Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English

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

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

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

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

Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

Requests for deletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.

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

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

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

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

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

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

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

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

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

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

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

Scope of this request page:

  • In-scope: terms suspected to be multi-word sums of their parts such as “green leaf”
  • Out-of-scope: terms to be attested by providing quotations of their use



See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oldest tagged RFDs


November 2017[edit]

pick up the phone[edit]

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

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

December 2017[edit]


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

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


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

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

January 2018[edit]

wine legs[edit]

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

@Metaknowledge: That was my doing. I've reverted it. To what extent does that change your mind here? —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Not at all. This is still SOP because that sense exists. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Sure, but as far as I'm aware, it's specifically called "wine legs", not "bourbon legs" or "whiskey legs". —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
So what? It's specifically called an "cat tooth" and not a "hawk tooth" because hawks don't have teeth. I fail to see how that would make cat tooth less SOP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
If it's called "wine legs" even when it occurs in whisky and not wine, that is a point in favour of a "wine legs" entry. I briefly looked up "whisky legs" in Google Books and found one obvious hit; there might be more. Equinox 02:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Hard redirect to the aforementioned sense of "legs". When I searched for "wine legs" on Google Books I noticed that a lot of hits are actually even more transparently SOP as "[the] wine's legs". The fact that people refer to bare "legs" or "legs of [the/a] wine" with these sense, and rarely also to "alcohol legs", "whisk[e]y['s] legs" and "liquor's legs", shows that the sense of "legs" is not limited to "wine legs", and hence the "red dwarf" test is not met. As an aside, what I expected when I saw the entry title was something like "(legs that are prone to) unsteadiness / stumbling due to drunkenness". - -sche (discuss) 16:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete or hard redirect to legs as per -sche. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete or hard redirect or RFV if someone thinks it's also used for other alcoholic beverages. Per utramque cavernam 10:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

February 2018[edit]

under one's hat[edit]

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

It could be a redirect. DCDuring (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Right, Change to redirect. -- · (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Merriam-Webster has a "keep under one's hat" entry[1]. under one's hat at OneLook Dictionary Search finds Merriam-Webster.com, Wiktionary and dictionary.com[2], which in its "hat" entry has "under one's hat" item in its Idioms section. I think both under one's hat and keep under one's hat are candidates for the main entry, and the other one could probably be a redirect. The argument that the only verb used with "under one's hat" is "keep" seems to have some force. Keep or redirect to keep under one's hat; do not delete. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep, and add a note that it's most often used with keep. It doesn't seem inconceivable that one would use other verbs--I've definitely heard it used with have. Can't find any durably cited uses of it like that at the moment, but I don't think it hurts to leave the possibility open. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


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

See also Talk:mahā.

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

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

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

bond for general purposes[edit]

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

Delete. Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Abstain. I actually have no idea, I shouldn't vote on that. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 09:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

voice call sign[edit]

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

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

international call sign[edit]

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

Delete. Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep This is a specific technical term rather than SoP. The fact that it's international refers to it abiding by the International Telecommunications Union and affects the formatting of the call sign itself. Means much more than a call sign that's not domestic. 05:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Keep A specific technical meaning applies. These are allocated in blocks of ranges of letter number codes, they are covered by international agreements eg with aviation or marine safety, or Amateur radio. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Kept. No consensus.--Jusjih (talk) 03:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

tidal current[edit]

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

The def in the entry is OK. I would keep this. DonnanZ (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Are you voting keep because the def in the entry is correct? How is that relevant? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I am voting "keep" because it should be kept, and I may be able to find a translation or two. DonnanZ (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Delete, because it should be deleted. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
IMO, that is terribly negative, why don't you add some translations like I have? It is no more SOP than ocean current and other terms at tidal. In any case, I think Metaknowledge was targeting entries created by one particular user, but it doesn't mean it should be deleted. DonnanZ (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep using the lemming heuristic; is in Merriam-Webster[3]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

baby show[edit]

kid show/kid's show[edit]

adult show[edit]

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

Huh. When I saw the title of this thread, I figured a baby show was like a dog show (should that be made blue?) but with babies instead of dogs. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 21:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
What about conformation show? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
What are you like? RFDing your own entries? Like Mahagaja, I thought a baby show is a beauty contest for babies. You never listed them as derived terms, but TV-related ones are talk show, television show or TV show. DonnanZ (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@Donnanz People change over time. Some of those entries I made bordering on 4 years ago aren't ones I'd necessarily agree with today, esp. since at the time I was fairly new to the project. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, OK. I try to make my entries "stick", only one deleted so far, touch wood.... You can pass your critical eye over tidal flat. DonnanZ (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Mahagaja is correct and the competition (prize for prettiest baby) is what this phrase more commonly means. Equinox 15:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 11:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete as SOP, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 20:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

March 2018[edit]


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

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

light roller[edit]

heavy roller[edit]

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

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

Standard Estonian[edit]

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

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

mechanical mouse[edit]

