-c 01:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
This hasn't really reached the status of "boys will be boys". It seems SoP to me and I would lean toward deletion. I am also reminded of the modern Internet slang of e.g. "obvious troll is obvious" or "long cat is long". Equinox 22:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I have never been particularly happy with the definition, I'm not sure how to redefine it (if it's salvageable). All people have human failings? DonnanZ (talk) 09:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

aspirational recycling[edit]

This is a preemptive RFD, as my last contribution was sent here and I'm twice shy now. Does anyone think this term ought to be deleted/excluded, or would it be safe for me to spend time on it? Here's a few attestations across the last four years: [49][50][51][52].--Father Goose (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

You didn't suggest a definition. Apparently it's when people put stuff in the recycling that they think should be recyclable but isn't. (I know the feeling. Damn those plastic lasagne trays.) I see maybe one or two hits on Google Books. With these buzzwords you just need to check whether there is real usage, or just some journalists talking about them on a slow day. Equinox 03:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
It's a clearly a fairly new term, but not this-year new. Your definition is more or less the one I'd use. The Google Books hits don't match that definition; all the usage I see is in articles (in fairly high-profile media) and waste-industry specific sites. It's not exactly a conversational term. So there's real usage, but is it Wiktionary-real? This is why I am soliciting opinions here. Can I create the entry, or would people recommend against it?--Father Goose (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I've created it. The synonym wishful recycling is attestable too, as is aspirational recycler but I still won't assume deletion is not forthcoming.--Father Goose (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

he who can, does, he who cannot, teaches[edit]

Procedural completion of an incomplete RfD by User:Maaduu2017. This saying is actually originally a quotation from the play Man and Superman by George Bernard Shaw (see q:Man and Superman). I have, personally, no clear opinion as to whether this saying merits inclusion or not; the short reason "gibberish" provided by the original nominator, however, clearly has no merit.  --Lambiam 13:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

A profound statement like this isn't gibberish. Shown as an alternative form of those who can't do, teach which survived RFV earlier this year. Classified as a proverb, I'm not sure about that, but if it is kept the source of the quotation should be included. But it could just as easily be included as a quotation at teach for instance. DonnanZ (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I can't see how the phrase is anything but SoP. Contrast a true proverb like a rolling stone gathers no moss, which is metaphorical. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Counterpoint: a penny saved is a penny earned is not metaphorical, but clearly proverbial. - TheDaveRoss 16:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
So it shouldn't be considered a proverb. The statement may not always be true anyway, consider a motorcycle instructor who rides along with his pupils. I think we can delete this, but save the quotation elsewhere. DonnanZ (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Not gibberish. Though there might be other spellings and some might be better. E.g. one can also find: "He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.", "He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches(.)" [the second dot is optional -- or it might at least sometimes be a matter of different quotation styles as "TEXT." vs. "TEXT".], "He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches. He who cannot teach, teaches teachers.".
  • Proverbs are often SOP, yet they are included as they're proverbs. Thus, if attestable (WT:RFVE) and an actual proverb (verifiable through citations and usages or through inclusion in proverb dictionaries?), it should stay -- or many proverbs should be deleted as they are SOP.
  • Source or origin (George Bernard Shaw, Maxims, 1903?) can be added in the etymology section. -80.133.107.120 12:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

what the hell[edit]

Sense "(mildly vulgar, slang) An intensive form of what.". SOP, just what + the hell. Compare why the hell ("why the hell did you do that?"), where the hell ("where the hell are my keys?") and so on.__Gamren (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Of course, we should add {{&lit}} and leave the example sentence as it is.__Gamren (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

instant karma[edit]

Sense 3 (of the adjective) of instant + sense 2 of karma. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

