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.

Newest 10 tagged RFDs

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'. In practice, however, some discussions drag on for a long time.


Oldest 100 tagged RFDs


February 2020[edit]

see[edit]

"Interjection"

  1. Directing the audience to pay attention to the following
    See here, fellas, there's no need for all this rucus!
    Synonyms: behold, look; see also Thesaurus:lo
  2. Introducing an explanation
    See, in order to win the full prize we would have to come up with a scheme to land a rover on the Moon.
    Synonyms: look, well, so

How is the imperative of see an interjection in the usage examples? DCDuring (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

We've got an entry at see here, BTW. Equinox 20:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Given that we don't even label the interjectional (read: interjection-like) sense of "read" that I just used as an interjection, it does seem inconsistent to present these as interjections. - -sche (discuss) 07:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
It is very similar to “Listen, guys – we have to talk“, which we do not list as an interjection. On the other hand, we do list look as an interjection (as well as lo and behold). I have no strong opinion as to whether we should list such imperatives also as interjections, but it is IMO obvious that see in “See, it isn’t that hard” is not meant as a literal command to exercise one’s faculty of sight. (BTW, this use fits neither of the two given senses.)  --Lambiam 21:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete just the imperative. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I think it's similar to well although one could also analyze it as an imperative. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Probably Delete - not particularly interesting as a search term. Also listen, listen up, look, etc. I think this on the edge of a dictionary and getting into a style guide.Facts707 (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete 1st, keep 2nd. First sense doesn't seem to be separable from see here. But second is legitimate. The second sense may have evolved from an imperative use of the verb see, but it's been semantically bleached, and is now just a discourse marker. If you try to read the "See" in the example sentence as a command, the sentence becomes an ungrammatical comma splice. Compare: Pay attention, in order to win the full prize... You also can't (naturally) read that sentence with the same prosody as the original. (Interestingly, even listen, and look, which are also discourse markers with the form of an imperative verb, can't be substituted with the same prosody. To my ear, they introduce a slightly longer pause, and have a falling pitch contour, whereas see has more of a flat or rising pitch, like now, so, or but.) Regarding part of speech, interjection seems fine as a diagnosis of exclusion. Colin M (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Deleted the imperative, kept the other. What to do about translations?? DAVilla 00:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

as far as[edit]

Adverb PoS. I have added conjunction and preposition PoS sections, moved L4 header content, and added a usage note. I believe that the Adverb PoS section was in error. AHD and MW online have conjunction and preposition PoS definitions. Oxford calls it a phrase. I have not yet found any reference that calls it an adverb. DCDuring (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

With regard to the preposition (and also presently adverb) sense "With respect to; as relates to", with examples such as "As far as financing, there will be no problems", I have always considered this usage an error in which the speaker forgets to say "... is concerned", or does not understand that "... is concerned" is required. Or perhaps some people confuse "as far as" with "as for". I feel that some sort of label might be in order. Mihia (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
The omission of "is concerned" does not need to be an error; it may be intentional to achieve brevity. M-W:as far as[1] has this in its "as far as preposition" section and does not contain any proscription tag, although it does say that it is "chiefly in oral use".
As for the adverb section nominated here, it seems it can be deleted now that DCDuring has created the other sections, but I did not check carefully. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
According to [2]:
Usage Note: As far as is often used as a preposition meaning "as for" or "regarding," especially in speech. This construction derives from the term's use as a conjunction (as in as far as the election goes), but with the verb of the clause omitted (as far as the election). A large majority of the Usage Panel frowns on this usage. In our 2011 survey, 71 percent found the prepositional use unacceptable in the sentence As far as something to do on the weekend, we didn't even have miniature golf. And 74 percent objected to as far as when followed by a noun clause in the sentence As far as how the victim got shot, we don't know yet. Objection to this construction has decreased slightly among the Panelists since 1994, when 80 percent objected to the first sentence and 89 percent to the second.
To me "as far as" used in this way without a completion is purely nonsensical, but it seems that the longer it persists in use, the more people forget this. Mihia (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
The source you have found (AHD) could be used to source the "sometimes proscribed" tag. But let me add from AHD:as far as[3]: "Our Living Language Despite the admonitions detailed in the Usage Note, it is the case that many speakers often drop the verbal part of the as far as construction, as in As far as a better house, I don't want one (instead of As far as a better house is concerned ...)". --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 13:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it does mean something, but I'm not satisfied with the current definition. Maybe it is better defined as short for (something). Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Lexico (reference added) treats this as a phrase, pure and simple; no complication. Is that far too easy and simple for us? DonnanZ (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly not an adverb - adverbs don't take nouns as complements. The preposition def is a keeper. I don't hate the idea of renaming the PoS header to "phrase", as suggested by DonnanZ, but I would prefer to keep it as is for consistency with similar terms like regarding, as to, and concerning. Conjunction section should go too - maybe a conjunctive sense exists, I would need quotes to believe it. Colin M (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Adverb deleted, content having already been incorporated into other sections. DAVilla 00:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

March 2020[edit]

dwagon[edit]

Eye dialect spelling of dragon. We don't have twuck, twicycle, etc. and I don't think we ought to. I'd go further and say that having eye-dialect spellings of any kind are not really of value -- they are infinitely and arbitrarily constructible, and they are not words in their own right but transformations of words -- but I am guessing that is a fight I would lose. - TheDaveRoss 13:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

This particular transformation is completely rule-based, like "igpay atinlay". Remember the gag in Life of Brian based on it? "Welease ... Woger!" Chuck Entz (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to RFV. If it can be cited CFI-compliantly, keep it; if not, delete it. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete per TheDaveRoss. But I know others like to keep silly "transformations" of this kind, like the autological duuumb. Whyever doesn't the OED bother, I ask myself. Equinox 18:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep; we're not paper, and we're not indexed by words, but by letter sequences.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Is this an argument that equally applies to all requests for deletion, or has it, in some way I was yet unable to detect, some more specific applicability to the present proposal?  --Lambiam 18:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
CFI lists various things that aren't included, largely because they're more encyclopedic than dictionary. It is an argument against deleting things that are clearly lexical and not called out in CFI.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • With some exceptions on phonetic or orthogwaphic gwounds, "r" can be changed to "w" to suggest "a childish voice or a speech impediment" pretty much anywhere it occurs, in a wegular and pwedictable way. It is like dropping an "h" or the "g" of "ing", as in 'overcraft or 'appenin'. Do we want entries for all these regular "eye dialect" variants? I don't think so. Where the alteration is predictable and regular, I think we should include only examples that have some special usage or quality. So, absent any such rationale for dwagon, delete it. Mihia (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • What we need here is a rule limiting usage to cases where a reader may actually reasonably need to look up a word. I would propose something along the lines of the rule we use for brand names: three independent citations in sources that do not otherwise provide the context for the word. For example, a book with a passage saying, "Bobby pointed at the dragon and said, 'look, a dwagon'" would be self defining, whereas a book containing such a "dwagon" reference with no proximate reference to the word "dragon" would not be, and would count as a cite. I would make this a presumptive rule so that the term could be sent to RfV, and deleted automatically if three such citations are not provided. I am fairly confident that such a rule would eliminate from inclusion variations such as "wegular" "pwedictable", "orthogwaphic" and "gwounds". bd2412 T 20:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
How would you apply the rule about "not providing context" to a word such as "wegular"? What sort of context would you require (or not require)? Mihia (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Much the same - are there sources that use "wegular" without some reasonably nearby use of the word "regular" to provide the sense that the eye-dialect version is a variation of the normal spelling? bd2412 T 23:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
When I search e.g. Google Books, I see a few hits for "wegular", mostly in dialogue, few or none of which, as far as I can tell, have the word "regular" anywhere nearby, and nor would I expect them to. Mihia (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Barring those being typos or a different sense (apparently "Wegular" is also the name of a font), that might end up being a term that a reader could come across and want defined. I suppose it should also matter if it is part of a string of clearly eye-dialect text, so that even a reader unfamiliar with the language might realize that it is not the normal spelling. bd2412 T 04:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I’m afraid such a rule would not do much: agweeable, bwoken, celebwate, dweadful, ... The problem is that it is supposed to indicate a speaker’s slightly peculiar pronunciation of the ‹r›, which can affect the spelling of any word containing that letter.  --Lambiam 17:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
(Keep) Meh. It's a grey area; one side of the spectrum has e.g. Winterpeg (changing the spelling to highlight Winnipeg's coldness) that are IMO clearly includable, the other side is baaaaaaad (chaning spelling to mark intensity, drawn-out pronunciation, or whatever), which we decided to make redirects. Is changing spelling to indicate childish, accented or speech-impaired speech includable? It's closer to baaaaaaad, I admit, but I still lean towards yes, keep, especially if we're just discussing one of the zillion eye-dialect spellings we've long included. (Also, and I'm surprised Mahagaja didn't raise this: is this really eye dialect, or a pronunciation respelling?) I get the idea of excluding eye dialect in general, but I worry that could have negative consequences (e.g., in the case where a word itself is limited to dialect, valid spellings might get suppressed), and (like Prosfilaes, I think) I don't really see a benefit to excluding such words. - -sche (discuss) 07:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
The "eye dialect" issue that you mention has been raised several times I think. As I understood it, we are now consensually using the term "eye dialect" to include words such as "dwagon", per sense #2 at eye dialect: "(more broadly) Nonstandard spelling which indicates nonstandard pronunciation." If we aren't then, as has been pointed out, large numbers of "eye dialect" words are incorrectly labelled. Mihia (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't think there's a consensus. There's simply a general inertia surrounding this issue. PUC 18:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
See Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2020/March#.22Eye_dialect.22_label. Mihia (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
This strikes me as a stylistic device, rather than a lexical phenomenon. Ordinary language is distorted to evoke an image- the distinctiveness is in the pattern, not the words it's applied to. One may have a character saying "I'm fffreezing! It's cccold in here!", or "I habe a code in by dose", or "it maketh my tongue feel tho numb". Then there are all the ways of representing all the stereotyped accents that character actors and cartoon voice actors like to use. One character may go the "thee-yater", while another goes to the "theatuh". Think of all the "w" words that can be attested with "v" spellings in stereotypical German dialog, or all the "h" dropping in stereotypical Cockney dialog, or all the things that happen to vowels and syllable-final "r"s in stereotypical Southern dialog. We don't have snowclones in mainspace, and we shouldn't have this kind of thing, either. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we can't find some alternative solution that allows us to record evidence of citations for these forms without specifically having entries for them. bd2412 T 04:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
When any "r" in any word (subject to certain phonetic or orthographic restrictions) can be changed to "w" to indicate defective pronunciation, and thus any example can created in an ad hoc manner at any time according to an author's choosing, does evidence of citations actually matter? Does it actually matter whether or not someone so far ever wrote "orthogwaphic" or "cowonaviwus" or any other? I say no. Mihia (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Wiktionary isn't just for people who know the phonetic or orthographic restrictions. It is also a resource for language learners and foreign readers who may come here because they come across "dwagon" or the like in print, and are genuinely unclear as to its meaning. bd2412 T 03:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I think some wires have got slightly crossed. The issue of being able to look it up is one thing, but you were talking about recording citations without having an entry that people could look up. That is the suggestion that I was specifically responding to. Mihia (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I would presume that any system we set up to maintain such citations would note in some way that they reference an intentional misspelling, with the correct spelling being referenced (and linked) in some way. bd2412 T 03:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, not lexical.  --Lambiam 17:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Abstain, though I'm somewhat curious whether this could pass RFV. Similar cases are waycism, waycist. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
    I've struck my vote and changed it below. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I've cited it. I see no reason it would fail RFV; cites are plentiful, from a broad time period, and clearly independent.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
On the other hand, the CFI is not absolute but is a work in progress, and it is with the aid of investigations such as this that it may be developed. Mihia (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, then, here, here, here, here, here, and here is a mother lode of new entries- enjoy! Chuck Entz (talk) 05:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
If you propose a workable principle, we can add it to CFI or even use it as a CFI override. "What is rule-based is excluded" is not a workable principle, as per preferpreferred or redredness. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Undecided. But I like the idea of including terms used by children, they are underrepresented in dictionaries. – Jberkel 23:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete this particular usage of the "w" for "r" replacement, but I'm for waycism because it is (apparently) commonly used by adults for mockery. Note the distinction between this and adult eye dialect terms like cunnel (for colonel) and yeah#Etymology 2 (for year). Eye dialect forms in other cases are not easily predictable, and can therefore in many cases be mistaken for something else. There is no one rule for these. However, there is only one rule for this: replace the "r" in any term, except the "r" at the end, with "w".
By the way, has anyone thought of creating an entry for -w-? This would allow Wiktionary to explain how this phenomenon works, and having an entry like that would be more useful and concise than having thousands upon thousands of "w forms" of words. It might also be useful to have an appendix page for childish dialect in English. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
It's not -w- because it can occur at the start or end of a word, not only as an interfix. It's simply replacing one letter (or sound) with another. Equinox 19:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete--non-lexical. --Uisleach (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Such can be done with any "r" word to indicate a childish or speech impediment pronunciation. Unless they have taken on a life of their own like wabbit has they shouldn't be included. 172.58.171.151 17:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
How do we decide whether they have, in fact, "taken on a life of their own"? bd2412 T 14:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
wabbit has another meaning. A computing word that comes from that pronunciation of the word rabbit. Therefore wabbit has taken on a life of its own. This has not happened with dwagon which has no meaning other than referring to dragons in a childish or speech impediment way. 172.58.171.32 21:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
They probably haven't when the creator is a Wiktionarian with a long habit of adding misspelled words. Equinox 15:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Oh, how this RfD does dwag on... Tharthan (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 13:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete per Mihia. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Keep, possible label it in someway or move to WT:RFVN. --幽霊四 (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Dewete. Weally. Sewiously. "A dwagon?" said the Prince as if he had never heard the word before. "A howwible dwagon? Me kill a dwagon? Widiculous!" And he pulled himself up to his full height in dignified disgust , while his skin-tight suit creaked and strained in ... Facts707 (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment: at this point, I count thirteen votes to delete, six votes to keep, and two votes that are Abstain/Undecided. I have not voted, but have expressed a preference for establishing some system of recording words like this without necessarily having entries for them. Barring that, I would likely keep this as well. The votes to this point are as follows:

Delete
  1. User:TheDaveRoss (as nom)
  2. User:Chuck Entz
  3. User:Equinox
  4. User:Mihia
  5. User:Lambiam
  6. User:PUC
  7. User:Sgconlaw
  8. User:PseudoSkull
  9. User:Uisleach
  10. User:172.58.171.151
  11. User:Tharthan
  12. User:Mnemosientje
  13. User:Facts707
  14. User:Colin M
Keep
  1. User:Mahagaja (whose vote was basically 'keep if cited', which it has been.
  2. User:Prosfilaes
  3. User:-sche
  4. User:Dan Polansky
  5. User:Dentonius
  6. User:幽霊四
  7. User:Lingo Bingo Dingo
  8. User:Troll Control
Abstain/Undecided
  1. User:Lingo Bingo Dingo
  2. User:Jberkel

Please let me know if I have missed or misinterpreted the positions of anyone above, or if anyone has changed their position in either direction. Cheers! bd2412 T 06:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@BD2412 You've interpreted my vote correctly, but I'm changing it to keep per -sche and Dan Polansky. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Noted, thanks. bd2412 T 17:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Keep, cited. I thought there was consensus for pronunciation spellings like fishin'. I fear for dialectical variations.Troll Control (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Dan is mostly correct that there's no CFI provision that would disqualify this, but I would defer to the golden rule at the very top of CFI: A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means. I don't think this (or any other marginal 'baby-fied' spellings) satisfy that. I think that anywhere this spelling would be used, it will be possible to infer the intended meaning of 'dragon' either from the semantic context, or because the dialogue that contains it consistently applies the "replace r with w" respelling rule. But I do think CFI could do with some more guidance on negative criteria for terms like this which are attestable but not worthy of inclusion. (Some other examples I'd like to target would be predictable, ad-hoc morphological transformations like plant-like, plantish, plantlover, midplanting, etc.) Colin M (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

No consensus. Extending the discussion pursuant to the vote count yielded no further clarity; rather, we had two new "keep" votes added and one "delete", keeping the discussion just below the line for consensus. As such there is no consensus, but I would propose that the community consider some alternative means (such as an appendix) for collecting forms and their citations for attested de-rhotacized variants. bd2412 T 05:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

umbrella body[edit]

SOP: see umbrella sense 3, "Something that covers a wide range of concepts, purposes, groups, etc." (also used in umbrella term and umbrella organisation, but I'm not going to RFD those). PUC 12:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 

Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
  • Delete, just SOP and these terms are usually easily understood without referring to a dictionary. "An umbrella group for all Spanish-language newspapers..." Facts707 (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete along with umbrella organisation. Just one of countless attributive uses of our umbrella sense: "Something that covers a wide range of concepts, purposes, groups, etc." One can find references to umbrella entries, umbrella rules, umbrella categories, umbrella definitions, etc. etc. Colin M (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 04:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

provided that[edit]

I disagree that it's an alternative form of provided. The presence or absence of that is not a lexical feature but a grammatical one. PUC – 18:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that only if and as long as are mostly synonymous with provided:
  •  You can ask questions here provided you have done your homework first.
  •  You can ask questions here only if you have done your homework first.
  •  You can ask questions here as long as you have done your homework first.
But they are not if the sentence uses provided together with that:
  •  You can ask questions here provided that you have done your homework first.
  • *You can ask questions here only if that you have done your homework first.
  • *You can ask questions here as long as that you have done your homework first.
So this seems not to be just a grammatical feature. Personally, I feel the two ought to be swapped, with provided that as the main form, with synonyms, and the conjunction provided defined as an alternative, shortened form of provided that. We should have usage examples, though, with tmesis, as is possible in many multi-word expressions; that is, the components are separated by the insertion of one or more words, as in provided furthermore, that.  --Lambiam 12:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, CGEL lists 7 subordinators that can be used in place of if: provided, as/so long as, on condition, assuming, supposing, in the event, in case. It treats as/so long as and in case as special cases, in that they don't permit that, whereas for the others it's optional. Colin M (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 14:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. (That-dropping is common in English.) Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. As per Vox Sciurorum and others. "She said he could go" "She said that he could go". No one is going to look up "provided that". Facts707 (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
  • Delete. I agree with the nominator. I do think it's at least plausible as a search term, and so could see an argument for maybe turning it into a redirect to provided. But in the absence of a redirect, I'm sure provided would be at the top of the search results anyways. Colin M (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Deleted. DAVilla 00:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

marine mammal[edit]

SOP. Has been RFD'ed and kept before, but I haven't seen any compelling argument from the keepers. The fact that polar bears are marine mammals might be surprising, but it has nothing to do with lexicology: it's a question of biology, ethology, ecology, what have you. There's Wikipedia for that. PUC – 17:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep again. DonnanZ (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The present definition is "A mammal, such as a whale, seal, sea cow or polar bear, which lives wholly or primarily in seawater." Strictly speaking, it is hard for me to see why this is anything more than "marine" + "mammal" along with a list of examples. Mihia (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article (and the inclusion of polar bears in the list) suggest that the definition is wrong, they don't need to leave in seawater, but they must rely on the sea/ocean ecosystem for survival. If we consider similar terms, say saltwater fish and farm animal, I would place marine mammal on the farm animal end of the spectrum. If it were, as you say, merely a mammal which lived in the sea then I would put it on the saltwater fish end. Unless Wikipedia is wrong, I would say fix definition and keep. - TheDaveRoss 13:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Isn't that just a part of the definition of "marine", though? I mean there are e.g. marine birds too, which may not live all the time "in seawater". So, even if the definition is adjusted along your lines, wouldn't it still be just as SoP? Mihia (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Based on our definitions of marine it is close to SOP, perhaps the right thing to do is clarify marine so that it clearly covers this sense. - TheDaveRoss 20:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
A slight complication is that the relevant sense of marine presently reads "(zoology) Inhabiting the high seas; oceanic; pelagic. (distinguished from maritime or littoral)", while maritime is defined as "Living near or in the sea". On this basis, possibly polar bears should technically be maritime and not marine animals, and indeed I have found some references to them as such. Unfortunately I do not have the technical knowledge to adjudicate on this, but, regardless, I do not believe that the word "marine" assumes any special meaning, be it loose or technical, in the term "marine mammal", beyond what we could and should explain at "marine", so Delete. Mihia (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I had updated marine a week ago, and I updated maritime today. -Mike (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete as SOP per updated def at marine. Ultimateria (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • In the previous RFD I voted keep but I am no longer certain given the definition that can cover "marine bird" along "marine mammal". What about a redirect? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep again. The problem is that our def is incorrect (and seems SOP), whereas the Wikipedia def is correct (and doesn't seem SOP). In the last iteration of this discussion I remember that pretty much no one could reliably state the set of mammals that should or shouldn't be classified as marine mammals, strongly indicating that it is not SOP. If it were SOP then it would be obvious. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I have edited the def to make it more specific as to which animals the term covers. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is any different from the issue surrounding aquatic animals. As User:Dunkleosteus77 says on the talk page for w:Aquatic mammal, "Is there a set definition or list of what constitutes an aquatic mammal? I get river dolphins and maybe even beavers as aquatic mammals, but I'm wondering if it would also include the fish-eating bat. Is it just any mammal that depends predominately on food from the water? Is it any mammal that lives primarily in the water?" Since this ambiguity seems to be present in the component parts, as with "aquatic animal/mammal", I say delete. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Under U.S. law (which need not reflect common use) as interpreted by the EPA[4]: The term “marine mammal” means any mammal that is morphologically adapted to the marine environment, including sea otters and members of the orders Sirenia (e.g., manatee, dugong), Pinnipedia (e.g., seal, sea lion), and Cetacea (e.g., dolphin, whale) or primarily inhabits the marine environment (e.g., polar bears, sea otters). Personally I think of a sea otter as a marine mammal but I do not think of a polar bear as a marine mammal. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 14:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep, more than just SOP as per Marine mammal at Wikipedia. The terms aquatic mammal and semi-aquatic mammal entries are not needed though, those adjectives' entries cover them. Aquatic: whale, dolphin, sea otter. Semi-aquatic: river otter, beaver, etc. Facts707 (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
I wouldn't have thought a polar bear as marine (zoology: inhabiting the seas). Keep if we're sure it's even correct. DAVilla 00:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
[5] Either the scientists are off their rocker or I'm misunderstanding polar bears. Regardless, they seem to be applying "marine" in the defined sense. Delete as SoP. DAVilla 00:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
On the other hand, there seems to be a weak lemming case, especially in legal terms. Man, this one is impossible. I'm just going to have to conclude that I'm undecided. DAVilla 00:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

No consensus. bd2412 T 06:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2020[edit]

playing apparatus[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be anything other than playground equipment. DonnanZ (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
What is the issue? SOP? The term is used: [6], [7], [8].  --Lambiam 06:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I would call this a playset, but we seem to not have that definition listed. Soap 17:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
And so I have decided to add that definition, which I think is the more common term for what this is. I would even go so far as to say there's a difference between a playset, which is a unitary structure, and the often freestanding structures seen on large wide-open playgrounds ... e.g. a playground is often going to have a separate swingset, one or more slides, maybe some sand to play in, etc... but most people dont have 26 kids so they buy a single piece of equipment that combines all that into one (and saves space too). By contrast playing apparatus looks like it covers the broader sense of any furniture, typically outdoors, that children are able to play on. Soap 18:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete, sum of parts. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Delete, sum of parts as above. Not in wikipedia or any other dictionary. Google Books gives hundreds of different meanings, all context dependent. Facts707 (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
This seems to be the government term, the name they give the thing, within the right context. Weak keep. DAVilla 00:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

hic et ubique[edit]

Supposedly English. I don't think so. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Clearly not a noun (except in the rare sense “Royal Forester”[9]), more an adverb. This expression sneaked into English discourse through a dialogue between Hamlet and the Ghost (Hamlet Act 1 Scene 5). The Bard may have lifted it from a prayer.[10] While widely recognized as a Latin phrase, some Latin phrases are so entrenched that they are considered part of the English lexicon, such as ex post facto, pro tempore, and quod erat demonstrandum. Some citations of hic et ubique in English texts: [11], [12], [13]. Is this code-switching? The authors expect the reader to understand the phrase.  --Lambiam 17:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I think an argument can be made that it is indeed code switching. It hasn't replaced the native-English expression here and everywhere, neither authors nor speakesr use it as a drop-in replacement for that phrase, and indeed, this only persists in use in English-language contexts precisely because it's Latin. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 15:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, maybe move to WT:RFVE (is it common, also used without italics etc.?). --幽霊四 (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete from English WT but keep as a Latin entry. Just because a foreign word/phrase is uttered in an English sentence doesn't mean its become part of the language. Répondez s'il vous plaît? Facts707 (talk) 02:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Convert to a Latin entry, per the above. bd2412 T 23:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Converted language or at least started, but I don't know Latin. Could use another look. DAVilla 01:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Dog (2)[edit]

RFD sense:

A nickname for a person, especially a tough man
1994, Larry Woody, A Dixie Farewell: The Life and Death of Chucky Mullins
Brewer, whose coaching nickname is "Dog," recognized that same stubborn, dogged determination in Mullins.

