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/CJK
add new CJK request | history

Requests for verification of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.

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

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

{{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{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 whose existence is in doubt

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. The most common reason 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 words whose existence or attestation is disputed, for which see Wiktionary:Requests for verification. 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 once a month has passed after the nomination was posted, except for snowball cases. If a decision to delete or keep has not been reached due to insufficient discussion, {{look}} can be added and knowledgeable editors pinged. If there is sufficient discussion, but a decision cannot be reached because editors are evenly split between two options, the request can be closed as “no consensus”, in which case the status quo is maintained. Currently, there is no fixed supermajority requirement and consensus for closing any request is judged at the discretion of the closer (usually an administrator or another experienced editor).

  • 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: In some cases, like moves or redirections, 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 is usually done using the aWa gadget, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS.


Oldest 100 tagged RFDs


September 2020[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)
Does wired in "just the way she's wired" really function as a past tense verb? A quick Google suggests that "he is wired" is more common than "he was wired", but if wired is truely a past tense verb here, shouldn't it always be was? It seems to me that the way one [is / was] wired may be closer to an idiomatic phrase. - excarnateSojourner (talk|contrib) 00:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re "shouldn't it always be was?": no? Compare google books:"thirst is quenched", google books:"is demolished". - -sche (discuss) 20:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
"Connected via wires or nerves to" This is the literal meaning. Replace with {{&lit}}.
"Innately or instinctively a part of", "Included as an integral part of" all make sense if the object in each quotation is wired, e.g. brains wired with maternal instincts. Move and define there.
"Involved with" is a keeper in my opinion.
"Obsessed with", "Highly knowledgeable about" seem very similar to me. Merge and keep. DAVilla 20:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Preposition is clearly not the right POS, but that's a secondary matter, to be cleaned up at RFC (or conceivably RFV, if one is being difficult) if not resolved here. "Connected via wires or nerves to" is obviously SOP, delete(/merge to wire), an electrician/etc wires in whatever is to be wired into the things that the citations then say are wired into. The two "part of" quotations likewise seem to be wire (into is not essential), so delete/merge to wire (or possibly wired), since as Davilla says, it can be used without "into": "doing so is wired into how you behave" (as one quote says) because that's just how you're wired. "Involved with", again, can be found without "into" and in other tenses of "wire" ("wiring him into all the right social networks", "his contacts wired him into [or, could wire him into] all the right social networks", etc, which is clearly a verb plus into, not a preposition). "Obsessed with" and "highly knowledgeable" don't seem distinct from each other, as Davilla says, so at a minimum merge them into each other, but they're also clearly not prepositions, so again I think this belongs at wire, or possibly wire into, but wired into is clearly just an inflected form of a verb, IMO. Consider:
  • 1999, Teddi Chichester Bonca, Teddi Lynn Chichester, Shelley's Mirrors of Love: Narcissism, Sacrifice, and Sorority, SUNY Press (→ISBN), page 186:
    Like the fledgling scientist who tried to wire himself into the sisterly circle at Field Place, Prometheus joins the electric circuit formed by his "Fair sister nymphs," Panthea, Asia, ...
  • 2000, Joan D'Arc, Phenomenal World: Remote Viewing, Astral Travel, Apparitions, Extraterrestrials, Lucid Dreams and Other Forms of Intelligent Contact in the Magical Kingdom of Mind-at-Large, Book Tree (→ISBN), page 154:
    ... and quite handy indeed that they also saw fit to wire themselves into the social problem that they had a major hand in creating in the first place. This almost blatant orchestration of social conflict is just a ladle in the soup of ...
  • 2006, John F. Stacks, Scotty: James B. Reston and the Rise and Fall of American Journalism, U of Nebraska Press (→ISBN), page 102:
    RESTON MOVED QUICKLY to parlay his new prominence by wiring himself into high-level Washington sources, and not just Republicans like Vandenberg.
  • 2007, Michael G. Santos, Inside: Life Behind Bars in America, St. Martin's Press (→ISBN), page 132:
    Working together with a highly-respected and well-connected gang leader like Lion reduces the risk of detection. Such men wire themselves into the happenings of the pen; they know who can pay how much, and they have finely tuned instincts for the rackets they control. The Nelsons work as a husband-and-wife team, which makes escaping detection easier.
  • 2010, John Martin Somers, Pick Your Own Strawberries, Lulu.com (→ISBN), page 276:
    The remainder of the Inn Crowd started to wire themselves into the session. Frank, who was almost always the first to get pissed, was practically gone already, delighted with his career and with his life and determined to drink []
  • 2013, John Rentoul, Tony Blair: Prime Minister, Faber & Faber (→ISBN)
    Blair brought out the febrile intensity of Stanhope, wiring himself into his ever more circumscribed troglodyte world, speculating moodily on the worm that went down when it thought it was coming up. Robert Philp thought Blair's ...
  • 2014, Helen Giltrow, The Distance: A Thriller, Anchor (→ISBN)
    A week, and most of it spent inside the compound, but already he's begun to wire himself into the environment, read its codes. The pecking order and the power struggles and the personalities. The fixers and the operators, ...
  • 2018, Robin Brunet, Let's Get Frank, Douglas & McIntyre (→ISBN)
    He has always done this, having a good system for wiring himself in to the daily action and buzz of what's going on with clients and the business in general. He also has a pretty good nose for figuring out who the key influencers are,  []
  • 2019, Frank H Baker, Mason Miller, Stud Managers' Handbook, CRC Press (→ISBN)
    All that determines the amount that livestock producers receive is the degree to which they wire themselves into the various sources that are available. However, the primary source is still the land-grant-university system.
So, delete the whole thing IMO (or remake it into a mere "past tense form of" wire into), after moving the citations to wire or wire into. - -sche (discuss) 20:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiwima, DAVilla What do you think of the above citations, as far as showing that wired into is not a preposition meaning "involved with", but just an inflected form of the verb wire + into (or at least wire into), which is where that definition should be? I think the "obsessed with" and "highly knowledgeable of" senses also boil down to being wire+-ed +in to = involved or connected with the things in question: indeed, some of the cites [in the entry under those senses] come right out and say that, like "He is really wired into the world of hockey and connected to all facets of the sport") - -sche (discuss) 01:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that most of the senses are really just past participles of wire into -- except for the 2 and 3. (instinctively or innately part of, and included as an integral part of). I suppose if you are a theist, you could say that God wired maternal instinct into mothers, but that's rather a stretch. I would be happy to replace all the others by a past participle of wire into. Kiwima (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As things stand now, "connected via wires or nerves to" is the sum of parts ({{&lit}}) definition. "Involved with", "Obsessed with", and "Highly knowledgeable about" are all similar figurative uses of a literal connection. "Innately or instinctively a part of" and "Included as an integral part of" are a different figurative sense which does not need into. I am leaning towards figurative senses on wire and wired. (I think only common figurative uses should be included, but these are common.) Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My take:
  1. Connected via wires... - delete, SOP literal.
  2. Innately or instinctively... - delete, just a sense of wire as a verb.
  3. Included as an integral part... - delete, same as above, a sense of wire (v).
4-6. Involved, obsessed, knowledgeable ... - merge and keep. - TheDaveRoss 13:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021[edit]

Prahova River[edit]

Prahova County[edit]

Dâmbovița River[edit]

Bistrița River[edit]

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

  • Delete. And English Dâmbovița is probably a misspelling of Dambovita. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vox Sciurorum: I added cites; why “probably a misspelling”? J3133 (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I think quite a large number of article titles on Wikipedia should be respelled as English words. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Above: "Our entries for river names regularly do not include the word "river"." Here are the counterexamples: Yellow River, Pearl River, Mississippi River, Huai River, Yuan River, etc. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC) (modified)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep or remove diacritics - In Wikipedia:British English, River usually comes before (corrected) the river's name, e.g. Wikipedia:River Thames, although Thames River and just Thames redirect there in WP. I think if we're going to have these geographical features that we voted for, we should put them in their (native) English name or the most common English translation of the (non-English) name. Facts707 (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Literally look up some quotes The problem is solved immediately if no quotes can be found- deletion for lack of attestation. The problem is put under a more nuanced light if quotes can be found. The only answer is to make the attempt to find cites and then go from there. I have found three quotes for Bistrița River and I've added them on the Bistrița River page and the Bistrița page. Now we aren't making a decision in a vacuum.
    The idea that certain geographical terms "should be written without diacritics in English" is proscriptive, which is a fine rule but is not descriptive of the actual condition of the edge of 21st century English as it interacts with other languages. Not everyone has to know the name of the "little T-shaped dash thingie" for a word to be a legitimate part of expert-level English. This same type of issue came up a week back. I took a situation like this and literally blew it out of the water by finding relevant cites- see Jõgeva. You can scream "code-switching" til you're blue in the face, but English language sentences are talking about non-English speaking areas, and those authors are using some diacritics like we know what's going on. Here's Chișinău in English: [1]. The dictionary is descriptive not proscriptive, and the expert English users DO use the diacritics of other languages in English, journalists &c. left aside. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC) (modified)[reply]
  • Hey @Einstein2, Facts707, J3133, Robbie SWE, Vox Sciurorum@Donnanz, Eirikr, Mahagaja: I have added three durably archived citations for the three 'River' entries above (see those pages). Now we know for sure that these concepts are used in English language documents, and the only question is whether Wiktionary will include them as entries. I'm invested in the topic because I like my citations on Yellow River, which extend to the early Modern English, and I'm afraid of a "SOP for all 'Name+River' entries" policy. (I guess I could move all my cites to the yellow page if needed, but it might be strange.) Anyway, I'm doing the mass reply to see if anyone's opinions are changed by any of this or my two comments above. If your opinions haven't changed, no need to respond. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC) (modified)[reply]
    For Yellow River, we can define Yellow as a proper noun, "{{place|en|river|c/China}}, full name Yellow River." And follow this model for rivers in general. A dictionary defines words. An encyclopedia defines concepts; Yellow River on Wikipedia needs both words. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I've felt the same way as Mihia, that it's confusing to redirect a positive to a negative or vice versa; if a user fails to notice, they come away thinking the term they typed in (the negative form) means the opposite of what it actually means, because we supplied them with a definition of the positive form. I think this idea of some kind of "Negative of..." definition is good. Curiously, while ands or buts is more common than ands and buts, ifs and buts is more common than ifs or buts. The usage notes suggest the use of and vs or is influenced by polarity, so some more creative search/ngram terms may be needed to get an accurate comparison. Nonetheless... redirect the less common forms of all the synonymous constructions to the more common forms, but leave the negative forms defined as negative forms of the versions without "no". - -sche (discuss) 21:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Either way is fine with me- see also Penglai City. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Delete in favor of Pu'er. Except possibly in the case of cities which are well known and well known in the form including City, we should not include the word City. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yeah, fair cop. I suppose it could be moved to a subdef of sense 4 ??? - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I made that change. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

May 2021[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      @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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      "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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      @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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      Personally, I've never heard of a "flounce post", but I've read discussions about whether today's newbie who claimed they'll never be back will "stick the flounce". --Prosfilaes (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I created it. I believe it is the "set phrase" for this sort of thing, but I see zero hits in GBooks, so maybe it isn't that important... Equinox 22:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As flounce exists now the fourth sense explains this word pairing. It's much more transparent (even if flounce is uncommon) than shitpost. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

Jewish nose[edit]

Jew nose[edit]

Jewish Bolshevism[edit]

SOP, these are just stereotypes where the heads are commonly misattributed to Jews by anti-Semites. Compare Talk:greedy as a Jew, Talk:nigger cock for similar analyses of stereotypes. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is Roman nose different? Equinox 18:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Is it called that because it was a Roman beauty ideal or because it was considered typical for Romans? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Each one had a different creator. How can you tell who's an anti-Semite? I have a roamin' nose myself - it was broken many years ago. DonnanZ (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see much merit to randomly speculating about the biases or ideologies of editors; I really see no basis to allege anything in these cases. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. But as a stereotype, I think it is comparatively mild compared to some other racial slurs, of which there are many: Yank, Frog, Eyetie, Chink, Jap, nigger, wog, Russki, Polack, Paki. Therefore I don't think there is much reason for deletion for Jewish nose. DonnanZ (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jewish nose and Jew nose.--Tibidibi (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Imetsia (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jew nose as syntactically irregular in addition. Delete Jewish nose. Unless we want to start cataloging strings of stereotypes (there is certainly utility in that, but not for the majority), these cultural knowledge tests have a limit. DAVilla 21:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced "Jew nose" has to be syntactically irregular; just read "Jew" as a noun. It's a granny annexe, not "a granny's annexe". Equinox 21:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DAVilla, Equinox is right, there is nothing irregular about the syntax of Jew nose. It's just a straight-forward compound like garden tool and magnolia leaf. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jew nose as well. DAVilla 14:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jewish Bolshevism can be left in the Wiktionary. The Russian language knows the word жѝдобольшеви́зм (žìdobolʹševízm). At least you can add that this is a historical term. Now this word is perceived with laughter, and the prefix жидо- (žido-, Jew) is specially extended to nouns and personal names, even to verbs and pronouns, to discredit the right wing. Regarding the rest, unfortunately, I do not have a definition of "Jewishness", so I cannot evaluate the noses. Gnosandes (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That might be the germ of a valid THUB argument, but I think that the THUB should then be placed at Jud(a)eo-Bolshevism because the hyphenless single-word variants seem to be citable (COALMINE). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jewish Bolshevism; as LBD says, Judeobolshevism and forms thereof can house any translations. Regarding the noses, the two entries' definitions are inconsistent with each other and need to be cleaned up, but once that's done, looking at the specific shape the Wikipedia article is about, are people other than Jews often said to have "Jewish noses" or "Jew noses" if they have that specific shape of nose? One of the issues with nigger cock is that the examples were just referring to the cocks of black men or people the same books described as having "black blood", etc, and of course greedy as a Jew is SOP, whereas the shape of nose seems less intelligible from "Jewish" + "nose", so if people other than Jews and Romans are often said to have Jewish noses vs Roman noses, it seems more idiomatic. - -sche (discuss) 21:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In what world are these not idiomatic? Jew nose does not mean "nose of a Jew" and the word "Jew" can't even be used as a word to mean "someone who has stereotypical traits of a Jew, whether or not they actually are Jewish". Keep all and it concerns me that these would even be nominated at all. (And if nigger cock does in fact mean "large penis (of someone of any race)", then that is indeed idiomatic as well and deletion of that is another ridiculous RFD outcome.) PseudoSkull (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the real world. Anti-Semites have legion stereotypes about Jews, some of which will end in collocations that are opaque to people without borderline encyclopaedic knowledge, that does not mean they are all idiomatic. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingo Bingo Dingo I have yet to see other very commonly used examples of these sorts of collocations in this discussion. Is there in fact a plethora of them? PseudoSkull (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the entries for Jewish nose and Jew nose. These seem reasonably idiomatic, given that not everyone with a prominent and/or aquiline nose is Jewish, nor do all people of Jewish descent have noses that fit either description. The anti-Semitic connotations do not strike me as an argument against inclusion. Our mission, as a dictionary, is to document language, including its uglier manifestations. The negative connotations are currently indicated by the "offensive" and "ethnic slur" glosses. Although perhaps they could be explained in greater detail in a usage note. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Jewish Bolshevism because it is a well-known and well-attested conspiracy theory. If attested, keep the others as well, per WordyAndNerdy. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 20:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

worlds[edit]

Adverb sense. This is just sense 11 of world: "A great amount". You can replace "it is worlds funnier" by "it is a world funnier" or "it is a great deal funnier" or (I think) "it is a great amount funnier". See, for instance, [2]. This, that and the other (talk) 05:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, but perhaps there should also be a ux with a comparative at world, sense 11. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion; I added a somewhat silly one. This, that and the other (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does one imply the other? Something can be "a (good/great) deal funnier" but not "deals funnier". Equinox 00:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like deal is special because it no longer has that sense outside the set phrase. This, that and the other (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have a definition for loads, tho "a load" would suffice. DAVilla 21:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point. The second comedian was a lot funnier sounds fine but The second comedian was lots funnier sounds like a mistake a child would make. Turning it around, a load funnier and a heap funnier sound strange to me. I guess what we're asking here is, is a world/worlds different to these? This, that and the other (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021[edit]

down[edit]

(comparable) At a lower or further place or position along a set path.
His place is farther down the road.
The company was well down the path to bankruptcy.
  • 1906, Stanley J[ohn] Weyman, chapter I, in Chippinge Borough, New York, N.Y.: McClure, Phillips & Co., OCLC 580270828, page 01:
    It was April 22, 1831, and a young man was walking down Whitehall in the direction of Parliament Street. He wore shepherd's plaid trousers and the swallow-tail coat of the day, with a figured muslin cravat wound about his wide-spread collar.