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

Comment: Aside from the vote that is currently in place about retronyms, let's talk about this entry as if that doesn't exist. Can someone please explain the lexical nature of this lemma? Is it deducible from its parts (i.e. mechanical + mouse)? The current definition (as of the time of this post) says "A pointing device which uses a ball to detect movement." That's the part that's leaning me right now towards a keep vote, since no sense at mechanical very specifically covers the usage of a ball to detect movement (as I expected). Does what is now called a mechanical mouse specifically and only include this feature, as suggests the current definition (as I've loosely gathered from my bit of reading up on the topic)? If so, I will vote keep (later), since this can't be assumed just by looking at the two words mechanical and mouse as fit together in that order. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
A mechanical mouse is just a mouse operated through mechanical means. The details of what these means are will vary from one contraption to the other, but this has nothing to do with lexicography; "mechanical" doesn't have ten thousands different senses... --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I first thought "clockwork mouse", but reading the entry more closely it dawned on me, it's a computer mouse... DonnanZ (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I enjoy contributing to Wiktionary and I think that the community behind the site matters. With that in mind, I will refrain from creating new entries related to the vote for the remainder of the month. I thought that the mechanical mouse entry would be acceptable irrespective of the retronym vote as it appears to satisfy the so-called Lemming test - the term appears in specialised dictionaries. John Cross (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
The formulation "Terms with little of their own merit for inclusion except that they have entries in specialized dictionaries" (italics mine) is wrong as per Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/January#Proposal: Use Lemming principle to speed RfDs. So you have been mislead. This discussion allows general, not specialized, dictionaries to be used, as per "Initially, I would suggest that we include only general monolingual dictionaries and exclude idiom dictionaries, phrasebooks, technical glossaries, and WordNet." I have edited Wiktionary:Idioms that survived RFD to correct the issue, and it now says "Terms with little of their own merit for inclusion except that they have entries in general monolingual dictionaries." --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I was misled. I expect others are confused also. There seem to be two versions of the Lemming Test (A) that allows for specialised dictionaries and possibly even prefers them to general dictionaries and (B) that only allows general monolingual dictionaries. This is all before my time but looking back I can see that in September 2007 there was an 'if your dictionaries jumped off a cliff test' that refers to specialised dictionaries and predates the lemming 'general dictionaries' vote in January 2014 by about six years. [4] See also talk pages of technological unemployment (discussion references "Dictionary of Business Terms" and of "The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy") and genuine issue of material fact (discussion references Black's law dictionary). There does seem to be some precedent for the approach I have taken but it is not as solid as I thought based on reading Wiktionary:Idioms that survived RFD. John Cross (talk) 07:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep for the interim. I think the vote starts tomorrow, and wannabe deletionists should hold off RFDing any more SoP entries for the time being. DonnanZ (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep and clarify community policy. The main aim of the Lemming Test seems to me to be reducing the need for long debates/detailed analysis - clarity is essential to achieving that. John Cross (talk) 07:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, SOP. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Personal Social Health Education[edit]

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

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

in two days[edit]

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

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

personal data[edit]

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

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

pharmacological agent[edit]

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

Thanks and delete. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
The substance, not the salesperson, right :)? Present in The Oxford Dictionary of Sports Science & Medicine[5]. Also in Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 9th edition. © 2009, Elsevier[6]. These are not the typical lemming-heuristic dictionaries, but they do give me a pause. Are our users really better off when the entry is deleted? --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. They won't be misled into thinking that "pharmalogical agent" has an idiomatic sense that it doesn't have. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep then. 17:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Why? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Orthodox Christian[edit]

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


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

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

car door[edit]

Could be a sum of parts. There is a 2006 discussion at Talk:car door. Can someone attest cardoor so that WT:COALMINE applies? And does translation hub argument apply, via French portière and Spanish portezuela? car door at OneLook Dictionary Search does not find the classical lemming dictionaries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
cardoor? Ugh. DP wants to use coalmine for all the wrong reasons. Just keep it. DonnanZ (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
@DonnanZ: In the spirit of substance-based discussion seeking arguments and evidence, keep it why? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
It does appear to have two senses, one automotive, the other a railway carriage door, especially in American English; the quote appears to bear this out. DonnanZ (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I cannot see any reason why this is not sum of parts. Mihia (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Abstain. It probably passes COALMINE, but a problem is that most appearances on BGC are in snippet view and that in many cases where "cardoor(s)" is attested, there are also unverifiable hits for "car door". Leaving those out, some results where "cardoor(s)" is the most common are: [7], [8] (messy, 3 hits for "cardoor(s)" and 2 for "car door(s)"), [9], [10] ("car door" could be a less common variant), [11] ("car door" is less common than "cardoor"). Many hits refer to agricultural suppliers operating from their car in the US ca. 1910 to 1960.
The sense "carriage door" can be attested for "car door" (probably not for "cardoor"), but consider car senses 3 to 5. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Otherwise we need truck door, etc. Nicole Sharp (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
If "car door" exists as an elision of carriage door (as opposed to just being "the door of a car"), then keep. Nicole Sharp (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not in America, but what about a boxcar door? Can it also be called a car door? DonnanZ (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Leaning keep. I would think that on an automobile, "car door" refers to the driver and passenger doors, but not to a rear door like a hatchback. I would agree that the door of a boxcar is also called a car door. bd2412 T 14:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
    Here and here, "hatchback door" is defined as "a sloping rear car door that is lifted to open".  --Lambiam 17:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete – sum-of-parts. The argument (offered at the 2006 RFV) that a car door differs from a bathroom door in being specifically designed for a car does not cut it, as far as I'm concerned. The same is true for car fender, which is a fender specifically designed for a car. Likewise for car axle, car engine, car tyre, car spoiler, ..., all of which are in actual use.  --Lambiam 17:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 11:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


less than stellar[edit]