Initially I listed this at RFV, but I have now moved it here as I can't think of a verification that would persuade me that this is a dictionary-worthy item. Nicknames for people are a totally open-ended class, where practically anything might be citable somewhere as a nickname given to someone due to some association. Mihia (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Verbs, nouns, adjectives, and manner adverbs are also open sets. You have not provided a rationale for deletion per CFI. DCDuring (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I am not concerned at this stage about whether a relevant rationale for deletion presently exists in the CFI. If people think that we should exclude these kinds of entries, we can try to formulate something for the CFI in due course. Mihia (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Is this an attempt at CFI override for this term? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
As for RFV, 'whose coaching nickname is "Dog,"' is a mention and does not contribute toward attestation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I think "override" is a misnomer. If there is no provision for such cases in the CFI, then there's nothing to override, is there? PUC – 08:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
This case is covered by CFI's general rule "This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of including a term if it is attested and, when that is met, if it is a single word or it is idiomatic". CFI further contains more specific rules that add exclusion beyond the general rule, but none seem to apply. Going by CFI alone (which does have a general rule covering basically everything), the nominated sense would be kept. A proposal to delete the sense anyway is therefore a CFI override. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, ok. Tells you how much I know about the CFI. PUC – 10:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
The most recent keeper for a human nickname that I know of is at Talk:Zizou; Talk:J-Lo passed in 2016. A generic nickname is e.g. in entry Crouchy, "A nickname for somebody with the surname Crouch." We may delete some nicknames (contrary to CFI), but we need to get at least a vague idea by which criteria we pick them; maybe nicknames that are just capitalizations of common nouns would be more liable to deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
And even if we disregard CFI, how can "are a totally open-ended class" be anything like a rationale for deletion? Like DCDuring said, there are all manners of attested open-ended sets of terms. Like, any adjective can have -ness attached in principle, so the set of -ness nouns is open-ended, so let's drop -ness nouns? Any person surname can have -ian attached in principle, so let's drop -ian nouns? What kind of sense does that argument, so often repeated recently, make? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
In this particular case, I believe that "open-ended" certainly IS a good rationale. No doubt some people are nicknamed "Peanut" or "Spanner", or "Big Bo" or "Bog Roll" or almost anything you can think of. In my view it is not the job of a dictionary to list every possible example of a nickname that can be found attested. "Standard" nicknames, yes, I would support. For example, I would support keeping Lofty. Personally I think that Dog is insufficiently "standard", but I am not absolutely adamant about this point, and if the consensus is otherwise then I would accept that as a reason to keep. Mihia (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
A rationale cannot be good in a particular case; to the contrary, the validity or viability of a rationale as a working principle is tested by trying to apply it to as broad range of cases as possible and see where it breaks down. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't agree at all. A rationale can be valid in one case but not apply to another. Mihia (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
A rationale for a particular case C is a statement of principle P such that P applies to C. P may apply to case C but not apply to case D; so far we agree. But my point is that principle P can only be accepted as part of a valid rationale if its application to a large range of cases fails to produce problems, or falsifiers of principle P. The general validity of principle P cannot be tested on a single case; it has to be tested on the whole universe of cases to which it could be applied. The principle implied--and please provide a different principle that you have in mind--is that "Any term that is part of an open-ended set of terms should be excluded". That is an obviously untenable principle. Maybe you have a different principle in mind, but I do not know what that principle says. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I am not talking about a "general principle". I am talking about why we should not include every nickname that we can find attested, because it would get ridiculous. I am talking about the need to somehow narrow down the inclusions so that we can include only "standard" nicknames, however this can be best arranged. I honestly do not understand why this concept is so hard to grasp, even if someone should happen to disagree with it. Mihia (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Tentatively, perhaps what we are grasping at is the idea that if a potential sense of an entry could apply to a very large number, if not all, entries, then that may not be worth including. One example is "a mention of the word the" in the entry the, which we have discussed before (e.g., "There is one the in this sentence"). Another might be the matter under discussion now, as senses like "a name given to a pet" or "a nickname for a person" could apply to many, many nouns or adjectives, and perhaps are to be distinguished from more "name-like" names like Fido or Monty. Perhaps for this reason names need to be given special treatment. Just off the top of my head; please help to refine the thought. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

So if sense line "first name" applies to a very large number of terms, these terms should be excluded? Or if sense line "English surname" applies to a very large number of terms, these terms should be excluded? (The mention thing above does not seem to work anyway: a mention of a term does not invoke the semantics of the term, and therefore, e.g. the word "the" does not have any sense "the word 'the'".) --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Initially, I thought the comparison above (to defining any X as "an occurrence of the word X") was suspect because this seems like a much smaller class, but I concede that I can see how it's fairly open-ended; one could nickname a person who habitually wheezes Wheeze, nickname a (former) car mechanic Motor Oil, nickname someone with glasses Four-Eyes, nickname a proponent of hydroxychloroquine Hydroxychloroquine or Mr. Hydroxychloroquine, etc, etc, and at least in non-durable media I can find nearly all of these. And in cases (unlike Fido, but like wheeze, four-eyes, etc) where the lowercase term exists to explain the basic semantic meaning, it does not strike me as worthwhile or valuable for a dictionary to treat the capitalized form as a lexical item meaning "A nickname." in all cases. So I am weakly inclined to delete. But I would prefer if we could come up with a rule, about what nicknames we want to include and what we don't. - -sche (discuss) 20:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@-sche: would it be too broad to say that in general an ordinary adverb, adjective, common noun, or verb should not be defined as a nickname? If so, what exceptions (if any) to this rule are desirable? — SGconlaw (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Grace is a given name based on noun grace; there is Faith, Hope and Charity. Should given names be given a license different from nicknames? And, assuming for the sake of analysis that the dubious argument via open-endedness is accepted, how open-ended really are the WT:ATTEST-compliant nicknames created by capitalizing a noun? What are some ten attested examples of such nicknames, attested in sources that meet the WT:ATTEST requirements? And isn't there a generic rule creating open-ended set of nicknames like J-Lo, K-Stew, Scar-Jo, Sam-Cam, Li-Lo, Le-Le, Ri-Ri, Su-Bo, A-Rod, K-Rod, and R-Pattz? --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I think nicknames like J-Lo, etc., are not problematic because they are not ordinary adverbs, adjectives, common nouns, or verbs. But it's true that names like Grace create an issue. Your preference would be to allow any nickname that passes our general WT:ATTEST rule? — SGconlaw (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I guess that would be my preference unless someone presents a good rationale for doing otherwise and thus for overriding CFI. How large is the set of capitalized-noun nicknames meeting WT:ATTEST, approximately, and what are some ten examples, or at least five examples? --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Literally anything can be a nickname for someone. Ƿidsiþ 10:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Delete. My son's basketball coach's nickname is "Big Dog". Big whoop. Facts707 (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
As for the quote, it explains the meaning with "dogged determination". I think any use of Crouchy would probably explain why a given person would have such a nickname, "because he's a baseball catcher on summer weekends" or "because his last name is Crouch". The first three quotes at Crouchy explicitly mention the subject's last name. Facts707 (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

June 2020[edit]

-load[edit]

I doubt that this is a genuine suffix. And Category:English words suffixed with -load has a small population. DonnanZ (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The paucity of entries in that category is explained by most potential entries being analyzed using {{compound}} rather than {{suffix}}, such as arkload, armload, assload, autoload, bagload, barrowload, bellyload, binload, boatload, bootload, boxload, busload, buttload, coachload, containerload, crateload, horseload, jetload, lorryload, muleload, planeload, raftload, sackload, shipload, sledload, tankerload, tonload, trailerload, trainload, tramload, trunkload, and vanload. Perhaps an argument can be made that -load is not a genuine suffix, but I think the size of the current population is not a strong one.  --Lambiam 12:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Derived terms for load are a bit of a mess at present, there are two sections for nouns, including Category:English words derived from: load (noun) which is somewhat non-standard (like this "suffix"). Some terms appear both as suffixes and normal derived terms. being listed twice. Not all terms are single-word compounds either, like axle load and unit load. We need some consistency. DonnanZ (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I have put the two noun sections under one heading, but there's still some work to do. DonnanZ (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
In axle load, the meaning is “load on the axle”; this is a standard compound noun, used in such contexts as “the axle load should not exceed 10,000 kgf”. In the cases where the first component is a container, the meaning is ”the amount that fits in such a container”, and the typical use is “a <container>load of ...”. In this use, -load is a synonym of -ful.  --Lambiam 15:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Your comparison of load compounds with those using the genuine suffix -ful fails to take into account that -ful can't be used on its own, unlike load; for example vanful - "a vanful of merchandise" can only be split as "a van full of merchandise". Whereas a word like carload is a load in a car, whether it is a motorcar or a railroad car. But there are other terms like shitload, which I know you edited, doesn't mean "a load of shit", but must still derive from shit +‎ load. DonnanZ (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Not all words ending on -load can be analyzed the same way, but there is a clear commonality among those in which the first component is a container. This appears to be somewhat productive. For example, although Wiktionary does not have an entry for barrelload, this term can, non-surprisingly, be attested: [14], [15], [16]. The meaning of such compounds is also predictable; if you know the meaning of urn, you know what is meant here by the term urnload. Productivity plus a fixed meaning are IMO enough to establish suffix status.  --Lambiam 11:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
The only dictionary evidence I have found to support your theory is in Cambridge, which is not overwhelming support for a suffix, and hardly enough. No suffix is recognised by Oxford. In fact Oxford prefers to create two words: ‘Approximately 120 bags and 10 trailer loads of rubbish were collected and removed by Waterford Co Council.’, ‘The biotechnology company has, through a number of well-timed share placements, bucket loads of money.’ and more. So Cambridge's support for a suffix should probably be ignored. DonnanZ (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
The Oxford usage examples appear at load, they also have bucketload and many more compounds of load, but no entry for trailerload. DonnanZ (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete: I see no evidence that this is a suffix rather than a compound element load, I see no books referring to a or the google books:"suffix -load" or to the use of google books:"load as a suffix". Whereas, the ability to split the compounds ("a car load", etc) suggests they are indeed compounds with load, not uses of a suffix. - -sche (discuss) 19:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Keep. Mark as colloquial. - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 16:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete. A suffix is, by definition, a bound rather than a free morpheme. Clearly that doesn't apply to load. Not sure if I'm missing something more subtle here. Colin M (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Delete per sche. DAVilla 01:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

-way[edit]

"Used in the game of Pig Latin. "please be quiet or I'll cry" becomes "ease-play e-bay iet-quay or-way I'll-way y-cray""

This is not a great entry. Firstly it doesn't explain how, why or where the suffix is used (it should explain that it attaches to certain vowels, or whatever). Secondly, this isn't an actual suffix, really, is it? It's just a sound or noise. It has no meaning and no connection to the grammar/part of speech of the thing it attaches to. Equinox 00:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Strangely enough, there is a suffix, but not for this. DonnanZ (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Keep. "doesn't explain": Is a matter for WT:RFC. "actual suffix": en.wt uses linguistic terms very loosely (e.g. "derived terms" not only for derivates but also for compounds, or suffix for terms others called neoklassisches Formativ n (rare)). --幽霊四 (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete. A game of Pig Latin does not an English suffix make. Hit-way the highway-way. Facts707 (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

be prepared[edit]

This is the second nomination, for the motto, and the first nomination for the euphemistic sense. Both senses should be deleted IMO.

Motto[edit]

The entry was apparently kept as a translation hub. I don't see how this is a good entry for that. This isn't a phrase that has lexical significance; it's just a motto. There are lots of other mottos in existence, even some that are quite well known, that probably don't literally match the equivalents in other languages. The same can be said for slogans. We don't want an entry for I'm lovin' it (McDonald's slogan in the US) for example, because I guarantee you advertisements for McDonald's in other places use a slogan that technically translates to something different. The motto wouldn't be any more lexically significant in any other language, just for being the Scout motto, than it is in English.

Popularity or historical significance is not equivalent to whether or not something is meant for a dictionary. This is why we don't have entries for Christopher Columbus, Nintendo Entertainment System, Windows XP, or similar. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

Euphemism[edit]

Definition given: "(euphemistic) To be prepared for a sexual encounter by carrying or possessing condoms or other means for preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease."

It literally has the term itself in its own definition, which already isn't a good sign. Beyond just that quick observation, there are tons of euphemistic shortenings of sexual phrases that are this generic. One example is "let it out" in reference to ejaculation, but we don't see that sense at let out (since you might as well say "let out the cum"). You could just as easily say "let it out" and refer to something completely different, like "let the puke out of your mouth" or "let the dog (which the speaker omits the gender of previously with 'it') out of the house."

As for "be prepared" itself, you might be prepared for a sexual encounter also by boosting your confidence, exercising beforehand, making sure you were actually excited at the time, etc. There are a million things someone might do to prepare themselves for the act of sex, or literally for anything else, while I don't see this particular thing defined to be lexically significant over any of them. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Does it require "be" anyway? What about "he seemed prepared" etc.? Equinox 19:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Or “he came prepared” (no pun intended).  --Lambiam 18:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete. PUC – 15:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. The motto certainly has a meaning that cannot be expressed with or substituted by its synonym, as it's a set phrase in this particular form. (If not in English, then in some of its translations, such as in Hungarian, which is why it's a translation hub.) Adam78 (talk) 12:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
    Wait, say what? Do we keep "translation hubs" now? Nevermind, WT:THUB DAVilla 01:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Motto: Translations look like SOP too, e.g. légy résen (be on alert). euphemism: Just being prepared in a certain context. Delete - or "phrasebook project". --幽霊四 (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete SOP and context dependent. "Be prepared" said the fire chief. "Be prepared" said the math teacher. "Be on the lookout" "Be aware" "Be safe" "Be kind to animals" Facts707 (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Delete. Not seeing any evidence that there's a conventionalized association with sex/contraceptives. All of the citations would make just as much sense with prepared replaced by ready. Colin M (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Not lovin it. DAVilla 01:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Not sure what phrasebook criteria are but this seems like a pretty weak phrase. Doesn't seem like this would be a good translation hub. Please correct me if I'm wrong. DAVilla 01:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

go deep[edit]

"To be a remarkable characteristic of a person or thing. Our students' sense of pride in the school goes very deep." That is not at all my understanding of what go deep means. If the school is a fine, noble institution then there is nothing remarkable about the students being proud of it. The "depth" refers to how much they like it: it's something like saying their pride is genuine and ingrained — not shallow or superficial — i.e. just what deep normally means. (Note run deep may also need attention since it just links to this entry.) Equinox 21:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete per nom. DCDuring (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete; the def is wrong and it's just go + deep, per nom. Negative characteristics can also "go deep", like "racism at the school goes deep", google books:"racism goes deep", etc. - -sche (discuss) 19:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment. Which of our senses of go covers this? What other phrases of the form "go + adj." use "go" in the same way? Mihia (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
go unnoticed, go unreported? I can't think of any examples that aren't of the form go un- + past participle. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Is that really the same sense? To me, "go" in "go unnoticed/unreported" means something like "pass" (approximately), while in "go deep" it is more like "penetrate" (approximately). Mihia (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I suppose it is, or is something akin to, the "extend" sense (which has a quote "I don't know that this knowledge goes very deep for them", among others). On Google Books, I also see e.g. "goes down to the bone" ("beauty is skin-deep, but ugly goes down to the bone", "if you hate him, that kind of hatred goes down to the bone", "a sadness that [...] goes down to the bone", "your slick[ness] goes down to the bone", "this story goes deep, goes down to the bone"). I'm trying to think of other synonyms... - -sche (discuss) 16:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

This makes me think of go back a long way. PUC – 12:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. The definition certainly needs rephrasing, but I can find it in several dictionaries (Cambridge, Collins, Macmillan) as a synonym of run deep (WT:LEMMING). Also, I don't think it is adequately covered by any of the more general senses of go so its meaning might not be transparent to language learners. – Einstein2 (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete (correcting my previous entry), context dependent. We don't have deep roots, but we do have deep-rooted. Facts707 (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Rewrite. There's an idiomatic meaning here, but as others have noted, the current definition is way off. You can talk about a tree having roots that "go deep", meaning that they extend far underground. So something like "racism at the school {runs,goes} deep" is a figurative extension of that. It's saying there's a great deal of racism, and it extends further than one might readily perceive (for various possible conceptions of "further"). I do see an argument for it being SoP with the "extend" sense of go referred to above by -sche, but I think it's a fairly non-obvious turn of phrase, and the figurative use is sufficiently conventionalized (as opposed to, say, "go down to the bone") that it's worth an entry. Colin M (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Chinese virus[edit]

The definition has been neutered to the extent that it is NiSoP. ("Any of various viruses originating, identified, or causing outbreaks in China") DCDuring (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. This phrase has been used to refer to a variety of viruses since 1895. The current (2020) political controversy about the phrase does not make it dictionary material. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
An older definition "COVID-19", removed out of process, was not SoP. I'm sure that we could get quite a few citations for this in this hot-word sense, with the definite determiner the. Whether it will live more than one year is an empirical question. DCDuring (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
It seems to me that 2020 uses of "the Chinese virus" to refer to COVID-19 are SOP, just as much as older uses referring to other viruses. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Accordingly, I have added an RFD tag to the other sense too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@DCDuring You've accused me of removing the COVID-19 sense out of process. I'm sorry if I gave that impression, which was not intended—as I indicated in my edit summary, I was trying to broaden the definition to more completely capture how the phrase is used. It seems to me that use of the Chinese virus to describe "COVID-19" is just an instance of the broader "virus originating in China" sense. Is there any reason to think it isn't? (You or I may approve or disapprove of the use of this phrase, but that doesn't make it idiomatic.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
The generalization to the point of SoPitude led to my RfD which you support. It looks like a two-step deletion of an entry you don't like, that would have been under color of a legitimate process. But the COVID-19 sense is distinct, though obviously derived from the SoP term. If we can't handle politically controversial material we should get out of the business of providing definitions for novel terms in living languages. DCDuring (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that usage describing COVID-19 represents a distinct sense rather than the general sense? —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I have observed that I and people I talk to tend to say "[the] coronavirus" instead of the several other names. We all know which of the many coronaviruses is meant. "Chinese virus" works the same way in my opinion. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
As I pointed out in the coronavirus RFD discussion (now at Talk:coronavirus), there are uses of coronavirus that cannot be explained by the general sense, so the specific sense is needed. Do uses exist for Chinese virus that cannot be explained by the general sense? I don't think I've seen any. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Sense 2 says "(politics) COVID-19". What is that trying to say? That this word is specifically used, in a technical sense, among politicians generally, to refer to COVID-19? Yeah? I thought it was just Trump. Equinox 04:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
It certainly isn't just Trump. Users includes his minions and allies. DCDuring (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Users include conservatives. Does anybody really know what the man on the street says? (Or would say if he were allowed on the street?) Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete for now. Far more generic than Wuhan virus, which I would keep if it is still used next year. If kept, rewrite the definition of the COVID-19 sense and delete the Wikipedia link related to Donald Trump. Perhaps change the definition to Synonym of Wuhan virus because it has exactly the same meaning and essentially the same connotations. And while we're on the subject, what do people think about the recent addition of "derogatory" to Wuhan virus? Most people dislike the virus and any name could be derogatory. I think the usage note explains sufficiently the fact that use of the term may suggest a political affiliation (for better or worse) and I would delete the new label. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
What CFI rationale for deletion? Reasons for deletion do not include "inaccuracy", controversy, or use by unpopular political figures or their followers.
Usually {{synonym of}} directs a user to the most common term for the referent, which, in this case, is COVID-19.
Perhaps we should include a derogatory label on Spanish flu, French disease, Ebolavirus, Rocky Mountain fever, etc., too. DCDuring (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I think the PERSON on the street says COVID, half as many syllables as COVID-19, not readily mistaken for any other topic such person might discuss. DCDuring (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete as sum of parts. If kept because its meaning has narrowed, then what it's a synonym of depends on what you think the template means. Stripped of connotations, it does mean COVID-19 or SARS 2. (I drop -CoV- in speech.) In a discussion in the Beer Parlour (last of May, 2020) editors thought a synonym meant you could freely substitute one word for the other. Some people use choice of word as a means of signaling their tribal affiliation. You could almost swap Chinese virus and Wuhan virus, but you couldn't swap Chinese virus and COVID-19 because in certain circles one is offensive and the other is not. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Other reasons you can't swap Chinese virus and COVID-19: the phrase Chinese virus is also used to refer to other viruses/viral diseases, and COVID-19 is a proper noun (doesn't take a/the). As I said above, use of the Chinese virus to describe COVID-19 appears to be an instance of the SOP sense (roughly "any virus originating or identified in China"). If anyone can provide evidence to the contrary, that would be great. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
You can swap 'the Chinese virus' and 'COVID-19' as for semantics since 1) semantics and synonymy does not care about whether something is offensive, and 2) the definite article in the phrase lets the context help pick which of the multiple candidate viruses is meant. (I am not sure how much what I said is relevant to keeping or deleting; it is relevant to things said in this discussion.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I rewrote the COVID-19 sense and made it not so much about Trump, although the quotation I picked does have a headline about Trump. I also added a transitional form from an AP News story before "Chinese virus" disappeared from mainstream reporting outside of quotations. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete the "any virus from China" definition as SoP, keep the COVID-19 definition (not SoP because people use the phrase to mean specifically COVID-19 and are excluding, say, the 2003 SARS outbreak even though that was also a Chinese virus). Khemehekis (talk) 06:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
This phrase has been used for SARS, actually: "the dreaded new Chinese virus has gone desi with a vengeance", "SARS, too, had a dual genetic identity: it was a Chinese virus". Would you say we should add another sense for that usage? —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Interesting! My answer, though, is probably . . . unless you can find collocations of "the Chinese virus" for just about any notable virus that originated in China. Maybe an epidemiologist can give us more examples of viruses that originated in China, and we can use Internet search engines and see whether they were are referred to as the Chinese virus. Khemehekis (talk) 03:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
@Khemehekis The entry has five citations of the phrase being used to refer to other viruses. More can be found by searching online and limiting the publication dates to years before 2020. —Granger (talk· contribs) 10:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing me in that direction. I really don't know what to think. It seems there may be some merit in pointing out the COVID-19 isage of this term, since it has its own political overtnoes, as Sonofcawdrey points out below. One thing I'm sure of is that we don't need to create SoP senses for every virus associated with China, even if we keep the COVID-19 meaning. That would be like creating a sense for every way it's physically possible to fry an egg at the entry fried egg. Khemehekis (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Regretably, keep the covid sense. RWNJs like Kaley Macanney have given this word life. Purplebackpack89 12:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete both senses, SOP. - -sche (discuss) 19:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete both senses. The second sense isn't properly attested. One of those quotes is actually a headline (which don't follow normal English rules) and the other two both use "the Chinese virus" which is arguably just a purely SOP adjective-noun formation. -Mike (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete the "any virus from China" definition as SoP, keep the COVID-19 definition - this is a politically charged sense that continues to be given life by Trump's dogged use of it, which, I imagine will continue for some time yet as the election year hots up. I think it should have a "deprecated" label and a clear usage note attached to explain the significance, as well as specific non-SOP sense, of the term. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I think if we keep the specific sense, we should also keep the generic sense (an if). --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
At least leave a {{&lit}} definition for the first sense if the second is kept. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree that if the second sense is kept, the first sense must also be kept (at least as an &lit). —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. I hate the fact that the far-right FOX-loving scum in the US coined this but this is useful information to understand US political discourse in 2020. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 16:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. J3133 (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep the COVID-19 sense; render anything else an {{&lit}}. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes it is sum of parts so we should delete—⁠This unsigned comment was added by BuyAthenaTroy (talkcontribs) at 23:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC).
(Moved from new section.) J3133 (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete both, per Mihia. This is much like the definition pair "Any brown leaf." and "A brown maple leaf." for an entry brown leaf. A SOP phrase that is something of a fixed phrase for a specific referent is still a SOP entry. I don't think this can be considered a vernacular name. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Keep but with a separate entry for Covid-19 and heavily qualified: US, colloquial, vulgar, 2020-2021... Facts707 (talk) 02:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

once an Eagle, always an Eagle[edit]

Definition given: "(Scouting) Once someone has attained the Eagle Scout rank, their possession of the rank should not be referred to in the past tense, regardless of age, and an Eagle Scout cannot ever be stripped of their rank." Really this is just a (rather specific) snowclone form of something that should ideally be at Appendix:Snowclones/once a(n) X, always a(n) X, if it should be on the dictionary at all (because even the snowclone itself seems to me to be SOP, but perhaps that can be a discussion after that entry is created).

For example purposes I'll use the usernames of Erutuon and Surjection; hopefully they don't mind. There's no particular reason for picking them. I just picked randomly off the top of my head...

If Erutuon, an active contributor to Wiktionary, had left Wiktionary starting today, Erutuon might one day by mere coincidence meet one of their former Wiktionary buddies, Surjection, IRL or on some other website, 21 years later in 2041. During the conversation with Surjection, Erutuon states "Ah, pfft, who are you kidding? I'm not a Wiktionarian anymore. I haven't been online there for over two decades!" Surjection might say "Hey, once a Wiktionarian, always a Wiktionarian." And this form is completely usable (although I doubt we could attest the "Wiktionarian" form, especially in durably archived sources). It means exactly the same thing, just in a different context; no matter how long Erutuon would be gone, they will always be considered a community member at Wiktionary. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: It looks like Appendix:Snowclones/once a X, always a X exists after all, which I didn't realize before. That's even more of a compelling reason to delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Surely it's "an X" not "a X". Asking the real questions. Equinox 20:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeaaah, delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 00:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Uisleach (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I find the Snowclone appendix rather impractical. Better represent each snowclone in the mainspace in its highest-frequency instantiation and redirect some other high-frequency instantiations to it. What are some very common instantiations of "once a X, always a X"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I would support either moving snowclones (back) into mainspace, or at least creating soft redirects in mainspace from high-frequency instantiations to the relevant appendix, to make the content more findable/searchable. It could be confusing for readers who input something like "night is the new day" to wind up on a very different entry like "orange is the new black", where the definition would presumably focus on those colours, and not night or day (perhaps some other X is the new Y phrase is in fact most common, but my point is that users will be redirected from values of X and Y very different from the ones the lemma entry defines, if we're picking an actual phrase instead of using placeholders) so it might be better to redirect users either to the existing "X is the new Y" appendix, or to a mainspace entry that used placeholders like that ("X is the new Y"). - -sche (discuss) 16:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
A mainspace entry X is the new Y to which high-freq instantiations hard-redirect seems quite palatable to me, as a proposal, and it would address the objection that hard redirect to the representing instantiation could be confusing. And having a soft redirect of the form, say "An instantiation of snowclone represented at night is the new day" should also be considered for instantiations with relatively high frequency; then we can also provide quotations in the instantiation entry. The hard or soft redirects should only be created for high-frequency instantiations; creating them for all attested instantiations would defy the objective of creating a compact representation of what is one thing, a snowclone pattern. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Keep once an Eagle, always an Eagle in some form, possibly as a soft redirect to Appendix:Snowclones/once a X, always a X. Other proposals are above. Are all the deletions of snowclone instances in keeping with WT:CFI? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete/move to the snowclones appendix. PUC – 13:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete, a use of a snowclone. J3133 (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The phrase "once a...always a" probably has potential Purplebackpack89 14:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete Once an editor, always an editor. Facts707 (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

go long[edit]

"To buy a financial product with the intention of holding it for sufficient time for it to increase in value and thus to be sold for a profit."