Dylanvt removed this sense (adverb; Special:Diff/62754912) and moved the usage examples and the quotation to “From one end to another of (in any direction); along.” (preposition; Special:Diff/62754915). J3133 (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be fine as a preposition only in this sense, although sometimes one of the nouns is implied: The coffee shop? That's further down [the street from here]. (possibly with a gesture). Facts707 (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the above examples are prepositional, but there is a "static" prepositional usage, e.g. "He lives down the road" and a "kinetic" prepositional usage, e.g. "He is walking down the road". It may be possible either to combine these into one sense, with suitable wording possibly involving "or", or to split them, but the existing presentation, where e.g. "His place is farther down the road" is under the definition "From one end to another of", doesn't seem ideal to me. Cases such as "He lives further down" and "His place is further down", as raised by Facts, are tricky to handle. Mihia (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021[edit]

Ernesto, Katrina, names of hurricanes[edit]

...and any others we have. Do we want them? I noticed we had these two but not e.g. Debbie, Frances, Maria, Sandy or Vince. My inclination is to delete hurricane names (keeping the {{given name}}s). If kept, they merit their own category apart from ":en:Weather" which Ernesto is in now. - -sche (discuss) 05:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep for Katrina, since it's used much much more even in idiomatic usages. On the fence about Ernesto, but would be inclined to keep notable hurricanes in general. AG202 (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For me the deciding factor is literary use, as in "insurance companies are concerned about another Katrina" or "the Katrina of the 1800s was called Sauve's Crevasse". So that's a definite keep for the Katrina of 2005.
I would think most major hurricanes would be referenced by a single name in the communities they impacted, at the very least. That said, I'm not having any luck finding as much for Ernesto, despite being the costliest storm of 2006. Also, there was a second hurricane with that name in 2012. After all, it's not in this list. DAVilla 05:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It did occur to me that names of hurricanes could pop up in quotations. DonnanZ (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all storm names, these being encyclopædia stuff, and what’s more, a name could refer to manifold storms. Just show them as derived terms (diff). ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 16:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The name Napoleon can refer to manifold individuals, but that is IMO not an argument to delete our entry Napoleon.  --Lambiam 10:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Napoleon and Katrina are not the same thing. Napoleon has been attested in literature to refer to Napoleon Bonaparte since the 19th century I guess, and hence is a longstanding term. What about Katrina? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 12:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of our criteria have requirements for more than a 3 year span because of the way language changes. You will find more recent names than Napoleon in our pages. DAVilla 11:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely keep Katrina per DAVilla. Neutral leaning to delete on the others unless cites can be found where the bare name is used and where it isn't blatantly obvious from the context that the name is referring to a hurricane. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Katrina. Maybe throw the other names in a category. – Jberkel 11:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ernesto but not all hurricanes. Katrina should be kept if any. DAVilla 11:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hurricane senses. Common metaphorical uses, which may be limited to Katrina, can have entries of the metaphorical sense. See Faustian, Kafkaesque. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

about[edit]

Adjective: "Near; in the vicinity or neighbourhood."

The usage examples are for adverbial use. I have not yet found a dictionary that has such a definition under the adjective PoS. DCDuring (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant adjectival definitions of "about" found in other dictionaries:
  • AROUND sense 2: There is a scarcity of jobs about. (M-W)
  • Being in evidence or existence: Rumors are about concerning his resignation. (AH)
  • (predicative) in existence, current, or in circulation: there aren't many about nowadays (Collins)
Although these definitions are written from a slightly different angle, which we could perhaps usefully reflect in ours, all seem essentially of the same nature as our examples "Watch out, there's a thief about" and "I had my keys just a minute ago, so they must be about somewhere". Mihia (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I somehow failed to notice that we do in fact have "In existence; being in evidence; apparent" as a separate sense. I would not oppose merging the two. Mihia (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, there is no adjective for about, so I think all three "senses" can be deleted and the usage examples reallocated to the adverb and preposition. DonnanZ (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The entire concept of adverbs being complements of the "be" verb, as in "a thief is about", is highly problematic and unsatisfactory in my opinion, and risks undermining the whole basis on which we distinguish predicate adjectives, albeit it may sometimes be a necessary evil in the absence of any better explanation. In this case, why would "about" in "a thief is about" be an adverb, while "present" in "a thief is present" be an adjective? Preposition would be arguable if, IMO, we are sure that an object is implied, as in e.g. "a thief is about the place" or "my keys are about the house somewhere", though there may be other schools that would wish to widen the scope of "preposition". I would say, however, unless we want to go wholesale down the route of widening the scope, which would presumably involve substantial changes to many articles, that it would be easier practically to have a fixed rule "no object, no preposition" to fall back on in these cases. Mihia (talk) 10:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021[edit]

A bunch more predictable English attributive forms[edit]

And pretty much any others at this subpage. My favourite is predator-bug, which may win a prize for the least likely usage example ever: This has a predator-bug taste—gross! Roger the Rodger (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck public-school as it's already listed above. I don't know if this is coded anywhere, but we shouldn't have two active RFD discussions for the same item. DAVilla 18:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I love the implication that one should already know what predator bugs taste like. Don't get me wrong- I understand that some bugs are quite tasty- but these are rare exotics that a few people keep as pets, and assassin bugs tend to have extremely painful bites. You definitely don't want to get close enough to taste one. But I digress... Chuck Entz (talk) 03:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily delete all.  --Lambiam 09:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't looked at them all individually. Where the content is just "attributive form of (noun)" and perhaps a usex, I would say delete. Equinox 12:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily delete based on our previous consensus. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining predictable English hyphenated attributive forms[edit]

(This applies only to “attributive form of” entries; the non-attributive noun pot-luck as an alternative form of potluck should remain.)  --Lambiam 10:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note present-participle, public-law, and puff-pastry are already part of the previous list. DAVilla 18:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you put these terms in a collapsible box just for ease of navigation? —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. It was missing the parameter for the number of columns. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now even less editable. I would say mass rejection, by saying no to mass extermination. DonnanZ (talk) 11:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would say get a bot to delete only those entries that are attributive forms only. If there are other senses (for example, a hyphenated form of a compound noun), can the bot delete only the attributive sense? — SGconlaw (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve never programmed a bot, but I think if a headword under the PoS Adjective has multiple senses with separate definitions, leave it alone. If it is the only sense, delete the whole Adjective section, and keep deleting parent nodes up to and including the page level if they have been voided in the sense of no longer containing any headwords. There is a complication though if there are several etymologies for a term, in which case the L2 section may require normalization (renumbering the etymologies, or removing the sole number and promoting its subsections because of an anomaly in how we represent the tree structure for a single etymology).  --Lambiam 08:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's safe to delete most of these. However, I would keep those that have other definitions, such as reverse-commute especially, and also at-sign, bad-boy, etc. Arguably barley-sugar is misdefined, as the quotation is a noun not an adjective use. So please use discretion. And by the way, the quotation at arm's-length would imply that there's an alternative form arms length without the apostrophe. DAVilla 19:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would lean towards keeping reasonable-person since it is particularly going to be used to reference the reasonable person standard. bd2412 T 05:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I didn't make it that far down the list. DAVilla 05:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have to double-check to make sure a hyphenated attributive term is not on this confounded list. DonnanZ (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Destroy with nuclear weapon all those that are defined as nothing more than attributive form of the component parts. Mihia (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect most per DAVilla, I think that we need to go more in-depth to see the individual content rather than mass deleting AG202 (talk) 06:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, probably not a good idea to do this by an automated method, as it is possible that some entries may have other senses or may be alternative forms of nouns. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

smoothrunning[edit]

Tagged but not listed. I propose moving to RFV. DAVilla 19:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If, for argument's sake, it survived RFV, would that not mean smooth-running passes WT:COALMINE? DonnanZ (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that hypothetical case, probably yes. DAVilla 21:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a rare misspelling whether or not there are three uses. Separate from that, I think the "coal mine" rule should be repealed. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vox Sciurorum: I do too, but see this... PUC – 10:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a coalminefield.  --Lambiam 11:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WT:COALMINE is common sense. We include attested words, and we include attested alternative spellings of attested words. Why would we exclude a common alternative spelling merely because the alteration was a space? bd2412 T 18:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's only common sense if you operate on the assumption that every attested meaningful string of characters spelled solidly (i.e. a "word") automatically deserves an entry; in that case, it indeed doesn't really make sense to exclude non-solid spellings that are vastly more common. But I don't adhere to this principle that every "word" deserves an entry (because I think solidly spelled "words" can also be SOP), and consequently I see COALMINE as a devious rule that allows inclusionists to keep what I consider unnecessary cruft that shouldn't be here. PUC – 18:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary's mission statement is "to describe all words of all languages". The definition of "word" clearly and squarely includes attested meaningful string of letters spelled solidly (though of course we exclude many attested meaningful strings of characters, such as large numbers). Editors should either be here to fulfill our stated mission, or get out of the way of those who are doing the work. bd2412 T 22:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think I'm doing on this website, exactly? Just busybodying and getting in the way of "those who are doing the work"? How preposterous. I may have offended you last week with my comment on gaslighting, but yours sounds even more insulting - good job.
Every time one tries to push back against proposals and policies that one sees as robotic and that allow (or would allow) its partisans to forgo any kind of rational discussion - one doing so to try to avoid turning the dictionary into a mindless repository of strings or a rehash of what's been done before - one gets accused of lacking "common sense", of "getting in the way", of being a "destroyer" (not your words, but I've heard it from people from your camp), or gets nothing more for an answer than a peremptory "all words of all languages" (which admittedly is a good slogan but should not be taken to the letter and should be refined a bit if we don't want to turn the dictionary into a caricature). That's exhausting. PUC – 00:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"This" is absurd; just because at one point in time, we were forced to use French type, doesn't mean that we should submit to þat imposition in þe modern world where þ is nigh universally in fonts. And I will bring þis up in every single discussion.
Or I could be a reasonable human being and accept that Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English is for discussing deletions for English entries under Wiktionary's current rules, and that discussions about changing those rules should be at Wiktionary:Beer parlour and other pages, and even then, bringing up the same issue over and over that general consensus has already decided on can be disruptive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread the discussion. I did not bring up the topic of coalmine here, Vox Sciurorum did. They were apparently unaware that there has been a recent vote on the topic, so I pointed it out to them. I admit I could have abstained from voicing my opinion about the policy for an umpteenth time while doing so; but I did it very briefly ("I do too [think it should be repealed]") and had no intention of relitigating the whole issue here. Then bd2412 stepped in to campaign in favour of coalmine, presenting it as "common sense" (does that imply that people like me who oppose it lack common sense?), so I felt justified in pushing back against that idea and exposing my point of view.
Let me also note that nobody here, neither Vox Sciurorum nor me, has been trying to short-circuit the process (not this time, at least), contrary to what bd2412 claims below: Vox Sciurorum wrote his remark about coalmine as a parenthesis ("Separate from that, I think the "coal mine" rule should be repealed" - emphasis mine), while I haven't even voted in this RFD. PUC – 09:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PUC: I apologize for implying that you are not doing the hard work on this project. Clearly you are a good and productive editor. At the same time, however, I do not think that the inclusion of the contested attested terms that we have been discussing (heat-resistent, nature lover, smooth-running) threaten to reduce the dictionary to a caricature. bd2412 T 17:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: It's all good, I've become too touchy on the subject anyway. I guess it's only fair that I get a little flak: RFD's being the most frustrating part of Wiktionary for me - to the point of my being infuriated by some exchanges here -, I haven't always been extremely pleasant either to people I was disagreeing with.
To be clear, I'm not overly fussed about the three entries you mention, though I still think it would be a mistake to keep them. What worries me are some of the arguments invoked to keep them. I think accepting those arguments as valid would open the door to a flurry of useless entries. PUC – 17:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rules are never common sense, they are devised to counter the lack thereof, and are unable to reproduce it, else they would be artificial intelligence. Only practitioners or originators of law can have common sense, it is clearly senseless to claim common sense being the words of a law, it is always arguing for one’s own common sense in pursuing the goals of the lawmaker with the lawbooks as a hopeful hint of common sense. Since the linearity of language—in which a mission is expressed—leaves only incomplete clues, with your literalist system you aren’t even trying to find common sense, bd2412. Fay Freak (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have not proposed to keep "smoothrunning"; I agree with editors who correctly say that it should be sent to RfV. If its existence can't be attested with durably archived citations, then it will be deleted per the rules of that board, and smooth-running will need some other basis if it is to be kept. It is no solution to say that this process should be short-circuited by doing away with WT:COALMINE, thereby leaving odd gaps in attested alternative spellings of attested terms. bd2412 T 02:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to RFV. (No reason to exclude it if it's common enough.) - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 23:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021[edit]

in my opinion[edit]

"In my opinion", this is SOP, because you can also say in my view, in my worldview, in my perspective, in my outlook on life, etc. where "in" is being used in the same way. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am more lenient to arguments for this phrase being set, however, because you wouldn't say something like "in my opinion on this topic, ..."; it's normally just said alone, while the below phrase being RFD'd (which I didn't realize was an entry until I saw it as a blue link) can be modified in this way. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good for phrasebook at least. Equinox 23:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Keep but move to phrasebook. In many languages, this is expressed using a phrase that isn't a direct translation. For instance, in French one might say "selon/d'après moi" (according to me). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fytcha (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

in my view[edit]

SOP PseudoSkull (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Facts707 (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

in one's opinion[edit]

SOP.  --Lambiam 11:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the challenged entries are kept,they should be moved (with adjustments) to in someone's opinion[3][4][5] and in someone's view.[6][7][8] Note that we also have entries for in my honest opinion and in my humble opinion, which have complex, fully identical {{non-gloss definition}}s, where I doubt whether people using these phrases actually mean what these definitions proclaim.  --Lambiam 12:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all three. AG202 (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

everything under the sun[edit]

SOP? I feel it's just everything + under the sun. --ItMarki (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"everything under the sun" is a common phrase and is easily cited in Collins, Cambridge, and the online "thefreedictionary"
also, a link to this synonymous phrase had already been located on the following page: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/everything_but_the_kitchen_sink 2602:306:CEC2:A3A0:A018:D0AF:7C22:6ED2 18:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to under the sun, to make clear the reason for that portion of the expression. bd2412 T 05:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite the definitions to be clearer. AG202 (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if everything that is possible is really a definition. DAVilla 05:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
May as well redirect. Equinox 22:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Furuba[edit]

(See the discussion at Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Non-English#Furuba#English, where it is lumped with similar Japanese terms. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC))[reply]

family (2)[edit]

RFD two adjective senses:

  1. Suitable for children and adults.
    It's not good for a date, it's a family restaurant.
    Some animated movies are not just for kids, they are family movies.
  2. Conservative, traditional.
    The cultural struggle is for the survival of family values against all manner of atheistic amorality.