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

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

But any phrase can be used "sarcastically" (it's really litotes rather than sarcasm). Not exactly Brad Pitt gets more than 120 Google Books hits. You can't codify irony. Ƿidsiþ 13:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I see only 12 actual hits.  --Lambiam 18:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
"Less than X" is quite frequently a sarcastic/ironical construct, for any X. (Should we add something at "less than"?) By the way, when closing this, we should probably take the same action with the unhyphenated "less than stellar" entry. Equinox 04:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Now also nominating the alt form less than stellar. Equinox 14:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


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


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


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

Add, it looks like this passes COALMINE. [14] [15] [16] [17] ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Conditional support: That's "evermoving", "ever-moving" needs quotes as well. And another one. DonnanZ (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Just done ever-shifting, which could well be a synonym of this. DonnanZ (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Add per Lingo and thus COALMINE. Here's ever-moving, evermoving at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


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

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

leave in[edit]

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

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

take out[edit]

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

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

sexual frustration[edit]

frustration sexuelle[edit]

seksuel frustration[edit]

frustración sexual[edit]

frustração sexual[edit]

frustrazione sessuale[edit]

sexually frustrated[edit]

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

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

wait a minute[edit]

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

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






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

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

death to[edit]

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

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

fan translation[edit]

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

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

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

April 2018[edit]

be one[edit]

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

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

distributive property[edit]

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

sinusoidal function[edit]

sinusoidal functions[edit]

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

Non-mathematically, I think the phrase could also be used medically with regards to the sinusoids in the cardiovascular system-- a sentence like "The admission of albumin into the bloodstream is not arterial, but rather is a sinusoidal function." would not be all that abnormal. Other than this, I think 'sinusoidal' can also be descriptive of things other than function that resemble the shape of the function, e.g. sinusoidal clouds, sinusoidal waves (the water variety), and might even be used figuratively for rising and falling.
That said, I don't think that these other uses necessarily gainsay the SoP, but they're worth considering. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
It could mean more than one thing but I think all are SoP; I lean towards delete. Equinox 00:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know. Redirect to sinusoidal? I considered the Talk:free variable argument, but found in sinusoidal wave, sinusoidal function at Google Ngram Viewer that the wave is even more common than function. Note that the definition would need to be ajusted to cover both waves and functions. For sine wave, sine wave at OneLook Dictionary Search finds multiple lemming dictionaries, including M-W[18].--Dan Polansky (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Taken literally as a sum-of-parts, '"sinusoidal function" should mean: a function that is sinusoidal. So (discarding the anatomical sense) this would be a function in the form of a wave. But functions do not have a form. The graph of the function does, and if it is a sinusoid, by extension the function is called suicidal sinusoidal. So, strictly speaking, this is not a sum-of-parts; you need a modicum of mathematical literacy to apply the right amount of sloppiness that will lead you from the parts to the meaning.  --Lambiam 13:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Per utramque cavernam 10:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

brown leaf[edit]