This is NISoP. go ("To come to (a certain condition or state)") + long ("(finance) Possessing or owning stocks, bonds, commodities or other financial instruments with the aim of benefiting of the expected rise in their value. ")

The other, football sense might be NISoP, too. DCDuring (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

In case it is kept, I'm not sure that the present definition is ideal. It is easy to read "long" as equating to "sufficient time", i.e. "going long" entails holding shares for a "long" time fsvo "long". AFAIK, "long" does not mean this, but merely means that your holding is positive, as opposed to negative in the case of going short. Mihia (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I have changed the definition to address this point (and btw also removed the link to take the long view which seems to betray the same misconception that "going long" necessarily means that you intend hold the shares for a long time). Also added go short. Vote Keep for go long, partly on the basis that I think we should have go short for the "not have enough" sense, and this entails mentioning the finance sense, and then we should not have that without "go long" as well. Mihia (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@Mihia: Regarding take the long view, does the hypothetical antonym take the short view exist? If yes, does it - or maybe short view (see Lexico) - merit an entry? PUC – 17:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I guess it does exist, though my instinct is that take a short view would be more common, and in fact Ngrams bears this out. Putting these at long view and short view would mean we wouldn't need to worry about the article. In any case, "long view" can be used in the same sense without the verb "take". The only issue might be, as we had somewhere else, that "take" can have so many meanings, but in this case I think it is not hard to see what "take a/the long/short view" must mean if one knows "long/short view". By the way, I see you added "with of" to "go short", but in fact an explicit "of" is not mandatory. E.g. you can say "My parents were very poor, and we often went short". You might say that there is an implied "of", i.e. "went short of the sorts of things that you can imagine, such as food, clothes, etc.". Mihia (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
  • Keep. How is someone to know that you can go long on gold, but you can't go optimistic on it? We have other entries that could equally be argued as SoP with this sense of go (or a closely related one). e.g. go crazy. And I think they're totally appropriate. Again, how could someone know that you can go crazy, but you can't go sad? It's not a function of any grammatical rule - it's lexical information. Colin M (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks like this was already decided and kept. DAVilla 01:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

July 2020[edit]

play the victim[edit]

SOP: see play sense 4. You can play the fool (which I guess is protected by WT:THUB), play the innocent, play the big man, etc. PUC – 18:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Sense 4 of play is 'To act as the indicated role, especially in a performance.'. Based on that, I'd just like to notify that there is a difference between playing a victim in a theatrical performance (which becomes playing the victim when the victim is definite) and playing the victim as acting like a victim in order to gain real-world sympathy (and not sympathy as a fictional character). Less idiomatic (and thus more SOP) ways of saying play the victim would be act like a victim, act as a victim or something like that. (I wrote this comment up until the previous sentence before seeing the "you can play the fool" addition). Speaking of which, why does play the fool have an entry, why wouldn't play the victim be worthy of a translation hub as well? Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
In Dutch you could een slachtofferrol (uit)spelen, in een slachtofferrol plaatsen, in een slachtofferrol vervallen, een slachtofferrol aannemen, als een slachtoffer opstellen, gedragen als slachtoffer... Alexis Jazz (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Imetsia (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
RFD-deleted. Imetsia (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

National Hockey League[edit]

Delete: it's like a company name. Equinox 16:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

National Basketball Association[edit]

Delete: it's like a company name. Equinox 16:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

National Football League[edit]

Delete: it's like a company name. Equinox 16:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Major League Baseball[edit]

All except the last one were added by @EhSayer. These are not dictionary material; names of organizations belong on Wikipedia. If we include these, we have precedents for literally tens of thousands more, popular or not. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Brand names may be useful here. Personally, I've been linking to Wikipedia for the long definition of short form names, like CJNG links to the Wikipedia article for Jalisco New Generation Cartel. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Governed by WT:NSE. Names of organizations include United Nations, and some other items in Category:en:Organizations including Federal Intelligence Service, Greenpeace, Hamas, Hezbollah, International Court of Justice, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, World Trade Organization, and more. One property easing the deletion of the nominated names is that they consist of multiple capitalized nouns or adjectives, unlike e.g. Greenpeace. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete all. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I feel like I've heard people use "Major League Baseball" to describe something that is a big deal, perhaps as an extension of major league and/or big league. No comment on the rest. bd2412 T 07:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I have the exact same feeling as BD2412. I'm trying to find quotes/cites of that usage, but I'm coming up short. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Not part of the English language. Definitely Wikipedia material - no one's going to look those up here. Facts707 (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

don't make no nevermind[edit]

Don't make no nevermind is a redirect to nevermind created by a now blocked user. While it's not in my working vocabulary, the phrase does not seem to be the same as nevermind according to definitions I found. It would be better to delete the redirect and turn it back into a red link in the requested/English page. (I also think it would be nice to have a definition for working vocabulary.) Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Specifically, created by an alt of you-know-who. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Is working vocabulary a synonym of active vocabulary (a blue link)? PUC – 21:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Apparently so. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
To me it's just gobbledygook. DonnanZ (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Are you speaking of working vocabulary, or don't make no nevermind? PUC – 23:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not much of a fan of automatic redirects at all. I think they can discombobulate users. I'm not familiar with this expression, but according to the quotations at nevermind, it seems to be just one of a number of possible phrasings that incorporate the broad meaning of "consequence" or "difference", e.g. also "[don't] mean no nevermind", "[don't] make any nevermind", "don't make a heap of nevermind", and presumably others ad lib. I don't know whether "don't make no nevermind" is sufficiently distinguished to desrve its own entry. Mihia (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Don't make no nevermind is the only phrase I know from my sleeping vocab that uses the word nevermind, with irregular non-third person agreement. I am very familiar with it as a type of hillbillyism. However, in OED they mention make/pay no nevermind, and have a citation for "ain't no nevermind", so perhaps our headword should be no nevermind. In any case, a simple redirect does not suffice. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Used to hear variations of this all the time on TV in previous times. "Don't give me none of your nevermind" (Don't give me shit). "What are you doing coming in here dressed like nevermind" (Why are you dressed like shit) Facts707 (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

antiRoman[edit]

Delete as a rare misspelling of anti-Roman. google books:antiRoman does not easily find any actual uses, non-scannos, unlike google books:anti-Roman. antiRoman, anti-Roman at Google Ngram Viewer does find surprisingly many hits, but from randomly checking Google Books, these would be scannos. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Keep. Not a misspelling. J3133 (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
It is a misspelling since 1) in English, it is very rare to have anti-X for X being a nation name spelled as antiX; 2) somewhat speculatively, there is likely a very unfavorable frequency ratio of antiRoman to anti-Roman in Google Books, despite what GNV shows; this is suggested by inspecting google books:"antiRoman" and by the fact that the attesting quotations from antiRoman are solely from Usenet; the spelling is hard to find (or impossible?) in copyedited Google Books. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
antiX being rare does not make it a misspelling; it is a rare alternative form. J3133 (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Is concieve a misspelling or a "rare alternative form" and why? (It has been my position that relative frequency helps detect misspellings; if anything can be labeled "rare alternative form" regardless of relative frequency, this detection criterion breaks down.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't know about "antiRoman" specifically, but I know for sure I've encountered similar things (e.g. unEnglish) in edited writing. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
unEnglish seems to be a misspelling as well, but that would be for a separate RFD. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
An important difference is that concieve changes the letters of the word, whereas antiX changes only the punctuation, which tends to be more variable. J3133 (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Even so, what makes concieve mis- (erroneous) rather than alternative even if rare given that you disregard relative frequency? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Infrequency may help detect misspellings but a word being infrequent does not assure that the word is a misspelling because not all infrequent words are misspellings. J3133 (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
The heuristic I proposed is that if a form is very similar to another form with the same meaning but is vanishingly rarer, the rare form should be treated as a misspelling. This works only for forms that are very similar to other forms, e.g. antiRoman vs. anti-Roman and concieve vs. conceive. Thus, the frequency of a form is not considered on its own but rather in relation to frequency of another form. Thus is addressed the above objection that "not all infrequent words are misspellings". --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
That does not ensure that all of the detected words using that system would be misspellings, though. J3133 (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
himand was deleted as a misspelling; should it have been? himand differes from "him and" only by typesetting error, by lacking space rather than by change in letter sequence; and spaces can vary in general, such as appletree vs. apple tree. antiRoman differs from anti-Roman only by typesetting error, by lacking hyphen rather than by change in letter sequence. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
There is no rule that would apply to all words equally; whether it is an “error” is someone’s opinion. J3133 (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Question unanswered. Let's try another: What is an example of a form that you think Wiktionary should track as misspelling and why? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Evidence from copyedited corpora suggests copyeditors consider antiRoman to be an erroneous spelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
(outdent) In 2014 and early 2015, we deleted a host of terms via RFV, as per Talk:antiZionism: antiChinese, antiArabism, antiBritish, antiDarwinist, antiMarkovnikov, antiRussian, antiZionistic. They may be attested in non-copyedited corpus such as Usenet; my position is that these are misspellings rather than rare alternative spellings. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete, rare misspelling. PUC – 09:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Keep (all words in all languages) and add a definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • KeepDentonius 15:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Delete. What have the antiRomans ever done... ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
DeleteSuzukaze-c (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete as a typo, trivially understandable as prefix anti- + Roman, only minus the hyphen. Outside of a very few words, camelCase is never used in any form of English that is not regarded broadly as mistaken somehow, so even if we were to keep the entry, it would merit labels qualifying it as proscribed. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 03:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Don't care. Context dependent SOP anyway. AntiRoman Catholic? AntiRoman Goths sacking Rome? AntiRoman Italian protesters demonstrating against the government? Facts707 (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

illness parties[edit]

chickenpox party[edit]

chicken pox party[edit]

corona party[edit]

coronavirus party[edit]

covid party[edit]

covid-19 party[edit]

flu party[edit]

measles party[edit]

pox party[edit]

(and illness party)[edit]

The fact that you can construct such terms for so many contact- or air- transmissible illnesses suggests that they are SOP. ("HIV party" and "AIDS party" may also exist.) The finer points, e.g. some of them being aimed at children, are potentially extralexical, like you wouldn't necessarily know just from looking up "engagement"+"party" that it's a party to celebrate a recently-concluded engagement and not a party to get engaged at, while a "frat party" is a party held by a frat rather than (inherently) one to celebrate someone recently joining a frat. But I dunno, these are created by various different users, including one veteran editor, and several were RFVed (rather than RFDed) by another, so maybe people feel they are idiomatic... - -sche (discuss) 22:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep pox party, which is the most opaque of these combinations. The rest can adequately be disposed of with a sense at party. bd2412 T 00:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Is one the original, upon which the rest were modeled? My impression is that "chickenpox party" or some variant thereof is the original term. If this is the case, I vote to keep the original term and delete the rest, replacing them by a corresponding sense at party. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
@Andrew Sheedy: Without question, the original term is "small-pox party". bd2412 T 16:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
If that is the case, I reaffirm my vote. Keep "small-pox party" (and its alternative forms) and add a new sense at party, with a note in the etymology about the origin of the sense in the practice of small-pox parties. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


I created measles party, apparently; I don't particularly remember it. I take the point that this seems to be a common construction X party for a lot of diseases X; however, I don't think the meaning is very obvious from party, so perhaps (as BD2412 seems to be suggesting) we could add a new subsense at party under sense 6 (social gathering) explaining this type of "party" with some examples. Equinox 17:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Create small-pox party if there are three citations in the sense of the link above, as the oldest form and because the party uses variolation rather than passive infection. Add a new sense of party to handle the rest. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I would consider a "party" where people are vaccinated or variolated to be a sense very distinct from a "party" where people go to catch a disease by normal spread, particularly given the use of "parties" by antivaccinationists to avoid actual vaccination for a condition. bd2412 T 01:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete all. The detail that the illnesses in “pox party” and “flu party” stand for infectious diseases in general is just rhetorics and exaggerated by Wikipedia. We could otherwise under many common diseases add “senses” according to which the word can be used pars pro toto for an infectious diseases of barely defined kind. Similar to “anything harmful to morals or public order” at pestilence as this word was used in inciting speeches across centuries with vague meaning but less notorious. Fay Freak (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Per BD2412, pox party, especially, is hard to understand from its parts, given the present definitions at pox, which do not include the meaning of an "infectious disease in general, and not a skin lesion disease in particular". Mihia (talk) 09:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep chickenpox/pox/measles/mumps/flu parties - i.e. the ones arranged for children to catch common communicable diseases that are more harmless as children than adults. I honestly had no idea what a "chickenpox party" was until I read the def., nor that such things existed. Not at all comprehensible from sop. Also keep small pox party, but that is a little different, as from pre-vaccination days. As for "covid-19 party" and syns ... well, the def provided by us is a fake-news def and should be removed - but there does seem to be a genuine def. "A party which people attend deliberately in defiance of lockdown regulations concerning the spread of the coronavirus". This would be a hot-word, of course. Dunno if all the variants are valid and attested.- Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
This Daily Kos article would agree with you. Khemehekis (talk) 07:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
One detail, though. Smallpox parties (so far as the term is attested) are not actually from pre-vaccination days, as the smallpox vaccine was invented in 1796. It was the only effective vaccine in existence for about a hundred years after that, and the only one in popular use for several additional decades, so virtually all references to vaccination or a vaccine prior to the 1920s will be for the smallpox vaccine. bd2412 T 16:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • At least keep pox party, measles party and similar entries for parties arranged for children. These are specifically for children and they are not parties to celebrate pox or measles, unlike a birthday party which is arguably more clearly SOP. As a side note: in Dutch, "coronafeestje" is generally used not as an event with the intent of spreading the coronavirus, but just a party as a "fuck you" to social distancing. See also w:nl:Coronaparty which is actually rather different from the English article. Alexis Jazz (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
    Is there any easily explained difference between coronafeest, coronafeestje, and anti-coronafeest? Is it a situation like flammable and inflammable where they look like antonyms but are synonyms? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Vox Sciurorum coronafeestje is just the diminutive form of coronafeest. (see feest and feestje) As a rough guideline, if there are less than 10 guests, we'd probably call it a feestje. Coronafeest, coronafeestje, anti-coronafeest and schijt-aan-coronafeestje (schijt hebben aan) are all synonyms. Also, vlambaar (nl) and ontvlambaar. (nl) (not to be confused with Vlambeer which means flame bear) Alexis Jazz (talk) 04:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    Maybe Voc was thinking about Appendix:Dutch diminutives where a -je is sometimes a different thing from the root word. (You kinda suggested that yourself, Alexis, regarding the difference between c~feest and c~feestje; but I'm not sure how "official" your definition is; this virus stuff is still mostly recent news.) Equinox 04:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    Because I linked the diminutive instead of the root word? I guess a coronafeest(je) is usually small. If it gets too big, the police may invite themselves at which point it'll stop being a party. Likewise, verjaardagsfeestje seems to be slightly more common than verjaardagsfeest. (more red links? werk aan de winkel I guess, tomorrow) Alexis Jazz (talk) 04:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have created the more generic illness party, and that should be kept, at least. Purplebackpack89 13:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89 Quite the opposite, I'm afraid your new entry is the only one that should be deleted. A quick search suggests "illness party" is unlikely to be attestable. Alexis Jazz (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep all citable. The exact meaning of these terms is not readily deducible by consulting the entries for their components. One would most likely come away with the idea they are parties to celebrate overcoming the illnesses in question. Most people aren't going to piece together that these are gatherings at which a group of people are deliberately exposed to a contagion in the belief this will help build immunity. It's a concept that needs to be explained. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 02:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Why not just add the relevant sense at party and be done with it? There seems to be way too many of these "illness parties" variants to suggest non-SoP. ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
  • Keep those specified by Alexis Jazz and according to the criteria given by WordyAndNerdy, move to RFV if necessary. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, as party doesn't seem to cover it (yet). Also covid party might have two senses: 1. party to spread corona as en.wt has it. 2. party during corona-times (with the intention of parting and not of spreading corona). --幽霊四 (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

State of Japan[edit]

Wiktionary is the only result on Google when you search "State of Japan". I believe this comes from a semi-literal translation of 日本国 (Nihon-koku), the name for Japan in Japanese, but does not exist as a phrase in English. There is this redirect page at The Free Dictionary, but I suspect that it was derived from Wiktionary. Goszei (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there a reason to believe that "State of Japan" is more than just a sum-of-parts combination that could be applied to any country? For example, "State of Belgium", "State of Mexico" and "State of Angola" -- just the first three that I tried at random -- all seem readily citable. Also, the present definition reads "De facto official name of Japan under the Constitution of Japan", but shouldn't there be some mention that it is an "English-language name"? Wouldn't the "normal" official constitutional name be the Japanese name? Mihia (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
By the way, the official UN English-language list of member country names [17] contains a small number of "State of ~" examples, but Japan is not one of them. Mihia (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete sum of parts. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 11:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
    This “sum of parts” argument is absurd. There are several counties whose official name is “State”, such as the State of Israel and the State of Qatar. The name State of Japan has been sporadically used by the Japanese government. See the citations there, and check the use of official names of other countries carefully:
    • the Kingdom of Belgium and the State of Japan
    • the Islamic Republic of Iran and the State of Japan
    They never say “State of Belgium” in official documents. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
The sum-of-parts argument is hardly "absurd". In fact, it is very plausible, and is only disputable with specialist knowledge of the exact status of the phrase. Mihia (talk) 10:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
We don't include full names. We don't have entries for Donald Trump or Joe Biden, for example. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
On one hand, countries/nations can have many such designations and it seems obvious many, if not all, would be SOP, e.g. "the Japanese Nation", "the Nation of Japan", "the Country of Japan" etc also exist and seem SOP. OTOH, Talk:State of Israel was kept in 2012, and Talk:Republic of Iceland in 2013, on the grounds that official names have some claim to being fixed phrases and maybe passing some tests of idiomaticity... but the fact that official documents use multiple names might suggest this one is SOP... meh... - -sche (discuss) 16:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
  • If it were without "rare" and "De facto", rather keep because of other officialese terms like Federal Republic of Germany, or delete of much more terms. For now, undecided. --幽霊四 (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - "Nippon-koku" (State of Japan), "Nippon" (Japan). Need to distinguish former Empire of Japan "Dai Nippon Teikoku". Facts707 (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

token[edit]

RFD-sense "a minor attempt for appearance sake, or to minimally comply with a requirement". Defined as a noun, but actually the second adjective sense, which seems indistinguishable from the first adjective sense. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Senses could perhaps be mixed. From Oxford:
ADJECTIVE
attributive
1 Done for the sake of appearances or as a symbolic gesture.
‘cases like these often bring just token fines from magistrates’
1.1 Denoting a member of a minority group included in an otherwise homogeneous set of people in order to give the appearance of diversity.
‘the patronizing treatment of the token Middle Eastern character’
DonnanZ (talk) 09:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to the Noun section, which presently seems lacking this sense (usexes will need adjusting too). Mihia (talk) 10:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep both the adjective and the noun senses -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 17:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep it. This sense is still used and conveys meaning. Token hiring still happens. The NASDAQ, for example, is currently proposing companies be forced to do token hiring on boards. I've also seen the word "tokenism" to refer to this practice. Given that this is still relevant today, a word is needed to convey its meaning. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by 98.21.68.80 (talk) at 12:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC).
(Moved from new section.) J3133 (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
  • I think that some voters may be misunderstanding this. There are presently TWO adjective definitions:
  1. Done as an indication or a pledge; perfunctory, minimal or merely symbolic.
  2. a minor attempt for appearance's sake, or to minimally comply with a requirement
Definition #2 is not the definition of an adjective. It is the definition of a noun. Apparently, if definition #2 was converted to a definition of an adjective, it would be not be distinguishable from #1 (albeit #1 could possibly be split?). Additionally, there is apparently no existing noun sense exactly corresponding to #2. Therefore I reiterate my previous comment. Mihia (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I have tried to fix up all the relevant definitions. Please make any further changes as you see fit, and then let's close this. Mihia (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep both. Thanks Mihia et al. Facts707 (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

black man[edit]

RFD-sense for both "A male member of an ethnic group having dark pigmentation of the skin, typically of sub-Saharan African descent." and "Black people collectively; black culture." Both of these are SOP; both could have analogous definitions at white man, but they do not. For the 2014 RFD discussion on this topic, see Talk:white man. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Delete as covered by black + man entries. Oddly Talk:black_man suggests that this was RFDed before but nobody commented at all (?). Equinox 18:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
We do have analogous definitions at white man. Both entries were kept in the previous RFD here. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you; I somehow missed that because those definitions are subsenses; I have struck certain parts of my comment above. I'm not sure how to incorporate white man into this RFD, considering that subsenses are usually not RFDed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Meanwhile, black person was deleted as SoP and white person redirects to Thesaurus:white person! Equinox 19:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Why we don't have Thesaurus:black person is a mystery to me. As for redirection, it seems like a bad idea when the thesaurus is mostly terms that are at least potentially offensive... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: I suspect that any thesaurus entry on an ethnic group would quickly amount to a catalog of slurs. It would be nice to divide those out so that we could have at least one such entry containing only the scientific, technical, and other non-slur variations. bd2412 T 23:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
We do have Thesaurus:white person, Thesaurus:Jew, Thesaurus:Asian. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
All of those are problematic, and for differing reasons. It is interesting that Thesaurus:Jew is basically a list of slurs, while Thesaurus:Asian is bereft of even the mild ones. bd2412 T 00:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Certainly. I don't know where else to put that information, though: I created Thesaurus:Jew specifically to move the slurs out of the entry, following a request on Talk:Jew#List_of_slurs? and on the model of Thesaurus:Muslim. AFAICT we either list the slurs in the Thesaurus, list them in mainspace (which seems like a more prominent / worse place to put slurs), or don't list them at all (which I would not expect to go over successfully). (Edited to add: perhaps you are suggesting putting all the other slurs as synonyms of one of the slurs, and then perhaps only that slur could be linked from the main entry, which could otherwise list only non-slur synonyms... that could work...) - -sche (discuss) 03:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Better yet, we create a single appendix for all the slurs for all peoples, and make that the target for anyone specifically searching for those terms. I was thinking that we could even just point to Category:English ethnic slurs, but that doesn't give any information on how they are used (most would have no idea from looking at the list what ginzo or yarpie are direct towards). bd2412 T 18:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Keep (but merge those two definitions)…to me (like white man) it's a set term. Often stressed on the first syllable, like a compound word. Probably also qualifies under COALMINE. Ƿidsiþ 04:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Of course it's stressed on the first syllable! If you say "a black man" then you are distinguishing from a black mongoose, or a black queen in chess. But if you are making the second syllable a schwa then maybe you are talking about an English actress. Equinox 04:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
If you don't believe me about stress, try saying aloud: "the poor man asked for alms"; "is she a rich woman?". Equinox 04:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't agree. Normally you would expect a more even stress. Consider the difference in normal speech between "a black bird" and "a blackbird". Ƿidsiþ 04:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Additional point: are white woman and black woman less worthy of notice than the man and person? What about the child and daughter and son? Even a black cousin, or white aunt? If we start including these SoPisms where do we draw the line? Equinox 04:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete as covered by the {{&lit}} sense 1, retaining the quotations at the present sense 3. BTW, I think it is best to avoid using male member in definitions.  --Lambiam 07:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Admin nerds may view the old entry for "male rod" [18] which I think is still, ten years later, the creepiest thing I have seen on Wiktionary apart from my stalker. Equinox 08:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
(You have a stalker!? It's not Wonderfool is it?) Ƿidsiþ 06:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • FYI I created blackman, which is actually pretty common, at least in certain times/contexts. Ƿidsiþ 06:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm inclined to point out that COALMINE would have us keep this, although I think that's somewhat absurd (and the phrase is clearly SOP), since as Equinox says one can just as well speak of a "black woman", "a black daughter", "a black actress"... - -sche (discuss) 06:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm sure I've heard black men describing themselves as a "black man" (on the radio, where you can't see what colour they are). DonnanZ (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's a nuance that is being missed. See, e.g., Ralph Cheyney and Jack Conroy, eds., Unrest, The Rebel Poets' Anthology (1929), p. 40: "Listen, black man, listen, you have a cot at night; What more do you need, blackbird, than sleep and appetite?"; Clifton E. Marsh, From Black Muslims to Muslims (1996), p. 144: "As I passed the lines of black women they shouted, “Go black man, Go black man, We believe in you, brother”...". It ceases to be a descriptor and becomes almost an honorific. bd2412 T 05:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. White man is kept, let black man also stay. Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