These are attributive uses of the noun, not true adjectives (and btw the fact that one might be able to say "a very/more family restaurant" is not conclusive since e.g. one can equally say "a very New York expression" or "a more New York way to dress", and hopefully we are not going to allow an adjective sense of "New York").

However, if these attributive uses are deemed non-obvious from the general noun senses, they can be moved to an "attributive use" sense of the noun and defined there.

See also Wiktionary:Tea_room/2021/October#any_other_family and family (1) above. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Mihia (talkcontribs) at 10:10, 16 October 2021.

Note we have family values. Equinox 10:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lexico does include family as an adjective, with the sense "Designed to be suitable for children as well as adults." DonnanZ (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sense 1 is more plausible than sense 2, for which the only usex is not actually a usex of family but of family values, which as Equinox points out is a different entry, so delete sense 2. - -sche (discuss) 16:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sense 1. That is not an attributive use of the noun. The Borgias is a family show in the attributive-noun sense. It’s not a family show in this sense. Conversely, Monsters, Inc. is a family show in this sense but not in the attributive-noun sense. Lereman (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sense 1 per Lereman’s argument above. I don’t have any clear view on sense 2, family is non-attributive there too, to suggest otherwise is to claim that non-traditional families don’t exist but as this meaning of family doesn’t seem to exist outside of the set phrase family values then I’m leaning towards Delete. Overlordnat1 (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's nothing to say that there can't be more than one attributive sense: one is for families and the other is about families, but the noun is the same. Likewise, one of the few things that "woman hater" (female bigot) and "woman-hater" (misogynist) have in common is that both use "woman" as an attributive noun. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Upon deeper reflection and after looking at our family entry more closely, I think we should Delete adjective sense 1, as the same phrase family restaurant appears in noun sense 1 where an example of attributive use is given anyway. I think we should have another noun definition along the lines of ‘an immediate family consisting of a child or children and their married and cohabiting parents of opposite sex; a nuclear family’ and then not only could we move the usex about ‘family values’ there but we could include a usex or quote about the importance of the ‘family unit’. On that basis, I now say Delete both challenged adjective senses. Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve just added a noun definition consistent with the meaning of nuclear family, copied the usex to there and added another one mentioning the ‘family unit’. Ideally I’d add some non-attributive uses of this sense but it’s hard to provide quotes that unambiguously use the word this way. There is, however, the Conservative American organisation ‘Focus on the Family’ [9] which is clearly mainly concerned with nuclear families. Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

laugh with[edit]

Not a phrasal verb, everything should be documented at laugh. Redirect with {{senseid}}. PUC – 22:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

laugh at[edit]

Not a phrasal verb, everything should be documented at laugh. Redirect with {{senseid}}. PUC – 22:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked up “laugh at” as a reader, not as an editor. I was hoping to find how to say “laugh at” in French but the French translation isn't in there yet. Slightsmile (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "mocking, making fun of" sense is idiomatic and should be kept. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

series[edit]

The "adjective" series#Adjective, is not an adjective, but attributive as far as I can see. Terms like pre-series, in series and series-wound all come from the noun. I suggest moving the content (including the diagram) to the noun as an attributive sense. DonnanZ (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The given usex "You have to connect the lights in series for them to work properly" is clearly not adjectival, though it is possible to find e.g. "a series connection" (attributive argument might still apply). Equinox 13:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the usex would be more appropriate at in series. DonnanZ (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However, Donnanz, since series (noun) has 8 senses and connection (noun) has 11 senses, shouldn't we keep this, because non-electricians might not understand "series connection"? (your usual SoP logic) Equinox 20:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above "I suggest moving the content (including the diagram) to the noun as an attributive sense." So yes, we should keep it, but under a different heading. I could have moved it, but that would have left no content for the "adjective". DonnanZ (talk) 08:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As stated, the existing example, "connect the lights in series", is obviously not adjectival. Collins Dictionary lists an adjective sense with examples "a series circuit" and "a series generator". I couldn't find any other dictionaries that do. I am sceptical that these are true adjectival uses. I think they are attributive uses of the noun. Delete, but the electronics sense does merit separate mention in the noun section. Mihia (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seljuk[edit]

This concerns solely the listing of this and the subsequent terms under the PoS "Adjective". These various spellings are IMO not adjectives, but merely attributive uses of the noun or the proper noun. Also listing:

Saljuq[edit]

Saljūq[edit]

Seljuq[edit]

Seljuck[edit]

 --Lambiam 20:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam: There's also Saljuqid and Saljūqid with adjective senses. Fytcha (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In case this RfD passes, is there a way to preserve the translation box? At least the German entry (that I've added, for disclosure) is legitimate and not a homoglyph of any of the other senses. Could we move it to Saljuqian? Fytcha (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have left Saljuqid and several other forms alone because they are (IMO) true adjectives. The best spot for a table of adjectival translations is probably Seljukid, the more common English form in modern scholarship. Saljuqian is very rare.  --Lambiam 21:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IP was probably following copious examples. For some reason Kazakh and Uzbek and Mamluk are definitely adjectives (the latter unacknowledged on Wiktionary but clearly after Arabic grammar), and even for Turk we have an adjective section. In this case I do not find it necessary to think there are attributive uses of the proper noun but conversion of the noun to an adjective, without being much aware that the proper noun is the original. It is likely that grammar follows Arabic and particularly Turkic where adjectives and nouns are freely interchangeable. So it is not off and not wrong that IP thought so, such xenisms do follow non-English grammar, so your English-grammar based argument of “attributive use” is bare unimpressive. Fay Freak (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a basis for invoking the concept of xenism? If these words are truly xenisms, perhaps they should not be listed under the L2 of English. Why is Seljuk any more an adjective than Yorkshire?  --Lambiam 15:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lambiam: We include a lot which is well reckoned xenistic. I spoke in comparison to the viewpoint of “normal dictionaries” which forgo to include such terms as on the very periphery of the language. Anyhow it would be overly essentialist to argue the syntactic category of the terms only after such classification, as the point stands that various contingents of a language attach by various degrees to the rules of other languages, before it behoved any lexicographer to pigeonhole them, as being a part of a language but not another, however the users of these words of occasion had perceptions of their syntactic category already. This is the ratio by which foreign grammar can prevail over native analogy. Fay Freak (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I fathom the portent of your verbiage, an unstated premise in the underlying implicit syllogism is that the Ottoman donors attached an adjectival category to their term سلجوق‎, a supposition for which I discern no supporting evidence.  --Lambiam 08:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably more of an RFV question, but: keep Seljuk; I can find plenty of citations where things "became Seljuk" (not "became Seljuk vassals", just "became Seljuk" like "became British" or "became destitute") or were "more Seljuk than Byzantine/Ottoman", etc. The translations would also seem to support keeping it, as would the WT:LEMMINGs: Merriam-Webster, Lexico, Dictionary.com, Collins etc all have it as an adjective as well as a noun. - -sche (discuss) 22:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021[edit]

they say[edit]

Previously discussed at Wiktionary:Tea_room/2021/October#they_say. Sorry, but I don't see this as anything more than sense #3 at they, "People; some people; people in general; someone, excluding the speaker". You may as well have any verb. Indeed, "they say" is already one of the examples at they. Mihia (talk) 11:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request translations. I agree with Mihia that the use of they here is nebulous. It is up to the reader/listener to determine or guess at the actual scope implied by the context and the speaker. That is not restricted to they; the scope of we, you, us, them, even he, she, it is not always clear. That being said, it is very common and it is quite plausible that people would look it up here. Perhaps translations can shed some light. If in some language the nebulous they meaning is clearly implied in some particular word that expresses "they say" then it may pass via WT:COALMINE. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is "COALMINE" relevant? There is no "theysay". Or are you suggesting that "theysay" in a different language should justify "they say" in English via "COALMINE"? Gawd help us. Mihia (talk) 01:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The meaning of they in the phrase is ambiguous in line with the usual contextual ambiguity of they and other pronouns. An analogy might be "she said", with the meaning of she depending perhaps on someone earlier in the sentence, perhaps a domineering aunt, etc. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Conflatuman (talkcontribs) at 04:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Abstain, I created it based on an earlier Tea Room discussion and lemmings, but I concede that the case for it is weak. - -sche (discuss) 21:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mihia, Facts707, -sche I've added translations in case this changes anything for you. I think keeping this as a THUB (or even phrasebook?) is fine. Fytcha (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do those translations apply uniquely to the verb "say", or are they instances of more general patterns? Mihia (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both my translations are instances of more general patterns that express how things are usually done (German man + verb, Romanian se + verb). Fytcha (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that parallel SoP translations are, or should be, reason to keep a phrase as a THUB. There would be no end to it. In my view, THUBs should be used only when translations in multiple languages are completely unlike word-for-word translations of the English. Mihia (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think Chinese 据说 should count as a non-SOP translation. Thai ว่ากันว่า might be another. General Vicinity (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although I can only find one idiomatic translation. The existence of lemmings confirms my belief that it's a set phrase that people might want to look up to see how it's expressed in other ways or other languages. Also lemmings prevent the "there would be no end to it" problem. --General Vicinity (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ooh eken in Crimean Tatar looks interesting. --General Vicinity (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK es heißt looks good for the second one needed for a THUB. General Vicinity (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fytcha, Mihia, -sche, Facts707 two idiomatic translations now. General Vicinity (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Justinrleung: Could you please confirm that the Chinese translation is idiomatic? — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 18:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fytcha: Yes, the Chinese translation is idiomatic. I would add others, like 聽說. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Justinrleung: Thank you for confirming. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 18:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 18:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At least keep as a translation hub. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

get off to a good start[edit]

SOP. This would also fail Imetsia's new SOP test as there are also the variants "(get/be) off to a (good/great/bad/...) start". --Fytcha (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to off to a good start and restructure for that definition. bd2412 T 20:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thinking about this more deeply, I think that "off to a bad start" is a more problematic phrase, since someone who did not know the meaning could assume it was the sense of off as in something being off (basically any of adjective senses 1, 2, 4-7). bd2412 T 23:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An additional possibility is that "off to (something)", in this sense, may be a listable idiomatic combination not limited to use with "start". E.g. I can find "off to a flier/flyer", "She was on track to graduate and her team was off to a winning season", "Chad Johnson's boxing debut was off to a surprisingly impressive showing until midway through the fourth round ... ", "Clearly, his career was off to a meteoric beginning.", "Szabo, a right-handed pitcher from Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, was off to a great season in 2020 for the Mountain Lions." Mihia (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An entry for off to might suffice. I think part of the conceptual problem with "get off to a [qualifier] start" entries is that getting off to something imports possible meanings of get off, which can itself mean to start (as in get off on the wrong foot). In other words, the phrase could be read as something like "to start towards a [qualifier] start". bd2412 T 02:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uses like “We are off to a promising second year of operations”[10] and “they skated off to a happy future”[11] show that off to a good start is indeed too restrictive. But is the meaning not just a non-literal use of what we see in “I’m off to the war”[12] and “It’s off to work we go”[13]?  --Lambiam 18:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see the use of "off to" in "We are off to a promising second year of operations", in the intended meaning, as analogous to "off to a good start", but noticeably distinct from "skated off to a happy future", "off to the war" and "off to work", which are more easily explicable as "off" + "to". The difference may reside mostly in the sense of "to". Whether the former use could reasonably be called a "non-literal" form of the latter seems doubtful to me. Mihia (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Semantically, there seems to be a distinction between a state and a direction. One could paraphrase "off to a good start" as "beginning well", while "off to work" is more like "beginning to go toward work". Also, "off to work" seems like away from the current location to somewhere else, with the same connotation as "be off!". I'm not sure in what part of the expression this information resides. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In "off to work", I see "off" as sense #9, "Started on the way", and "to" as essentially sense #1, "In the direction of". Thus these are separable, e.g. "Time to go to work. I'm off!". In "off to a good start", "off" could still be explained as sense #9, but is the meaning of "to" separable and existing outside this combination? Mihia (talk) 11:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given the high number of variations, as mentioned above ("off to a winning season", "off to a lousy start", etc), I think. - -sche (discuss) 05:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I agree with sche's analysis of the thread that the number of variations is just too many. Achieving a medium level of English likely requires knowing multiple senses of "off" including "off to". I doubt many dictionaries have "on the way to a good start", etc. but this requires some knowledge of "way" and "on". If absolutely necessary it could be a phrasebook entry. Facts707 (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mihia. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 00:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bagheera[edit]

Not the generic Cub Scout leader sense, but the proper noun: "A fictional panther character in Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book." Equinox 06:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some other uses as cat's names on google books. None Shall Revert (talk) 12:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Kipling-specific sense; I don't think we want entries for every mononymic fictional character; compare Talk:Kaguya (about an individual real animal). If it's reasonably common as a name for a cat, I guess we could include that and mention Kipling in the etymology (unless it predates him), like we include given names (Matt, etc). - -sche (discuss) 01:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If someone really thinks they can sufficiently cite an attributive sense we could move to RFV, but for now I vote to delete. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 00:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

give someone static[edit]

I believe that this is using the same definition currently at static: "Verbal abuse." I think it may be extended to harsh criticism as well. See also "got some static" on Google Books. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had never heard of it, apparently it's American English. DonnanZ (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as readers can easily look up static. But certainly if there are more senses they can be added there. Facts707 (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's another one of these where the meaning can be deduced based on the parts but I still see value in recording the fact that "to give someone static" is idiomatic (sense 1) while "to bestow verbal abuse upon someone" is not. Also, keep per lemming. Fytcha (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

get a rise out of, get a rise, get a rise from[edit]

? Hardly give rise to though, in spite of rise having sufficient definitions. This idiomaticity stuff is complicated. Reminds me of Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English#SOPs in Category:Hindi compound verbs with base verb करना, and the endless entries with Persian كَردَن(kardan) (→ what links there)– if even that is kept, how to proceed with all that?