  • It isn’t, actually, though. Here’s your difference. If you throw a rock at a window, and immediately after, a bird poops on your head, you might call that karma, and it is instant. But it isn’t this. This is, you throw a rock at a window, and instead of it breaking the window, it bounces off and hits you in the head. If you go look at all the instant karma memes, all are instances of this sort of thing happening. Pandeist (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Or if you help someone across the street and there's an accident where you would have been standing, that wouldn't be instant karma, either. In other words, it's an unforeseen negative consequence to a negative action- immediate, coincidentally self-inflicted poetic justice. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Yes, that!! Always negative, and always essentially self-inflicted. Pandeist (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

too clever by half[edit]

This is just one case of "too ... by half". (The usage examples might be good there.) Equinox 00:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

It looks like a "lemming" keep. DonnanZ (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

sexual market value[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

What is the deletion rationale? Doesn't seem entirely SoP to me, based on market value. I have linked the abbreviation SMV which we already had. Equinox 21:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Strong keep Popular term that deserves inclusion, there is no reason for why it should be excluded. Amin (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it should be deleted, but you haven't provided any reason for why it should be kept either. Per utramque cavernam 11:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
It should go the other way: Giving a reason for deletion, then seeing if it applies, is convincing, and no reason given = no reason for deletion.
I can think of only three reasons:
  • 1. not politically correct, immoral, offensive - which is no reason for deletion.
  • 2. It doesn't exist, isn't attestable (WT:CFI) - this would be a matter for WT:RFVE and not of WT:RFD.
  • 3. SOP. The parsing question might be a reason for keep. Is it sexual market + value (~ Germ. *Wert auf dem sexuellen Markt oder Sexualmarkt, *Sexualmarkt-wert) or sexual + market value (~ Germ. *sexueller Marktwert).
-80.133.107.120 12:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
>"you haven't provided any reason for why it should be kept" - @Per utramque cavernam:
I did; "Popular term" Amin (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Leaning delete…I also see results for "emotional market value", "romantic market value", "intellectual market value", "nutritional market value", "environmental market value", "political market value" etc etc etc. Ƿidsiþ 19:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I think you accidentally proved my point that sexual market value deserved to be included lol. I searched for the terms you mentioned, here are the results.
Google search results:
"sexual market value": 35.000
"emotional market value": 22
"romantic market value": 338
"intellectual market value": 24
"nutritional market value": 765
"environmental market value": 21
"political market value": 6
Amin (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
"Sexual market value" only gets 500 hits on Google Books, an order of magnitude less than, say, "intrinsic market value" or "real market value". Should those have entries as well? Ƿidsiþ 07:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018[edit]

moonlight[edit]

"(attributive) Illuminated by the light from the Moon." Per utramque cavernam 14:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Keep as is, more good than harm. DonnanZ (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

geographical-area[edit]

Moved from RFD/non-English.

crappy adj form entry. --Cien pies 6 (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

this should be at WT:RFDE, methinks — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I am rather dubious about this, and am leaning towards delete, unless quotations can be found. PUC has now gone and RFDed geographical area (which I would rather keep), sometimes you can't even mention a term for fear of an RFD. DonnanZ (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Sargasso[edit]

"some proper nouns" seems to be only Sargasso Sea. Just because it is part of a word with a space in it doesn't mean it's a word on its own (Sri Lanka, for example). DTLHS (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Delete, I think. Sargasso Sea should have been linked to sargasso, it is now. DonnanZ (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Unless it's the name of a weather forecasting area or something? DonnanZ (talk) 09:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Delete the RFDed sense. But this also exists (like Atlantic, Mediterranean, etc) as a short form, which I've added (converting the rfd tag to rfd-sense). There are also citations like these, but they seem better covered by the "short form" sense I added. - -sche (discuss) 17:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I can go along with that, I think. But short names don't work in many cases, e.g. "the North" for North Sea, and "the Indian" for Indian Ocean. DonnanZ (talk) 08:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

FeedBurner[edit]

A specific proprietary technology. Not something that has entered the lexicon in a generic sense. Equinox 02:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

FeedFlare[edit]

A specific proprietary technology. Not something that has entered the lexicon in a generic sense. Equinox 02:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

DevOpsDays[edit]