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

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

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

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


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

A possible keep, shown as an adjective here. DonnanZ (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
But it doesn't pass the tests for adjectivity. You can't say "**this ban is blanket" or "**a very blanket statement", for example. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
No it always seems to be attributive, found a couple more refs where it is listed as an adjective, Cambridge and Collins. It appears to be figurative usage of the noun; even the noun can be used figuratively, e.g. wet blanket. I'm not sure about blanket bath, which needs an entry (an all-over wash given to a person confined to bed); whether it's a literal or figurative sense I don't know. DonnanZ (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep the adjective section using the lemming heuristic: M-W[19], Macmillan[20], oxforddictionaries.com[21], dictionary.cambridge.org[22]; Collins[23] says "adjective [usually ADJECTIVE noun]", which I don't know that that means. On a marginal note: these dictionaries used to have such beautiful websites, before this pernicious tabletty design fashion came. Wiktionary still keeps its beautiful design free from locked in top search bars. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
So we're just going to propagate the mistake of other dictionaries? In fact, I'm not even convinced this a genuine mistake on their part; rather, it looks like an intentional shortcut, to avoid having to explain why it can't be an adjective (their websites aren't really suited to that). As we're more linguistically minded, do we really want to do that too?
Collins is probably saying, like the others, that this "adjective" is always found before the noun it qualifies. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 07:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: Please see this revision for what I think would be the best solution. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 07:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Not my favorite; keep as is. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
How do you know it's a mistake? There is no ultimate test of adjectivity in English: obviously, not all adjectives are comparable, forming comparatives and superlatives. Note that the etymology of the word seems to be adjectival. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
There might be no ultimate test of adjectivity, but that this word passes none of the usual ones (as I said above, I don't think you can say "**this ban is blanket", nor "**a very blanket statement"; and you certainly can't say "**blanketer/**blanketest/**more blanket/**blanketly" (edit: actually you can, which seriously undermines my point...)) seems like a pretty good indicator that it's not an adjective. If I'm wrong, please show me why.
As for the etymology: that the word is of adjectival origin is irrelevant. Or are you arguing that that sense of blanket is actually a remnant of that? I very much doubt it, but again, I'm willing to be shown otherwise. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I delegate the lexicographical research to lemmings in this case. I do not have access to their internal records and deliberations. I point out again to there being no conclusive test of adjectivity since non-comparable adjectives exist. In Czech, the situation is very different: there, adjectivity is seen from the surface morphology. Thus, lumbální looks like an adjective and inflects like an adjective, and is non-comparable. In English, adjectivity is more difficult to recognize. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep. Equinox 10:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@Equinox: Why? Syntactic reasons? Lemmings? I'm not willing to let this go yet. Per utramque cavernam 11:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
How would you phrase your proposed noun sense to replace it? It's virtually always, or maybe always-always, in the form "blanket + noun", and doesn't stand alone as a noun. Just doesn't feel nouny at all. Equinox 11:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I had a go at adding missing derived terms, and found it difficult in some cases to separate between noun and adjective, so in the end I lumped them all together. Perhaps another editor can do a better job. DonnanZ (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The OED has this (under the noun) - "Used adjectivally in the sense: covering or including all, or a number of, cases, contingencies, requirements, things, etc.; all-embracing; indiscriminate, inclusive. orig. U.S." SemperBlotto (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @DCDuring, Mihia: Sorry for the canvassing, but I'd like more opinions on this. A similar case to commuter below, so maybe you'll be interested in this one too. Per utramque cavernam 20:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
    One thing that overrides all the grammatical tests for adjectivity is the semantic one. Equinox and the lemmings seem to agree on the absence of a suitable nounal definition that fits the attributive use in the challenged sense. MWOnline's closest noun definition is "something that resembles a blanket". But does a denial resemble a blanket in blanket denial in a way that makes the adjective meaning of blanket clear? I think not. Keep. DCDuring (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
    @DCDuring: (and @Equinox at the same time): fair enough; I take your point that it's difficult/impossible to find a good nounal definition.
    But what bothers me with simply labelling it as an adjective is that we're hiding a problem under the rug: we don't explain how the sense came to be exactly. It must have been a figurative attributive use of the noun blanket, right? Semantic drive has made it awkward to define it as a noun, but etymologically what else could it be? Per utramque cavernam 22:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
    You can always put that in the Etymology section. (Sometimes people even split up the ety based on a noun becoming a verb, etc., so that is an option too.) Equinox 22:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Abstain. To me, this seems a borderline or difficult case. It doesn't totally feel like an adjective to me, but on the other hand, as mentioned above, there doesn't seem to be a suitable noun sense, at least not one that can exist non-attributively. I guess an alternative to "keep" might be to have a noun sense labelled "attributive". Mihia (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
    That would have been my preferred solution, and it apparently is the OED's solution. Per utramque cavernam 22:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
    I'd have nothing against that except the prospect of trying to retroactively find and amend the entries that are not consistent with that approach. DCDuring (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

May 2018[edit]

tits and bums[edit]

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

Tits and ass is no longer above (having survived RFV), so this should probably be addressed separately. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I need to look more closely at these items – these alleged "tits" and "bums". Does anyone have any examples? Mihia (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
{{rfi|en}}. DCDuring (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I am starting to have examples of tits. :( Equinox 00:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

daily paper[edit]

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

Weak delete. It would be interesting to know whether "daily" as a noun in this sense is a direct shortening of something like "daily paper" or "daily newspaper". After a cursory look I didn't find anything in support or contrary to that, but it may have some bearing on whether to keep daily paper. My inclination is to see it as SOP daily (adjective) + paper (sense 2). --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Keep as a synonym. I don't think anything will be achieved by deleting this, and it may be helpful to those whose native language is not English. DonnanZ (talk) 07:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Keep because paper has multiple meanings. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Did you even read the-- oh well. Equinox 02:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Just chalk it up alongside that rain triple entry.--SanctMinimalicen (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 11:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Cambridge Advanced Learners has the following definition, which is marginally not SoP: "a newspaper that is published every day of the week except Sunday". They are the only OneLook reference with an entry. That would seem to be a UK def. DCDuring (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Wow. Presumably this is just because we have (or had) a long history of biblically not doing things on Sundays. (In the 1990s, supermarkets started opening on Sunday because the amount they sold would easily pay the legal fines; the law changed shortly thereafter.) Does any older Brit recognise this meaning of "daily paper"? Blotto? Equinox 00:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
On second thoughts: I suppose you can contrast the "daily paper" with the "Sunday paper" (which is sometimes a special Sunday edition of the daily one, full of pull-outs etc.). But in that case, the problematic entry is daily (noun), which just says it's a paper published every day. Equinox 00:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The Rock, the Rock[edit]