You forgot to add these to Category:English light verb constructions, meseems. Fay Freak (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, SOP with "rise" sense 8 (just updated by me). Facts707 (talk) 09:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021[edit]

reel[edit]

I may be ignorant, but surely A machine on which yarn is wound and measured into lays and hanks, —-- for cotton or linen it is fifty-four inches in circuit; for worsted, thirty inches. is the same as the previous definition A kind of spool, turning on an axis, on which yarn, threads, lines, or the like, are wound Notusbutthem (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Send to RFV: this seems to refer to a powered machine that does work, and not a mere spool for thread like you'd buy at a craft shop. Equinox 22:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

prior knowledge[edit]

Sense 3 is definitely the sum of its parts (knowledge that is prior); sense 1 refers specially to experience, but the usage example implies that experience is being construed widely enough to cover any acquisition of knowledge, in which case it is the same as sense 3. I abstain, however, on sense 2, which is a legal term of art, and which was the only sense to formally pass RFD back in 2006. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the usage of "A judge is disqualified if he or she has prior personal knowledge of evidentiary facts regarding a proceeding before the judge." (from Judicial Conduct and Ethics) I abstain though. General Vicinity (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since this was brought about by my comments, I feel an obligation to weigh in. Delete sense 3 and keep sense 1 & 2. AG202 (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definition 1 is specifically about previous experience, not just any possible knowledge derived from experience, even though that is now absent from the definition. Similarly for definition 2, is about knowledge available to a suspect prior to the wrongful act. No lemmings either. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replace sense 3 with &lit. DAVilla 22:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not convinced that sense 1 and 3 are meaningfully different and idiomatic. Should both be merged into one {{&lit}}. Fytcha (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replace sense 3 with {{&lit}}. Abstaining on sense 1 for now. Graham11 (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion of I can wait as can wait[edit]

See Talk:I can wait. I wasn't around for that RFD discussion. I think this should be kept because the SOP argument doesn't hold up (despite the last consensus). Example sentence:

Person A: "I can't wait for this movie to come out." Person B: "I can wait."

"I can wait" in this sentence does not simply mean "I am able to wait". It has a deeper meaning, more like "I am not particularly eager to do something like you are." PseudoSkull (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I changed the vote to put the lemma at can wait, since, though much rarer, I'm sure it's possible to say "John can certainly wait." or something similar. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is also, “What’s the hurry? It can wait.” If this be SOP, I’m unclear which sense of wait covers this use.  --Lambiam 12:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"to remain neglected or in readiness" General Vicinity (talk) 13:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think "John can certainly wait" is unusable unless "I can't wait" or something has been said previously, because the regular sense of "wait" dominates General Vicinity (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's something to this, but I wonder if it shouldn't just be covered at wait. DAVilla 22:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning undelete, with conditions. I think the definition that was there previously is SOP, but I think there was/is a missing gloss of the use of the phrase to mean that stalling will not be an effective tactic, e.g.: Shayla Black, His to Take (2015), p. 29: “You don't want to answer me? All right. I can wait. I've got all afternoon. How about you?” bd2412 T 23:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete per nom. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 00:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022[edit]

ocker[edit]

rfd-sense pertaining to an ocker. All the citations just look to me like attributive-noun use Br00pVain (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the quotes are genuine, the comparative "more ocker" occurs in three of them. On that basis, the adjective should remain. DonnanZ (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The case for adjectivity is quite borderline, since gradation with "more"/"most is not 100% conclusive ("that's the most New York thing", "that's the most Angela Merkel attitude", etc), and a lot of the citations look like attributive nouns, as Br00p says. I did find and add one citation of "ockerest". - -sche (discuss) 20:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A more common adjective might be ockerish. But I'm a Kiwi, not an Aussie. DonnanZ (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As an Australian, ocker is definitely adjectival. One cite uses "ockerest", which albeit jocular is still clearly adj. Another cite has "more ocker than". Also, Lemming can be invoked: Macquarie Dict., Australian National Dict., Oxford Concise, etc. Have added 2 more cites (1984, 2005) where it is clearly adjectival. Also changed the def. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

subway car[edit]

WT:SOP. Additionally, the reference provided is not a lemming: The site just shows a couple of automatically filtered example sentences. Search engine output does not constitute a lemming. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 02:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning keep, but the definition needs work. "A passenger vehicle in a subway train" sounds like a vehicle that goes back and forth inside the subway. bd2412 T 00:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is the def better now? Keep anyway, it's NOFSOP (not obvious from sum of parts). DonnanZ (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not obvious? subway sense 2 "An underground railway, especially for mass transit of people in urban areas. " + car sense 5 "A passenger-carrying unit in a subway or elevated train, whether powered or not." — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 02:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really, though? bd2412 T 17:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one! DonnanZ (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Subway" and "subway" are not the same. Our entry titles take capitalisation into account. Equinox 09:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can write "on a New York Subway car" or "on a subway car in New York". DonnanZ (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Equinox: The car doesn't say "Subway", though; it says "SUBWAY", which can be parsed as any capitalization the reader can think of. Also, what about this (Elon Musk's subterranean car tunnel), or this scene of "subway cars"? bd2412 T 19:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So what is that supposed to mean for Wiktionary? I can spray SHIT on a car? Does that attest "shit car"? What point are you trying to make, dude? Equinox 05:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Equinox: Surely you know that the phrase "shit car" occurs almost exclusively within the larger phrase, "piece of shit car". The point in this case, however, is that there are numerous meanings of "subway" and "car" and the common meaning specific to the combination of them is less obvious. bd2412 T 22:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: Yes, many words are polysemous. How does this escape our long-existing "brown leaf" benchmark? Equinox 17:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have an entry for brown leaf, for a nonidiomatic sense of the term. I expect that this meaning of "car" is sufficiently overshadowed by the most common meaning of "car" that a person seeing the phrase "subway car" might legitimately be confused as to what kind of "car" is intended. bd2412 T 18:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An editor who thinks he "knows it all" shouldn't assume that passive users can piece together the parts like he can. That is the height of arrogance. This entry should do it for them. DonnanZ (talk) 09:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if this term is entry-worthy or not, but you might as well use this collocation as a usage example at the subway entry: {{ux|en|subway car|t=a passenger compartment which is one of several in a subway train, used on a subway}}. I think it’s the compromise we badly need for non-obvious SoPs like this. The |t= parameter is already used to translate some obscure Early Modern English quotes, so this idea should not be problematic. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep per bd2412. AG202 (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – obviously SOP as per Fytcha.  --Lambiam 19:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Jberkel 20:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Must have been spending too much time around the brown-leaf OED. Equinox 05:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - TheDaveRoss 15:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would this be a useful entry for translations? Are their other languages where "subway car" is translated differently than "train car"? bd2412 T 16:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. Synonyms would be metro car, Tube car, Tube carriage, underground car, etc. DonnanZ (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What are they called in other languages, though? bd2412 T 04:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
German U-Bahn-Wagen and Romanian vagon de metrou. Boring! — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 04:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by TLFI (sv voiture, section C.), it's "voiture de métro" in French. I believe in Spanish it's "coche de metro" or "vagon de metro" or both. The problem is that a subway is just another type of railroad as far as the terminology goes, so the parts of a subway train have basically the same names as the parts of any passenger train. After all, there are passenger rail routes where the same train travels both above and below ground- if you board aboveground in the suburbs somewhere and alight in a subway station downtown, is it a subway car or a passenger-rail car? Chuck Entz (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It depends, I think, whether the above-ground passages are uncommon. A regular railroad train passing through a long tunnel certainly doesn't become a subway. bd2412 T 07:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

many-branched[edit]

Look clearly SOP to me VealSociedad (talk) 12:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have an adverb definition of many though. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 13:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A synonym of multibranched or multi-branched. DonnanZ (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The etymology section analyzes this as {{compound|en|many|{{suffix|en|branch|ed}}}}, but I think this is {{suffix|en|[[many]] [[branch|branch(es)]]|ed}}, that is “having many branches” (see -ed § Etymology 3). We have entries for several analogously formed words, such as many-coloured and many-sided, which to me feel just as much a SOP.  --Lambiam 21:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on comment: as branched is a valid adjective, {{af|en|many|branched}} would suffice: multibranched uses "branched". DonnanZ (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between the bracketing (many- + (branch + -ed )) and ((many + branch) + -ed ). Although “n + 1” is by itself a valid mathematical formula, you cannot replace “2 × n + 1” by “2 × (n + 1)”.  --Lambiam 11:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no many- prefix. DonnanZ (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

bitcoin maximalist, bitcoin maximalism[edit]

Looks SOP, or is this a different usage of maximalist? – Jberkel 00:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a sufficiently distinct phrase, unless you want to add a meaning to maximalist/maximalism
  • We define maximalism as "a tendency toward excess", contrasted with minimalism. So, you would use the word to describe a work of art that goes all out, or to contrast someone's lush luxurious lifestyle to that of an ascetic, for instance. On the other hand, the use of maximalism in 'bitcoin maximalism' is more like "a belief in superiority" (similar to supremacism, perhaps, without as many negative connotations).
  • The entry maximalist is not much better. It provides two adjectival definitions, one of which applies to art and the other to science, and neither of which relates to bitcoin maximalist. Moving on to the correct part of speech, the sole nominal definition, "someone who prefers redundancy or excess", does not capture exactly the right sense either; although bitcoin maximalists may tend to invest in their favorite crypto asset to a degree that others would call excessive, the core definition relates to a belief.
A bitcoin maximalist is not necessarily a crypto-rich bitcoin investor who lives lavishly, as the literal sum of parts would imply. 70.172.194.25 06:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the definition of maximalist/maximalism needs tweaking. I've seen the word used in other contexts, such as “metaverse maximalist”. And why shouldn't there be Ethereum maximalists? – Jberkel 08:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if maximalism can be expanded to encompass that sense then bitcoin maximalism would probably be SOP. Although perhaps I could see a case for keeping it and saying the others are derived by analogy, since AFAIK that was the origin of this specific genre of compounds (à la WT:JIFFY). 70.172.194.25 09:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll take a look at expanding these entries. – Jberkel 10:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've overhauled maximalist, and there's nothing which directly suggests the usage in bitcoin maximalist. The phrase is attributed to Vitalik Buterin, who is of Russian origin, so perhaps it's a reference to one of the political senses related to Russia. – Jberkel 11:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I question the definitions at bitcoin maximalism. While a bitcoin maximalist may indeed believe bitcoin is superior to other cryptocurrencies or to money, I think that's only one effect/aspect of what the term seems to mean, which is a view that bitcoin should be used for as much as possible (which necessarily entails thinking or claiming bitcoin is better to use for those purposes than other cryptocurrencies, etc). No? And this sense of maximalism obviously predates bitcoin; you can just as well have a maximalist view of states' rights vis-a-vis the EU, etc. Our entry on maximalism needs to be expanded. - -sche (discuss) 00:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cocaine addict[edit]

If this is included, even as a translation hub, there is no limit to the addictive substances/activities that can be added. The translations all seem to follow a predictable pattern which could hopefully be handled at addict General Vicinity (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vininn126 (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing is, what should happen to the translations? Moving them to cokehead feels wrong because that term is derogatory and slang, so I guess we'd delete them? — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 18:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have a problem moving the translations to cokehead. Isn't cocaine addict derogatory? bd2412 T 19:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although I wouldn't recommend being a cocaine addict, I don't regard the term as derogatory, unlike cokehead. It seems ridiculous to move the translations to a derogatory term, so I think this must be kept, if only for the translations. DonnanZ (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This illustrates an illogical flaw in removing SOP terms, where a two-word term acceptable in normal formal language could be removed, yet a single-word compound derogatory synonym always seems to remain. There is plenty wrong in some users' attitude towards two-word terms like this. DonnanZ (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a suggested test along the lines of COALMINE? General Vicinity (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think COALMINE applies here, so common sense should apply instead. DonnanZ (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Donnanz:, I don't read General Vicinity as suggesting that COALMINE applies, but that there should be a comparable test for translation hubs for nonderogatory/nonslang constructions for which translations would otherwise be placed at the derogatory/slang title. I think there are benefits to such a rule, but I also think it would depend on whether the translations themselves were nonderogatory/nonslang in their language of origin. bd2412 T 04:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So how do we feel about coke addict television addict smartphone addict crack addict videogame addict meth addict etc? --General Vicinity (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They may attract unwelcome attention if they were created. There's no problem at the moment, so that bridge can be crossed later. DonnanZ (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should collect addictions, to go the full hog. 🤷🏼‍♂️ We will learn something about SOPs in general, specifically why drug addict and sex addict are general enough to be perceived as idiomatic sums of parts while others would be NISOP. And such a lexicon may be useful for medical discoveries, as the first step in diagnosis is to know that a certain ailment pattern even exists. As these are multicausal, it is always difficult to reduce them to general ideas, which is an argument that from the empirical point of view of a physician they aren’t SOP either. Fay Freak (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as t-hub at the very least. Also, I'd suggest maybe avoiding the slippery slope for now. AG202 (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 01:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

growing[edit]

falling[edit]

surrounding[edit]

serving[edit]

spinning[edit]