RFD keptDentonius 19:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Reopened and delete; also delete white man and the redirect at white person. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete the racial senses, currently 2 and 3. Sense 4 may justify keeping the page. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Keep, as there's blackman. --幽霊四 (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. PUC – 23:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete blatant SoP, and, per Equinox, we may as well have "black" + any person type whatsoever. Mihia (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep and also white man. I would have preferred to delete both, but both have senses not SOP as mentioned in quotations, e.g. ...since the arrival of the black man in sports.... I do note that the spelling can also be Black man when referring to a (male) black person. Facts707 (talk) 04:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Talking about "the something", e.g. "the black man in sports", is not a separate sense of the word. If we say "the kangaroo was first discovered in year X" it's just the same: we don't mean one specific kangaroo, but the entire race. The separate sense is silly and should not support keep votes. Equinox 07:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Hmmm, debatable as to whether it can mean "black people in general" or "black culture in general", but we still have sense #4 "(now rare) An evil spirit, a demon." Facts707 (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep as a loathsome, quaint term that I shun using and cringe upon hearing (or reading) but has its own separate sense that can't be inferred from its SOP. --Kent Dominic (talk) 11:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
@Kent Dominic: Loathsomeness is relative. The song "This Is America" features numerous repetitions of the phrase by a black artist in a context which suggests familiar use within his own culture. bd2412 T 05:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
@BD2412: "Loathsomeness is relative;" true. Whether "This is America" uses a loathsome term, familiar as it may be, diminishes neither its loathsomeness nor my predilection to shun its use. Yet, given its use notwithstanding its loathsomeness, my vote was (and remains) to keep. --Kent Dominic (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

August 2020[edit]

KJV-onlyer[edit]

The new relevant entry is at onlyer; Usenet evidence suggests there are many other couplings one could use with onlyer, such as "weekend-onlyer" meaning someone who does not do things on weekdays, "movie-onlyer" meaning someone who only watches movies as opposed to books or TV shows(?), and even "Quran onlyer" which is also a religious context. While "KJV-onlyer" seems to be the most common out of all of them, I still think we shouldn't keep it because it's SOP according to the new entry. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. Given the definition of onlyer it is sum of parts. At onlyer the sole definition begins (by extension) which suggests something before it has been deleted. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Question. Is the suffix -onlyer attestably applied to other entities than the KJV?  --Lambiam 09:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
    Looks like KJV onlyer is the most frequent use of -onlyer, but I also found quran onlyers, analog onlyers, RVR-onlyers (in comparsion to KJV), pogo onlyers, anime-onlyers and others. Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
    Note that none of these uses meet our requirements for attestation.  --Lambiam 21:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)}
  • Keep. An attestable word, may well be the only word where the usage of -onlyer is attestable. Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Much as I hate to break up this party, I think everyone has the analysis wrong: -er may be attached to "only", but it's modifying the entire phrase. This can theoretically be done with any phrase, but in practice it would generally only work for phrases where [x] is the phrase and it can be plausibly substituted in the formula: "There are two kinds of people in the world, those who say '[x]' and those who don't." In other words, it has to be recognizable as a phrase associated with a known group or class of people. As an example, among RFDers one could say we have the SOPers squared off against the COALMINErs and set-phrasers.
I think the term onlyer should probably be deleted, because it's just a coincidence that some phrases with -er tacked on happen to end with "only". Yes, -er is part of the spelling of the last word in the phrase, but that's also true of -'s in "Fred and Doris' 29th anniversary". We're dealing with a clitic here, and dictionaries don't handle clitics very well. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Note: see also firster, which also suffers from the same mis-analysis. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
How does the "(KJV-only)-er" analysis, in your opinion, relate to the deletion request under discussion?  --Lambiam 21:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
The "onlyer" analysis was a convenient shortcut to proving this as SOP, but it's not the only way. Basically the clitic modifies the entire phrase, but it doesn't keep the phrase it modifies from being SOP. All the phrase has to do to be used in such a construction is summarize a particular viewpoint or school of thought in a memorable way, or be associated with the same by some accident of history- it's all very random and non-lexical. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
You make a thought-provoking point. Poking around, I also see a few hits for "faith-aloners", and for "second-amendmenters", "first amendmenters" and "fifth-amendmenters". OTOH, my initial feeling is that we should cover such things at "word" entries (i.e. not just at the suffix entry -er but at either onlyer or KJV-onlyer, and either "amendmenter" or "second-amendmenter", etc, depending on how many kinds of "onlyer", "amendmenter", etc there are), because... well, is there any other situation—aside from possessives, which are broken into recognizable parts by apostrophes (though see the BP re obsolete ones)—where we don't include an attested solidspelled (unspaced, unhyphenated) English word and instead expect readers to figure out to break it into parts on their own? - -sche (discuss) 07:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
If we analyze it as ending with -er then we keep it because not all the components have spaces or hyphens between them. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Weak delete if there are other attested kinds of "onlyer", which there seem to be (I see one citation on Citations:onlyer for bare "onlyer"), whereas if this is the only attested kind of onlyer, then weak keep. - -sche (discuss) 07:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
It appears that you are an on the fencer.  --Lambiam 12:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Keep, the other onlyers seem rare as hen's teeth and this may well be includible per the jiffy test. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. An aside: Unless there's "ye" and "thou" in it, how can they even call it a bible? ;-) -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 17:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Due to User:Chuck Entz's points above, I'm changing my vote to keep (even though he used the same reasoning to want the entry deleted). As it modifies the entire phrase, and onlyer cannot be separated as a lexical entity in this situation, you can't deduce the meaning of it unless you know of the suffix. KJV only is SOP, but KJV only + -er is not. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
One concern I have, which I'm not sure what to do about ( I'm not sure if this is an argument to delete these entries, or to keep them, or is immaterial), is that not only this but other suffixes function decently broadly, e.g. you can take a multi-word phrase and add "-ist" or "-ism" and form e.g. Donald Trumpist (but maybe that's an entry we want to consider idiomatic; we do have Donald Trumpian), google:"America Firstists" (compare America Firster, whereas Talk:Israel firster is no more), google:"Green New Dealism", etc, besides the examples I pointed to above of "faith-aloners", and for "second-amendmenters", "first amendmenters" and "fifth-amendmenters". Maybe all these are idiomatic and fine. I am, as I said above, more inclined to cover them on some word entry than to expect people to figure out to strip off -er. - -sche (discuss) 21:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Taking a step back, I would say this certainly satisfies the CFI golden rule. "A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means." I agree with Chuck that onlyer is based on an incorrect analysis, and should be deleted. Colin M (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

befraud[edit]

Befraud appears to be an uncommon mistake for defraud. I checked a couple dictionaries and didn't see it. I did not check OED. Most of the search results are scan errors. It does appear 3 times in durable places so this is not an RFV. I propose to delete as an uncommon error. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

"not in dictionaries" is what distinguishes Wiktionary from most other dictionaries ! We represent actual usage. We also cannot make arbitrary judgements. Pairs such as defile and befile, dehead and behead, etc. can equally be viewed as parallel developments, and are not that uncommon. Would you consider dehead to be a mistake for behead ? Leasnam (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
CFI explicitly contemplate looking at other dictionaries for guidance. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
That doesn't inherently exclude entries that aren't though, right? Tharthan (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "It does appear 3 times in durable places", so keep. Even if it is, prescriptively speaking, a "mistake", people might encounter it and what to know what it means. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    According to CFI we don't keep rare misspellings. I don't see evidence that this is anything other than a very rare misspelling of defraud. Be- is described as rare or no longer productive. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps the label rare or no longer productive requires review. If you're absolutely convinced there's a monster in Loch Ness, you're likely to see one. Leasnam (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
It's not a misspelling, it's a word with a completely different prefix. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, the 2000 cite also uses "defrauded" and so the instance of "befraud" could arguably be a typo or misspelling (i.e. unintentional), especially if the authors are not native speakers. And (via Googling) I spot a copy of the 1991 book on b-ok.cc where their OCRed text, at least, has "defraud" in the place where the books.google.com version has "befraud"; the book does not use "defraud" anywhere else, nor does the 1987 book. This complicates things. But if valid citations exist, I would say keep this since, as Mahagaja says, it'd be a different word with a different (semantically intelligible/valid, if nonstandard/unusual) prefix. I recently created a similar entry, ensiege. At worst one might label such things misconstructions. (Certainly, befraud needs some {{label}}s: rare? and/or nonstandard?) - -sche (discuss) 19:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Following your advice, I've labelled befraud as rare and also directed the entry as a synonym of defraud. Leasnam (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as a rare misspelling per WT:CFI#Spellings. (befraud*10000),defraud at Google Ngram Viewer. One could argue whether this is a misspelling or a misconstruction, though. Deleting a vanishingly rare misconstruction would be a CFI override, I guess, but much in the spirit of deleting rare misspellings. The notion that this cannot be a misspelling since it uses a different prefix seems refuted by the 2000 cite mentioned by -sche for the reasoning supplied by -sche. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not a misspelling, per others. J3133 (talk) 08:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Just want to note that I'm concerned about Leasnam still creating these Anglo-Saxonish entries based on typos and rare mistakes by Indians. Equinox 19:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
fraud isn't Germanic, though, Equinox. Though perhaps that is why you said "Anglo-Saxonish". Tharthan (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Keep per others. Definitely nonstandard, but I'm hesitant to rule this a misspelling or a misconstruction. The cites seem to include several native speakers as well. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep, per above. Leasnam (talk) 06:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

school's out[edit]

This sense of out can also apply to other organizations, such as workplaces, colleges, etc. I've added the relevant sense to out: "(of an organization, etc.) Temporarily not in operation, or not being attended as usual. when school gets out for today, when college is out for the summer" PseudoSkull (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  • As a Brit, I always found the phrase "school's out" very confusing as a child when I heard it in movies etc and wasn't sure how to parse it. I've never heard it used of a workplace, but if it was, I would assume it was an extension of the school sense. The OED includes "school is out" as a separate subsense, marked "chiefly US". So I don't think this is as simple as you think it is. Ƿidsiþ 06:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with out being used of organizations other than schools and, possibly, institutions of "higher learning". DCDuring (talk) 08:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
There are some "random website" hits for uses such as "the factory / power station / plant was out for a few days / hours / for some time", and so on and so forth. This can merge towards sense #13 "(of certain services, devices, or facilities) Not available; out of service". Mihia (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
To me, a school being out ("not holding sessions for attendance; not attended") feels like a different sense of out from a power station being out ("out of commission, e.g. due to a fire"). - -sche (discuss) 15:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I can see how the sense (which I would word more along the lines of "not holding sessions for attendance; not attended" to better distinguish it from the examples of something being "not in operation" due to being "out of commission") could be applied to other organizations. The component parts of "school's out" are also not tightly bound; for one thing you can say schools (plural) are (or were) out for summer, and for another you can separate the parts and say "school is not out yet", "school will not be out for another three months". I am inclined to redirect school's out to the relevant sense of out. - -sche (discuss) 15:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Delete and teach Dentonius what a phrasebook is. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, @Metaknowledge. Could you explain to me what the phrasebook is, please? — Dentonius 10:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
@Dentonius: It's a small, usually pocket-sized book of phrases useful for a traveller with low or no competency in the language of interest. Ours should be similar in focus, and we can calibrate it by checking whether general-use published phrasebooks contain a given phrase — if they don't, we probably shouldn't either. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
  • Keep. I added a second sense. It mostly applies to K-12 schools but occasionally higher ed. This never applies to stores, banks, government offices, stock markets, etc. although a stock analyst might say "school's out for the markets today too...":
School is not in session on a day generally expected to be a school day.
School's out on Thursday in Springfield; great time to catch up on homework.
Facts707 (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

September 2020[edit]

let's get the party started[edit]

Err no, I don't think so. --Java Beauty (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

This could be deleted on the ground of being SOP for the first sense, but not for the second sense (“let's get this done”), unless we add a figurative sense to the noun party as meaning something like “(intense) action”, “where it’s at”. This sense is seen e.g. here where it refers to military action in the Korean War, and also in the idiom “the party is somewhere else” (meaning that “the place to be” – wherever that may be – is not “here”), of which I found several uses (e.g. here), but not durably archived ones.  --Lambiam 06:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep sense 2: I think there’s enough of a figurative sense. — SGconlaw (talk) 06:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep sense 2: fig. use - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep as it is an idiom, and not related to parties! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well done! Add this to the phrasebook project, please. - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 17:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

RFD keptDentonius 19:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Reopened and delete sense 1. There was in my opinion no basis for deciding to keep sense 1. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Probably delete I think we're reading too much into the words. We're gonna start the party! We gotta get this party started!:: It's very context dependent and tone of voice, exclamation mark, etc. "Ok, let's get this party started, he said half-heartedly." Maybe pick one phrase like start the party and redirect others there? Facts707 (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Yes, delete sense 1; keep sense 2. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Deleted the first sense (although it could probably have a line for non-idiomatic usage), kept the second. DAVilla 02:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Montague[edit]

Sense: "A member of Romeo's family in William Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet." Ultimateria (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Desdemona[edit]

Sense: "A character in Shakespeare's play The Tragedy of Othello, the Moor of Venice, the wife of Othello." Ultimateria (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Romeo[edit]

Sense: "One of the main characters of Romeo and Juliet made famous by William Shakespeare: the ardent lover of Juliet." Ultimateria (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Kept DAVilla 02:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Shylock[edit]

Sense: "A fictional character who was a moneylender (Jewish stereotype) in Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice." Ultimateria (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Kept DAVilla 02:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Titania[edit]

Sense: "Character in Shakespeare's play A Midsummer-Night's Dream, the queen of the fairies." Ultimateria (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Keep all in RFD, send to RFV to see if they meet WT:FICTION. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Delete all proper nouns. If they have generic noun senses ("oh he's such a Titania!") then fine. But we should not have senses for characters in fiction. Equinox 10:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
We ought not to have senses for characters in fiction? Doesn't that conflict with what you were saying about Scheherazade? Or are we distinguishing (which would be fair enough if we were, but I want to know for the record) between folkloric characters, and characters merely from literature alone? Tharthan (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@Tharthan: I am distinguishing. I chose not to nominate Oberon for this reason. Ultimateria (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Tharthan, IMO we should have extremely stringent inclusion standards for entries for fictional-char-as-fictional-char. Personally I think Shezzy should scrape through as she serves a well-known narrative role (that of the doomed storyteller) in a way that again IMO Titania probably doesn't. Of course YMMV. Equinox 21:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Romeo and Shylock, although I would not object to converting the Proper noun "sense" for Romeo into an etymology for the common noun, and equally would not object to converting the Proper noun "sense" for Shylock into an etymology for a missing common noun sense that needs to be written. bd2412 T 19:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Note: we do have shylock, but I believe it is also used in the same sense with capitalization. bd2412 T 20:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
      • OK added, but which sense? Presumably the first? DAVilla 02:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep all ;-) -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 18:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep all in RfD and send to RfV, as per Mx. Granger. Khemehekis (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Romeo and Shylock per bd2412, and delete or keep the others per Equinox's instructions. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

wired into[edit]

A supposed polysemic preposition.

The definitions given correspond to various definitions of wire#Verb. I don't know whether they are clearly included in the existing wording there. DCDuring (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

When I look at the verb wire#Verb, the only corresponding definition I find is the first one. If we delete this definition, then we need to add a lot of meanings to wire. How many of them actually exist without the "into"? Kiwima (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Just for info, I did add a new definition to "wire", which I thought anyway was missing:
(figuratively, usually passive) To fix or predetermine (someone's personality or behaviour) in a particular way.
There's no use trying to get Sarah to be less excitable. That's just the way she's wired.
Possibly this could cover, or be extended to cover, one or two of the examples presently at "wired into". Mihia (talk)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

Chewie[edit]

Fails WT:FICTION as far as I can tell, because the citations all mention Wookiees and thus do not show usage independent of reference to the Star Wars universe. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Question: Is the diminutive "Chewie" ever actually spoken in the Star Wars movies? (I've only seen Star Wars I, so I wouldn't know.) If not, Chewie qualifies due to its originating outside the fictional universe (like Doomguy, Eeveelution, pedosaur, etc.) Khemehekis (talk) 02:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
@Khemehekis: Yes, the other characters often call him Chewie. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh, OK. Then we need to find some cites that are more WT:FICTION-compliant. Khemehekis (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment various dogs with this name on google books. Troll Control (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete, at least for the Star Wars character. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Facts707 It is generally considered poor form to edit other users' comments and you should take special care not to introduce grammatical errors into the comments signed by others (diff). For some strange reason, it also produced a formatting error. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Delete, fictional character. Star Wars has been around for over 40 years now but I can't find any reference to "Chewie" meaning Chewbacca and not a chewy snack or roast or dog name or Chewie Inc. And it was mostly Han Solo (Harrison Ford) calling him Chewie in the first film. Not likely to be looked up here, but I really don't mind if he's in - adorable guy. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

October 2020[edit]

change sides[edit]

No assertion of an idiomatic definition is provided. DTLHS (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete unless it proves useful as a translation hub. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. No more than "change" + "sides"; cf. swap sides, switch sides, shift sides. I do support somehow accommodating lists of common or natural phrases/collocations even when these are SoP, but I do not support giving these individual full articles. Mihia (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's in the OED as "begin to support a different side in a war or dispute". We will need to include a definition along those lines. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  • After reading what Tooironic said, I say keep as per the lemming principle. Khemehekis (talk) 03:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. No particular meaning without context. "At 3-2 they smiled at each other as they changed sides." "After they changed sides the sun came out and was right in their eyes" "Italy changed sides as the Allies penetrated deeper into Europe." "The other team was short players so Chris and Sam graciously changed sides." Facts707 (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Weak keep. Imetsia (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

ass[edit]

"Used after an adjective to indicate extremes or excessiveness." Duplicates -ass, and is not a noun anyway. Glades12 (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The current examples are hyphenated and thus -ass, but this can also be found with a space rather than a hyphen, liike "a whole ass (whatever)", "a big ass fish", etc. Hence, we need some kind of entry here, even if just "synonym of -ass". (And one could argue that because hyphenating or compound nouns that can also exist spaced is common and cromulent, but using suffixes as separate words set apart by spaces is not [in English], a situation where all of "Xass", "X-ass" and "X ass" are attested suggests the lemma is "ass", not "-ass"...) - -sche (discuss) 17:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I would consider "a big ass X" to be a misspelling. If included, I think one would have to analyze it as a postpositive adverb, since it modifies adjectives. Unlike as hell, as fuck, which I think can only be used predicatively (the building was tall as hell, not *a tall as hell building), this one I think can only be used attributively (a tall-ass building, not the building was tall-ass).
I've encountered the same phenomenon of affix-sundering with prefixes, e.g. herre-/herre and pisse-/pisse -- in this case ordering is consistent with ordinary (prepositive) adverb placement.__Gamren (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Keep some sense here, per my comment above, although which form is the lemma and which is an alternative form is a separate matter. - -sche (discuss) 11:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • KeepDentonius 07:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Delete, this is best analysed as a suffix and -ass suffices for that. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

syncraticism[edit]

As defined, "A mix of theologies or ideologies", syncraticism appears to be a rare error for syncretism. Normally the related word syncratic would stand or fall with this one, but it may have an independent life as syn- + cratic as in "syncratic decision making". Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The term may, conceivably, also have been derived by etymology-conscientious authors from the Ancient Greek adjective συγκρᾱτικός (sunkrātikós), meaning “forming a mixture”.[19].[20][21] I think I see more than three book uses.  --Lambiam 14:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

cook up[edit]

2 senses: "To prepare a heroin dose by heating."

"To manufacture a significant amount of illegal drugs (LSD, meth, etc.)"

Both seem like just particularizations of the main sense "to prepare by cooking or heating". Chemists "cook up" some or batches of lots of things. The two stages of levels of cooking are also omnipresent. Sukhis's cooks up vats of chicken tikka masala and I cook up what they sell in my microwave. DCDuring (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. I never use cook as a synonym of heat; there is always a chemical or structural change even if it is as simple as denaturing proteins. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep the heroin one, that strikes me as a real idiomatic use. I'm going to cook up always means preparing a bit for personal use, probably one dose. That's enough for me. 76.100.241.89
  • Noting that these senses are presently defined as intransitive, but it is unclear to me how far that was a conscious intention. As far as transitive use is concerned, the two challenged senses are IMO too specific, but I would like to see a mention of chemical preparation generally, either in the one "prepare by cooking or heating" sense, or as a main sense separate from the "food" one. I don't know about any intransitive uses, e.g. 76.100.241.89's example of "I'm going to cook up". Mihia (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
FYI, I have changed the label of sense #2 from "especially of food" to "of food or chemical substances", especially given that two of the three usexes relate to the latter. Mihia (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Darn, but does "cooking up" chemicals always involve "cooking or heating", or can it just involve mixing together? Mihia (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge (probably) the RFD's senses. It's a pretty clear, though euphemisitc. separate meaning. Darren X. Thorsson (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

November 2020[edit]

get down with[edit]

Redundant to down with. Benwing2 (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

To "get down with" apparently can imply mutual acceptance (sense #1).__Gamren (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Delete #2, unless someone can provide citations. The cite there is clearly inaccurate, it's using get down sense #8 and an ordinary use of with. I'm unsure about 1 or 3. 76.100.241.89
  • Delete. No special meaning, depends on context. "She loves to go clubbing and get down with the latest tunes." "He was really down with Josh right away; they became best friends." "Get down with that big hat! They're going to see you and spoil the surprise!" "The Miami office needs help. Get down with Gonzales and help sort them out please!" Facts707 (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

get the knack[edit]

Redundant to knack. Benwing2 (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Weak keep or turn it into a hard redirect. I think the contrast between get the knack (of X) vs get a knack for X is somewhat interesting and makes this more lexical. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
    The only contrast I know of is not lexical; it's syntactical. Perhaps you could be less cryptic. DCDuring (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

December 2020[edit]

bar[edit]

Suffix: (grammar, X-bar theory) Pronunciation of ¯, a symbol indicating an X-bar.

Why does this usage require bar in X-bar to be a suffix, rather than bar "a solid line over a symbol, with various technical meanings". DCDuring (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

-i-[edit]

Alternative form of -y (having the quality of)

Tagged by DCDuring on 21 December, not listed. J3133 (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The prefix with this orthography is tagged, not the interfix. Maybe all that has to change is the PoS header and the headword line. It is supposed to have a different etymology that the interfix immediately above it. DCDuring (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I think you mean suffix, not prefix? Seems similar to -k-. To me, these kinds of spelling rules do not seem like material for dictionary entries. Delete. Mihia (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

January 2021[edit]

epic poetry[edit]

SOP like also epic poem would be? --—⁠This unsigned comment was added by 2003:de:373f:4059:31cb:91d9:41ad:3044 (talk). 12:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I'm inclined to keep this. It doesn't really seem SoP. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete, our definition of epic already covers it. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree with Semper, inclined to keep. DonnanZ (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, unlike epic poem which is correctly listed in the usage example at epic, this is more like an art form and therefore deserves a separate entry. --Robbie SWE (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. PUC – 22:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Imetsia (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

male-assigned, female-assigned[edit]

I created these nearly a decade ago (see talk page); at the time I felt the grammar if not also the semantics was unintuitive. But I've come to wonder if they are SOP. I think "X-assigned" would typically(?) mean "assigned by X", like "state-assigned minders", "school-assigned reading", but compare e.g. google books:"terrorist-designated groups", google books:"terrorist-designated charity", etc, which seem to be ones designated as terrorist. You can also switch the word order ("assigned male", and in that order you can use other words, like "designated male" or in certain crowds "observed male", though I haven't found cites of the form *"male-designated" or *"male-observed"), but I'm not sure whether that part is relevant to the un/idiomaticity of this or not. So I'm bringing here to see what anyone else thinks. - -sche (discuss) 02:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I would keep all hyphenated terms. They look like words to me, and our aim is to include all of those. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • What about the predicative, non-hyphenated versions (usually occurring in the longer combination (fe)male assigned at birth)?  --Lambiam 13:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that these two terms are often written without hyphens, but hyphenated usage is also found, so like Semper, I say keep and have no objection. But I would say that words prefixed much- are considered taboo here - I had one deleted and have left those alone since then. So not all hyphenated words are acceptable, seemingly. DonnanZ (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Inserting a hyphen after much is a much-decried practice.  --Lambiam 10:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
WT:CFI#Idiomaticity says: “Idiomaticity rules apply to hyphenated compounds in the same way as to spaced phrases.”  --Lambiam 10:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
It depends how much is used. "He was much maligned", being predicative, no hyphen. "A much-travelled man", being attributive, can use a hyphen. DonnanZ (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
And “he was very angry” → “a very-angry man”? Or “a hopelessly-botched job”, “an often-overlooked aspect”, and “a rarely-seen disorder” ?  --Lambiam 13:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
All of those except "very-angry" are quite common, although most style guides recommend against putting a hyphen after an adverb ending in -ly, so "hopelessly-botched" and "rarely-seen" are common enough in real life, but careful writers who follow such style guides will write "hopelessly botched" and "rarely seen". —Mahāgaja · talk 15:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree 100% with Mahagaja for those examples. I will add that the adverb well can be used attributively like much with a hyphen - e.g. well-used and well-upholstered. DonnanZ (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Weak keep. Imetsia (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

for[edit]

(by extension of definition 5 above) – wanting

Who's for ice-cream?
I'm for going by train

Definition 5 is in favor of.

I don't see that "wanting" fits the usage examples better than "in favor of".