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

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

Sandy Hook[edit]

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

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

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

phono-semantic compound[edit]

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

I think a "compound" does not necessery mean a character.--Zcreator alt (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
1-The term 形声字 is found in 现代汉语规范词典 3rd edition on page 1470. By creating the phono-semantic compound article, I wanted to create the English-language article which corresponded to 形聲字.
2- My broader goal is that all the Chinese-English wiktionary articles which have the words 'Phono-semantic compound' in the Glyph Origin section should have a blue link to the phono-semantic compound article or another similar article. The concept of a 'phono-semantic compound' (or character) is difficult for many people to understand or accept, which makes learning Chinese characters more difficult because those learners don't understand why the right-hand side of the character is there. The written form of Chinese is somewhat inaccessible without understanding this concept, and a blue link invites the readers to find out about it. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

aim to[edit]

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

crash together[edit]

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

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

grow fond of[edit]

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

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


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

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

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


Then the brand name section goes on to say:

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

Then we must consider the line about usage:

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

Having all these things in mind, I think our mission now for anyone actually advocating this entry would be to see if anyone refers to this initialism outside of any reference to the company or anything related? This is sort of contradictory when using this approach, though, because it says that in the first quoted line that any initialisms, abbreviations, or acronyms are allowed, and then never mentions initialisms, acronyms, or abbreviations again on the entire page. There's no "unless" in that line, so... To those opposing this entry, should we change that part of CFI? PseudoSkull (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep and add a sense for the euphemism. Let's not pretend that the word isn't used as a euphemism, or that the euphemism isn't derived from the acronym, or that the creators of the acronym didn't intend precisely that outcome. See Gaynor Lea-Greenwood, Fashion Marketing Communications (2012), p. 11: "Every time a new version of the fcuk slogan was released, it was considered relevant to the target market, which enjoyed the iconic and cheeky slogans"; Thomas Riggs, Encyclopedia of major marketing campaigns, Volume 2 (2006), p. 580: "French Connection was rebranded as FCUK, a move that generated extensive controversy while fueling unprecedented company growth. Outdoor advertisements in London, tagged "FCUK fashion," were outlawed by Britain's Advertising Standards Authority after widespread outrage". bd2412 T 22:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep and add sense for the euphemism, per above. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


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

  • I can provide four citations from [24] if you really want them. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't feel like that's sufficient to make this a common misspelling. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 10:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Del as an overly-rare misspelling. - -sche (discuss) 01:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


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

  • I've converted it into a misspelling. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as a rare misspelling (and some of those are clearly typos: an example, where giusto is spelled correctly most of the time.) --Per utramque cavernam 17:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per PUC. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 18:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep as a very common misspelling: the frequency ratio is about 100, which is very favorable for a misspelling. (guisto*100),giusto at Google Ngram Viewer. By the way, the entry is entered as English. Policy: WT:CFI#Spellings. Frequency ratio calibration: User talk:Dan Polansky/2013#What is a misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as a rare misspelling. @Dan Polansky, did you see PUC's links above? When I actually page through BGC results, I see that the misspelling is really quite rare, and other usage seems to be getting in the way. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
    The first link by PUC is GNV without multiplication by 100, whereas I have posted the same with multiplication by 100 to show the ratio. The other PUC link shows text that has both "guisto" and "giusto", which only confirms this to be a misspelling rather than an intentional spelling by the author of the text. I don't see any negative bearing of this on my conclusion. Note that even if the frequency ratio were wrong by factor of 10, it would be 1000, which is still good for keeping a misspelling, per my calibration. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
    In the text I've linked to, "guisto" is a typo, not a misspelling. Per utramque cavernam 15:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
    If whatever is a typo is considered to be not a misspelling, then you have no WT:CFI-based case for deletion at all: WT:CFI#Spellings only excludes "misspellings" even if attested. That's not my taxonomy/ontology, though; to me, typos are misspellings. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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

June 2018[edit]

full to the brim[edit]

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

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

political spectrum[edit]

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

I'm inclined to agree, but there's also light spectrum--should that be treated the same? --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 03:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
There are also electromagnetic spectrum and visible spectrum (and also optical spectrum, nuclear spectrum, hydrogen spectrum, mass spectrum, first-order spectrum).
Maybe at least light spectrum could become a translation hub (there's Lichtspektrum which is a single word)? - 03:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Keep along with all the examples. They all have distinct meanings, because you will not know from the parts what dimension is the basis of the continuum. And some of these are not a continuum, but are point/lines on a continuum. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

individual racism[edit]

institutional racism[edit]