I have struck the ones not being discussed. List separately if you must. DonnanZ (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFD-sense the adjectives; they're just present participle with no additional meanings. Compare them to present participles that actually carry additional information in their adjectival senses, like becoming or eating. See also the RFD-deleted #spiring. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 03:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vininn126 (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although it is also a present participle, it is definitely an adjective, and that assertion is utter nonsense. Four references now bear testimony. DonnanZ (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's as much an adjective as any other present participle. Do you want to have two parts of speech, verb and adjective, for every single -ing word? Compare this to eating which actually has a true adjective sense that is distinct from the present participle. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 13:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, maybe not, it depends. But the evidence of this as an adjective is there, so why argue the toss? DonnanZ (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's essentially the same information doubled, as it's already there in the active participle information. We don't have a habit of doubling information - and if we do, usually it's removed. And tbh the noun senses feel like they might be covered by the gerund as well. We don't need all the same information 3 times. Vininn126 (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Donnanz – Where is that evidence? I don’t see it. Did someone remove it? Milk is good for growing children.Chicken manure is good for growing potatoes.[14]  --Lambiam 17:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lambiam: Milk is good for growing children is included as a usex; it could be rephrased as Milk is good for a growing child.. I don't know whether the chicken manure one was ever included, but growing as used there seems to be a present participle. I did add a quote to grow today, dangers to trespassers, especially children, are growing [increasing]. DonnanZ (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The bit in small print was just a joke. The question remains. When the Titanic is sinking, she is a sinking ship. When Titania is growing, she is a growing child. Are both adjectives? Are all present participles adjectives? If not, how is growing different?  --Lambiam 00:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say yes, definitely an adjective in both cases, as growing is preceded by "a". DonnanZ (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the English Wikipedia on Modern English Participles, you get this: "Participles, or participial phrases (clauses) formed from them, are used as follows:
1. As an adjective used in an attributive sense", so while they do work that way, it's already implied by having the entry list "present participle". That covers its 1) usage in the "continuous" tenses, 2) its adjectival use and 3) its gerund use. Why should we separate them when it's already built into the definition of "present participle"? Vininn126 (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wish that editors wouldn't add other terms after the debate has started. First of all, adjectives need not be comparable, that is a popular misconception. And what about the combinations, fast-growing, ever-growing, are they not adjectives? "The children are growing" uses the present participle, "there is a growing feeling" the adjective. May I also say that even if this is deleted, there is nothing to stop another editor reinstating it, as the page will remain. DonnanZ (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re "comparable": I never said it has to be comparable, I don't think anybody ever has said that all adjectives are comparable as that would be patently absurd. Nobody disputes that nominative is an adjective.
Re "nothing to stop another editor reinstating it": Wrong. I am stopping them. Re-adding RFD-deleted terms without consensus is not allowed. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 14:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that adminship has gone to this user's head. DonnanZ (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't change the fact you shouldn't touch those things until the debate is over. Vininn126 (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you're talking about. The only edits I have made to growing are adding references. As a normal RFD notice says (but not in this case) "You may continue to edit this entry while the discussion proceeds." DonnanZ (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one said anything about comparability, and the the evidence of derived terms is not evidence that they are adjectives. It's simply an adverb + a participle, nothing more. Vininn126 (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think it's well established that -ing can be used to create adjectives as well as the present participles of verbs; indeed, this is what etymology 3, sense 2 of our entry says: "Having a specified quality, characteristic, or nature; of the kind of". Moreover, all of the entries nominated above are marked as having an adjective sense by the OED, so I'd say the lemming principle applies. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes they can, which is exactly why we shouldn't record this information in every single -ing entry. To give another point of reference: Almost all German and Romanian adjectives can, without morphological alteration, also be used adverbially; would you be in favor of adding identical adverb senses to almost all Category:German adjectives and Category:Romanian adjectives? Note also that we have RFD-deleted #spiring, so keeping these nominations here is just making the dictionary internally inconsistent. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 17:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t know either German or Romanian so I can’t comment as to those languages. I also don’t know if it’s the case that in English every present participle of a verb can be used adjectivally. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that 99% of English participles can be used adjectivially - that's... more or less their job. Vininn126 (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I oppose the inclusion of these "trivial part-of-speech conversions" that come with absolutely no semantic, orthographic nor phonetic change, for the reasons that 1. they bloat the dictionary immensely 2. the information presented therein is a general property of the language's grammar, not of the individual words 3. they make looking up interesting information harder (like, finding all non-trivial adjectives that are born out of present participles in the case of English) 4. the use of including them is extremely marginal (once you know the grammar rule that present participles can be used adjectivally, they all become self-evident). I don't think a very small percentage of outliers justifies the inclusion either; those should probably be put in a category rather (if they even exist, which remains to be seen in the case of English present participles). — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 21:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This should IMO apply to all present participles that have no other adjectival sense than the predictable “that verbs”.  --Lambiam 12:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to this discussion, I have now created Wiktionary:Votes/2022-01/Excluding trivial present participal adjectives. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 13:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a worrying development. Pending the outcome of that vote, any decision on these ones should be suspended. DonnanZ (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

falling[edit]

surrounding[edit]

serving[edit]

spinning[edit]

Moved out of the other RFD upon DonnanZ's request. My rationale is exactly the same one though, see my comments at #growing. Most importantly, I don't deny that these present participles can be used adjectivally (like other things as User:Vininn126 stated), I simply deem that not inclusion-worthy for these 100% transparent cases (see my comment starting with "I oppose the inclusion of these "trivial part-of-speech conversions""). Please note that we RFD-deleted #spiring by consensus already so keeping any of these makes the dictionary internally inconsistent. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 12:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Fytcha. No one is denying they can be used adjectivally - just trying to not double mark information. Vininn126 (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I meant completely separate listings, but this will have to do.
Definitely keep falling and surrounding. I'm not sure about the latter two at the moment, they need further thought. But I suspect not enough effort has been made by the user to study where a present participle is used, likewise for the adjective. It is far too simplistic to combine the two, and is a massive slap in the face for the many users who believe they are adjectives, and created the entries. So these RFDs deserve to fail. You shouldn't impose your own cock-eyed belief on the dictionary, it's not in the dictionary's interest. DonnanZ (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're claiming that we are saying they aren't adjectives. We aren't. Please read my above comment. Vininn126 (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then keep them as adjectives! There is absolutely no sense in removing them. DonnanZ (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's dupiclate information??? Vininn126 (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. DonnanZ (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DonnanZ, I ask you to cease the bullying behavior and personal attacks towards me. I am not "imposing" anything, I am not "cock-eyed", nothing about my conduct is "worrying", nothing has "gone to my head", and neither do I think I have displayed "poor judgment" in the last couple of RFD discussions. I can't help but interpret your conduct as personal bullying towards me (likely motivated by your dislike for my RFD nominations) for the reason that there's absolutely no objective grounds for that unprovoked, off-topic, snide comment of yours made in #Big Red. Also, let me apologize for the snide reply I gave thereupon. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 14:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's rather rich. You yourself are being a bully, I feel, pushing your own PoV as hard as you can. I was accused of that once, many years ago. I am not attacking you personally, just what you believe in. What's wrong with that? DonnanZ (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't been. Many of your comments have been rather personal. Vininn126 (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a matter of opinion. I will take back the comments even though they weren't meant to be personal, but I still strongly oppose the beliefs of you two and won't change my views. DonnanZ (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is time to discuss this at the Beer parlour as an issue involving general lexicographic principles, rather than by fighting this fight participle by participle – of which there are a zillion more and then some.  --Lambiam 10:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lambiam: Agreed, will do. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 16:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

go outside[edit]

I find this somewhat similar to "go to one's room" where the "extra meaning" is usually either just non-existent or implied. —Svārtava [tcur] 04:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. This one definitely doesn't feel as literal as go to one's room with the given sense. AG202 (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep non-obvious meaning. --Rishabhbhat (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as SOP per nom. But I can also see the argument that it's comparable to take a hike or take a walk or even go away. Imetsia (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to RfV to provide citations establishing the nonidiomatic component of the definition, i.e., that it is an insult. bd2412 T 17:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another sense? As I recall this sometimes meant an (invitation to) fight. "I've had it with you. Do you want to go outside? —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Facts707 (talkcontribs) at 09:40, 18 January 2022‎.
  • Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AG202 and User:Facts707 (the fight meaning definitely exists and should be included in this entry, rather than the whole entry being deleted). Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Besides the other potential meanings, I have an ESL friend who thinks eating at a restaurant is going "outside", so it may be more idiomatic that we realize. DAVilla 06:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFD-kept by no-consensus. AG202 (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

once you go black, we don't want you back[edit]

This discussion moved from RFV:

(Added by an IP today, also to here.) Gets very few results even on Google and nothing on Books that I've spotted so far; closest I've spotted is this extended version:

  • 2012, Tucker Max, Sloppy Seconds: The Tucker Max Leftovers, page 201:
    You know the saying, 'Once you go black, you never go back.'” Tucker “No, you have it wrong. The saying is 'If you're fat, you HAVE to go black . . . and because of that, we don't WANT you back.'”

- -sche (discuss) 20:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This derogatory phrase looks like it can be cited based on Usenet results. I don't think you'll find many print sources, however. 70.172.194.25 20:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cited. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 20:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should have once you go black and then delete this as SoP. I'm sure there's other variations on the second part of the phrase, and while the first part is somewhat not SoP, the second part clearly is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If "go black" can be attested outside of such phrases, that in itself might merit an entry, making "once you go black" SOP. Although... if "go white", etc. can also be attested, then perhaps a sense should be added to go (it's not 10, 13, or 14 because "going black" is not the same as "becoming black"; maybe it's 33, though). 70.172.194.25 21:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I hadn't considered that, but yes, I can see how it's arguably SOP. ("Once you go black you (don't|never) go back" is at least a very set phrase, so might be more keepable than variations on it, like this.) I added a citation of "go Asian" to Citations:go, but it's hard to find uses outside of the construction "once you go X, you Y", because there's so much interference from cases where "go" means "become", even in the context of sex and dating, like this where "go white" is in reference to using skin-lightening creams. It's easier to find variations in the object of "once you go...", like these (Asian, white, gay, ...); I can also find variations like "if you go..." and "when you go...". - -sche (discuss) 14:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are many variations sharing the first clause and ending on a rhyming “back”: “once you go black, they won't let you back”,[16] “once you go black there’s no turning back”,[17] “once you go black there’s no going back”,[18] “once you go black you can’t go back”,[19] “once you go black you won’t go back”.[20]  --Lambiam 20:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This looks to me like an issue for RFD, not RFV, as it clearly exists as a set phrase. Kiwima (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Facts707 I'm ambivalent about the main phrase in question, but for once you go black, you never go back, it's completely different from "screw the system" or "white people suck" as those are not nearly as fixed phrases and their meanings are way clearer (pretty much at face value). Also, with proverbs like that in general, I don't think that they'd fall under SOP by principle as there's a hidden meaning behind it. Even if you were to create go black, the implied meaning of "going back to one's own ethnicity group" is not covered in go back, so even then, it wouldn't fall under SOP. Strong keep for that one if it's ever officially submitted to RFD. AG202 (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, I don't see how those are "set phrases"... Equinox 19:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt very much that this entry is needed, and have no objection to its deletion. DonnanZ (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not SoP as it stands, keep as such. We don't have a sense of go + obj. that means "have sexual relations with people that are" + obj. and we don't have a sense for we that means "me and all members of your/my racial group". Even back could be said to be idiomatic in this phrase. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 13:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The entry stinks of white American male prejudice against black men (with their alleged sexual prowess). It's inflammatory, and dubious material for us. DonnanZ (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Completely irrelevant, please refer to WT:CFI. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 14:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is that even related? By that logic we must delete much of English derogatory terms --Rishabhbhat (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s great. It means the entry is accurate and thus a boon to our dictionary; after all, the proverb in question is used by white American males prejudiced against black men. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Fytcha, that's only a shortcoming in the entry, since the sense was cited before the RFD began. I've added a sense, although I think the wording could use improvement (and there might even be two senses). (At least some uses of "go [race]" do overlap with the second usex of sense 13, as This,that says.) Off-topic, this means me wonder where (if at all) we cover this food-related sense ("go Chinese tonight"). - -sche (discuss) 22:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@-sche: I see and I agree, in that case the go part of the argument isn't valid. I still posit that this phrase and once you go black, you never go back have very similar levels of idiomaticity. In the mentioned phrase, what is not obvious is what is not gone back to; in this one it is who "we" are. What's more, I think back is not used exactly as our sense 2 defines: It is not necessary that a person has previously dated non-black people for this phrase to be applicable. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 13:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons already given. DonnanZ (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The second usex under sense 13 at go matches the sense in this phrase, although the definition needs work (and perhaps should be split off from the "go into debt" sense). Some other contexts in which it is used: I've heard someone express regret of their choice of phone provider by saying "why didn't I go X?" where X is another phone provider, and the TV show Go 8 Bit has a catch phrase along the lines of "Let's go 8 bit!". This, that and the other (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly comparable: Wiktionary:Tea_room/2021/April#if_you're_not_Dutch,_you're_not_much. Equinox 19:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Who is we? Where is back? This phrase is more opaque than the majority of our English proverbs. I can’t see an average person interpreting it accurately unless they already know what it means or context is overwhelming. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"We" is the group the speaker claims (by using "we") to be speaking for, like any other use of "we", no? "We will fight them on the beaches", "we don't normally use {{en-noun}} for this", etc. (I'm ambivalent about whether or not this is enough of a stock phrase to be keepable, but I think the use of "we" is no different from usual.) - -sche (discuss) 22:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, but I’ll add that we will fight them on the beaches is also used idiomatically. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ungoliant. --Rishabhbhat (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that once you go black likely exists as a clipping of the longer phrase; see:
    • 2009, Carleen Brice, Children of the Waters: A Novel, p. 78: “Is it true what they say about once you go black . . . .”
    • 2014, Sam Leonard, Messenger from God: A Story of Fate and Faith, p. 183: “What did I say about once you go black?” “Lila, if it was just sex I could understand...”
    • 2020, Angel Ayers, The Throwaways, p. 15: He thought of the way she giggled when he told her, “You know what happens once you go black, don't you?”
Although it is difficult to find instances in isolation due to the number of hits containing variations of the whole phrase, "once you go black, you never/can't/don't/won't go back", it is likely that more exist along the lines of the ones I cite here. If so, the question is whether "we don't want you back" is SOP as an additional construction. If kept, the definition should probably be adjusted to reflect that the subjects of the phrase are no longer "desired by racists within the white population", as I don't think that it even projects non-racists within the white population. bd2412 T 05:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I’m not very convinced by either of our senses 33 or 34 which basically claim that go can mean date, as the standard phrase which means date is go out with, though there is always the phrase go steady to consider. I would say that some of the sexual and culinary instances mentioned here can be explained by saying that go can sometimes be short for go for or go with, which can in turn have the meaning pick or choose. ‘Let’s go Chinese’ can be parsed as ‘Let’s choose Chinese (food for our dinner)’ and ‘Once you go black’ can be parsed as ‘Once you pick black (people as sexual partners)’. All we need to do is to create the right definition of go and then we can delete this entry as SOP (as others have said, there is no reason why go black is any more idiomatic than go white, or any number of alternative possibilities.). Overlordnat1 (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could see adding a definition along the lines of "ellipsis of go with; choose or accept", and making sense 34 and some other (existing or to-be-added) senses, like the Chinese food example, subsenses of it. (I notice go with has "have sexual relations with" as a def; a usex would be nice.) I don't know about combining all the various examples (Chinese food, once you go black, etc) into just one sense (I still have a nagging feeling that not even all of the citations under sense 34 have the same semantics as each other). - -sche (discuss) 12:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't a saying just because it's been said 3 times. DAVilla 19:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the preceding. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What does "go black" mean? It could mean once someone darkens their skin or once someone gets into black culture. It is not obvious. 2600:1700:E660:9D60:6101:3D68:B7AA:37BC 02:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Upon thinking about this more, I'm leaning towards supporting its deletion. AG202 (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have now created a separate entry on once you go black as an attested clipping, which renders the "we don't want you back" part of this phrase SOP to that clipping. @Facts707, AG202, Fytcha I think this is a fair resolution. bd2412 T 18:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

end up[edit]

Rfd-redundant: Three senses redundant to newly added sense 2: "To come to a place, condition, or situation, often unplanned or unexpected."

end up (conclude)[edit]

"To conclude, turn out, sometimes unexpectedly."

end up (arrive at a destination)[edit]

"To arrive at a destination, sometimes unexpectedly."

end up (culminate in)[edit]

"To eventually do or become; culminate in."