As the most frequent senses of wanting are "lacking" (adj.) and "without" and "less' (prep.), this sense is misleading, especially since its existence implies something somehow distinct from the "in favor of" definition given in def. 5. DCDuring (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Cf. up for. Equinox 17:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I think that "wanting" is supposed to be augmenting or re-expressing the "supporting, in favour of" definitions, rather than expressing a distinct sense. Mihia (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom, the definition is indeed wanting. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

tread carefully[edit]

While I think its synonym tread lightly may be (weakly) entryworthy, this strikes me as being too SOP; compare tread gently, tread warily, tread cautiously. I've added a sense (sense 3) to tread. Delete or redirect. PUC – 13:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

IMO, idiomaticity is evident so long as it's used to denote precaution in general, not only that exercised while literally walking. However, it would be reasonable to only include the top frequent variants and maybe redirect the rest. I can see here that tread carefully is the most frequent, followed by tread lightly, tread softly, and then tread warily, with all having quotations for the figurative sense of their own. Assem Khidhr (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
The figurative sense of tread is idiomatic, but is this not adequately handled by tread, sense 3: “(figuratively, with certain adverbs of manner) To proceed, to behave (in a certain manner)”? The adverb can also be carelessly,[22][23], imprudently,[24] or heavily.[25]  --Lambiam 14:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
@Lambiam: In this case I'd say tread lightly and tread softly (which also happens to be a plant name) in particular are worthy of standalone entries, since their adverbs are a continuation of the walking metaphor. And for the sake of satisfying most queries, other forms with literal adverbs should be redirected to tread, ideally with a senseid. I can proceed in this if you're good with it. Assem Khidhr (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia, tread softly is even a common name for three species: Cnidoscolus aconitifolius, Cnidoscolus stimulosus, and Solanum carolinense. I have no strong opinion, but I hold it for possible that the figurative sense “to proceed, to behave (in a certain manner)” for tread is a generalization of an older figurative uses of tread lightly, which dates from 1798 or before,[26] and tread softly, found in a play published in 1633.[27]  --Lambiam 01:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Delete tread carefully as SoP, although I'm surprised it's more common than lightly. DAVilla 02:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

tread lightly[edit]

SOP as above; see tread sense 3. Delete or redirect. PUC – 19:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep bothDentonius 08:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete tread carefully, keep tread lightly because there are two lemmings. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete tread carefully and keep tread lightly, as it is much easier to extrapolate the meaning of the first expression from its parts. bd2412 T 23:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Hard redirect both to tread. Imetsia (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Kept tread lightly. DAVilla 02:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

why don't you pick on someone your own size[edit]

Mh, completely SOP? PUC – 13:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Per Lambiam below, I support moving this to someone one's own size. PUC – 18:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it's always physical size. It might be somebody in a position of less power? Equinox 21:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Similarly used to punch above one's weight, then? PUC – 10:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
someone one's own size (plural people one's own size)
  1. A putative victim of a bully, one that is not much weaker.
(to be illustrated with suitably chosen quotations or other examples)? The plural can be attested.[28][29][30] The most common collocations using the idiom should then redirect there.  --Lambiam 14:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
One point of interest is that the plural uses the singular "size" ("they should pick on somebody their own size"), which suggests that the phrase is starting to become an indivisible unit. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't buy it. That only implies that all the people share a size (and we're not talking about real measurable sizes in centimetres or inches, so it could be anything). Equinox 16:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Notice the qualifiers. Yes, it's possible, which is why I said "suggests". Try searching for "pick on someone their own sizes"- it's vanishingly rare. The mere fact of a heterogeneous group conceptually sharing a size suggests that there's simplification going on. I'm not saying it's there yet, but it seems to be heading in that direction. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I’d happily write, “applicants may obtain a marriage licence for partners of their own gender”, which I think does not suggest that the heterogeneous group seeking permission to marry conceptually share a gender.  --Lambiam 15:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Move to someone one's own size. Imetsia (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to pick on someone your own size. Definitely a common set phrase, often to refer to companies or countries as well. Often used as a command, e.g. Go pick on someone your own size. Someone your own size by itself doesn't relay the harassment and lack of chivalry expressed by pick on and can have any number of other uses, e.g. Everybody put on your boxing gloves and find someone your own size. Also fight someone your size is too literal and SOP for me. Facts707 (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Moved to pick on someone your own size. If there's a more general X on Y your own Z then you're more than welcome to have at it. DAVilla 01:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

covaxin[edit]

"(India) a hypothetical vaccine against COVID-19." It looks like this is only used as a brand name, so this would not be includible and the part of speech is also incorrect. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Why wouldn't we be able to include a brand name? How is this not a noun? DAVilla 01:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

February 2021[edit]

many and varied[edit]

Is this SOP? Examples on Google Books look like they mean "many (numerous), and also varied (various, different)", e.g. "The Many and Varied Adventures of Afro-Puff Girl", "our many and varied senses", "the root causes of juvenile delinquency are many and varied and [...] the factors contributing to it are as many and varied". - -sche (discuss) 22:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I feel like it's special because many isn't usually followed by and plus another adjective. There are many good students in this class not *There are many and good students in this class, even if what you're saying is that there are many students and all of them are good. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
But if someone says, there are many and varied explanations, they do not mean to say that there are many explanations all of which are varied. If someone wanted to express say this (somewhat unlikely) sense, they should actually say, there are many varied explanations. Here a bride is said to have received ”many and acceptable” gifts. Here we learn that Father Christmas brings “many and nice” presents every Christmas. Here the returns of the day are wished to be “many and happy” ones. And here reference is made to India’s “many and colourful” festivals. The uses of "many and adj“ are many and varied.  --Lambiam 15:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe they were once, but of the four cites you give, one is from the 1880s, two are from the first decade of the 20th century, and the fourth is in Indian English, which is famous for being more old-fashioned than British or American English. I'd definitely call the "many and adj" construction dated, except in many and varied, which survives as a set phrase. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I would imagine that "many and varied" is much the most common example of this pattern nowadays, tending towards a set phrase, and I agree that arbitrary combinations are likely to sound odd or dated to modern speakers, but for me "many and varied" is not the only combination possible in normal modern Englsh. Just flicking through Google results, I found e.g. "many and widespread", "many and complex", "many and diverse" and "many and painful", all of which I would read without noticing anything particularly unusual. Abstain on the RFD. Mihia (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Like "prim and proper" and "fish and chips", you can't reverse the order. Equinox 21:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • KeepDentonius 08:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

no matter what[edit]

There has been a discussion at the tea room about this, with a general consensus that sense 1 ("whatever") is SOP (no matter +‎ what).

I think sense 2 ("regardless of anything") is also SOP, since you can just as easily do this with other wh-words (This late in the day I'm almost ready to stop and set up camp no matter where = "regardless of location"; We repair all pianos, no matter how old = "regardless of age").

The problem of translations was mentioned at TR - should the entry be kept as a THUB? This, that and the other (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

So we would need translation hubs for each no matter + wh-word? DCDuring (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • To me, "no matter what" in the sense "regardless of anything/everything" seems idiomatic enough for an entry. The only slightly annoying thing is, as has been mentioned, that the same could be said of all "no matter + wh-word" combinations. These are all listed as redlinks at no matter what, as if someone thought they were entry-worthy, but no one's yet actually added them. Mihia (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. I now think that by itself it is no matter +‎ where, with the same use of stand-alone where as in I don’t care where,[31][32][33][34] or don’t know where, don’t know when.[35] Also in other combinations, you can replace no matter by I don’t care and suchlike.  --Lambiam 13:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep per Mihia. Imetsia (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
@Imetsia: Mihia only passed judgment on sense 2 (in my reading of it). Do you have an opinion on the SOP-ness of sense 1? This, that and the other (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Sense 1 is weakly SOP. So I'd support deleting it. Imetsia (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • KeepDentonius 08:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete, per Lambiam. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

get drunk[edit]

Both meanings; the first is simply get (5) + drunk, while the other is get (6) + drunk. Both could also be "get intoxicated", "get wasted", "get hammered", etc. etc. (Since there are idiomatic translations, they should probably be converted into THUBs.) — surjection??⟩ 09:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

(Earlier kept in 2008; see Talk:get drunk) — surjection??⟩ 09:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Imetsia (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • KeepDentonius 08:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete, --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Convert to translation hub. Ultimateria (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Prahova River[edit]

Prahova County[edit]

Dâmbovița River[edit]

Bistrița River[edit]

Sum-of-parts entries. – Einstein2 (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. And English Dâmbovița is probably a misspelling of Dambovita. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Vox Sciurorum: I added cites; why “probably a misspelling”? J3133 (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    When I searched the version with native English characters seemed dominant, though I didn't try to quantify. I don't believe English words with diacritics should be added unless they are common enough not to be considered a rare misspelling. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    I do not consider rare forms misspellings (i.e., spelled incorrectly), as frequency is obviously not the only factor. Although diacritics (which are correct here) are generally less common now, they are a part of English and should not be discarded as “misspellings” due to the learnèd being outnumbered (and, evidently, losing the “battle”, if their spellings become labelled as incorrect). J3133 (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    To emphasize how ridiculous your claim is, I do not expect you would write that the Wikipedia article should be renamed because it is “incorrect”. J3133 (talk) 06:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Definitely delete the three river entries. Our entries for river names regularly do not include the word "river". The county entry is more complicated, because our entries for U.S. counties (rather foolishly, in my opinion) do include the word "County". So if, say, Travis County isn't SOP, then Prahova County isn't either. Personally I think Travis County is SOP and should be deleted, but apparently at some point there was a consensus that it isn't. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
US counties are usually named after something or somebody, so adding the affix makes sense. The only English county with this treatment is County Durham, but in Ireland County Wexford is included in Wexford for some reason, the same with the other Irish and Northern Irish counties. Red River would look silly as just "Red". It's difficult to decide how to treat northern UK rivers affixed "water" or "burn", and Welsh rivers can use "afon", "river" or both. DonnanZ (talk) 10:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Here are the counterexamples: Yellow River, Pearl River, Mississippi River --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • As a term, and something that would go in a dictionary, this is SOP, and refers to a river called Bistrița. For that matter, this is oddly spelled at that -- English writers use diacritics exceedingly sparingly, not least as diacritics are not a native feature of English orthography. I don't even know what to call that little T-shaped dash thingie under the second T in Bistrița.
As terms, we should ostensibly have entries for English Bistrita and English river. I notice we have an English entry for Bistrița; googling around just now, I see that the version without diacritics is roughly four times more common, so we would probably be better served to have our English lemma entry at Bistrita instead.
As a thing, there should be a Wikipedia article for w:Bistrita River.
If we are to have any Wiktionary entry for English Bistrita River, I see on Wikipedia that there are several geographic locations with this name, so presumably any entry here should also mention this. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete all, in addition, they should be written without diacritics in English. We should also consider deleting the English entry for Chișinău too. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

age up[edit]

"To get older; to advance in age"

This seems NISoP: age ("to become old") + up ("to a higher level of some quantity"). Not in any other OneLook reference. Also a pleonasm.

Perhaps someone could find some usage for which an idiomatic definition is required. DCDuring (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  • There are, I believe, video games and other media where it is possible to "age up" a character (i.e., to cause them to rapidly advance from infancy to adulthood). See, e.g., Mina Smith, "The Sims 4: How to Age Up Toddler", GameRant (January 28, 2021). bd2412 T 16:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • KeepDentonius 08:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete, --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep on the gaming sense of transitioning from one level to the next rather than an actual age (note that it can also be intransitive), ambivalent on the other. BigDom 20:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per BigDom; I also won't miss the first sense, so I abstain on that one. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep combination of verb plus (what I thought is called a) participle which changes the meaning (tho we don't seem to have that definition). Instinctively, I would considered this incorrect English, and those entries are usually pretty solid candidates. DAVilla 01:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Cavendish banana[edit]

There's no reason to have "banana" in the entry name. If you look at Category:en:Apple cultivars, Category:en:Cherry cultivars, and Category:en:Pear cultivars, you won't see "apple", "cherry" or "pear" in the names except in a few lowercase descriptive ones. For instance, an eating apple isn't an apple named "eating". For this cultivar, though, it really is just a banana named "Cavendish". Chuck Entz (talk) 06:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't the definition and etymology be merged into Cavendish, if this is being deleted ? -- 65.93.183.33 14:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • KeepDentonius 08:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
    What is the argument? Would it also apply to entries such as Braeburn apple, Bartlett pear and Bintje potato?  --Lambiam 14:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
    I assume that Cavendish banana would be the precursor to Cavendish. It's an empirical question whether a bare cultivar epithet is used and in what usage context(s). Because of the well-publicized vulnerability of the Cavendish to fast-spreading disease, Cavendish may be demonstrably part of general discourse, at least well-informed discourse. I'd expect Bartlett to be similar. I don't recognize the other two as common in the US. DCDuring (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Obviously delete, thank you Chuck Entz for beating me to the punch. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Tentative keep. Attestations of Musa cavendishii (Lamb. ex Paxton) as a taxonomical name for this variety (see here) appear to precede any of Cavendish banana (like seen here), which in turn appear to precede uses of Cavendish in the sense of a banana variety, other than after a use in the same text of Cavendish banana (like here). This leads me to surmise that the designation Cavendish banana is essentially a calque of earlier Musa cavendishii (or, as its coiner Paxton spelled it, Mùsa Cavendíshii ) and as such originally non-transparent. Just Cavendish would then be short for Cavendish banana, much in the same sense that Bunsen is (also) short for Bunsen burner.  --Lambiam 14:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Keep per Lambiam & DCDuring. The first attestation for Cavendish banana that I can find is from 1857, that is considerably earlier than the earliest attestations of bare Cavendish for the banana variety. Curiously, Herman Melville used Cavendish in the 1850s for a variety of tobacco and Cavendish tobacco is not difficult to attest for that period; possibly association of bare Cavendish with the tobacco prevented it from being used for the banana for a while. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. @Chuck Entz supported this entry adding info in 2017, what has caused the about-turn since then? DonnanZ (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    We all make masses of minor edits without stopping to analyze every aspect. Can you vouch for every entry which you've edited to switch out etyl tags? I've added or changed categories on literally tens of thousands of entries for English organism names, and I change what I notice, when I have time- but I usually don't make a rigorous analysis of every aspect. The idea is to make the entries easier to find, so that those who have the time and background to fix them see them listed in one place. In this case, I only started to consider the SOP nature of this when dealing with another, more obviously SOP term modeled after it.
    As for this rfd: I may be right, I may be wrong- but my category edits are totally irrelevant. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
OK, I have created entries I have forgotten about - until another editor edits them. It's nice to know they are noticed by somebody. DonnanZ (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

wood-elf[edit]

"An elf which inhabits woodland." In other words, SOP, whether with a hyphen or a space. Of course, if you compare distinct works of fantasy wood elves often have several coinciding characteristics, but those are all accidental features and part of the world building of a specific setting, not part of the definition. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Obviously not meant to refer to a wooden elf. DonnanZ (talk) 09:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Donnanz Of course not, the relevant sense of wood is “forest, forested area”. It is SOP if you consider that sense. I did not find any lemmings, by the way. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@Lingo Bingo Dingo: A lack of lemmings is not surprising, but judging by the attached quotes, a lot more could be found for wood-elves... not that I've met any. DonnanZ (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep (Note: If kept, we must move to wood elf since we have a policy about these hyphenated terms where a space works too.) — Dentonius
    @Dentonius May I ask for your rationale for keeping this in some form? Do you disagree with the claim that it is SOP? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
May I also ask you or anyone where that policy is stated? I don't think I have ever heard of it before. Mihia (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Dentonius has agreed to stop participating in RFD (see the Dentonius thread at the March Beer parlour), so it's best not to continue this. My best guess is that he was working backward from the idea that hyphens are irrelevant for SOP. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Pretty sure it's not a thing. WT:ALTER even gives tea cup and tea-cup as examples of alternative forms that are properly assigned separate pages. Colin M (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
The definition as it stands is SOP, but it doesn’t accurately describe the term. In universes I’m familiar with, wood elves are a distinct race of elves, not just any elf that lives in or comes from the woods. It is as idiomatic as polar bear or red deer, that encompass polar bears born in a tropical zoo and albino red deer. Whether it passes WT:FICTION is a different question, but I’ve seen the term often enough in unrelated universes that I assume does. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with this position. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV Even then, the improved definition would basically amount to "a member of a grouping of elves that tend to live in woodland"; whether wood elves are a race or subrace or merely form a specific polity depends on the universe. Of course, wood elves tend to be more proficient in archery and maybe melee combat than magic relative to other elves, tend to have light skin tones and blond hair, tend to be less technologically advanced, etc. but that may differ in some universes (e.g. some settings have wood elves as advanced as other elves; some online artists have wood elves with brown skin, not sure if that is in anything durably published yet). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I don’t disagree, but I still think that doesn’t necessarly exclude it from being a concept distinct from a mere elf of the woods and worthy of a definition. I’m not voting anything yet (since I’m a fan of Tolkienesque fantasy and want to see more arguments to avoid my own bias) but I feel like there is a Catch 22 going on: we either analyse wood elves from distinct universes as distinct concepts (and thus each individually fails FICTION) or we take them as a single concept and since every author implements the concept uniquely, it fails SOP because the only truly universal feature is the association with woods.
If we take this approach, many names of established fantasy tropes that, like wood elves, always or almost always indicate a distinct concept in the works where they occur, will be excluded from Wiktionary. Perhaps that is for the best -- god knows how much gibberish from works of fiction we’ve had to deal with -- but I also don’t see a problem in taking a middle ground approach and defining these terms with the properties that are common even if they are not universal. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Re your second paragraph: I'd be curious to hear of any examples you can think of of any similar terms that would be at risk for deletion if wood elf falls, and which you think would be a shame to lose. Colin M (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Some that come to mind: light elf, high elf, dark elf, half-elf, mind flayer, hill giant, rock troll, fairy/faerie dragon, black pudding, dire wolf, hoop snake, possibly smoke monster. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
There are entries for light elf, dark elf, half-elf, dire wolf, hoop snake and black pudding (which I do not recognise as a fantasy term and there is no definition like that in the entry). I wouldn't nominate any of those for deletion, usually because of a mythological or taxonomic sense that seems wholly idiomatic to me, and I would not suggest to delete high elf or mind flayer either (if the latter is independently verifiable). However, I do not understand why you'd want to apply the reasoning about taxonomic vernacular names to fictional creatures. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete, as it stands. Unless we can find a secret meaning somewhere. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. There seem to be numerous "X elf" combinations (with or without hyphens, which I will ignore for these purposes) such as snow elf, ice elf, field elf, water elf, sea elf, sand elf, etc., all apparently characterised by living in the stated type of habitat. I don't know how many of these are cross-universe, however, and I haven't bothered to research it. Is there any reason why we would have wood-elf and not numerous others? Mihia (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
    The question is whether these combinations refer to an independent meaning in the language as a whole rather than either to a part of a fictional universe or to a transparent combination of meanings. I have a hunch that the Tolkien legendarium's influence on the creation of so many other fictional universes has resulted in some terms from that universe seeming more universal and established. If we're asserting that there is something called a wood-elf that's more than just an elf associated with woods, we need to explain how to tell a "real" wood-elf from an elf that happens to live in the woods. In Middle Earth you have the Quenya and the Sindar, which have different histories, different characteristics and different languages. What is there outside of Middle Earth (or any other given fictional universe) that makes a wood-elf a wood-elf? Chuck Entz (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
    This is an interesting point. As Chuck alluded to, there's a lot of incestuous borrowing that goes on in fantasy. e.g. you have lots of modern ("roguelike") fantasy games which borrow monsters, races, items etc. from the 1980 video game Rogue, which borrowed tropes from Dungeons & Dragons, which borrowed from Tolkien, who borrowed from all kinds of folklore. Stepping away from just elves, I can think of lots of other compound names for fictional species that are liable to recur, e.g. hill giant, deep dwarf, cave goblin, high elf, shadow orc. There's enough shared genetic material being passed around that it's not surprising that you have multiple fictional fantasy universes that use these terms, nor that they use them with similar meanings. Colin M (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
    @Mihia I believe the main distinction is commonness, so one could in theory maintain that wood elf is a set phrase compared to the other [insert biome] elves. Of course, that is not my view. I think that the most common collocations other than wood elf are high elf, dark elf and half elf (all of these are not coincidentally used by Tolkien, though not quite in the way most modern fantasy settings use these labels). Then there is silvan elf/sylvan elf, which I believe is usually a synonym for wood elf but there might be arcane distinctions in some settings. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. I applaud Geographyinitiative for adding a quote going back to 1893, and indeed Google Books shows a fair number of pre-1900 uses. But, looking at those uses, alongside the more modern ones, I'm not seeing much consistency. In some cases, the term is used to refer to a little trickster creature akin to a brownie or a gnome. Sometimes it refers to a dryad. And sometimes it refers to a noble Tolkienesque creature. The only properties that unite them seems to be that they're some sort of elf that lives in the woods, i.e. SoP. But if someone wants to do the legwork of looking more deeply into uses of the term and manages to identify a more specific meaning that is used across multiple independent works, I would happily reconsider. (But I would be reluctant to consider modern fictional works that share a common descent from e.g. Dungeons and Dragons to be truly independent in this context.) Colin M (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
    @Colin M I am afraid that for the purposes of CFI, the Tolkien Legendarium, Dungeons and Dragons, Warhammer, Warcraft, The Elder Scrolls and all the others are to be considered independent from each other. I would argue for each of these franchises being internally dependent to avoid wrangling between alternative universes, expanded universes and different settings, but I don't think that has been established as policy. In any case, all works written in e.g. the same D&D setting cannot be considered independent. Also, thank you for your observation that some of the uses of wood elf relate to brownies, dryads, etc. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep and send to RFV, if necessary to determine distinctness. My impression is that "wood elf" is far more common across different universes than, say, "dark elf" or "mountain elf". There are definitely non-SOP meanings of the term that exist; the question is whether or not they can be adequately cited, or are too universe-specific. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
    @Andrew Sheedy I am not sure whether it is true that "wood elf" is far more common than "dark elf" in different franchises, although you are correct about its commonness in comparison to "mountain elf". As said above, I would not nominate dark elf for deletion. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, you're probably right. I would also vote to keep dark elf if it was RFD'd. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

stand by[edit]

Rfd-redundant

  • (intransitive) to be ready to provide assistance if required

redundant to

  • (idiomatic, intransitive) To wait in expectation of some event; to make ready.