Plural of a non-existent singular. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Note that we have an entry for DevOps. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Delete (and the red link from DevOps): it's a specific organised event, not a generic thing. Equinox 18:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

cheese sauce[edit]

This is just sum of parts. Kiwima (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

No definition, automatic deletion? DonnanZ (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
There's a definition in Oxford, so it may be entry-worthy. Certain contributors need to try a little harder. DonnanZ (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me. Passes the lemming test. --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that this is linguistically no different from tomato sauce. bd2412 T 02:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

blue film[edit]

Open to argument, but this doesn't convince me. "Blue movie", which is a lot more common, might perhaps be felt as a set phrase, but "blue film"? It feels to me just like blue + film, especially since it can be turned around: "The film was a bit blue" (sounds very dated, but this kind of usage is or was common). You can also have blue jokes, a blue novel etc etc. Ƿidsiþ 06:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't remember now, but I wouldn't rule it out, it has the same definition as blue movie. This term would be rather dated and I think this needs to go to RFV, to see if anything can be found in Google Books. DonnanZ (talk) 07:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

politically correct[edit]

first sense is SOP. —This unsigned comment was added by 2602:252:d2b:3aa0:c8ae:2b18:844c:fee1 (talk) at 22:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC).

I disagree. The definition says "conforming to the correct political positions", but that seems more an attempt to explain how that sense of the word developed from a more literal meaning, rather than being itself a good definition. What does "correct political positions" even mean? So keep. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
"The correct political positions" means the party line, doesn't it? Equinox 19:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

preMuslim[edit]

I've been cleaning up after this old PaM account lately. What exactly do we do with entries like this? Is this an automatic delete, or? (notice how unAmerican doesn't exist and I think that would probably be more common than this) PseudoSkull (talk) 07:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd say delete this one, because it seems rather unlikely that the prefix pre- would be added to a word beginning with a capital letter like this one without an hyphen. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Seems like an RFV issue. Ƿidsiþ 10:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
It's got two citations, but it's hard to seem them as not being misspellings on uncopyedited Usenet. As a rare misspelling, this wouldn't meet CFI. Delete, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 17:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

sushi bar[edit]

SOP. unsigned by anon

Keep I think, not obviously obvious, it's not a bar of sushi. DonnanZ (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
It IS obvious and it is a bar of sushi. bar's definition #13 is An informal establishment selling food to be consumed on the premises. In this case, selling sushi. Delete. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Delete per Anatoli. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Delete per Anatoli. Per utramque cavernam 10:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

waaater[edit]