Although the new definition is more abstract, I think it is clearer. I hope the eight usage examples showing the range of complements make the application of the definition easier to understand. DCDuring (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would agree as to the first two, but am more ambivalent about the third. I can see a construction like "Everybody thought Jordan would marry Maria, and that's exactly what he ended up doing", where the culmination is the opposite of the unexpected. bd2412 T 03:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three per DCDuring (thanks). I added "final" before "place, situation..." and changed "often" to "sometimes" to possibly address bd2412's concern. Facts707 (talk) 11:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It feels like often is still appropriate. Often allows for exceptions. DAVilla 06:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per merger. DAVilla 06:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Darky Cuntinent[edit]

Not material for any self-respecting dictionary. DonnanZ (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
The same editor created cuntinent and cuntry. DonnanZ (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the issue exactly? I encountered it while hunting quotes for another article and it wasn't immediately obvious to me what it meant so I don't think it's SOP. Unlike its parts, it is also capitalized. Lastly, we also have Dark Continent, an article I wasn't aware of while creating the article in question. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 12:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is your problem with the fact they are derogatory words? If so, that's not something a dictionary should filter out. If a word meets CFI, it meets CFI. If you think it needs verified, or think it doesn't meet one of the criterion, please say so. As of right now, I'm not sure why you think they should be deleted? Vininn126 (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are there any usages outside of Usenet? Upon doing a Google search, there are zero hits outside of Wiktionary and Usenet. And so, this is exactly the problem and discrepancy with Usenet that I mentioned @-sche (Edit: based on your comment at this vote and the possibility of a word like "ashleymarierichardsy"). If we're including extraordinarily derogatory words based on three usages on Usenet (a place that I've seen the most n-word with an -er usage in a long time, truly showing its demographic), then it's frankly irresponsible to exclude online news and Twitter. AG202 (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This word seems incredibly rare outside usenet, but it meets our CFI, which is just... weird. I liked your idea about being able to use internet archive. Or perhaps some way of being able to add it to wikisource. Vininn126 (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we shouldn't be including this based on a few uses on Usenet, but the sense of the community is closer to "anything that has been written three times anywhere" than to "something that is either common or would appear in a professionally edited source." Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think applying the time frame over being used by over a year by three different people really does limit that. But that's something for over at the BP ;) Vininn126 (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that "Darky continent" (or "Continent") is attestable, but even with the play on "Dark Continent" to me seems SOP to "Darky" and "Continent", and I do wonder if this is therefore SOP to its terms since "Cuntinent" is defined as a play on "Continent". bd2412 T 08:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say this is less than the sum of its parts. Still, we're a descriptive dictionary, and it's an undisputable fact that a certain percentage of English speakers are morons... Chuck Entz (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Proper noun that meets CFI (albeit barely). As a dictionary, we shouldn't shy away from documenting vulgar and hateful terms, but I do feel that the citations would be better kept out of the main entry and limited to the citations page. There's a point at which examples of use are so inflammatory that whatever illustrative benefit they may hold is greatly outweighed by their potential to cause offence to many readers. The critical mass of racial slurs in the three cites crosses that line, I think. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 10:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Inflammatory quotes can be easily suppressed (so they are still there but not visible) without moving them to the citations page. And no editor should be penalised for doing that. We have to discourage this type of entry somehow. DonnanZ (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps another discussion for the beer parlor, in line with the discussion at minstrel - would it be better to have a content warning on some quotations? Vininn126 (talk) 10:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WordyAndNerdy @Vininn126 I agree with either having a content warning and hiding the quotes, because if I'm being 100% honest, coming across these recently-created articles (cw: racial slurs, including Niggeria & Niggerian) made me physically pause and have to take a breather with how physically uncomfortable I got. This is exactly why in a previous RFD discussion I said that Usenet definitely appeals to a certain demographic, and it's really really disheartening to see these terms be included and Usenet be given a pedestal while we're excluding AAVE slang terms because they're not in "durably archived" sources. AG202 (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AG202: I'm sorry to hear that. I have hid the quotes to the citations page now. I'm also fine with the approach taken by DonnanZ (diff). — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 16:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fytcha, no worries, it's not your fault. AG202 (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The same user continues to add terms such as Africoonia and Africoonian using Usenet sources only. This gives me the impression that we are dealing with a racist. DonnanZ (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Donnanz, I'm asking you once again to stop it with the libelous, off-topic, personal attacks on my character. Article creation is obviously not a token of endorsement towards the term (How do you reconcile the fact that I created both Herman Cain Award as well as masktard? Or even just whiteskin?); it's not even a signal that the creator was previously familiar with the term. The majority of the racist terms I created only in response to me randomly stumbling across them on the Usenet while citing other stuff. The truth is that I just like quote-hunting on Usenet, which should also be apparent from my most recent contributions in WT:RFVE.
It feels pretty creepy knowing that you're stalking my recent contributions rather frequently, especially as you're not concerned with improving my articles but just on the hunt for ammunition to libel, bully, and harass me. Just leave me alone already. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 12:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Recently added quotations, which are recorded, can be investigated. I wouldn't call that stalking. DonnanZ (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Donnanz: With all due respect, sir, but if you falsely accuse someone of being racist, then you will surely end up being at Wiki-Hell after your retirement. I thought that I had salvaged you from your sins by forcing you to abandon your etyl-mess-ups, but I was mistaken. Sigh. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 20:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You ought to read my comment again. DonnanZ (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that if a term as tenuous as this meets the CFI, the CFI is probably overly inclusive. Once upon a time Usenet may have been an OK barometer of what new terms were emerging on the internet, but this one clearly never escaped that realm to gain any currency in any other media (thankfully). In this case the term is a very transparent pun (or two layered together) which makes it even less important to record, as puns are by their nature constructible. Delete unless there is evidence of this being a term that was actually used, and not a nonce that happened to be created independently three times by three morons on Usenet. - TheDaveRoss 14:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Editors may want to participate in the related discussion at "Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2022/January#Updating CFI for the Internet and Offensive Material". — SGconlaw (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even close to being a word. DTLHS (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this term means our inclusion criteria and we shouldn’t be engaging in censorship. Overlordnat1 (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On Usenet there are just a few hits, it's mostly the same few messages cross-posted to many different groups (flamebait?). It looks like someone's private "joke", perhaps imitated by other posters, and as such doesn't merit an entry. Neither should it be listed on other pages as a synonym for "Africa". This is deeply misleading. And if there's consensus to follow CFI "by the book" and keep it, there should be something explaining that it's a rare phrase made up for flaming/trolling. – Jberkel 23:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait they're listed as synonyms on Africa? :-//// Come on, y'all. Would we list the n-word as a synonym on black man? AG202 (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it’s clearly labelled as offensive then I don’t see why not. I would also have no objection to honky or cracker being listed as synonyms of white man. Overlordnat1 (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would not make that space available for derogatory terms. Let alone the fact that the main word in question is literally only used on Usenet. And for the record, I would not list those words as synonyms of white man either. AG202 (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like it's better to list Africa as a synonym of this, but not vice-versa. The reader will be able to find it using the search bar if they come across this term, which I doubt they will. Vininn126 (talk) 09:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is my view. Otherwise, WT is likely promoting the use of the term. Theknightwho (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is annoying me that such a stupid piece of crap is getting so much discussion, but this annoys me even more so that I'll reply. Having a stupid word does not promote it. Let's not fall into that black hole where merely mentioning a thing makes you bad. You know what I mean. Equinox 17:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean "promote" in the sense of support. I meant it idiomatically, in the sense of prominence. Theknightwho (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was used across eight years (2000-2008) on three different newsgroups. That suggests that the three citations do not originate from the same author. And even if it's only three Usenet trolls independently coining the same racist pun, well, we don't impose a similar standard on non-Usenet citations. There's no requirement for editors to determine whether some rare technical or scientific term was independently coined by three authors or drawn from an existing body of technical/scientific jargon before creating an entry for said term. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that it would be inappropriate to include this as a synonym in the entry for Africa. I think that in-entry synonyms should generally be limited to those that are non-derogatory or at least non-offensive. The "Thesaurus" space can always be used for complete lists of synonyms. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being a derogatory term, I think, makes it not a synonym, as that implies interchangeability of words without changing meaning. If the meaning has changed, including to indicate derision, it's not much of a synonym any more. bd2412 T 07:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If decisions are made about not including the term as a synonym in other entries, moving the quotations to the citations page, and so on, please remember to document these by putting hidden comments on the relevant pages with links to the talk page of the term where this discussion will eventually be archived. Otherwise, it’s highly possible that some time later an editor unaware of this discussion will make edits that are contrary to the decisions. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a synonym if it has the same referent. You can do something like {{syn|en|darky|q1=offensive}}. (I think we'd look very stupid including this particular rarity under the synonyms for Africa, mind.) Equinox 16:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412, TheDaveRoss: I have no issues with removing the exceedingly rare Darky Cuntinent as a synonym of Africa but I see absolutely no reason for the removal of e.g. the very common (dated, informal) Dark Continent. As Equinox points out, a synonym is that which merely shares the referent; it need not have the same level of formality / vulgarity / offensiveness / datedness / ... Notice how we have (slang, derogatory) Kraut on German, a thing I'm very glad about. If you want to remove such links then Wiktionary would offer no way to answer the question "what (derogatory) terms are there for Germans?", a question every thesaurus on the planet should be able to answer. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 17:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Dark Continent" is not derogatory; it references the mysterious nature of the continent (to Europeans, who had not explored it well when the term came into vogue), and is more akin to referring to Australia as the land down under. As for "Kraut on German", I have no thought on that except to say that it is common enough that I didn't realize that it was still considered derogatory. bd2412 T 17:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any derogatory or informal sense of Dark Continent may be a misunderstanding of "dark" when the entry was created, it doesn't mean a continent full of black people. If it is used now, it may well be literary. So whoever dreamt up the subject of this RFD could have been under the same illusion. DonnanZ (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It means a continent that's unexplored, unknown which means it dismisses the humanity of all those who lived there. It's part of a imperialist, racist worldview. It's not like the land down under, which is simply its location on a map; it's pretty inherently derogatory.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I misread Dark Continent as the subject term after someone mentioned that it was listed as a synonym. Dark Continent should be included. - TheDaveRoss 16:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The arguments brought up for deletion are unconvincing. If this is too rare a term to be included, then start a vote to change WT:CFI. As it stands, this one meets our CFI and should therefore obviously not be deleted. In fact, it should not even be allowed to be deleted as we are only here to discuss whether an entry meets WT:CFI, which it does without question. How would we feel about RFD'ing attested entries that just barely survived RFV with the reasoning of being too rare? The other "arguments" like "self-respecting dictionary" or "not a word" don't merit a reply. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 03:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still SOP to darky and cuntinent, arbitrary capitalization notwithstanding. Darky Continent is, in fact, more readily attestible. bd2412 T 05:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to put forward SoP as a reason, as far too many much more worthy SoP terms have been deleted. But it is admittedly SoP. And he is hoisted by his own petard by creating cuntinent. DonnanZ (talk) 09:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure. Currently we have darky as an alternative form of darkey which we define as "a person with dark skin". In which case, Darky Cuntinent which breakdown into "the continent of dark skinned people", which could hypothetically be used for (pre-Columbian) North America, though there is no evidence of this usage. Under this interpretation, the term is idiomatic and should be kept. The Oxford English Dictionary, on the other hand, has a subsense "A dark-skinned person of sub-Saharan African origin or descent" for darkie (where they place the entry). If this sense is used to interpret Darky Cuntinent, the breakdown is into "the continent of sub-Saharan Africans", that is to say, Africa. This interpretation makes the term no more than the sum of its parts. If kept, I support Jberkel's suggestions for labeling the term. Also, I find three four more uses (for a total of six seven) apparently also from Usenet, though not in Google's archive, which appear to be independent [21][22][23][24]. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC) (edited)[reply]
Keep. The offensiveness of a term has no bearing on its inclusion. Deleting this would be a direct violation of WT:CFI. Binarystep (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless CFI is changed in a certain way to exclude such terms —Svārtava [tcur] 05:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.
  • Rare spelling variations are explicitly excluded. Wiktionary is not a compilation of puns and wordplay.
  • In my opinion, insults and name-calling should only be included if they are common, and not if they are only slang of a small ingroup. Karen as a racial slur is a legitimate entry and may even be in clearly widespread use. Incel slang is common and widespread enough to include. If it were confined to r/incel I wouldn't count it no matter how durable Reddit was. The fact that three separate people or three separate Usenet threads borrowed or invented the same insult is not enough for me.
I am not offended. I think it's stupid name-calling. I discriminate against ephemeral low register words. We keep the n-word and kike which are or have been widely used, we should throw this one in the trash. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See also Talk:whirling void for an inoffensive term that was deleted because it was a way people described a concept rather than a name for the concept. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Binarystep. --Rishabhbhat (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A disjunction of three reasons:
  • Not convinced the uses are actually independent. Some of the texts have been reposted many times over, and there are recurring patterns to the names of the posters (use of l33tified domain names in general, and specific terms like "nog"/"n0g", "true", "word"/"\/\/ord"). In fact, so far every citation given on the Citations page as well as by The Editor's Apprentice above either has such a username, or is reposted between multiple groups. If there were actually obviously distinct authors using the same term, in posts that did not seem like flamebait copypasta, it might be a different story. A large part of why the timespan seems so wide is that the same old texts are reposted over and over.
  • Not convinced this is not an SOP of darky (derogatory name for a dark-skinned person) + cuntinent: the continent with dark-skinned people. As The Editor's Apprentice noted, it could refer to pre-Columbian America too technically, but in my experience "darky" is used overwhelmingly for Black people. Plus the pun on Dark Continent is obvious.
  • Not a policy-based reason, so feel free to ignore, but IMO it would reflect poorly on Wiktionary to keep this. I can imagine someone pointing to this entry as a reason for thinking Wiktionary is unreliable, for example, and I don't want to give more fuel to critics when it can be avoided. 70.172.194.25 02:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • For an example of point 2: here is a book use of "n****r continent" to refer to Africa, and some Usenet uses exist too. Does this mean it should be an entry? I don't think so; its meaning is readily apparent from the words it is composed of and context. Another example: "Polack country" for Poland. And "Beaner country": [25] [26]. I hope the point is clear. 70.172.194.25 16:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not sure how reliable Usenet is to use as a source for citations, but as a dictionary, I think we should include a note of disclamation that the cites in our entries do not reflect any views of our dictionary / editors, something which Merriam-Webster does. I do not however agree with hiding quotes. This will set a precedence for hiding quotes for tons of other terms any user/reader may find offensive. The world is shitty, and our dictionary records all shits. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 20:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Astova (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as silly as it is, as it passes CFI. That CFI needs reconsidering is definitely true, IMO particularly with reference to Usenet and durability of sources (but let's not get into that here). I think in cases where there are only 3 cites and all are on Usenet we put a mandatory label (only found on Usenet), or something like that, which gives the user a clearer understanding of the source. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

breakthrough infection[edit]