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

Agree, delete. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 03:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't the same apply to institutional racism, i.e. shouldn't it be deleted as well? - 03:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
That's a good point. I'll add it. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 03:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete both. But @-sche, are you ok with adding institutional racism to your nom? Per utramque cavernam 09:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry--I should have asked first. We can definitely separate it out as a separate nom if you prefer, -sche. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
It may have a bit more claim to idiomaticity than "individual racism" does, but it's fine to add it to this section—people who want to vote to delete one and keep the other can do that. - -sche (discuss) 16:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Can't really believe that "individual racism" merits an entry. It's one of those hot/trending topics but that doesn't make it not SoP. Delete. (Probably "institutional racism" too but that's more arguable.) Equinox 20:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Keep institutional racism - it is a term defined in the 1999 Lawrence report (UK) (though that wasn't the first usage). John Cross (talk) 10:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
"institutional racism" seems SOP to me - a quick google attests "institutional {sexism, ableism}" (perhaps by analogy), but also "institutional {indifference, failure, inertial}". But it's a sense of institutional we don't have defined yet. I'm going to attempt a definition, I'd appreciate more eyes on it. Jonathan Hall (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Agree, delete both, sum of parts. Yurivict (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

bow grip, bow hold[edit]

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

Without hesitation[edit]

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

Delete without hesitation! – Julia • formerly Gormflaith • 03:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
:] --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Without delay is also common and also SoP. Wonder if we can move the translation somewhere. Equinox 04:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking about that. Looking at a few Maori dictionaries, it looks like the creator of the page didn't even fully understand the word--it's more like "steadfast, unwavering" than it is "immediately", but seems to apply to both senses. I don't know Maori really at all, but based on the dictionaries, I think that "unwavering" is a good choice because it covers both the immediacy and the firmness. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
It's actually a verb: "to be steadfast, unwavering". Perhaps move the translation to stand firm, or something like that? --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I believe all Maori adjectives are stative verbs, and I'm not sure what our convention is with such languages- it would be odd to have no translation for green because Maori treats it as "to be green". Chuck Entz (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
That's fascinating--taking the "green" example, we currently have the Maori word for "to be green" as a translation of our adjective "green"--so to mimic that we could go with the first idea I put forth (which is now unstricken), and put it in "unwavering". --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 14:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete. - -sche (discuss) 05:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

American option[edit]

Bermudan option[edit]

European option[edit]

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

Keep using the talk:free variable rationale. I would never look up Bermudan option under "Bermudan", and I think "Bermudan call" and "Bermudan put" are basically derived terms of Bermudan option. If keeping is not feasible, at least redirect, but we can serve our readers best by keeping, I think. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Move definitions to American etc. Add redirects, sure, but don't keep the main definition at "... option". Note that "American" etc. can be used directly as adjectives:
    • 2009, John C. Hull, Options, Futures, and other Derivatives (Seventh Edition), Pearson Education, page 182:
      All of these trade on the Chicago Board Options Exchange. Most of the contracts are European. An exception is the OEX contract on the S&P 100, which is American.
    • 2009, Shih-Feng Huang and Meihui Guo, Applied Quantitative Finance (Second Edition), Springer, page 295:
      Multi-dimensional option pricing becomes an important topic in financial markets (Franker et al., 2008). Among which, the American-type derivative (e.g. the Bermudan option) pricing is a challenging problem.
    • 2010, Johnathan Mun, Modeling Risk + DVD: Applying Monte Carlo Risk Simulation, Strategic Real Options, Stochastic Forecasting, and Portfolio Optimization (Second Edition), John Wiley & Sons:
      Based on the analyses throughout the case study, it is recommended that the use of a model that assumes an ESO is European style when, in fact, the option is American style with the other exotic variables should not be permitted, as this substantially overstates compensation expenses.
-Stelio (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


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

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


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

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

floating palette[edit]

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

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

sucker trap[edit]

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

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

fuck this[edit]

screw this[edit]

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

Dunno, I'm personally not bothered, but it's language I wouldn't use. The usage examples are interesting. DonnanZ (talk) 10:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd say weak keep. It does seem like an idiomatic expression, and I'm surprised so many people voted to delete it without any discussion or reasoning last time. @Equinox, Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV (two of the deleters last time who are still around), what do you think now? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
keep as they do have distinct meaning and use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Weak keep for me too. I wouldn't want to delete fuck it and screw it either. Per utramque cavernam 11:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

fundamental theorem[edit]

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

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

sneak out[edit]

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

Delete. I almost wanted to keep it because in my mind the phrase sneak out by itself implies sneaking out of one's own home ("We had to keep a close eye on Ryan because he was always sneaking out."), which might make it not exactly sum of parts, but this entry includes all venues of leaving surreptitiously, which does make it SoP whilst also accounting for my definition above. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, it has a couple of older brothers, sneak in and sneak up on. DonnanZ (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Good point. Sneak up seems to operate the same way as sneak out, and probably should be investigated together with it. Sneak up on may have a better case for inclusion, but still might be accountable by means of sneak + up (sense 12) + on (sense 2). But it's up to Equinox if he wants to discuss those as well. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
And then there's sneak away. But in the absence of any other RFDs for sneak derivatives I would keep it. DonnanZ (talk) 10:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I think it's better that we consider them all then keep one simply because we didn't. See #sneak in below. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete per proponent. Per utramque cavernam 10:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

feed out of[edit]