Useless. DTLHS (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I think this should be snow deleted. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what snow deleted means. DTLHS (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
@DTLHS Sorry, it's a wiki-slang term. It basically means deleting more quickly without any further discussion, either because the consensus is overwhelming or because the consensus has been overwhelming for very similar discussions. I mean, if we kept this, we could have waater, waaaater, waaaaaaaaater, and the possibilities are just endless. I could also do this with any word: "I want it NOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!" PseudoSkull (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
WP:SNOW. (Interesting: I think I had misunderstood "snow keep/snow delete" as "keep/delete by obvious overwhelming majority, and stop the vote early".
@PseudoSkull, we actually have an established rule for this, from Wiktionary:Votes/2014-01/Treatment of repeating letters and syllables. Anything attestable variation with more than three repetitions should be redirected to the shorter elongated form. bd2412 T 04:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Delete almost everything in Category:English elongated forms (except a few common interjections, the "arghs" and "oohs" perhaps). Equinox 22:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Are these attested terms? If so, there is always the possibility that a non-native speaker or a young reader will come across this term in writing and not immediately know that it is an elongated form, rather than a different word (particularly since English is rife with words that differ by the duplication of a vowel, such as "stop" and "stoop", "bet" and "beet", etc. bd2412 T 04:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
    Well, it's equally possible (in fact even more likely) that a (dyslexic?) child or learner confuses the letters b and d, but that is a poor argument for us having an entry for unberbog. If anything we should improve the search engine. Equinox 17:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
    The issue is not that people might misspell words out of inability or error, but that authors might intentionally use these spellings as words to convey meaning. Such a device is basically the equivalent of an onomatopoeia, which we would include. bd2412 T 03:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • If you have a statement like "the dog is loose" and you write "THE DOOOOG IS LOOOOOSE!" then clearly that's intentional, yes, and we might even be able to find evidence for DOOOOG and LOOOOOSE if enough writers have (basically coincidentally!) used the same number of vowels in their extension. We could redirect those things to dog and loose (I think that is stupid) or we could have separate entries for them as "extended form of" (I think that is doubly stupid). What are you actually suggesting? It is obvious that these are not words per se because they are formed as nonce-words on the spot by extending existing words (usually by repeating a vowel). Indeed if they were accepted as "regular words" then the pattern of extending the vowel would no longer have its emphatic effect. Equinox 03:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • And by the way, your argument about conveying meaning is a sudden goalpost-move from "children might misunderstand it". So you need to be clear about your position, and how it will benefit speakers/users in general and not a theoretical non-existent minority. Equinox 03:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
    You are missing the point. When you talk about how dyslexic children might read (or write, in some transient format) a word, distinct from attestable usage, then you are talking about a hypothetical word for which we can necessarily find no proof of use. The entire basis of the attestation requirement is to provide a baseline for coverage of what appears in print. There are languages where double "a" strings are used in conventional spelling, so it is not at all a conjecture that people might thing "waater" (and by extension, "waaater") is something different from "water", and for that matter that a "doog" is a thing as different from a "dog" as a "boot" is from a "bot", and that "doooog" is an extension of an unfamiliar word "doog". Readers might also be inclined to think that a variation with any additional number of o's was pronounced differently, likely with a long "o" sound, when we could be informing them that no matter how many instances of "o" there are, the pronunciation remains the same as if there were only one. bd2412 T 04:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
    I have a lot of respect for BD2412 but apparently I'm stupid and I can't see how this remark contradicts what I said above. This truly isn't a sarcastic remark and I have spent some time with it and discussed it with somebody else. Can anyone explain? What am I missing and how does it help the project and its users? Equinox 06:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
    The baseline that we are aiming towards hear is "all words in all languages". If the spelling of a word is changed for a particular purpose, then it effectively becomes a different word. Why do we have both center and centre, and both neighbor and the neighbour? We could have decided that inclusion of one of these alternatives was good enough, but we keep both because even though they are in one sense the same word, the different spelling makes them different words. We have eye dialect spellings like zee for the and somepin for something, dated or archaic forms like gerbille for gerbil, floo for flu, and civill for civil, and common misspellings like accross for across and freeest for freest. The constant is that these are arrangements of letters attested in print and conveying meaning. Many of these entries are of no immediate use to competent speakers of the English language, who know that "the" is not "zee", and know how to spell words generally. Why do we have an entry for "the" at all, when everyone knows what it means? Why do we have entries for highly technical terms, which only people working in rarefied fields are likely to ever read in texts? Because "all words in all languages" means that we cover everything that someone might come across, irrespective of their capacity to understand the language being read. bd2412 T 16:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
For the same reasons as for maaan, striking my previous vote, and voting keep. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I see that this RFD has caused even more of these garbage entries to be created. What a joke. I'm never nominating anything for deletion again. DTLHS (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
That's what you get for missing staff meetings. bd2412 T 17:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

maaan[edit]