The phrase breakthrough infection is not idiomatic since, as I recently added, breakthrough can mean "Involving the contraction of a disease by a person with a decreased susceptibility." Compare constructions such as breakthrough case, breakthrough death, breakthrough hospitalizations, breakthrough COVID (as in "test positive for breakthrough COVID"). —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 06:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC) (edited)[reply]

Does that definition apply in any other context other than as a pairing with infection (or its synonyms)? Otherwise, it feels more natural to include it with the relevant noun as idiomatic. Theknightwho (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand you correctly, I believe the answer is yes. I find constructions like "Then they hear that 30 percent are breakthrough so they're saying, 'why bother getting vaccinated?'"[27] which shows the adjective isn't bound. More phrases I find are breakthrough positive, breakthrough virus[28], breakthrough status[29], breakthrough patient[30], and breakthrough group[31]. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That does seem to be a wide enough spread, yes. I would perhaps amend the definition to "Involving the contraction of a disease by a person considered to have been immunised against it". Feels like "decreased susceptibility" is a little vague and covers demographics who are simply less suscpetible than other people, rather than people who have undergone some event (vaccine or prior infection) that makes them less susceptible than they otherwise would have been without it. Theknightwho (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with @ Theknightwho, the definition at breakthrough is vague as “breakthrough infection” (in reference to COVID-19) is primarily used with people who’ve been vaccinated, not even folks who’ve caught the virus before, though I personally perceive breakthrough infection as idiomatic. AG202 (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with y'all's points, I felt like "decreased susceptibility" was vague when I wrote the definition. To AG202's point, I also associate the phrase breakthrough infection with vaccinated people contracting COVID-19, a distinction regarding the adjective also made by some the sources I linked in my last comment. Despite that, some quotes seem to imply that such a distinction is not always made, such as "That has increased the probability of breakthrough infections even among the vaccinated."[32]. The existence of the phrase "vaccine breakthrough infections" (apparently abbreviated VBI) may also suggest a lack of distinction. As to Theknightwho's suggested definition, I personally wouldn't think "immunised" would cover treatment by antibiotics as described in the pre-2005 quote currently at the breakthrough entry. In contrast, Mondofacto's dictionary includes "protection [...] conferred [...] by [...] nonimmunologic factors" under its medical definition of "immunity". Given all that, I could see a definition like "Involving the contraction of a disease by a person immunised against it, particularly via vaccination", though it would probably confuse some readers. Note that I removed "considered to have been" since being immune, in a technical, medical sense, does not seem to be absolute. Just some level of protection against contraction. Our definitions of immune and immunity should probably be updated to reflect this. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sense is older than COVID-19.[33][34]  --Lambiam 22:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just to be clear this is a vote to keep. AG202 (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete SOP. However we define breakthru, that's what this means also. DAVilla 21:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect, as it's just breakthrough + infection like all the other various collocations mentioned above; improve breakthrough as needed. - -sche (discuss) 02:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure - Wikipedia has w:Breakthrough pain, w:Breakthrough seizure, w:Breakthrough infection. I'm not sure just redefining the adjective will cover all these in a way palatable to readers. Facts707 (talk) 08:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022[edit]

Irish American[edit]

Tagged as speedy here by User:Inqilābī with the rationale: "New SoP entry; see British Pakistani precedent". — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 11:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 11:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You would be deleting a lot of Americans with Irish ancestry, including President Biden. DonnanZ (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteSvārtava (t/u) • 13:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely Strong Keep:
  1. The term refers to a specific community that is historically significant. Only on rare occasions does it refer to somebody alive today that was born in Ireland but moved to America, simply because of the sheer disparity in numbers.
  2. Although it is convention, it's not immediately obvious to a naïve reader that this refers to a person of Irish descent living in America, and not a person of American descent living in Ireland. (I actually think this point justifies the reinstatement of British Pakistani, because it shows how it can sometimes be the other way around, but let's leave that aside.)
  3. Nationality is complex and nebulous, and there are heated debates as to whether terms like "Irish American" refer to ethnicity, nationality, culture and so on, particularly with enormous communities like this. There are sharply contrasting opinions on either side of the Atlantic, to say the least. Having an entry allows us to capture the broad strokes of this nuance in a nutshell, directing the reader to appropriate encyclopaedic entries.
  4. As a consequence of the above, the term has significantly developed in meaning and connotation over time. This is, of course, relevant to historical texts. Particular examples are where it intersects with:
    1. Bigotry in 19th and early 20th c. America, where "Irish" was used in lots of disparaging ways, including to imply that they weren't really American (which is definitely not SoP).
    2. The disparity in treatment of traditionally Protestant Anglo-Irish immigrants and traditionally Catholic indigenous Irish immigrants, and what "Irish" referred to in that context. Saying "Irish" refers to "Ireland" is very ambiguous; not only in what it means/meant to lots of different people, but also what it emphatically did not mean to different groups.
  5. The terms "Irish" and "American" both have senses that are never intended by the term "Irish American". It does not, for example, refer to a person born in Ireland who lives in Argentina.
Theknightwho (talk) 13:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The best solution is to create an entry European American and list Irish American, German American, English American, Italian American etc. as (SoP) hyponyms. All these immigrant communities are not dictionary material, really— by the same token we have Native American, but not Navajo American, Cherokee American, Cree American, etc. etc. ’Tis worth noting that being an Irish American is merely a matter of genealogy, this so-called community are not full-blooded Irish, and in practice only identify as US citizens. And most importantly, we do not want to set a precedence for creating hundreds of other ethnic communities: Welsh Argentinian, Catalan Argentinian, Russian Alaskan, Dutch American, Taino Cuban, Quechuan Peruvian, Chinese Indonesian, Tamil Singaporean, etc. etc. The keep votes seem like a cunning way to allow the creation of these redlinks on the morrow. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 15:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From WT:CFI, "There is occasionally concern that adding an entry for a particular term will lead to entries for a large number of similar terms. This is not a problem, as each term is considered on its own based on its usage, not on the usage of terms similar in form." The redlinks above are not the ones being voted upon and discussed at this RFD, and would be discussed at their times if ever created. AG202 (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, good to hear you do not want to create these redlinks eventually, in a Putinesque way. However, seeing that lots of ethnic communities are as important as Irish Americans, I’m afraid the CFI section that you’re quoting is not relevant here. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 16:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"In a Putinesque way", could you elaborate on what you mean by that? I wasn't even the one that made the entry in question to begin with, I just agree with Theknightwho. And yes, it has relevance here since the concern brought up at the end of your prior reply was about entries that have not yet been created or even thought about being created. Like I said, if they're ever brought up to RFD or even created in the first place, then they should be discussed then. I'd go as far as to say that bringing them up here gave them more visibility than ever before in terms of the chance of them being created. AG202 (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AG202: I mean it’s only good that you (people who like to keep SoP encyclopediac stuff) are not being cunning with the motive of gaining the opportunity of populating this dictionary with such entries. But I disagree that creating these entries is the way to start discussions on whether these terms are entry-worthy. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't vote on nearly every RFD, just the ones that I feel should weigh in on. I told you this the last time you grouped me as such to avoid doing so, in Talk:Javanese script. And actually, yesterday in the RFD for Russian-Canadian, I literally said I would be fine with the deletion of it and the others that aren't "French-Canadian" or "English-Canadian", so the claim that I just vote "keep" to keep "SoP encyclopediac stuff" (which is very much up to personal opinion fyi, as you claimed that even American Sign Language is SoP even though it passed RFD already + other rationales that I won't get into here) isn't true. If you actually want me to continue engaging with you in these RFD discussions, it'd be best for you to avoid these characterizations and continue to focus on the entries at hand. AG202 (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not really ‘characterizing’ you or elsewho. It just gets a bit annoying when you want to keep (some) SoPs/non-dictionary stuff. You are not alone in this, Donnanz and SemperBlotto also does the same (they likewise do not participate at every RFD discussions, nevertheless how they vote is not appropriate). Everyone is entitled to an opinion, sure, but many entries that you wanted to keep have since been deleted. Hence you get an idea which types of words are not to be included in the dictionary. Keeping these illegitimate entries affects our quality. When you get in the way, we are thwarted in our effort to quickly eliminate these entries. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 18:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are meant to be discussions and votes where we hear as many folks as possible, if the entries were meant to be deleted instantly, then we wouldn't be having them. Not nearly every entry that I've voted keep on has been deleted (I'd say a majority have been kept actually), nor has every entry that you've nominated for deletion been deleted either. When the entries do get deleted, I just see it as consensus for that entry that a majority of folks want the entry deleted, which is fine and I don't see their votes as "inappropriate" either. There's no exceedingly strict policy on this, and it's up to the interpretation of each editor. I don't know why you're stating that I'm "getting in the way" or that you're being "thwarted in our effort", when you're not in charge of this project on your own and not everyone holds the same opinion as you (as more clearly seen with American Sign Language). I would never claim that of folks that vote "delete" even if discussions can get heated a few times. Like @Sgconlaw said below, these types of attributions don't contribute constructively to discussions. AG202 (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Inqilābī: please do not attribute motives to editors or use inflammatory language. It does not contribute constructively to discussions in any shape or form. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sgconlaw: Wrong. Just to clarify, the semantics intended was not Putinesque. You understood me amiss. But it doesn’t matter anyway, because Putinesque is not by default a derogatory term. It was a jocular remark on my part. It becomes inflammatory language only when someone uses the names of Hitler or Stalin. Hope you understand. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 16:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Inqilābī: given current events, the word can certainly be construed as derogatory or inflammatory. Please continue the discussion without using any language that might be thus construed. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sgconlaw: Good advice 👌. But unfortunately this occurs not uncommonly: see Donnanz’s comment at Talk:happy Fourth of July, which I actually found offensive. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Inqilābī: well, in that case editors should avoid engaging in behaviour which they themselves find offensive. Two wrongs do not make a right. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see I have been mentioned twice in despatches. I would like to tell Inqilābī that I will never rubber-stamp his RFDs, nor should any other editor. DonnanZ (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This only addresses a small part of my point, really. I've identified numerous instances where it isn't how you've described, or where there is significant difference in connotation... Theknightwho (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Theknightwho. AG202 (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as SoP. Also, I have to say that not having such an entry is not "deleting a lot of Americans with Irish ancestry". That is simply irrelevant hyperbole. Neither is it relevant that the community is historically significant, or has historically suffered discrimination. There is a whole article at "w:Irish Americans" over at the Wikipedia for people interested to find out more about the community to read. An entry here is hardly a useful way to find out anything about the community. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fundamentally, the point that I was making wasn't discrimination = an entry, but rather that discrimination was one factor that has contributed to the term becoming extremely muddied and used in many different ways. Something should be considered sum of parts only when it is obvious that it really is just X + Y in all contexts. That is absolutely not the case here. Theknightwho (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theknightwho: ehhh, in my view the term is still just Irish (pertaining to or originating from Ireland or the Irish people) + American (of, from, or pertaining to the United States of America, its people, or its culture). I am not seeing what you mean by the term being used in many different ways. Feel free to provide examples. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well for a start, the connotation (these days) of it being people of Irish heritage, not Irish birth - something that Inqilābī actually acknowledges by saying "’Tis worth noting that being an Irish American is merely a matter of genealogy, this so-called community are not full-blooded Irish". So he seems to be inadvertently excluding Irish-born Americans, but that's the precise opposite of what many people in Ireland think (and why terms like Plastic Paddy exist in Ireland today, which are literally saying they aren't Irish). And what does he mean by "full-blooded Irish" anyway? Ethnicity? So are we excluding Anglo-Irish? They tend to more identify as Scotch-Irish Americans, and were historically rejected by the Irish American community due to sectarianism, even though that isn't the case today. The question of SoP is as much about what the term isn't as what the term is - a term can be less than the sum of its parts.
Despite these apparent ambiguities, I think we all have the same idea of what "Irish American" actually refers to, because it's a very real community with specific cultural elements. Those elements might come from Ireland and America, but they're from an Ireland and America that no longer exist, and are defined by specific parts of them at that. For one, the Irish American community is overwhelmingly associated with Irish republicanism and - by extension - the Republic of Ireland. You also don't really associate Irish Americans with North Dakota or Alaska, either, but Boston and New York.
Just to make the point clear, a Northern Irish-born person who moved to America and became a citizen in the last 20 years is so far removed from what the vast majority of people think of when they think of "Irish American" that that alone means it's not SoP.
Theknightwho (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theknightwho: the word Irish is not limited to people born in Ireland, but encompasses anything originating from Ireland (including a person’s ancestors) or to Irish people. This is the case for many such adjectives (and nouns) like Congolese, French, and Vietnamese. Similarly, for such words, they can also relate to a Congo/France/Vietnam that no longer exists, and which are now defined by characteristics which people associate with those communities. There is nothing particularly unique about Irish in this respect. I think you are overcomplicating the issue. Whether Irish Americans are largely supportive of Irish republicanism or live largely in Northeastern USA are not relevant in showing that the term Irish American is not SoP, in my view. If you are suggesting that someone born in Northern Ireland and who became a US citizen in the past 20 years cannot be referred to using the term Irish American because it has such a narrow sense, I’m afraid you’re going to have to demonstrate that through suitable quotations. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that it's unique (it isn't) or that you can't call a person like that Irish American (you can). The point is that it means (and meant) a whole variety of different things to different people, for political and cultural reasons. The fact that we associate them with a particular community in certain times and places is surely important, no?
At the end of the day, though, the fact that they're of Irish descent living in America and not of American descent living in Ireland is the most obvious way that this isn't SoP. Theknightwho (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theknightwho: this very point was discussed with respect to British Pakistani, and it was decided that that wasn't enough to prevent the term from being regarded as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The whole summation of that discussion was you saying "That would still be SoP in my view – it’s still British + Pakastani". By the same logic, you would have to delete native American. The point is what the term doesn't convey - not what it does. Theknightwho (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theknightwho: no, the meaning of native isn’t obvious from the context, which makes Native American non-SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's no more opaque than "Irish", given that by many definitions most aren't Irish (e.g. citizens). Theknightwho (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theknightwho: Since Donnanz used the example of Joe Biden (see above), it’s worth reading the relevant Wikipedia section that says Biden has some English and French ancestry. That is what I meant by ‘not full-blooded’. Of course, native Irish people have Norman, Viking, and English ancestry due to history, and yet they are full-blooded. The Scotch-Irish are a special case, and their identification as Irish or not would depend upon their political identity. And for the record, European American communities are generally mixed-race, e.g., George Washington was an English American with French ancestry. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 19:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am a New Zealander with an English surname living in England, but I don't regard myself as an English New Zealander as, like most New Zealanders, I am a mongrel with mixed ancestry. DonnanZ (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of this article (and being Irish myself) I would argue this term has the same weight as 'African American' and 'Italian American' (both of which are as of yet unchallenged terms on this website). I see no difference with including Irish American as I know from first hand experience that the culture of 'Irish Americans' and the history associated with the term is very much divergant from that of the simple sum of its parts (Irish + American). When one imagines an Irish American today one does not simply imagine an Irish immigrant or an American of Irish heritage, they imagine a wholy seperate type of nationality. I personally and wholeheartedly belive that the term Irish American carries much more weight that some people in this thread (ignorantly) want to believe it does. FishandChipper (talk) 07:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Some of these compounds are not just simple, random re-combinations and have their own interesting etymology and history, especially African American and Asian American (which should be created). – Jberkel 14:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Completly agree. To be 'Irish American' is much more than simply being Irish and American. Modern day ideas of St.Patrick's Day for example is very much an Irish American tradition rather than an Irish tradition or an American tradition FishandChipper (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd been meaning to create Asian American, but unfortunately got busy, thanks for the reminder! AG202 (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a related Time article from 2020 which might be a useful source. – Jberkel 18:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FishandChipper, Theknightwho: OK, assuming I accept that Irish American has a narrower sense than is conveyed by the words Irish + American to make it not sum-of-parts (which I currently remain unconvinced of), how should the term be redefined? At the moment, the definitions are, for the noun, "An American citizen with Irish ancestry or heritage" and "An Irish citizen who has immigrated to America", and for the adjective, "Of Irish American heritage or culture". These are SoP, because they apply to any combination of nationalities, as Algerian French or Vietnamese Australian. Moreover, the revised definitions would have to be fairly short, otherwise this is a matter for Wikipedia, not the Wiktionary. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems we'll have to agree to disagree as neither of us will be able to convince the other of the term being more than or equal to the sum of its pearts. However I again wholeheartedly believe that Irish American culture is without a doubt a seperate beast from Irish and American culture as much as German culture is seperate form French culture or any other combination. Also if we are to delete Irish American than you could surely provide seperate reasons as to why African American deserves a spot? Or Italian American? One more note, the seemingly perfect and undebated article African-American literally contains Irish American as a term it supposedly mimics XD.FishandChipper (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FishandChipper: But you haven't explained how the definition should be modified so as to be non-SoP (if it can be). As for your other point, I think Italian American is SoP and should be deleted; African American may require further discussion because African isn't a nationality. — SGconlaw (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I want to know from a personal, non-lingustic standpoint if you genuinely think that Irish American poeple are in no way whatsoever a distinguishable group from other Americans other than their Irish heritage? And the same goes for Italian American people. Simply making a catch-all 'European American' term as was proposed by @Theknightwho could in no way contain the subtlty and complexity with each term. Since I hold this to be true then I can see no way in which Irish American (and also by extension Italian American) could possibly be considered just the sub of its parts exept by close minded indivduals. FishandChipper (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't proposed by me - I agree with you! Theknightwho (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops sorry about that, I must be going a bit blind XD FishandChipper (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FishandChipper: You are misunderstanding what SoP means. The relevant question is whether the term Irish American has a sense that is qualitatively different from the words Irish + American, and not whether Irish Americans as people are distinguishable from other Americans (arguably they are). If one cannot define Irish American in a way which is different from “An American citizen with Irish ancestry or heritage”, then it is hard to see why the term is not SoP. Here’s a different example. Blue collar is not SoP if it is used to mean “working class”; that is qualitatively different from blue + collar. However, if its only sense was “a collar that is a shade of blue”, that would be SoP. It matters not that (for the sake of argument) there is a long history of people wearing apparel with blue collars, or that blue-collared clothes are distinctive, etc. — SGconlaw (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're ignoring that constituent words can have multiple definitions, and if only one of them applies to the compound term then it still isn't SoP. Theknightwho (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is not that Irish American is not SoP (which granted it could fairly be argued as such) but rather that there are many other terms that are uncontested which are as much SoPs as Irish American is (e.g. African American, Italian American hell even Native American to an extent is nothing more than 'A decendant of a native inhabitant of America'. If Irish American should be deleted for being SoP then all other combinations should be also. FishandChipper (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my response in the discussion about Russian-Canadian to see how African American is markedly different. AG202 (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FishandChipper: if the constituent words of a multiword term have multiple senses which make it unclear which sense is intended, that may show the multiword term is not SoP, but as I’ve argued elsewhere it depends on the context. For example, I think cow’s milk is SoP because even though cow can mean the female of several mammals, readers can readily tell from the context that an elephant or hippopotamus is not the intended sense.
”Other stuff exists” isn’t a good justification because it may simply mean that the “other stuff” is also SoP but hasn’t been highlighted yet. Native American isn’t SoP because a very specific sense of native is intended; a white person whose family has been in the USA for four generations isn’t native in that sense. That’s why I’ve argued that if one can show Irish is intended in some narrow sense, Irish American might not be SoP. But so far no one has adequately demonstrated such a sense. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And yet I see the page for cow's milk is (and forever has been) uncontested? Also I want to know what 'specific sense of native' your referring to in this example cause as far as I can tell native in this sense is completly unambiguous. FishandChipper (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sgconlaw: As I’ve already pointed out (numerous times now): a specific sense of Irish is meant. Most aren’t citizens and most weren’t born there. That’s leaving aside the fact that the term refers to immigration one way round and not the other, which you rejected on a precedent that amounted to you rejecting it with no further reasoning in another discussion. The word “native” is playing a similar role: both refer to descent. Yet you reject “Irish American” as SoP despite admitting the narrower sense, while also saying that that’s what makes “Native American” different, on the seemingly arbitrary basis that one is narrow and another is not. I don’t see how you can do that. This is starting to feel like because the term is obvious to you, that it’s therefore SoP. It isn’t. Theknightwho (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FishandChipper, Theknightwho: cow's milk was challenged and passed: see its talk page. I voted that it should be deleted as SoP. On the other hand, British Pakistani was found to be SoP, which is directly on point here.
Native can mean "belonging to one by birth', "characteristic of or relating to people inhabiting a region from prehistoric times", or "born or grown in the region in which it lives or is found; not foreign or imported", among other senses. In Native American, it means only "characteristic of or relating to people inhabiting a region from prehistoric times" – as mentioned above, a white person whose family has been in the USA for four generations isn't native in that sense – so native is used in a narrow sense which, in my view, makes it non-SoP.
On the other hand, at the moment we define Irish as "Pertaining to or originating from Ireland or the Irish people", and Irish American as "An American citizen with Irish ancestry or heritage" and "An Irish citizen who has immigrated to America". If there is a more specific sense of Irish in Irish American which isn't "Pertaining to or originating from Ireland or the Irish people", then please do identify it and indicate how you propose that the current definition should be rewritten, because as far as I can see it doesn't indicate any narrower sense which is said to exist. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The current definition excludes Americans who have emigrated to Ireland, but they would "Irish American" under your logic due to the fact that they pertain to Ireland. You still haven't explained why that isn't sufficient.
  2. The adjective refers to Irish American heritage or culture, which is distinct and exists in and of its own right.
  3. The derogatory usage sense is also not SoP.
  4. It isn't referring to the two other senses of "Irish".
  5. It isn't referring to the several other senses of "American".
Theknightwho (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The whole thing is a massive can of worms: we have Ulster Scots, Scotch-Irish (but not the variant with ‘Scots’ instead of ‘Scotch’, or any unhyphenated form), Anglo-American and Anglo-Indian but not Anglo-Irish or American English (in the sense that would include Nancy Astor and would have included Boris Johnson, rather than the linguistic sense). The more I think about it, the more unsure I am. I do think that the usage note claiming that Irish American is sometimes derogatory is rather odd - perhaps a note (carefully worded, of course) saying that Irish Americans are not regarded as Irish by many (actual) Irish people and are often known by the derogatory term plastic paddies is in order but the term Irish American clearly isn’t itself derogatory. Overlordnat1 (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ as like I said I have first hand experience of this and I know that 'Irish American' is a much more common derogatory term than plastic paddy (which i hadn't even hear of until this thread XD) FishandChipper (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m open to counterarguments but I just don’t see how this is true - if people have called you Irish-American with a sneering tone of voice then that is of course offensive but it doesn’t make the term itself derogatory. ‘Plastic paddy’ is quite widely used throughout the English speaking world to criticise people who claim that they’re Irish but aren’t considered to be by the speaker, especially Irish-Americans, it’s widely used in Ireland itself but not just there. Overlordnat1 (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this. We have an entry at Plastic Paddy, by the way. Theknightwho (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Idk maybe I'm just unobsevant but I can honestly say as an Irish citizen all my life not once have I ever heard someone say Plastic Paddy. Maybe some kind of Mandela Effect? XD FishandChipper (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article references an academic who claimed that the expression originated in 1980s London but the earliest cite on GoogleBooks is from 1993 referencing the song ‘Plastic Paddy’ - further research reveals that this is almost certainly the song by the famous Australian (Scottish-born) folk singer Eric Bogle of the same year (it first appeared on his 1993 album ‘Mirrors’ [35] and can be listened to on YouTube). People of various nationalities have used the term in books but checking GoogleBooks it does seem to be a term that’s still much more widely used in the U.K than elsewhere tbh. Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thats probably why I havent heard it, cause im not from the UK. Also I never denied its existance mind you it was simply something new id heard of. FishandChipper (talk) 08:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment: it seems unusual not to hyphenate this, so consider making the primary form the hyphenated one. Equinox 22:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was debating this as I created the pages (as you can see in the revsion logs) and I think I may end up swapping the two pages if this falls through. FishandChipper (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; it's a recognised term with independent meaning. As to the concerns about the slippery slope that this would lead to Nigerian Japanese or Egyptian Portuguese or whatever, those terms can be added if they are recognised as having significant, independent meaning in the same way, and not merely two words put next to each other. But we should not be about excluding actual terms simply because they feel formulaic or we are concerned about there being more words on the same model (that's how language works?) or whatever. AllenY99 (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per prev. comment. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022[edit]