84.228.239.108 21:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep, I think. As I read them, they are distinctly different. The usex "The tug stood by in case it was needed." is a good one. DonnanZ (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
In fact it was me who added this sense. diff DonnanZ (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • KeepDentonius 18:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. "to make ready" is not intransitive in normal English, and presumably it should say "to be ready"? Anyway, I changed it, but please delete it or do something else with it if you prefer. Mihia (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@Mihia: I see you altered sense 1, but you don't say whether sense 1 or sense 5 should deleted. If, say, a riot squad stands by in expectation of a riot, they wouldn't be providing assistance if one occurred, it would be more like a battle. If a fire brigade stood by, it could be because a fire may flare up again. An airport fire tender can stand by to assist in any potential accident at a moment's notice. DonnanZ (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, my comment may have been unclear. By "delete it or do something else with it" I was referring only to the part sense "to make/be ready", not to either sense in full. I feel unsure at the moment about the distinctness of the two senses overall. Mihia (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete "To be ready to provide assistance if required" is an overspecialization of "To wait in expectation of some event". Make/get/be ready is a sometime accompaniment, not a part of the general definition "To wait in expectation of an event". DCDuring (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Imetsia (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Combine the two into one line: * (idiomatic, intransitive) To wait in expectation of some event; to make ready to provide assistance if required. bd2412 T 03:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

as in[edit]

There is but one sense supposed to be idiomatic ("inclusion-worthy"): "(idiomatic, conjunctive) In the sense of." Usage example: "bow," as in the weapon, not the front of a ship

To me it seems like as ("Considered to be, in relation to something else; in the relation (specified)") + in ("a member of"). DCDuring (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete sense #2 unless it's appropriately re-labeled under something other than adverb. --Kent Dominic (talk) 10:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep both senses (sense 2 is appropriately {{&lit}}, but both senses are prepositions, not adverbs. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@Mahagaja: Maybe I should change my vote after reading your comment. Maybe you should change your vote after reading my comments here. In relevant , part: "Rather than defining sense #2 (which , if done for every collocation, would go on endlessly) I think a usage note about it would be better than simply deleting it. That’s what I plan to do if the deletion goes forward, since sense #2 is definitely encountered a regular basis in the vernaculars worldwide."
  • For sense 2, “like” is not a synonym. You cannot change “a change in attitude of any portion of the earth's surface whether temporary or undulatory (as in some earthquakes) or permanent (as in areas of block faulting)”[36] into “a change in attitude of any portion of the earth's surface whether temporary or undulatory (like some earthquakes) or permanent (like areas of block faulting)”. And, of course, the combination of as followed by in can occur in many other ways (such as in “such as in areas that ...”, in which “such as” belongs together, as well as in “as well as in areas where ...”, in which “as well as” belongs together).  --Lambiam 22:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@Lambiam: Maybe you can't. Other do. "Like" (i.e. as; as though, as if, etc.) has been used as a conjunction, albeit regularly proscribed, since Hector was a lad. (See Webster Dictionary: "like" and Webster Thesaurus: "like".) Sadly, both "like" and "as in" are also used synonymously for "such as," e.g. "Do you think I'm funny? Do I make you laugh, as in, a clown?" Consider how synonymous meanings (i.e. semantics) often have disparate punctuation re. syntax. --Kent Dominic (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Imetsia (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  • KeepDentonius 18:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep the "In the sense of" sense as idiomatic enough, and, as a consequence, keep the &lit sense. Delete "like" as a synonym of the latter (certainly not universal for &lit uses). Not sure about the PoS of the first sense. The supposed synonyms, i.e. and namely, are both listed as adverbs. Mihia (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@Mihia: I'm mystified why you and @Lambiam object to "like" as a synonym for sense #2 of "as in." That second sense clearly indicates literal use. Consider how the example, "In Sweden, as (conjunction) in (preposition) most countries ..." equates to "In Sweden, like most countries ..."
Bear in mind that "as in" landed here under RFD consideration after I alerted @DCDuring about the labeling discrepancy between "as in" as an adverb versus a phrasal preposition (used adjectivally as parenthetically applied to "bow"" and "Sweden" in the examples for sense #1 and sense #2, respectively). In my own lexicon, two separate instances of "as in" are labeled as phrasal prepositions:
1. “I’m Brazilian – as in Portuguese heritage, not Spanish,” Lucy remarked.
2. "I really wish you had told me beforehand about how you intended to soften up Miss Camille," said Delora. "'Soften her up?'” Riley objected. “As in, ‘tenderize?’”
In both instances, "like" or "i.e." can be substituted for "as in" with no semantic change in meaning. Obviously, the syntax differs: in example #1, like could be construed as a conjunction and would require a comma. (Same goes for substituting i.e.). In example #2, "like" could be deemed a conjunction or an interjection but in either case would also require a comma.
Let's keep this mantra in mind: "synonym" ≠ "exactly equal in semantic meaning, linguistic form, and punctuation" but rather "virtually equal." (If you really want to hear me rant, ask about my peeve with all of the verbs that are labeled here and elsewhere as "transitive" but offer "intransitive" synonyms - and vice versa - as well as mismatched examples. I acknowledge the practicality of the status quo, but a bit more caution would obviate the discrepancies.) With all that said, I'd appreciate your further thoughts re. why you think the synonyms for "as in" need remedy. Cheers. --Kent Dominic (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
The substitution of like for as in happens to work in the example of "In Sweden, as in most countries ..." because of the initial In. You can substitute like for just as: "In Sweden, like in most countries, ...". You can now delete the second in, although this suggests somewhat of a rebracketing, from "In Sweden (like in most countries) ..." to a syntactically debatable "In (Sweden, like most countries) ...". Consider the transformation of "For the Swedes, as for most Europeans, ..." to "For the Swedes, like most Europeans, ...". Is like also a synonym of as for, as of, as to, ...?  --Lambiam 07:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@Lambiam: Thanks for the comment. Didn't see it until after my reply to Mihia. Please see below as the same applies to your observations. Cheers. --Kent Dominic (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
What Lambiam says. If you substitute "like" for "as in" in the "Sweden" sentence, the resulting meaning is coincidentally roughly the same, but this is not because "like" itself really means "as in". In arbitrary other &lit cases, such as "it is as much in the mind as in the body", just to pull out a random example, "like" cannot be substituted at all. Mihia (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@Mihia: I'm with you on all that. Just wanted to point out that the "as in" > "like" nexus is valid while the "like" > "as" versus "as in" nexus is a matter of contextual style and semantic intent. For clarity, one might say, "In Sweden, as is true in (or for/concerning/regarding etc.) most countries..." Who knows what the original example was supposed to mean? Beats me. But now the discussion has turned far from my original contention, namely, that the Adverb label for as in is troublesome. I mean, "bow" (adverb) the weapon, not the front of a ship" or "In Sweden, (adverb) most countries, ..."? Wiktionary, please spare me. --Kent Dominic (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree that in the various {{&lit}} senses, as in is an accidental juxtaposition of a conjunction and a preposition without a fixed meaning, and not an adverb, in the same way that a bit can be an adverb (“a bit too large“), but is not an adverb in the phrase “to put a bit in a horse’s mouth”. For the first sense, “‘free’ as in ‘free beer’”, I cannot figure out what POS this is. I am inclined to think this is short for “the same sense of ‘free’ as used in ‘free beer’”.  --Lambiam 00:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Lambiam: From the get go, I've maintained that using a traditional POS is an inadequate tack to take regarding the label for any entry that comprises more than one word. @DCDuring fundamentally disagrees, which landed "as in" here for discussion. If I had my way regarding the first "as in" sense, it would look like this:
Prepositional phrase
as: adverb + in: preposition (not comparable) 
1. Namely regarding; specifically concerning.
"Bow," as in the weapon, not the front of a ship
Synonyms: i.e.; in other words; meaning (present participle)

Usage note
* Used parenthetically. 
* "Like" (conjunction or interjection) may be used synonymously without change in semantic meaning albeit with change in syntax, e.g.  "Bow - like, the weapon, not the front of a ship."
The current entry's example mistakenly (due to an encoding error?) omitted the comma after "bow," which threw off the entire correlation with the definition given.
To anyone who's still listening: There's nothing "conjunctive" about this particular sense of "as in" except by extension, as described in the above Usage note.
There. I've shouted my peace. --Kent Dominic (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Regarding part-of-speech assignment, we are currently constrained by WT:POS, which can function somewhat as a straitjacket, but without such constraint, we’d see an uncontrollable growth of inventive non-standard categories. Perhaps we could do with an escape category, monicker to be decided but comparable in function with the taxonomic incertae sedis. But any addition will require a vote.  --Lambiam 15:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Lambiam:
Lambiam: Regarding part-of-speech assignment, we are currently constrained by WT:POS, which can function somewhat as a straitjacket.
Kent: Don't I know it. (*Sigh.*) Do a spot-check on some of my contributions on the various Talk pages here and you'll see a mostly-one-sided despair in the discussion between @DCDuring and me. And, for precision's sake, WT:POSlexical category. POS is an antiquated (albeit marginally useful) set within lexical category. I.e. Prepositional phrase is a lexical category, not a POS; Preposition is a (traditional) POS within the set of lexical category. Quote me on this: No phrase, including hyphenated compounds from the same lexical category (e.g. "ticky-tacky") should rightfully be labeled under any traditional POS. It instead belongs under a lexical category comprised of a term that entails two words, at minimum. In my own lexicon, three words is the max. (Not an arbitrary max, I might add, without elaborating here.) So, "as in" falls into two POS lexical categories as I indicated in the text boxes above. That's in the ideal world. I know, I know - this is Wiktionary.
Lambiam: But without such constraint, we’d see an uncontrollable growth of inventive non-standard categories.
Kent: The Catch-22 favors WT:POS on that point despite all my weeping and wailing and kvetching. Incidentally, I credit the WT:POS inclusion of "Prepositional phrase" and exclusion "Idiom," but I can't fathom the exclusion of "Phrasal preposition" and inclusion of "Phrase."
Lambiam: Perhaps we could do with an escape category, monicker to be decided but comparable in function with the taxonomic incertae sedis.
Kent: That's a scary thought. I'd rather continue my weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth over the antiquated "9-sizes fits-all" approach toward labeling (i.e. as inadequate to phrases) than open up the linguistic can of worms Pandora's box you suggest. On that score, my complaints here are nothing compared to my rants on the Talk pages re. articles that ridiculously try to explain the inexplicable anomalies and contradictions relating to traditional concepts like relative pronoun or modernsitic terminology like relativizer. (See "Relativer: A Linguistic Fable" for an unbridled rant).
Lambiam: But any addition will require a vote.
Kent: Here's my dilemma: Do I owe it to target Wiktionary users to argue for for consensus on my own copyrighted definitions for 30 lexical categories (most are familiar; some are neologisms) and 600 sub-categories while throwing my yet-unpublished work into the public domain, or do I let myself squirm at the idea of target readers who encounter - to pick a random example - a "talk out of one's ass" phrase labeled here as a Verb when it should minimally be labeled a Verb phrase and ideally labeled as an Intransitive verb phrase? For now, I'm content to squirm. We'll see what happens after I publish later this year, if all goes well. --Kent Dominic (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
The "missing" comma was not an error. It's reflective of how the construction is typically punctuated by most speakers. "bow" as in the weapon is also a better reflection of the prosody of the phrase when spoken aloud, compared to "bow", as in the weapon. (A speaker might pause after "bow", but only if the idea of disambiguating came to them as an afterthought.) Colin M (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Colin M:
Colin M: The "missing" comma was not an error. It's reflective of how the construction is typically punctuated by most speakers.
Kent: Where are those speakers? I have some spare commas at hand. I’m willing to share.
Colin M: "Bow" as in the weapon is also a better reflection of the prosody of the phrase when spoken aloud, compared to "bow", as in the weapon.
Kent: Click on the link to the audio version of Wiktionary and upload your assertion there. While you’re at it, try explaining how “The bow which you sold me yesterday was defective” entails, sans comma, a non-restrictive relative clause.
Colin M: (A speaker might pause after "bow,” but only if the idea of disambiguating came to them as an afterthought.)
Kent: (I won’t lecture you on punctuation. It suffices that prosody is irrelevant to punctuation, but not vice versa. And I won’t mention how an affinity (if not, minimal accuracy) regarding the latter helps to inform the former.) --Kent Dominic (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Try searching Google Books for "free as in" (and sort by most recent), or "gay as in", and observe how authors punctuate it. I'm going to decline your request to upload audio, because it sounds like a lot of hassle and it seems very unlikely that it would change your mind. Your question about the the bow which you sold me yesterday example seems to me like a non sequitur - perhaps you can elaborate on how you think it relates to as in? As for your last point, it's strange to me to think that relevance would not be a symmetric relation. Colin M (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I won't lecture you on correct comma usage, and it's too late to offer freelance editing services to the Free Software Foundation. Re. the other things: (1) "The bow, which you sold me yesterday, was defective" makes sense when correctly punctuated. (2) "A bow, as in the weapon, not the front of a ship" makes sense when correctly punctuated. The former example contains a parenthetical clause; the latter has a parenthetical phrase used adjectivally. And, BTW, there is no audio version of Wiktionary. I made the corresponding comment tongue-in-cheek. --Kent Dominic (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, Keep, a thousand times Keep. I just added some quotes, and I think you'll find they can't be explained by the proposed SoP interpretation. As in spend the nights side by side. = [in relation to] [a member of] spend the nights side by side? It also produces a backwards interpretation applied to the other example, a mummy (as in King Tut) – a mummy is not an example of King Tut. Though, funnily enough, the inverted version would also be felicitous: King Tut (as in the mummy). It's neat that the construction can introduce something above (a parent category, "mummies"), below (an example, "King Tut"), or to the side (a metonym, "mummy as in bandages"). Another point in its favour is that it has a very distinctive prosody that sets it apart from vanilla In Sweden, as in most countries uses. Finally, though it's far from a determinative factor, I will note that OED has an entry for as in. Colin M (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep sense 1, abstain on sense 2; if someone can think of a better way to explain the use covered by the &lit, that is to be welcomed. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I think there is not just one &lit use -- the words "as" and "in" can be put together "non-idiomatically" with different results, depending on context. Presently we have an example of one of these. Mihia (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@Lingo Bingo Dingo: Try this:
Phrasal preposition
as: conjunction + in: preposition (not comparable) 
1. like it is true regarding, concerning, or within.
"In Sweden, as in other countries, ...
Synonyms: like

Usage note
* Used parenthetically.
* This sense of "as in" is a pleonasm wherein "in"  may be omitted without change in semantic meaning albeit with change in syntax from phrasal conjunction to a mere conjunction, e.g.  "In Sweden, as (or like) other countries...
*In any case, "as in" is used adverbially.
It seems the majority of contributors here haven't fully considered how a prepositional phrase differs from a phrasal preposition (as lexical categories relating to phrases) differs from an adverb (relating to POS) for labeling purposes versus usage. Unlike @Robbie SWE, count me as (the) one who cares. As such, I hardly rely on ANY dictionary as bearing demonstrably consistent expertise. No disrespect to lexicographers. Historically speaking, their job is to catalog speech, not to linguistically analyze and assess its components. I give Wiktionary credit for trying to transcend that but, as far as lexical categories for the labeling of phrases goes, this place is still in its infancy. --Kent Dominic (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
IMO there is no reason why, for our purposes, multi-word phrases should not be labelled just as the PoS that they behave as. It is, after all, essentially arbitrary whether, for example, a noun or verb is written as two words or one. There could be a one-word synonym of a two-word noun or verb phrase, or vice versa. "prepositional phrase" is different because a "prepositional phrase" is actually not (the way we use it) grammatically a preposition. Mihia (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
@Mihia: In reply, see the discussion here. (Skip to the "red flag" part.) For a good laugh, also look at my Multi-word expression comments in the thread thereafter. Seriously, though, it seems to me that you - like Wiktionary in general as far as MWEs go - are conflating POS and usage. With the exception of multi-word interjections, no MWE constitutes a POS. There's no "Christmas tree" Noun; no "give up the ghost" Verb. There's no flipped my ex-brother-in-law Vinnie from Manhattan the bird Verb despite what Wiktionary asserts to the contrary. Labeling it instead as a Verb phrase alerts everyone (in my circles, anyway) to the set, immutable, idiomatic structure. Thankfully, the "flip the bird" page here gave the corresponding alerts via the headword line and as a Usage note. If not, some bumblebutt would try a substitution like, "He summersaulted me the bird" or "He flipped me the chicken." If you're unfamiliar with how the "verb phrase" and "noun phrase" (inter alia) lexical categories differ from POS, you might try reading those corresponding articles at Wikipedia. Also, don't bother trying to search on "lexical category," which redirects to POS. Instead go to Syntactic category. --Kent Dominic (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
@Mihia: P.S. Call me slow, but it's only just now occurred to me: Wiktionary is trying to shoehorn Dependency Grammar POS wholesale atop real-world phrase structures. The two concepts just don't jive, at least not the way Wiktionary is attempting it. That's why we've got folks here trying to put the same dependency shade of lipstick on the "as in" and "inasmuch as" and "give me a break" structural hogs. I look at it from a Grammatical set theory perspective, which is more along the lines of phrase structures, but further broken down into its paradigmatic POS dependencies. E.g. "Give me a break" is NOT a Verb; it's a fully-formed sentence albeit with "you" (either singular or plural) as a null subject + a verb phrase comprised of "give" (transitive verb) + "me" (transitive object, traditionally called an indirect object) + "a break" (noun phrase) = a transitive object complement (traditionally called a direct object ) comprised of "a" (determiner) + "break" (noun). Is Wiktionary ready for those unfamiliar lexical categories, shown here in red? I'm not holding my breath. --Kent Dominic (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I can't really see Wiktionary moving away from the traditional PoS categories any time soon. On the point about phrases, it can seem a bit strange to see multi-word phrases, that may themselves be composed of multiple PoS, labelled as just e.g. "noun" or "verb", and I found it that way too at first, but logically it has come to make sense, to me anyway, by looking at the phrase meaning overall. If "Christmastree" was written as one word, then it would be a noun. The fact that happens to be written as two words doesn't logically change that. "Give me a break" would or could be a sentence, but our definition is for "(to) give someone a break". "(to) give a break" is logically as much a "verb" as, say, "(to) relieve", in the sense that the two things mean exactly the same (enough for these purposes). The awkwardness with the lemma is what to do with the generic object "someone", or whether or how to mention it, and presently I don't believe that we are consistent with this, or fully logical in all cases. Mihia (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
@Mihia: Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying the WT:POS makes no sense; I’m saying it’s convoluted sense that is pretty much arbitrary both fundamentally and in practice. E.g. “by the way” gets a proper Prepositional phrase label (i.e. as a lexical category, not a POS). It’s rightly labeled neither as an Interjection nor as an Adverb despite how the phrase is used interjectionally and adverbially. I’d be mortified if “by the way” were labeled as a Noun. By contrast, “not in the slightest” is labeled as an Adverb. Makes sense? Well, let’s put semantic, syntactic, and overall linguistic check boxes next to that phrase to see how it shakes out. The Mr. Intrepid Student in me asks, “where’s the adverb in ‘not in the least’? Shouldn’t it be an adjective, because of ‘least’? Plus, I’ve only heard it used as an interjection. And, wait – how the heck can the adjective, ‘least,’ follow the preposition, ‘in’? Is it a case of nominalization? It's a noun phrase under Phrase Structure Grammar, right?” No, Mihia, you won’t find me seeking a consensus to accordingly change the label here, or to rabidly edit the Wiktionary entries that entail a misguided consensus that prefers usage primacy to syntactic accuracy re. labeling MWEs. @DCDuring has disabused me of any notion that Wiktionary might move toward becoming a one-stop-shop for users – like the average students in my English classes – who truly do ask the types of linguistic questions posed above (i.e. in their bona fide interest in learning the language and in their attempts to catch out an ill-prepared instructor). I've chastised DCDuring often enough for condescendingly underestimating the knowledge and interest that ordinary students express on these matters, so I won't delve into that here and now. Instead, I’m content to occasionally kill time on rants like these, and to waste the time of anyone who’s caught reading them. --Kent Dominic (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
A way to understand why it makes sense to label not in the slightest as an adverb (given the Wiktionary convention of not having different PoS labels for multi-words) is again to envisage a single word, maybe even a made-up one, let's say "notremotely" because I can't right now think of a real one, that means the same. I think it was before my time, so someone may correct me, but my understanding from somewhere is that at least part of the reason for "prepositional phrase" is because of the constant issue otherwise of whether these are adjectival, adverbial, or both, and the potential necessity of duplication if one PoS isn't used to cover all. The present state of the specific entry by the way may be debatable in certain respects and/or need some attention, I think. Mihia (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • No OneLook reference apart from Wiktionary has this. I don't see how these words together are even a constituent. DCDuring (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree that grammatically they may not be, hence the difficulty of assigning a PoS. OTOH, I think that the common use such as in the example given, "'bow' as in the weapon, not the front of a ship", is hard to understand from the parts, and can really count as idiomatic. Mihia (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@Mihia: The problem is entirely due to the polysemy of the component words. The entry for in is very long. The definitions of as are a bit abstract. I usually consider such a situation as warranting some additional usage examples, which also serve to attract a search as for "as in". These high-use collocations of function words are definitely problematic. DCDuring (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
@DCDuring:Something I've failed to say up to now: In my own lexicon, each mention among any of the 500,000 words or phrases has a screen tip with (a) the relevant lexical category and (b) a customized definition that links to the exact sense given within the glossary's 20,000 entries. I.e., even if you click on a word like "the," it's linked to the contextually relevant one among the nine senses defined. No one has to look up anything. The encoding effort has been monumental, but not counterproductive, since I'm the only one doing the work. I can't imagine the nightmare of trying to initiate something similar here, given the exponentially larger corpus and God knows how many contributors, not to mention cross-purposes, differing opinions, dead links, human error, etc. --Kent Dominic (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that's disqualifying. We already have a whole category for those: Category:English non-constituents. (Though, incidentally, I disagree about it not being a constituent. I'm thinking it's best understood as a preposition with metalinguistic function. But it's a tricky case for sure.) Colin M (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@Colin M: I created Category:English non-constituents to allow us to have some snowclones in principal namespace, instead of consigning them to appendices etc, which eventually fall into neglect. DCDuring (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Abstain on both senses. It's neither here nor there for me on this one. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • (*Ahem*) So far, the consensus seems to be "keep."

porno[edit]

RFD sense: adjective. Clear use of the noun attributively. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you. I did a bit of fishing on Google Books just for fun, and did find the following:
(There are actually a handful more "too porno" results, but I'll stop here.)
I'm still inclined to see these as nonce formations, in the same way that other nouns can be "adjectivalized" on the fly, e.g. "That sweater is so 80s", or "Their drama is very high school". But I'm afraid I've opened Pandora's box by finding these quotes, since they do seem to satisfy WT:CFI, which (unfortunately) has no provisions regarding ad-hoc/nonce forms. And even if it did, I don't know if I can muster a good quantitative argument for why it shouldn't be counted. If the number of uses modified by adverbs of degree (a proxy for number of adjectival uses) as a fraction of all uses of the word is very small compared to 'real' adjectives, that would be a good argument that the adjective form should be ignored as nonce. But (using just a few arbitrarily chosen adverbs), the ratios for porno and high school are not that far below orange which is clearly a bona fide adjective+noun (though not particularly gradable as an adjective - more gradable adjectives like hungry, lovely, or hot blow the others out of the water). So, yeah. What a mess. Colin M (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Right, this has come up before. Many nouns can in a certain style be "graded" like this with "so", "too", "very" etc., as a regular feature of English, without apparently thereby qualifying for a separate adjective entry. Some genuine adjectives are not, or rarely, gradable, however, so I'm not sure that counting frequency will always work. I'm not sure whether we have objective criteria other than "feel" or "common sense" to distinguish. Mihia (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, if we were considering something like inverted that isn't really gradable, I think the other two tests to look at would be whether it can be used predicatively ("the bottle ended up inverted"), and whether it can be modified by adverbs ("a concerningly inverted minivan"). Regarding porno, the examples above are mostly predicative, and it's possible to find some stray examples of interesting adverbial modifiers like "deliciously porno", or "suspiciously porno", but those clearly aren't representative of standard usage. Colin M (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
There are a few uses of “more porno than graphic”,[37][38] which a superficial analysis could view as attesting a sense as an adjective. However, I take this to be a playful decomposition of pornographic as porno- + graphic instead of pornography + -ic.  --Lambiam 18:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Also, to be clear, my !vote (do people say that here?) is Delete. Colin M (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Over here, using the wikipedianism “!vote” is !done.  --Lambiam 18:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
At the very least delete the current adjective sense that adds nothing. It's been there since 2010, as an adjective section since 2012, and it has always been placed above the noun. Talk about an embarrassment. I think the quotes found by Colin M are mostly "reminiscent of pornography". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep porno -> (pornography, pornographic) — Dentonius 13:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete adjective sense since it's the noun used attributively. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete in the absence of convincing true adjectival uses. Mihia (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

relative future tense[edit]

SOP; it's just the relative form of the future tense. (And incidentally, it's only in Scottish Gaelic, not in other Celtic languages; the equivalent form in Irish is the relative form of the present tense.) —Mahāgaja · talk 08:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

You may analyse it as a tense in its own right (my preference) or as a mere form of the future tense, but if you choose the latter you need to add a sense to relative, because "(grammar) That relates to an antecedent." with antecedent defined as "(grammar) A word, phrase or clause referred to by a pronoun." certainly doesn't cover cases like "ma thogras tu / if you want (to)". --Droigheann (talk) 10:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
It's true that relative forms in Goidelic languages are used in certain subordinate clauses without relative semantics, such as "if" clauses and "when" clauses, but that's true of all relative forms, not just this one. But calling it a tense in its own right is simply absurd. The tense is future; the form is the form traditionally called "relative" though "subordinate" might have been clearer. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Well I'm no linguist, so I found it no more 'simply absurd' than calling the conditional mood the conditional tense, claiming that because (I drink because I'm thirsty) is a conjunction but therefore (I'm thirsty, therefore I drink) is an adverb, or calling sharp end of one's tongue a noun rather than a noun phrase, but have it your way. All I'm saying is that if this entry is deleted, the reader will no longer find information about the concept here. --Droigheann (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • KeepDentonius 13:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. There are also several conjugations in Coptic that are called "relative tenses", we should not want to have separate entries for each of those either. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • RFV - Relative future tense Wikipedia doesn't have this term (maybe it should?). Anyway if there is a Scottish Gaelic or other language translation that isn't SOP, then sure. Facts707 (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
    @Facts707 Why would you bother sending this to RFV? The collocation is obviously attested, the problem is that it is SOP. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
    @Lingo Bingo Dingo I mean if there's a Scottish Gaelic or other language translation that is not SOP from terms in that language. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 11:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021[edit]

no ifs and buts[edit]

Redundant to ifs and buts. No ifs or buts is more common anyway. Existing definition seems odd, since the obvious interpretation is in relation to the expression ifs and buts, not the rarer ifs, ands, or buts as presently stated. Mihia (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I have to say that I really do dislike automatically redirecting, without any explanation at all, and maybe even unnoticed e.g. by learners, from one entry to something that means the exact opposite. I would rather delete it and let people figure out that "no ifs and buts" = "no" + "ifs and buts". Or, if we do want to keep it, I would prefer an actual entry that says "negative of ifs and buts", or whatever the proper phrasing would be. Mihia (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

biological weapon[edit]

Link: biological weapon

As far as I can tell, this entry and all of the others listed afterwards seem to be equivalent to the sum of their parts. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

biological-weapon[edit]

  • Delete, just attributive like "once-daily" medication. Facts707 (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

chemical weapon[edit]

atomic weapon[edit]

nuclear weapon[edit]

thermonuclear weapon[edit]

radiological weapon[edit]

crew-served weapon[edit]

In general[edit]

  • Delete biological-weapon as an unnecessary attributive form; keep all the rest, none of which is readily understandable just from knowing what each of the adjectives means in isolation. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • In ancient Egypt and Greece, snakes were supposedly sometimes used to execute criminals. Is a snake a biological weapon? If I sic my dog on you, have I attacked you with a biological weapon? That one is certainly more than SoP. Colin M (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Good point, you've convinced me on biological weapon. Following similar reasoning I think "chemical weapon" and "radiological weapon" should be kept. I guess my criticism for the nuke terms is that our definitions aren't specific to any type of weapon that harnesses nuclear reactions. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
      • FWIW, the first line of wiki's article on Nuclear weapon uses a more specific definition than what we have currently ("A nuclear weapon (also called an atom bomb, nuke, atomic bomb, nuclear warhead, A-bomb, or nuclear bomb) is an explosive device that derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions,"). Though the distinction may be moot given the non-existence of any other sorts of weapons which are nuclear. Maybe nuclear submarines could count, though I don't know if it's conventional to call a military submarine a weapon. Colin M (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
        • We have radiological weapon which is not a nuclear weapon (does not depend on nuclear reactions for explosive force), but does depend on nuclear reactions (nuclear decay) for its deadliness. So, is Wiktionary's "nuclear weapon" (fission/fusion weapon) not distinguished from nuclear decay weapons (radiological)? -- 65.93.183.33 00:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I would probably keep all. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete "crew-served weapon" and create "crew-served" instead (e.g. "In the context of the artillery forces, a gun is a weapon that (a) is crew-served, (b) has a mechanism to control recoil"). It need not occur in the fixed phrase. Equinox 20:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep all, except the attributive form biological-weapon. DonnanZ (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, generally. "Weapon" does not inherently imply "mass destruction" as opposed to, say, something used in hand-to-hand combat. bd2412 T 00:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep biological weapon, chemical weapon, atomic weapon and nuclear weapon; delete biological-weapon and crew-served weapon. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
    Agree with this per arguments by Mahagaja and Equinox. DAVilla 19:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
    @DAVilla I thought I'd alert you that this means you have not voted on thermonuclear weapon and radiological weapon; I'm not going to vote on those myself. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks. Keep radiological weapon per the argument for keeping nuclear weapon. Thermonuclear weapon might be the only unhyphenated one that's actually sum of parts, but we might have to raise that again once the dust settles, so to speak. This is going to be a crazy one to tally. DAVilla 13:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • biological-weapon has already been approved for deletion as the result of a policy vote on attributive forms. Tag it for speedy deletion if you want it gone. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete chemical weapon and crew-served weapon. The definition of the first is wrong (underinclusive). See Bond v. United States for the broad, sum of parts sense. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
    I don't see any discussion of the definition of chemical weapon in the opinions for that case. The word chemical only appears 3 times, all in the following passage:

Section 229 forbids knowing possession or use of any chemical that “can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals” where not intended for a “peaceful purpose.” §229(a); 229F(1); (7); (8). The statute was en­acted as part of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–856, 22 U.S. C. §6701 et seq.; 18 U.S. C. §229 et seq. The Act implements provisions of the Convention on the Prohibi­tion of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, a treaty the United States ratified in 1997.