Also useless. DTLHS (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC) : I think this should also be snow-deleted. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox 22:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Keep per policy (WT:REPEATING). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Apologies for not remembering this policy. I didn't think something like this would have passed, and if I were around (and an experienced editor) back in early 2014 then I would probably have opposed. Regardless, letting policy speak, an unfortunate keep. (For others who don't think these should have entries; may I suggest bringing this up at WT:BP again? @Equinox @DTLHS) PseudoSkull (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Delete this and all similar, I think. Ƿidsiþ 11:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep as per "Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Repetitions" if and only if it is also verifiable, sending the entry to RFV if necessary. (To avoid unnecessary proliferation of such entries, I think there should be a discussion about whether the entries also need to be verifiable. I should think the answer should be "yes", since it makes no sense to aaallooow for uuunverifiiiable eeentriiieees just beeecause they technicaaaly paaass the above pooolicy.) — SGconlaw (talk) 11:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I have added five cites to the entry. I generally agree that forms such as these should be scrupulously well-cited. bd2412 T 18:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

eject[edit]

"(uncountable) A button on a machine that causes something to be ejected from the machine." Should words used as labels for buttons and keys (other examples include Delete and rewind) be included as distinct noun senses? — SGconlaw (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Delete. I don't think we should be getting into details about the function of specific buttons- ejecting could mean a lot of different things on a lot of different devices, and eject buttons can do things other than ejecting. A good example of where this could lead is with the the return key, which originally caused the carriage of a typewriter to return to the position for typing at the beginning of the line. Nowadays "return" can do just about anything a programmer wants it to do. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Delete: Daniel Carrero created a lot of such "button" entries (play, pause, etc.) some years ago; I referred a couple for deletion but the RFDs failed. His may have been capitalised (Play, Pause...): I don't recall. Of course any button can be labelled with any verb: the word is better read as a verb than as a noun meaning "the kind of button that this button is". Equinox 23:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Another example: pressing d on a typewriter will produce the letter "d" on the page, and the default on a computer keyboard is for it to produce the character "d", but I can switch keyboards on my Mac so that it will produce: δ,ד,د,द,д,տ,ㄷ. On a musical keyboard it's the second white key in the octave and produces the note "d", but if I'm running GarageBand, it has a virtual keyboard that has the "d" key mapped to "e" on the keyboard. In various games, the "d" can cause all kinds of things to happen, depending on the game.
Besides, not every machine uses an eject button for ejecting. If some other key is mapped to that function, is it the eject button? Chuck Entz (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Delete per above. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Delete per above. - -sche (discuss) 17:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
See a previous "button discussion" at Talk:Start. Other "button nouns" include fire, play, pause/Pause, stop, rewind (arguable!), fast forward, but oddly not record: I suspect Mr Carrero was a bit young for cassette tape. Equinox 17:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

letter art[edit]

SOP: letter (1) + art (1). 37.219.216.55 00:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Keep. What part of letter and art can convey the meaning "to form a picture"? ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

petrol engine[edit]

SOP. Unsigned by 2602:252:D2B:3AA0:85A2:1A9E:D7F7:47BC

It is a British term, so what do Americans call them? DonnanZ (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
gasoline engines, which is SOP, too. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, not a gas engine. Keep this for translations, and gasoline engine can be redirected here. DonnanZ (talk) 07:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Delete per proponent. Per utramque cavernam 08:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

signed Mass card[edit]

I'm a bit confused on how this isn't signed + Mass card. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Me too. You probably have to be a Roman Catholic to appreciate the difference. DonnanZ (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Anything to do with the sale of indulgencies? SemperBlotto (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Roman Catholic weighing in. It seems SOP to me (a Google search yields terms like "stamped Mass card" and "pre-signed Mass card" which support that conclusion). And no, it's not directly related to the sale of indulgences, but the latter was the distortion/development of a similar practice. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

bad loser[edit]

Is it as idiomatic as sore loser? Per utramque cavernam 10:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Keep. It's a set phrase that means more than just bad + loser. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

nowhere else[edit]

anywhere else[edit]

everywhere else[edit]

somewhere else[edit]

anyplace else[edit]

anybody else[edit]

someone else[edit]

anyone else[edit]

everyone else[edit]

anything else[edit]

  • A translation hub. DonnanZ (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