European Stability Mechanism[edit]

European Free Trade Association[edit]

European Cooperative Society[edit]

European Central Bank[edit]

European Commission[edit]

European Council[edit]

Council of Europe[edit]

European Company[edit]

Organizations. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 19:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For most of these, but especially European Council and Council of Europe, what rule do they break at WT:CFI? By the reading you're providing, United Nations & European Union could be deleted in the future, so I'm confused as to where the line is. The part about Wiktionary being an encyclopedia states that it's for the clarification of definitions rather than entries, and then goes on to talk about people and places, which most of these are not. European Cooperative Society & European Company are straight up nouns, not even the names of single entities. Weak keep for the proper nouns excluding European Council & Council of Europe, keep for those two, and strong keep for the nouns until this is at least thoroughly clarified. AG202 (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AG202: What about WT:COMPANY? Plus, Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia. (United Nations and European Union are certainly entry-worthy.) ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 12:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep them all. No convincing reason has been given for deletion of this job lot. DonnanZ (talk) 08:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is no rule against proper nouns and I'm not sure why else these would be deleted. AllenY99 (talk) 08:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

European Commissioner[edit]

European Engineer[edit]

Encyclopedia stuff. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 20:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because they're straight up nouns, not SoP, and they don't seem to violate CFI. AG202 (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly not SoP. Theknightwho (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seax[edit]

WT:NSE. This, that and the other (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@This, that and the other: While ‘Essex Archives Online’ is not dictionary material, ‘Seax’ seems to be a nickname. If it's attested, then it's entry-worthy. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 10:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was a previous official name for the site.
To expand on this request – I found this entry in CAT:en:Websites and it seemed like an odd one out; surely we would only keep the proper name of a specific website if there is figurative use, a common noun use, a verb, etc. This, that and the other (talk) 12:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

enshield[edit]

Rfd-sense: adjective. (attested only in the quotation below). If that's true, this doesn't pass CFI, albeit a Shakespeare quote Notusbutthem (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare couldn't even spell his own name correctly. He meant enshielded. Delete. DAVilla 21:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one was obliged to spell words correctly until a certain Samuel Johnson published a dictionary. It’s sad to see these nonce words go; can’t we at least have an Appendix page for them…? Weak delete and transfer the quotation to enshielded as an alternative form. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 12:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the place that Shakespeare has in the development of the English language, and the fact that his works are still widely studied which makes it likely that people will look up unfamiliar words found therein, I would agree either to an exception from the CFI or the creation of an appendix for such words. (Would that turn up in searches, or would we need to create redirects from such entries to the appendix?) — SGconlaw (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

royal pain[edit]

Likely SOP. AFAIK, royal can collocate with anything Pious Eterino (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's a very specific meaning of "royal" that is not obvious outside of idiomatic use. This is also a set phrase, anyway. Theknightwho (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it could be a cryptic clue for king's evil (scrofula)... er, anyway, what other nouns is this used with? I've never heard "royal nuisance" or "royal annoyance". Equinox 23:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
’royal nuisance’ and ‘royal headache’ definitely exist along with the highly alliterative ‘right royal rogering’ though I agree with you about ‘royal annoyance’. All the same ‘royal pain’ is faintly idiomatic, so weak keep. Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Equinox I have actually heard "royal nuisance" before, but it feels like a derivation from this. Theknightwho (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In Google Books Ngram Viewer,  "royal pain in the ass"  obliterates  "royal annoyance+royal headache+royal nuisance".[36]  --Lambiam 20:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above.  "royal pain"  obliterates  "royal annoyance+royal headache+royal nuisance".[37] Facts707 (talk) 07:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

change like seasons[edit]

(Created and instantly RFD'd) Sorry if this comes off like a silly circus stunt but I wanted to know what others think about this kind of simile. I've asked in the tea room (Wiktionary:Tea_room/2022/March#to_change_like_seasons, @DCDuring), but not too many people have chimed in. (My nomination is not a vote) — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 18:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What would the alternative be? add the information to "seasons"? I think having similes is pretty standard, if that's the way the phrase usually is. Vininn126 (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can escape our entry-quality problem by adding more headings like "Similes". DCDuring (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You need to do some more legwork and find references in other dictionaries. Nothing in Lexico. DonnanZ (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This form sounds a bit "off", as DCDuring said in the Tea Room; if kept, the lemma should perhaps be change like the seasons. As to whether to keep the underlying simile, I'm not sure. Obviously, on one end of the spectrum we don't want just any comparison any three people have ever made ("corrupt / stupid / etc like [insert politician's name here]", etc), but on the other end we have kept at least some of the most common ones, like hot as hell. Possibly we're stuck evaluating these case-by-case (and evincing little enthusiasm for that). - -sche (discuss) 17:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as change like the seasons; redirect this entry there (just rename it). "To be clear, King did not think that black Americans needed to stand pat and wait for their conditions to change like the seasons." Facts707 (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

gay man[edit]

I wonder why it was recreated when it was deleted a year ago? (see: Talk:gay man) @BryanKatz if you could answer, please. Nonetheless, a reason I can see for keeping it is as a translation hub seeing that homosexual is not recommended for usage as a noun, and some of the translations there are also on that same vein that are actively discouraged, exceedingly formal, and/or exclusively used for gay men, but don't currently have a qualifier (which can lead to confusion). There's also no direct equivalent to the translations at lesbian (noun) at the moment. So I'd keep as T-HUB as it could be a very solid translation point, especially for more everyday terms. AG202 (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[