Note that the any chemical that “can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals” criteria is part of the statute which was "enacted as part of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act". But that is not described as defining a chemical weapon, and the defendant is never described as having made/used/possessed a "chemical weapon".
In any case, a legal finding about the definition of a word is less important than how the word is used in practice. Nix v. Hedden found that the tomato is a vegetable, but this should not bind our hands when we write our definition. Colin M (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment "atomic weapon" does not mean a weapon concerned with atoms or built from atoms (all non-software weapons are built from atoms, and concerned with atoms, since they are built from atoms). A weapon built from an atomic particle beam would not be a nuclear explosive. Reagan's SDI proposed to use such atom beam weaponry. -- 65.93.183.33 00:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment a uranium bomb is an atomic weapon but not a chemical weapon, even though it requires a specific chemical, uranium. It is also not a radiological weapon, even though some radiological weapon designs use uranium. Similarly with plutonium bomb. (both missing entries as of this moment) They are specifically fission bombs, even though fusion bombs use these as the fusion igniter. -- 65.93.183.33 01:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep all unhyphenated ones. An H-bomb was a common synonym for hydrogen bomb a few decades ago. U-bomb also exists but is less common. Facts707 (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Tallying all the votes the results seem to shake out as follows, with votes tallied as Keep to Delete:

Feel free to challenge any of these and/or add more votes. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@The Editor's Apprentice: You listed biological weapon twice in your tally above. Is the second one supposed to be crew-served weapon? —Mahāgaja · talk 16:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Mahagaja: Yes, thanks for catching that. I guess that's what I get for not reviewing my edits. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

not give someone the time of day[edit]

Reduced to its current form by @Mihia after a discussion at RFM. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd go the other way: give someone the time of day is NISoP; not give someone the time of day is a negative polatity item with a non-SoP meaning because of its discourse function.
In the past I'd thought that we'd want to make it clear that not is not an essential element of the collocation. Now I think the not is an essential indication of the nature of the idiom that is visible in links, category listing etc. I believe that, for almost all negative polarity items, typing the item without not into the search box will still lead to the term with not. DCDuring (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
It does seem to hinge on whether the positive expression viably exists. Presently there is a positive example, "If you're lucky, she might give you the time of day". If we accept examples such as these as valid then I think we would need an entry for the positive version. Mihia (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Here are some positively positive examples: [39]; [40]; [41]; [42]; [43].  --Lambiam 10:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as per DCDuring et al. At the risk of being too bold here, I made this into a redirect and added a negative sense "snub" at target. We don't have not give a damn, not tip one's hat, etc. Facts707 (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
However, we now have both a positive and a negative idiomatic sense at give the time of day, implying that the negative sense is not merely the negative of the positive sense -- so, if we're saying that it is, then the problem is just transferred to another place. In that case, we should label the positive sense "often in the negative", and put the negative examples there too, rather than list the negative sense separately. Mihia (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
IMO the negative sense is merely the negative of the positive sense; not to give someone the time of day is to not acknowledge them, to not give them respect or attention. The idiom see eye to eye is labelled (chiefly in the negative); we can do the same here.  --Lambiam 09:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Pu'er City[edit]

SoP. We don't usually include "City" in names of cities in China. @Geographyinitiative has recently requested for its deletion at Wiktionary talk:Requests for deletion (by accident) but has withdrawn it. However, I think the reasons for withdrawing aren't that strong; they are speculative and not really substantiated by evidence. Also, two of the three quotes in the entry show its use in contexts where it's specifying the administrative level of Pu'er with respect to other administrative divisions. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Either way is fine with me- see also Penglai City. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Sure, but we should probably indicate in a usage note that this isn't uncommon. I mean, you don't really see Beijing City or Miami City at all, certainly not like you do New York City. DAVilla 14:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm kind of having a long-term conceptual problem on dealing with entries where there's "x geography location" + "County/City/Region/Islands", etc. For instance, why is Loving County or Madison County an entry? My way of dealing with this situation is just to ignore the Wiktionary policy and conceptual questions and just go ahead and attest whatever word is the title of the entry- like Diaoyutai Islands/Diaoyutai or Penghu Islands/Penghu for instance. For instance Xi has the river of China and not Xi River, but then we have Huai/Huai River- the opposite! We see Pearl River on the Pearl page, but don't even look for the Yellow River on the non-existent Yellow page, etc. I just embrace whatever the entry title is and attest that, but there's some kind of conceptual issue that I am missing. When there's a one syllable Mandarin derived English language location name, it's sometimes followed by or linked to "xian"/"hsien" or similar- same with islands- dao/tao yu/hsu-- like Lieyu and it's variants, which probably would be written Lie Yu if we were talking about the island rather than the township if Lie was more than one syllable. But because Lie is only one syllable, the island will be called Lieyu too. Not so for Hujing Yu- wouldn't be called Hujingyu except in a database somewhere. If it's two syllables, the hsien or tao part is dropped. Seems complex, and it seems like the issue was never dealt with in the past two-three hundred years of increased English language awareness of Mandarin-derived geography. My thought: attest first and ask questions later- attest them all and let God (or Wiktionary) sort it out. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC) (modified)

Penglai City[edit]

@Geographyinitiative Thanks for letting me know that this entry exists. IMO it should also be deleted. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021[edit]

bastard[edit]

@Sonofcawdrey added a sense to bastard of "(Of a language) imperfect; not spoken or written well or in the classical style; broken." with a cite of "Their language was a bastard Arabic, and yet they were not Arabs; I was quite sure of that." I don't see much distinction between it and adjective sense 4: "Of abnormal, irregular or otherwise inferior qualities (size, shape etc)"; certainly sense 4 would fit quite well with the quote. The only distinction I see is "not ... in the classical style", but bastard has pretty negative connotations; I'd be surprised to find a quote where I could clearly tell it was "not in the classical style" instead of "abnormal, irregular or otherwise inferior" (with the classical style obviously being considered superior.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, fair cop. I suppose it could be moved to a subdef of sense 4 ??? - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
In this sense, applied to a language, bastardized is far more common. The connotation seems to be specifically “mangled”, rather than a general one of inferiority.  --Lambiam 16:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

pay for[edit]

SOP. Imetsia (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delete 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 15:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep as a translation hub. Other languages express this differently than as "pay" + "for" (e.g. German bezahlen). —Mahāgaja · talk 09:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • There is one lemming, Collins, with separate senses for the British and American sections. The sense is already covered at pay, the translations could go there, and I don't think a lemming argument should apply. The information should not be reduplicated, but I am not really sure what is the best place for it. Uses like you stepped on my toe, you will pay no doubt occur, but how common are they relative to the phrasal verb to pay for? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: pay for doesn't add a new meaning or significantly narrow the number of senses at pay, and may add confusion by duplicating those senses at a different place. Could also apply to "pay with", "pay by", etc. "You will pay with your life", "You will pay by hanging", "You can pay with a credit card", "You will pay for your mistakes in later life"... Facts707 (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per Facts707. To me, the lemming argument isn't very convincing on this one. DAVilla 00:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

in silhouette[edit]

Looks SOP to me. I could be wrong. Yellow is the colour (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. Looks SOP to me too, both in silhouette and lit from the front.  --Lambiam 13:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Keep as creator. Lemming and set phrase. We also do have many other "in + [noun]" prepositional phrases. Imetsia (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Each such prepositional phrase should be considered on its own merits; “we have many other [suchlike]” would obviously not do as an argument for keeping in abundance, in bad company, in camaraderie, ... Here, I think the use of in is the same as seen in in frontal view, in full glory, in profile, and more generally in in black and white, in colour, in costume, and in makeup, qualifying how something is seen or shown. Of those in this list having an entry, in black and white can be justified as also having another meaning, “written down, undeniably recorded”. The other sense is just in +‎ black and white.  --Lambiam 12:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per above, this may be regarded as another lemming for those who care about such things, although it is not quite a lemma. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Despite being SoP this common phrase seems more awkward the more I think about it, so I can understand why it's a lemming. If it weren't then that wouldn't be much of a leg to stand on. DAVilla 00:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

black supremacy[edit]

Previously deleted in RFD (log here, discussion here) but created again without an undeletion request. This is still SOP, and I did not see any lemmings for this, contrasting with white supremacy. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The previous RfD did not have def 1 {{&lit|en|black|supremacy}} or def. 3. The three definitions seem quite distinct. I think that black supremacy is a term more commonly used by black authors. Accordingly, it is not as widely used generally as white supremacy. I don't see which meanings of supremacy make def. 3, in particular, SoP. DCDuring (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
You're correct about the definitions being different, and they're also better phrased. That said, I think definition 3 could still be understood from definition 1 and 2 of supremacy, even if the latter entry is overdue for an update. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
It seems a bit unsatisfying that the only argument for keeping white supremacy but not black supremacy would be that the former passes the lemming test. A stronger argument might be that white supremacy passes WT:JIFFY, if, as seems plausible, white supremacy was the first instance of "X supremacy" acquiring the meaning of "the ideology that X is superior or ought to be in power". If this entry does get deleted, I hope the citations can at least be copied over to supremacy. Colin M (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
@Colin M The citations are already at Citations:black supremacy (where they will stay if the entry is deleted), anybody is free to also place them at supremacy. I think you're probably right about white supremacy being the jiffy of "X supremacy", although that may be an annoying thing to prove in view of the age of supremacy. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Taking into consideration that the term "black supremacy" is commonly used in numbers of publications and has been used by great number of black and white authors like Malcolm X, Marcus Garvey etc. I think it should stay Tashi (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

McCain Republican[edit]

Long encyclopedic definition is a hint that this kind of term doesn't belong in a dictionary. DCDuring (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, just a Republican with views similar to John McCain's. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Imetsia (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Are there three cites for this [44]--Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Delete - as per DCDuring. McCain was a very admirable fellow but I don't see how he changed the English language, such as Jeffersonian. Facts707 (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
RFD-deleted. Imetsia (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

in college[edit]

SOP. Might as well have in second grade, in high school, etc. Imetsia (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete, a Wonderfolly. Well, school's out. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with Imetsia. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 13:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. bd2412 T 22:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above; in very common, e.g. in construction, in accounting, in debt. Facts707 (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clear sum of parts. Glades12 (talk) 08:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
RFD-deleted. Imetsia (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

first-line manager[edit]

SOP as first-line + manager. Imetsia (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete, it's also too specific. [45] ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I note the first-line manager entry is specific to retail, whereas first-line is not (and gives police as an example). Equinox 00:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
That is how it is too specific. All kinds of larger organizations employ first-line managers. The term mainly makes sense in an organization with multi-level management, where first-line managers report to middle managers who report to directors. This publication deals with FLMs in in municipal elderly care. Here it is in the restaurant business. And here an FLM is sought for managing a software-development unit.  --Lambiam 12:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. One can also say “first-line supervisor”,[46][47][48] “first-line boss”,[49][50] and even “first-line chief”.[51]  --Lambiam 12:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
RFD-deleted. Imetsia (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

leaf[edit]

(Internet slang, 4chan) (derogatory) A Canadian person.

Removed out of process by Esszet (Special:Diff/62312925): “does 4chan slang really need to be here?” J3133 (talk) 07:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. The fact that it's 4chan slang is certainly not grounds for deletion. See Category:English 4chan slang. (I'm assuming it's attestable, but if there are questions about that, then RFV would be the place to resolve that.) Colin M (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Restored. Keep. DAVilla 00:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Gui Hsien[edit]

Map including 貴縣 KUEI-HSIEN (AMS, 1954)

@LlywelynII Gui Hsien and Gui-hsien do not seem to exist on Internet Archive, Google Books, Google Scholar & Google. Probably would not exist as a Hanyu Pinyin-Wade-Giles combination. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC) (transferred from [52])

The only evidence I found anywhere that either word exists is the title of an article I can't find by James Marshall Plumer entitled "What is Gui-Hsien?", published in the Far East Ceramic Bulletin, Vol. 6, No. 1 1954, page 1 (University of Michigan Bibliography, p.84). Plumer's other articles are not about geography, and 'Gui-Hsien' may be the name of Guigang used to refer to a type of ceramic from the area, or it may be something else, maybe a ceramic pattern. Titles of his other works do use Wade-Giles and Wade-Giles adjacent transliterations, so his usage could very well be related to Mandarin. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC) (modified)

intersexualization[edit]

I'm not active here, so sorry if I'm going about this wrong. However I've stumbled upon this entry, and as far as I can tell it isn't an actual word in English. I'm not finding it in any reputable dictionary. Would like some input, perhaps I'm missing something. Thanks. --Gordonrox24 (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems like the word clearly exists- see Google Books and Internet Archive. There seem to be multiple definitions. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
It appears a handful of authors have used it, however I'm not sure if that actually makes it a word. As an author you've got some license to write whatever you want, I'd figure a dictionary would be a little more strict on inclusion. If I'm wrong, happy to learn. Thanks. --Gordonrox24 (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Our criteria for inclusion require that an English word be “use[d] in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year”. — SGconlaw (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be clarified that these attesting uses should convey essentially the same meaning. When authors independently make up their own term for something, then, even if they choose the same string of letters, the uses are likely to have disparate meanings.  --Lambiam 12:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
That absolutely makes sense, thanks for the comment. I Figure we can close this request, unsure of how that's done around here. Thanks all.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Kept as request was withdrawn. DAVilla 23:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Ba'athist Iraq[edit]

SOP.--Tibidibi (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Keep. This is similar to Nazi Germany and Communist China. The country Iraq was not Ba'athist, but the regime was.  --Lambiam 23:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
If a Pink Unicorn Party took power in Foobaristan, no one would have any trouble figuring out what "Pink Unicornist Foobaristan" meant. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Keep; agree with Lambiam. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 04:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Delete, these are mere popular designations to distinguish between ruling regimes with very high SOP potential. I think official titles and some historiographic names are includible, but it is reasonable to draw a line somewhere. Do we also need entries like Habsburg Spain, Carlist Spain, constitutional Spain, monarchical/monarchist Spain, Republican Spain, Francoist Spain? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Delete: it wasn't the official name of the country. This is similar to "Republican America" or "communist Vietnam". Equinox 14:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Missing information. This is interesting. I am very naïve about the constitutional history of the Iraq. What was there that distinguishes the epoch substantially rather than accidentally? Nazi Germany is not just a government grafted upon a state but a constitutional crisis. Ba'athist Iraq is what? Without determination of the facts there can be no sentence about the SOPness of this term. Reign of an ideology or particular members of government, as in the definition, is not enough. Fay Freak (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

wheeze[edit]

sense: "2. Of birds, to make a vocalization that resembles the sound of human wheezing."

Sense 1 is not limited to humans, so this sense must be included in sense 1. I haven't found another dictionary that makes this distinction. Would we need another definition for a bellows, an asthmatic dog, etc? There is also only one cite. DCDuring (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to make a distinction between the primary meaning of wheezing as a symptom of partial obstruction of the respiratory airways, and that (by extension), if it can be attested, of making a sound similar to that of pathological wheezing. Is it common to refer to such sound production by birds as wheezing? It does not suggest making a visit to the vet with your Norwegian blue, unlike for your asthmatic dog.  --Lambiam 13:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I think it should be changed to "to make a sound like" sense 1. I can imagine any number of inanimate objects being described as "wheezing"- a Google Books search on "wheezed its way" turns up a decent number of hits referring to various decrepit vehicles. Though, come to think of it, that may merit a separate sense of something like "figuratively: progress with difficulty, as if out of breath". Then there's the Tom-Swifty-style usage accompanying reported speech. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Greek letter[edit]

I thought for sure this would have some exciting idiomatic meaning, perhaps even something risqué, like a French letter. My heart palpitated with anticipation as I read it, but, alas, my hopes were dashed, my dreams stomped on, my face spat upon and my very core wounded by this SOP page. I have never read anything so predictable. I would like to, with all the power and strength I have left in this body, nominate it for deletion in front of this august body. 71.206.45.85

  • How about a letter (or epistle) written in Greek? DonnanZ (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Or is there an adjectival US fraternity or sorority meaning? I see the use of the term "Greek-letter organizations" in the English Wikipedia article "w:Fraternities and sororities". — SGconlaw (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
That's really just an organization signified by Greek letters. It requires understanding that the organizations denoted by Greek letters on the US college scene are fraternities and sororities, but that's more encyclopedic. (It's interesting that, as I expected, Greek mentions fraternities and sororities, but the letter and organization are important in making this SOP.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
If the meaning of Greek-letter organization isn’t readily discernible from the words, that may suggest Greek-letter is idiomatic in this context. I wonder if there is a noun use too (Greek letter = a fraternity or sorority)? — SGconlaw (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to me that the "Greek epistle" meaning is relevant -- do we need a page for angry bear because it could be a ferocious creature with claws or a hairy gay man with demeaning comments? As a fraternity/sorority thing, I guess it may be worth including, but still seems pretty SOP -- a "Greek-letter organization" is basically an organization named after Greek letters. For comparison's sake, we do not have a definition for three-letter acronym despite that being used to describe organizations based on their name (we do have an entry at TLA, but that's an initialism -- we'd have an entry at GL too if that was often used). 71.206.45.85 22:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The letters themselves are not Greek. The sense “a letter in the Greek alphabet” should be obvious to people who know that there is such a thing as a Greek alphabet. Is this equally obvious to a less informed reader? It may not be obvious from the context.[53] I furthermore think that the attributive use seen in “Greek-letter fraternity” has lexical status.  --Lambiam 12:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
The letters themselves are from Greece and used with Greek. I'm not sure how Greek letter isn't every bit as SOP as Greek island.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
If an American writes a passage using the Greek alphabet, does that make these American letters? The association of the alphabet with Greece does not make them any more tied to the geographical location than Greek yogurt. bd2412 T 22:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Does he write the passage in Greek? That's not the way language works; if I wrote a passage in de Estonin älfabet, does that make it the American alphabet? We don't have an entry for the Estonian alphabet nor for Greek script or Greek writing; I don't think the lack of either will confuse anyone. I might argue for an addition to Greek that includes the script, but not Greek plus any number of other words.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
The Estonian language is written in the Latin alphabet. Of course, there is no tradition of primarily referring to characters of the Latin alphabet as "Latin letters", which by itself makes Greek letters somewhat unique. bd2412 T 05:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
The Estonian language is written in the variant of the Latin alphabet known as the Estonian alphabet. There is no tradition of referring to the Latin alphabet at all; in English, it's usually just called the alphabet. Nonetheless, you can find uses of it either referring to the Latin language, as in "y is not properly a Latin letter", or as a script "However, as early as 1922 — six years before Turkey had converted its Arabic script to Latin - a proposal was put forth to begin writing the languages of the Soviet East in Latin letters."--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
The entry Arabic numeral is not fully descriptive; w:Arabic numerals (disambiguation) shows more of the complexity, and Arabic numeral may or may not include the numerals traditionally used in Arabia, though it seems that the modern forms were originally from northwestern Africa.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete, and don't create Cyrillic letter or Italian writing or German picaresque novel please. Equinox 14:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    • So far as I know, Greek is the only alphabet for which the term "Greek letter(s)" is primarily used. bd2412 T 06:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Ignorance is not an excuse. д uses the term "Cyrillic letter", and Google Books comes up with many hits for Cyrillic letter. Same thing for Georgian letter (even ignoring the mail meaning), Armenian letter (again), Hebrew letter.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
      Here "Greek letters" is used in relation to the Coptic alphabet. You can also find places where Coptic letters derived from the Greek alphabet are called "Greek letters". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Note: I have added an adjective sense for the organizational sense and converted the RfD to an RfD-sense. If deleted, an &lit can be added under the noun header. bd2412 T 06:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep entry due to fraternity/sorority sense, keep SoP definition as more prevalent meaning. DAVilla 23:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

no more[edit]

Rfd-sense "dead". "This parrot is no more!": see be, sense 1: "To exist; to have real existence; to be alive". 212.224.230.84 11:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Not necessarily a living thing that has died, it could be anything that no longer exists: see Lexico. DonnanZ (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. The verb form is in the dead-parrot usex is not a copula; this is simply the adverbial sense of no more; see the quote that is the last usex there.  --Lambiam 13:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
    • As I see it, it is neither adjective nor adverb, but a phrase. So that argument may be flawed. DonnanZ (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
      I do not understand your argument. In the saying, “when in doubt, abstain”, the words in doubt form a phrase, more specifically an adverbial phrase. We list adverbial phrases under the PoS heading Adverb. Likewise, when someone proclaims, “slavery exists no more”,[54] the boldened part is indeed a phrase, an adverbial phrase, and it should be classified accordingly.  --Lambiam 11:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I would rather call it a phrase than a bare adverb, which doesn't make much sense. In any case, the current PoS (adjective) is inaccurate. Keep and revise. DonnanZ (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm skeptical of this explanation. I can't think of any other cases where an adverb modifies "to be". You can say "Yet the problem stubbornly exists." but not "Yet the problem stubbornly is" and definitely not "Yet the problem is stubbornly." Colin M (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
      It seems to me that in the phrase “the Lord is with us in this place”,[55][56][57] the adverbial clause “with us” modifies “to be”.  --Lambiam 11:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I think he's talking about adverbs of manner (-ly adverbs), not adverbs of place ("They're here!", "I'll be back") or time ("My concert is tomorrow") or adverbial prepositional phrases like "with us" and "in this place". —Mahāgaja · talk 11:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
        "with us" is a prepositional phrase headed by "with". It is functioning as a predicative complement, not an adjunct. Colin M (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. What Lambiam said. Fay Freak (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

isekai[edit]

Sense 2: "Transcription of 異世界". I don't see how this is a sense of an English word. Equinox 22:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Transcriptions do not constitute terms in another language. Given the context of the quote in that entry, from a text by a Japanese author and with a Japanese character uttering that sentence, I'd be inclined to view that as code switching. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Move the transcription under a “Japanese” heading. (Compare arigatō.) — SGconlaw (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    There is already a “Japanese” heading classifying this as a romanization; the question is to delete or not to delete.  --Lambiam 10:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Whether uses of the countable noun isekai in the sense of “alternate world” are instances of code-switching or indicate incorporation into the English lexicon cannot be decided by consulting a single source. Here is another book use: “An isekai is a dangerous world.”[58] I think this also qualifies (if it is durably archived): “To his surprise, when he woke up, he was reincarnated as a baby in an isekai of swords and magic.”[59]  --Lambiam 10:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Given the context of both works is anime / manga, the entry should clearly indicate that this term is specific to these speech communities. I'm not certain of the correct labeling, or I'd add that myself.
We appear to be missing any sense line that would fit the citations provided so far.
For the sense line at issue here, though, I think delete is the only clear approach -- transcription alone doesn't signify the creation of a lexical item, and the citations show more than just transcription. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Delete per above. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

isogonic line[edit]

SOP. This, that and the other (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Keep per lemming, MW has it. [60] The Collins page probably does not qualify as an entry. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

alien-denier[edit]

Don't think this meets CFI. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete, the Alien franchise never exist, don't force the men in black to visit. Anyway, obviously SOP, but the hedge in the definition "who usually doubts the existence of alien life" is quite funny. Doubting it five days a week is enough to qualify? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Imetsia (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Y’all are alien-denier deniers. They exist! This here is one caught on camera.  --Lambiam 21:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Delete. We don't even have common ones like Holocaust denier (there's climate denier, but that's special because it isn't "someone who denies that there is a climate"). I have, however, split denier to distinguish people who deny somebody something (e.g. you won't let your child play video games) from people who deny the existence of something. Equinox 00:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Delete. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The only way this would be keepable is if it could be shown that what it actually means is "someone who denies that aliens have visited Earth" rather than "someone who denies that aliens exist". (I personally am the former but not the latter – I find it inconceivable that there is no life on any of the quadrillions of planets in the known universe besides Earth, but also extremely unlikely that any of it has ever visited us.) —Mahāgaja · talk 11:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as a sum of parts. Glades12 (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Tagged with RFV. Someone come up with some citations. Facts707 (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anything is denied by someone or his counsels. I am also for deleting climate denier and climate denialist, if somebody wants to nominate it, since “climate“ here is a breviloquence for ”climate change”; or “climate change” is a meronym of “climate” so who denies climate changes denies climate kind of. Holocaust denier also got deleted so consequentially this. Fay Freak (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Deleted. DAVilla 23:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

chick with a dick[edit]