SOP; nothing else and anything else have already been successfully RFD'ed (see Talk:nothing else and Talk:anything else); I don't know why the latter has been kept or recreated. Keep something else as it has an idiomatic sense (see Talk:anything else). Per utramque cavernam 14:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Let's ask one of your favourite questions: WHY? Most of these have translations, apart from the synonyms, and I may be able to clear some red links. DonnanZ (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as to most, but keep "something else" as an &lit companion to the idiomatic sense, and keep "somewhere else", for which I just added the missing idiomatic sense for daydreaming. See, e.g., '2013, John Bemrose, The Island Walkers: A Novel, p. 3: "Hearing the laughter of his sons, Alf grinned. But he was somewhere else, thinking of the woman moving through the dim house behind him". bd2412 T 16:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • somewhere else is a synonym of elsewhere anyway. But I don't think we should pick and choose like that, I would prefer to keep the lot (and any others that were possibly missed). DonnanZ (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Not going to vote explicitly, but it does seem that we ought to be able to capture the sense of else without creating all (or most) of the collocations. Equinox 13:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

drinking water[edit]

Is this SoP? See also Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Non-English#питьева́я_вода́_(pitʹjevája_vodá). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It is extremely common and something of a set phrase (we don't talk about "drinking juice" or "eating plants" [noun phrases]). Could be reduced to a translation target or something... very useful phrase for travellers. Equinox 02:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Keep. It's a set phrase and means more than just drinking + water. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
If it passes, I want to know on what grounds. I'm OK with a "translation target" being very useful for tourists, etc. but I am not sure it's idiomatic or a set phrase. Is it because it's "drinking", not "drinkable"? Maybe worth checking lemmings? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Comparable phrases (Y for doing X with) might include eating apple, cooking sherry, living room. This kind of phrase was traditionally hyphenated (to distinguish the living-room from the room that is somehow alive!) but in my experience 99% of modern English users have almost zero understanding of hyphens. Equinox 05:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Keep, reference added. I can remember when I was young we had a well where the water was unsuitable for drinking, due to iron content I think, and we had to rely on rainwater for drinking water. DonnanZ (talk) 05:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
It passes the lemming test, being in many dictionaries (ODO, MWO, Dictionary.com, Cambridge, Macmillan,...), and seems like a set phrase. I don't know that I could articulate why it might be idiomatic, though. To Equinox's examples above might be added drinking horn, which we also have. Compare German fließend Wasser, where the form differs from fließendes Wasser. - -sche (discuss) 06:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Keep as a set phrase meaning "potable water". — SGconlaw (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Keep - set phase. John Cross (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

copious free time[edit]

Sum of parts. Copious + free time. Sarcasm doesn't equate with idiomaticity. ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The definition seems slightly different from the SoP interpretation. This phrase puts me in mind of real soon now, maybe because they are both sort of SoP, or maybe because they are things that nerds who wrote RFCs are likely to say. Equinox 03:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

geographical area[edit]

geographical + area. See also the deletion debate for geographical-area above. Per utramque cavernam 10:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep this in preference to the other one. It is a possible translation target; yes, I know there are none at the moment. DonnanZ (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

interface description language[edit]

interface definition language[edit]

Software engineering; a language used to describe/define an interface... —Suzukaze-c 03:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

bouncy ball[edit]

SOP. 2602:252:D2B:3AA0:FCBE:C33D:A3DC:8DD7 12:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Keep. This is the standard term for this thing (at least in BrE): I wasn't aware of other terms like superball until adulthood. A strong clue that the phrase is a "unit" is the stress of pronunciation: BOUN-cy-ball not boun-cy-BALL (the latter would be the normal Adj+N stress if it weren't a fixed compound). Furthermore, there are balls that bounce that are not bouncy balls (such as tennis balls, or even basketballs). Equinox 12:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Keep. In Dutch this is a stuiterbal and the Dutch don't call any ball that happens to stuiter a stuiterbal. (a ball that stuiters but isn't a stuiterbal would be called a "stuiterende bal" or "bouncing ball", which would be SOP) Alexis Jazz (talk) 12:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)