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

Well, I feel like there might be something to this one. "The cows were fed out of troughs" is very different from "The cows were fed out of the chute into the slaughterhouse". The former seems clearly SoP, the latter not so much, at least based off of our current senses of feed. In any case, entry doesn't cover the distinction...so maybe add sense to feed that covers the regular, constant transmission of material from one point to another, and then delete. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
In "fed out of the chute into the slaughterhouse", feed is used in sense 4: "To give to a machine to be processed". Of course a slaughterhouse is not literally a machine; this is a metaphorical use. You could also say, extending the example at feed: Feed the paper gently out of the waste basket into the document shredder.  --Lambiam 01:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Per utramque cavernam 10:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

bird's nest[edit]

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

I'm inclined to keep it. There is also bird's nest fungus, which should link to this (but doesn't), and I'm surprised there's no entry for bird's nest soup. DonnanZ (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I didn't realise at first this is a new entry, but I'm still saying "keep". DonnanZ (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Definitely delete the current sense. We should probably add a sense for a metaphoric tangled mess, as in "on windy days her hair was an absolute bird's nest". Chuck Entz (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • We lacked any of the metaphor-derived definitions, for example, the six that MWOnline has. They may be hard to attest. DCDuring (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete the current SoP sense, but add an edible bird's nest sense (probably a short form of that term). This is a common usage in Malaysia and Singapore: see for example [26], [27], [28]. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Even if that were to happen, somewhere is still needed to record terms that include "bird's nest" (and translations of course). DonnanZ (talk) 10:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Clearly keep. It's in the OED, Merriam-Webster, Collins, and dictionary.com. It is also stressed in speech as a compound noun. ("This is an ˌanimal's ˈnest" v. "This is a ˈbird's nest"). Ƿidsiþ 11:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I see we don't have birdnest or bird-nest. Perhaps the defs can be moved there Leasnam (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I've created birdnest and moved all content there. I've left bird's nest as an alt form. Leasnam (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Um, are there any lemmings for birdnest? Not a term I use, and not a good move, IMO. DonnanZ (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps, but birdnest is an entry we needed to create anyway, as we are missing it. This way, we can care for both issues at once Leasnam (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
You can have birdnest by all means (birdnesting also springs to mind, I'm sure that's a word), but I don't think it should be the main entry. DonnanZ (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Okay, well it's easily movable to one of the other forms if deemed more appropriate... Leasnam (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
If birdnest is an alternative of bird's nest there is now no reason to delete that. Apparently birdnest is also a verb, and birdnesting is what I thought it was, although there is apparently a new sense related to divorce. DonnanZ (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I reinstated bird's nest as the main lemma, since it was created first and is also orders of magnitude more common. Ƿidsiþ 09:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
    I agree. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per Widsith (WT:LEMMING), including the literal sense, rather transparent one. In any case, the entry now hosts more senses for which it needs to be kept, thanks to diff. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

tool of choice[edit]

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

Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 11:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

sneak in[edit]

sneak up[edit]

sneak away[edit]

sneak off[edit]

sneak up on[edit]

Each as SoP. See conversation at #sneak out.

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

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

debug menu[edit]

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

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

people are people[edit]

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

I'm confused, wasn't this added by User:Lambiam? DonnanZ (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, wrong revision. —Suzukaze-c 00:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I merely edited it, after it had been added by another editor. See also Wiktionary:Tea room/2018/June#people are people.  --Lambiam 01:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I think DonnanZ was referring to the username I attributed to the post? You forgot to add your username (one too many hyphens). —Suzukaze-c 01:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
This hasn't really reached the status of "boys will be boys". It seems SoP to me and I would lean toward deletion. I am also reminded of the modern Internet slang of e.g. "obvious troll is obvious" or "long cat is long". Equinox 22:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I have never been particularly happy with the definition, I'm not sure how to redefine it (if it's salvageable). All people have human failings? DonnanZ (talk) 09:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete, might be worth an entry in the snowclones Appendix. Per utramque cavernam 15:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete per PUC. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

aspirational recycling[edit]

This is a preemptive RFD, as my last contribution was sent here and I'm twice shy now. Does anyone think this term ought to be deleted/excluded, or would it be safe for me to spend time on it? Here's a few attestations across the last four years: [29][30][31][32].--Father Goose (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

what the hell[edit]

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

Of course, we should add {{&lit}} and leave the example sentence as it is.__Gamren (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete per proponent. Per utramque cavernam 10:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep via WT:LEMMING: in MW[34] although only as boldfaced part of their "hell" entry, and oxforddictionaries.com[35]. My lemming-free instinct would be to keep as well; compare also what the fuck. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

instant karma[edit]