This passed RFD years ago, despite its own creator thinking it should be deleted and the single keep vote coming from someone who had apparently not bothered to read the definition. As @Equinox noted at Wiktionary:Tea room/2021/April#chick with a dick, the current definition is probably wrong, and if we redefine it to be "woman with a penis", then it's transparently SOP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Wait, what? You really thought I didn't bother to read the definition? Why exactly? Because I listed alternative interpretations for everything other than the definition? That was the point, that it could be interpreted as something else. Don't you think it's a coincidence that I listed everything except the definition? Am I just wasting my time here? DAVilla 23:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
It could also be a hermaphrodite, and a trans woman may have had that part of her anatomy removed, but the term is rather lowbrow anyway, and I wouldn't miss it. It may have originated as a porn term for a shemale. DonnanZ (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. In addition to DonnanZ's comment, I strongly doubt that every instance of the dickgirl, to mention another lowbrow term, is supposed to be trans, but this collocation could also include that term. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - a currently more polite term for a hermaphrodite is intersex, but nonetheless this is still a term not SOP. Facts707 (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    Eh, no, intersex is not generally applicable to trans women. Despite your edit, the definition still seems incomplete. Also, I really doubt that the term would be applied to every intersex person with a penis. What is not SOP about the term? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    The previous text in Facts707's reply was ambiguous: "a more polite term is intersex". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry, updated defn. with "appears female..." and my previous comment "a currently more polite term for a hermaphrodite is intersex." Also I meant "narrows the possible combinations of 'chick' and 'dick' to one", e.g. it's not a young chicken with a detective. Facts707 (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Facts707: That's not how idiomaticity works. If I say "she's a cute chick", you know I'm not talking about a bird (unless engaging in wordplay), but that doesn't make cute chick or she's a cute chick idiomatic. This is a dictionary composed of words and idiomatic expressions, not a collection of collocations that happen to have unambiguous semantics. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as simple sum of parts --Frigoris (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are nuances of meaning (and connotation) that a reader unfamiliar with the term would not necessarily intuit. Consider this quote from a 1993 issue of Spy magazine: And, you know, we got to go down to film on Bourbon Street, so you know, you see a lot of interesting things. You know, chicks with dicks is big down there... I think it's guys with tits, but it's called chicks with dicks. As the speaker points out (crudely), the term refers only to AMAB individuals - it would not be used to describe an AFAB person with a packer, for example (except as a deliberate subversion/play on words). It's also highly resistant to substitution (we don't really see synonyms like girls with dicks or chicks with cocks). The term is also strongly associated with a particular period of time (roughly 90s to 2000's) when transgender people were becoming increasingly visible in the wider culture, but usually as objects of mockery or sexual fetishization. Hence why the term (along with tranny, which has a similar trajectory) is now considered highly offensive. All that is to say that, unlike green door, there's a lot to say about this term beyond what's conveyed by its constituent words. Colin M (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Colin M "the term refers only to AMAB individuals". Except that it doesn't. At least in non-durable usage (typically NSFW), you can also find chick with a dick being used for 'futanari', 'dickgirls' and intersex people if you look around on Google. Sometimes it is implied (albeit seldom for 'dickgirl') in those contexts that the person in question is not to be considered AMAB. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep roughly per Colin M. The fact that it refers only to AMABs is important, I think. I'm pretty sure that someone who rejects transgender identity (like a TERF for example) and considers trans men to be women would still not refer to a trans man who's had a phalloplasty as a "chick with a dick". —Mahāgaja · talk 19:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Mahagaja "The fact that it refers only to AMABs is important", not true, see reply to Colin M. Conservative opponents of trans rights often try to ignore trans men altogether and TERFs, for all their sins, are still radical feminists and aren't very likely to use chick in public discourse. That TERFs have an objectionable ideology doesn't magically cause them to talk like Beavis and Butt-Head. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are no nuances. “Chick” is “someone who looks female” and “with a dick” “having a male member”. The reason for this odd combination is left to be imagined by the recipient. It means no more than this. Fay Freak (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per Colin M. Men who are effeminate to some degree in appearance, but still representing as men, are not referred to in this way even if could be said that they look female. bd2412 T 22:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    @BD2412 This does not seem a convincing counter-example; it is unusual to use chick for an effeminate man. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    In that case, for what sort of men is it usual to use chick? bd2412 T 18:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    None, and that is the problem with your analysis. That the term isn't used of men is a property of chick, it's not particular to chick with a dick. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

spiring[edit]

Really an adjective? Or just a participle? Meh, I have no preference. Yellow is the colour (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Looks OK to me - keep. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Also meh, but FWIW, that parses to me as the present participle -- in that usex, no different from growing grass, i.e. grass that is growing. But then I see that growing also has an "Adjective" POS, which I similarly disagree with, but anyway. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Where is DCDuring? I'm sure the opinion would be that it's not a true adjective but just an attributive use of spiring. I also agree with Eiríkr Útlendi on growing. Could be applied to loads of participles, e.g. Darkness is good for sleeping children. Air is good for breathing children. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Just to note that the OED has an entry for the word as an adjective, so the lemmings principle may apply. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • From the sole example, I would say it's just the present participle of to spire, but maybe there are other quotations where it looks more adjectival. Delete unless someone finds quotes that change my mind. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Windsor[edit]

A street in Darras Hall, Northumberland. Whether it exists or not, I fear this is a street too far, an entry for Darras Hall, a suburb of Ponteland, would be more useful. DonnanZ (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

That is a question for RFD, not RFV. I am moving this there. Kiwima (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Delete as per our rather recently revised WT:CFI and nom DonnanZ. According to Google Maps it is "Windsor Place" and yes an entry Darras Hall would be better. My revised personal thoughts on place names suggest any reasonably permanent street name, etc. in an English-speaking area should suffice; then once an approved place name with three cites comes along, the "placeholder" name can be deleted. This allows recording of possible new names/words in use. Cheers and thanks to the two editors above. Facts707 (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
If it is Windsor Place, then Windsor isn't its correct name, and has no place here. There are a few roads in this area named Staines Road (in Twickenham, Hounslow and Sunbury); they all lead towards the town of Staines, the roads themselves shouldn't be called just Staines. If you asked a cab driver in Ponteland to take you to Windsor, where would he take you? To Windsor in Berkshire, about 300 miles away? DonnanZ (talk) 09:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Delete, in large part because of our recent CFI vote on place names. Imetsia (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Deleted. And my god, was this the only nominated sense?! DAVilla 23:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

n-word hard R[edit]

Sum of parts. Generally written with a comma: "the n-word, hard R", so the "hard R" is basically parenthetical. Equinox 18:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Imetsia (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Not quite sure yet. Google shows hits for "N-word with hard R". Maybe that should be the entry and hard R the alt form as it evolves? Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Pretty clearly SoP, and not a fixed phrase, seeing as one can just as well say "N-word with hard R", "N-word with a hard R", "hard R N-word", etc. Colin M (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom, there's no argument here. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Delete DAVilla 23:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021[edit]

shoulder the burden[edit]

SOP. Imetsia (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Delete, as we do have the figurative senses at both shoulder and burden. Equinox 08:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

it's a tough job, but somebody's got to do it[edit]

Sum of parts. 212.224.228.122 11:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The definition is really the opposite of what you'd expect ("The role or assignment is a particularly attractive or desirable one") but it is glossed as sarcastic. Equinox 12:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I would question whether the sarcastic use is especially conventionalized. Browsing google books, literal uses definitely outnumber sarcastic ones. Colin M (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I changed "sarcastic" to "ironic", but I agree that the phrase is also often used unironically. I also know it as the variant it's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it (and both can substitute "someone" for "somebody", of course). —Mahāgaja · talk 14:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I vaguely remember that we decided not to include ironic senses since almost any positive phrase can be used as an ironic snarl. (“A masterly move, Fred. Great, just what we needed. You deserve an award for this.”)  --Lambiam 00:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
There's a bit about this at WT:CFI#Sarcastic usage. Colin M (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
It's a pompous cliché, like something out of an old public-service newsreel, and it's used to make ordinary things sound heroic. It's precisely those qualities that make it fun to play against. I don't know if those added connotations are enough to make it idiomatic for dictionary purposes, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I am seconding Entz here- there is something special about this phrase that deserves extra consideration. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

benign tumor[edit]

Sum of parts: "a tumor which is benign". 212.224.225.241 00:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

o you who believe[edit]

SOP.--Tibidibi (talk) 10:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Should be a capital O. But yes, clearly SoP, and being a quotation from a famous book isn't an excuse. Speedied. Equinox 10:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

High German consonant shift[edit]

SOP, also encyclopedic and not dictionary material. Imetsia (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Of course, the encyclopaedic details cannot be inferred from the term, but consonant shift typical for High German gives a pretty decent and SOP general idea of the thing (even though the phenomenon produced a fan of isoglosses stretching over the High German language area and then some). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Delete, encyclopedic. DAVilla 19:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

flounce post[edit]

Link: flounce post (A melodramatic posting announcing one's departure from a group or forum.)

Equivalent to flounce (departing in a haughty, dramatic way) + post (electronically posted message post) as far as I can tell. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep, if for no other reason than the CFI golden rule of: A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means. If I encountered this term, I would need to look it up to understand what it meant. Looking up the individual words would not be enough to make me confident I understood what the term meant. And it's not like this is part of some wider productive pattern of verb+post. People don't talk about "leave posts" or "quit posts" or "complain posts" - at least not in the way that "flounce post" appears to be widely used as a fixed phrase with a particular meaning known to a specific linguistic community. Colin M (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    I didn't know what it meant either, but that's because I didn't know what flounce meant. I'm not sure if I would have assumed the person was leaving or not, based on the definition of that word. Maybe it could just be a flamboyant rant? But the way it's used is definitely rage quit. DAVilla 19:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is textbook SOP and the productivity of [base verb] + post, the question whether this really is [noun] + post aside, is a red herring. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    • The verb vs. noun question may not be important, but I think it is very relevant whether this is part of some wider productive pattern (and - closely related - whether it's open to substitution). The reason something like cell phone store is SoP is that it's part of a widely understood productive rule where "X store" means "a shop that sells X". Hence why it's also possible to talk about a "clothing store", or "antique store", or "candy store". Even if you've never heard someone talk about, say, a "fidget spinner store", if you encountered the term you would immediately know what it meant. To me, that is at the heart of what it means to be SoP. We don't have an entry for "cell phone store" because its meaning is predictable, and because it would lead us down the path of having entries for indefinitely many "X store" compounds. But neither of those issues applies here. Colin M (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
      @Colin M But it is part of a productive pattern. You can to a limited extent form transparent compounds in English using the lemma form of a verb followed by a noun; the contrasting pair file cabinet and filing cabinet is one example, without pairs there are drivetrain and cooktop, probably kill zone and skateboard. Compounds of this type may be regionally marked and there seem to be some restrictions (influence from a noun with a closely related meaning probably helps), but they are widely understood. That latter part, the parsability of productive combinations is everything needed for this to be SOP. There is no necessity for any analogies. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
      I'm not sure that those examples help your case, seeing as they all have entries. Unless you think file cabinet and so on should also be deleted as SoP? Again, I think for something to be SoP its meaning needs to be predictable from its formation. And a pattern as broadly defined as "verb followed by noun" doesn't have any corresponding uniform rule for determining its semantics. e.g. a search party is a party that searches, but a call girl isn't a girl that calls. Colin M (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
      "I'm not sure that those examples help your case, seeing as they all have entries." That is a non sequitur, I deliberately selected words that have entries as examples, it cannot be concluded from that that this pattern must be evidence of idiomaticity. They only serve to show that the verb+noun pattern is productive, also consider the ambiguous cases welcome post, spam post, troll post. No, those entries should not be deleted. "And a pattern as broadly defined as 'verb followed by noun' doesn't have any corresponding uniform rule for determining its semantics." That is irrelevant to question of whether something is SOP or not. In some cases a compound where the noun is the agent will be SOP, other cases where the noun is the patient will be SOP, and in some cases the compound will not be SOP. That must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A putative bite dog will be SOP both if it just means "dog that bites" and "dog that is (to be) bitten"; it would still be SOP even if it had both senses. As for your examples, call girl is rightly considered idiomatic, search party also has specific shades of meaning that makes it includible in my opinion; one does not form a search party to discover Atlantis or to find mineral deposits. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
      welcome post, spam post, and troll post are good analogies that do provide some evidence of possible SoP-ness. But I think there's a difference in that the meaning contributed by the first word is unambiguous in those cases (spam and troll may be polysemous, but they each have exactly one highly salient meaning in the context of internet forums), but not so for flounce. Hence the applicability of WT:CFI#General rule. Colin M (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
      @Colin M Considering that flounce posts will be found on social-media sites and forum boards, the meanings "to move in an exaggerated, bouncy manner", "to flounder; to make spastic motions", "to decorate with a flounce" in sewing or "a strip of decorative material, usually pleated, attached along one edge; a ruffle" in sewing do not sound very plausible, unless the supposed flouncer films xirself. And really, the ambiguity of a certain case of polysemy does not render a term idiomatic; consider talk:Orthodox Christian which can be notoriously ambiguous.
      Anyway, I am not a fan of this novel reinterpretation of CFI in terms of patterns of substitutability (and I stress that policy pages are not intended for creative reinterpretations) and I still consider it a red herring. A good understanding of the productive parts of English grammar should suffice. A competent speaker is perfectly capable of analysing marginal coinages like BoJo Brexit (proper noun + proper noun, "type of Brexit advocated by Boris Johnson"), beggar-thy-neighbour beggar-my-neighbour trade policy (adjective phrase + noun phrase + compound noun, "protectionism regarding the trade of beggar-my-neighbour") and even Literary Sacerdotal-Orangutan French in the context of La Planète des singes (adjective + noun phrase + proper noun, "literary register of French spoken by orangutan priests"). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
      To me, flouncing (in either sense 1 or 4) has a connotation of being fey or theatrical. I could therefore imagine a flounce post as being merely any silly, puffed-up post. But I can accept that maybe I'm just being unusually dense here. I'm curious to see what others think - i.e. whether they're able to automatically grasp what the term means without looking it up. Colin M (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

time flies when you're having fun[edit]

SOP: time flies.--Tibidibi (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Are proverbs subject to SOP? Also, is the phrase "time flies" a backformation from the expression? I could see a circumstance where an idiomatic proverb becomes shortened, and the original proverb appears to be SOP relative to the shortened form of the proverb. For example, people may refer to something as a "watched pot" in reference to the phrase, a watched pot never boils. If "watched pot" becomes an expression in its own right, would that make a watched pot never boils retroactively SOP? bd2412 T 23:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Don't forget there's also the expression time flies like an arrow. And, of course, fruit flies like a banana. :D ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
It may be asking the impossible: no one ever seems to have a stopwatch handy on such occasions... Chuck Entz (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
@BD2412, I don't really think the expression is proverbial. Also, if the etymology on time flies is correct, "time flies" is calqued from Virgil and is not a backformation.--Tibidibi (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
@Tibidibi: It's really not up to us as editors to decide whether this phrase is proverbial. That decision has already been made for us by sources identifying the phrase as a proverb. bd2412 T 20:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Fun fact, the "watched pot" phenomenon has a name: metalepsis. Colin M (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • blatantly keep Yellow is the colour (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, yes, it is SOP, but this has a better to claim to being a proverb that some of the other stuff that collects dust in that category. It is considered a proverb by several commentators, not just random schmucks uncritically compiling lists of proverbs. The oldest cite I found on BGC is from 1940 and this dates it to 1939. Perhaps not terribly convincing, but we'll have to start accepting things as proverbs at some point. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Keep. Imetsia (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Definite keep, SOP is irrelevant. DAVilla 19:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Tamil religion[edit]

Does not appear to be lexicalized.--Tibidibi (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Delete, the definition is also rather grandiose. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Don't Delete, the definition is correct and sources are : https://tamilreligion.org/home and https://books.google.com/books?id=JFRRl1vv0kwC&pg=PA393 . Rather than deleting we can do some corrections where it is needed. VelKadamban (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
The first of those links isn't durably archived. The second doesn't seem to use the phrase "Tamil religion" anywhere, and where it does discuss the religion of the Tamils says it's Hinduism, so it's not referring to the pre-Hindu ancestor and nature worship. If anyone can find durably archived sources that do call the pre-Hindu relgion "Tamil religion" rather than using that phrase simply to mean "the religion(s) of the Tamils" (most of whom are Hindu, and most of the rest of whom are either Christian or Muslim), then keep. But otherwise delete. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Mahāgaja Dude, south African Tamils refer their religion as Tamil and Not Hindu... their religion is Tamil, also that first link is website of Tamil religion in Malaysia VelKadamban (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I'd say that a Tamil religion referring to a pre-Hindu religion would be equally SOP. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
It's either SoP or doesn't actually exist. Delete SemperBlotto (talk) 09:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
It actually Exist! sources are : https://tamilreligion.org/home and https://books.google.com/books?id=JFRRl1vv0kwC&pg=PA393 South African Tamils refer their religion as Tamil and Not Hindu... their religion is Tamil, also that first link is website of Tamil religion in Malaysia VelKadamban (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
It has already been pointed out to you that the destination of the first link is not durable, and worryingly it is also nakedly promotional, and the linked book discusses a Tamil form of Hinduism, so that does not support the definition. You should read the sources that you provide critically and adhere to the criteria laid out at WT:CFI when you offer evidence. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Sir, I'm Trying to say that Tamil Diaspora people Refer their Religion as Tamil. And also Hinduism is Full of Sanskrit, And it is totally wrong to make Tamil as a form of Hinduism, The worship of Tamils and Hindus differs a lot. The first like is not for any promotion, i shared that link because that link is official website of Tamil religion in Malaysia. Try to understand that Hindu Religion and Tamil Religion is Different and even i'm a Native Tamilian. So i Now about that! Still many Tamils follow Non-Hindu (Non-Sanskrit) religious Worship, which is Tamil worship as Tamil Religion. This Tamil religious worship is different from Hinduism and Many Tamil Diaspora people Follows Tamil Religion (Tamilism). So this phrase Tamil Religion should not be deleted from Wiktionary. Thank You! VelKadamban (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@VelKadamban I am not set on the view that all indigenous Tamil religion is Hindu, because it is a subject about which I have little knowledge. But the durable attestations of the phrase "Tamil religion" chiefly seem to refer to a specifically Tamil variety of Hinduism, regardless of the facts on the ground, or they are too vague to decide. At Wiktionary we are concerned with words and phrases as they are attested in durable (lastingly archived) use, not with an accurate reporting of cultural reality; that is something for journalistic reporting and encyclopaedias. Besides, even if Tamil religion were attestable as a term denoting a religious tradition distinct from Hinduism, unlike Tamilism it would be still unidiomatic. Also, while I appreciate that you are being polite and I don't give a rat's arse about pronouns, I would actually prefer not to be referred to as "sir". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Lingo Bingo Dingo Ok Dude! Thank You! I Understood! Do According to Our Wiktionary Policy. Can you clear me a Doubt, after i'm Giving proper source (Which says Tamil religion refers to Religion that differ from Hinduism) can i add the Phrase "Tamil Religion" to Wiktionary back later? Have a Good Day! VelKadamban (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Here at Wiktionary we do not go by what sources say about what a term means, but by the meaning a term appears to have as it is used – preferably in a context where the speaker does not feel a need to explain the term, but assumes their audience is familiar with it.  --Lambiam 11:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Keep. Looking through Google Books I see two kinds of usage. Half of it is talking about any religion from the region, especially in historical context, which would be sum of parts:
  1. these cults have deep Dravidian roots and may be considered as an expression of and indigenious [sic] Tamil religion
  2. [George Uglow Pope] boldly asserted that Saiva Siddhanta was an exclusively Tamil religion
But the other half appear to be talking about a very specific group of religious beliefs:
  1. The ‘Tamilreligion is a term and a reality which is peculiar to Mauritius and which has no counterpart in India, even in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Tamils have had a long religious history in the island.
  2. An interesting aspect of the religious attitude of the Hindu Tamil diaspora in many countries is their attempt to distinguish their religion from Brahminical [sic] Hinduism. They are proud to call their religion ‘Tamil Religion’. This has been observed by many historians.
  3. I have already mentioned the organizational ability of a community, contributes to a large extent to the maintenance of their language and culture. One can notice regular organization cultural functions among the Tamils: Valluvar day, Tamil New Year, Annual function of the Tamil Federation, Baradhivar centenary, etc. [] The religion, mentioned as “Tamil religion” by the Mauritian Tamils, seems to be one of the most important signs of Tamil identity. It is quite obvious that the Tamil language enjoys a privileged place in religious ceremonies.
Wikipeda notes that "Many emigrant Tamils retain elements of a cultural, linguistic, and religious tradition that predates the Christian era." This resonates with the analogous description of diaspora above. But the Wikipedia article then goes on to muddle this concept with the wide variety of religious beliefs held by those in Tamil Nadu today.
In short, the Tamil religion is a real, distinct identity noted by anthropologists but confused with the SoP definition many here wish to delete it for. It is not the religion of the people of Tamil Nadu, but one that originated there. DAVilla 20:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Maronite Christian[edit]

"A member of the Maronite Church", in other words a Christian who is Maronite, but rephrased to appear idiomatic. As SOP as Catholic Christian, Pentecostal Christian, Orthodox Christian, etc. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Imetsia (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Delete. DAVilla 20:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Christian atheism[edit]

Christian atheist[edit]

The somewhat unsatisfying definition does not prevent this from being SOP like atheist Christian(ity), also comparable to Muslim atheism, Jewish atheism, etc. Can also describe atheism/atheists only influenced by Christian cultural practices. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Imetsia (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Delete and redefine at atheism / atheist (which is already getting a bit granular tho). I'm not sure about Muslim atheism, but Jewish atheism and Buddhist atheism exist. DAVilla 20:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Christian Left[edit]

Christian anarchism[edit]

Christian anarchist[edit]

SOP, all of the type "political movement associated with or influenced by Christian views", without the idiomatic meaning of Christian Democracy and friends (although the main lemma of that group is not defined particularly well). No lemmings that I know of. (More or less the same is true for Christian Right, but I'll leave that to someone else to RFD.) ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Imetsia (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Delete. DAVilla 20:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Germanic parent language[edit]

SOP, made up of Germanic + parent + language. Many phrases for parent languages are attested, Celtic, Indo-Germanic/Indo-European, Semitic, even Nostratic. The template at GPL should link to the Wikipedia article. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, but we should have an entry for parent language, which really isn't SOP. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    Parent language honestly seems rather transparent to me as well, but no objections from me. Feel free to create it if others agree or if you are reasonably sure that it is older than bare parent when meaning "ancestral language". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    Seems reasonable. Delete this one. DAVilla 21:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Imetsia (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Greek Christian Scriptures[edit]

Governed by WT:NSE, but really a SOP phrase that isn't particularly common. The capital in Scriptures also suggests something that is considered more authoritative than any ole Christian religious text in Greek. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The term is also used to refer to the Septuagint, so the definition is too specific. If kept, the definition will have to be changed, for example to "Christian scriptures written in or translated to Greek, including Ancient Greek".  --Lambiam 11:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Did you find use pertaining to the Septuagint? Not that it changes much about the transparency of the phrase. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, even though this is a translation by Jews of the Jewish Bible ([61]).  --Lambiam 16:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Imetsia (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Protestant Reich Church[edit]

German Evangelical Church[edit]

Both terms are subject to WT:NSE. I regard this as very marginal content for any dictionary, I see little reason to include the names of religious denominations that existed for little over a decade. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Imetsia (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Goldfish cracker[edit]

Move to Goldfish. DAVilla 09:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I have heard fishy cracker on several occasions of a mother to a young child, in reference to same. Facts707 (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Fishy cracker does seem attestable, but I'm not sure if it's common enough to redefine Goldfish as a fishy cracker. DAVilla 21:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

court-packing[edit]

Link: court-packing (Changing the composition or number of members of a judicial body in order to bring about a specific outcome in the decisions of that body.)

Equivalent to court (official assembly legally met together for the transaction of judicial business) + packing (bringing together or making (something) up unfairly, in order to secure a certain result) as far as I can tell. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep as a set phrase and for lemmings. It also has a more specific meaning than is conveyed by the sum of its component parts (i.e. used typically in reference to expanding the Supreme Court, or to the FDR court-packing plan in particular). Imetsia (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't see any lemmings on OneLook. Often having "a more specific meaning" isn't that relevant; there is no crucial bit of contextual information missing that prevents a reader from correctly parsing the meaning. Court-packing in the context of the Supreme Court is just packing the Supreme Court, court-packing in the context of FDR's plans is just FDR's plan for court-packing. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
In terms of lemmings, there are entries on Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster, and Collins. The case for keeping it, as I see it, is that it is (a) an "established expression whose wording is subject to little or no variation" that is (b) common and (c) used most heavily in particular contexts. It's essentially a set-phrase argument, but I'm aware that some editors find the set-phrase justifications unavailing. There are even some slight nuances in the term, as the other dictionaries explain, in that it is done to bias the ideological leaning of the courts, that in particular it involves expanding the court (rather than "bringing together" the Court or "making [it] up" unfairly in a more general way), and it is almost exclusively used to speak about the Supreme Court. Imetsia (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Strangely M-W and Collins did not show up at Onelook. M-W is a valid lemming, but Collins assigns a strange part of speech and honestly Dictionary.com is not widely regarded as a model to follow. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Delete, SOP and no other reason for keeping seems to apply. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Changed to keep. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
In spite of what some lemmings say, I think the most usual spelling is court packing with a space. If this is kept, shouldn’t we add jury packing, which for quite some time[62] was far more common?  --Lambiam 15:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Kirindy Mitea[edit]

Not dictionary material. Imetsia (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)