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

  • It isn’t, actually, though. Here’s your difference. If you throw a rock at a window, and immediately after, a bird poops on your head, you might call that karma, and it is instant. But it isn’t this. This is, you throw a rock at a window, and instead of it breaking the window, it bounces off and hits you in the head. If you go look at all the instant karma memes, all are instances of this sort of thing happening. Pandeist (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Or if you help someone across the street and there's an accident where you would have been standing, that wouldn't be instant karma, either. In other words, it's an unforeseen negative consequence to a negative action- immediate, coincidentally self-inflicted poetic justice. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Yes, that!! Always negative, and always essentially self-inflicted. Pandeist (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Keep, although this is quite close to sense 2 of karma, and make it more clear that it is about self-inflected negative consequences. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

too clever by half[edit]

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

It looks like a "lemming" keep. DonnanZ (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
The definition we currently have at by half (and those I see in other dictionaries), which focuses on just being "in excess", doesn't really allow one to derive the def we have at too clever by half, but I think that may be a fixable shortcoming of the definition, since in "too talented by half", "too smart by half" etc it seems to have the same meaning of "excessive to the point of excess complexity which causes failures" (or something like that). Presumably we have to fix that (I've taken a stab at it) even if we keep this specific phrase on a 'lemming' argument (Merriam-Webster and Oxford Dictionaries Online do include this one; Merriam-Webster, Collins, and Dictionary.com also have "by half"). Abstain for now. - -sche (discuss) 16:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete, maybe add it to the snow clones appendix, and improve by half. Per utramque cavernam 11:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

sexual market value[edit]

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

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

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

I'm not convinced it should be deleted, but you haven't provided any reason for why it should be kept either. Per utramque cavernam 11:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
It should go the other way: Giving a reason for deletion, then seeing if it applies, is convincing, and no reason given = no reason for deletion.
I can think of only three reasons:
  • 1. not politically correct, immoral, offensive - which is no reason for deletion.
  • 2. It doesn't exist, isn't attestable (WT:CFI) - this would be a matter for WT:RFVE and not of WT:RFD.
  • 3. SOP. The parsing question might be a reason for keep. Is it sexual market + value (~ Germ. *Wert auf dem sexuellen Markt oder Sexualmarkt, *Sexualmarkt-wert) or sexual + market value (~ Germ. *sexueller Marktwert).
- 12:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
>"you haven't provided any reason for why it should be kept" - @Per utramque cavernam:
I did; "Popular term" Amin (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Leaning delete…I also see results for "emotional market value", "romantic market value", "intellectual market value", "nutritional market value", "environmental market value", "political market value" etc etc etc. Ƿidsiþ 19:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I think you accidentally proved my point that sexual market value deserved to be included lol. I searched for the terms you mentioned, here are the results.
Google search results:
"sexual market value": 35.000
"emotional market value": 22
"romantic market value": 338
"intellectual market value": 24
"nutritional market value": 765
"environmental market value": 21
"political market value": 6
Amin (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
"Sexual market value" only gets 500 hits on Google Books, an order of magnitude less than, say, "intrinsic market value" or "real market value". Should those have entries as well? Ƿidsiþ 07:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, it may appear non-SOP because of the overly narrow definition that specifies a "dating market", but the term can also describe any sex appeal or attractiveness in non-dating contexts. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ƿidsiþ and Bingo. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Abstain. Also (not that it really has any bearing on this RFD request), Wiktionary:Tea room/2018/June § SMV - sexual market value: should we parse this as [[sexual market] + [value]] or [[sexual] + [market value]]? sexual market place (sexual marketplace?) seems pretty clearly to be [[sexual] + [market place]]. Per utramque cavernam 11:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

July 2018[edit]


Moved from RFD/non-English.

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

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


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

Delete, I think. Sargasso Sea should have been linked to sargasso, it is now. DonnanZ (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Unless it's the name of a weather forecasting area or something? DonnanZ (talk) 09:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Delete the RFDed sense. But this also exists (like Atlantic, Mediterranean, etc) as a short form, which I've added (converting the rfd tag to rfd-sense). There are also citations like these, but they seem better covered by the "short form" sense I added. - -sche (discuss) 17:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I can go along with that, I think. But short names don't work in many cases, e.g. "the North" for North Sea, and "the Indian" for Indian Ocean. DonnanZ (talk) 08:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect to either sargasso or Sargasso Sea Purplebackpack89 15:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
    The RFDed sense can't be redirected anymore because there's another sense on the page now. (If you want to start a new RFD section for that sense, go ahead.) - -sche (discuss) 16:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

cheese sauce[edit]

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

No definition, automatic deletion? DonnanZ (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
There's a definition in Oxford, so it may be entry-worthy. Certain contributors need to try a little harder. DonnanZ (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me. Passes the lemming test. --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that this is linguistically no different from tomato sauce. bd2412 T 02:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Keep based on the fact that we have tomato sauce and the fact that a person wouldn't know what this sauce looked or tasted like just by knowing that it is a sauce made from cheese (so I would say it passes the fried egg test). The definition should be improved though. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

blue film[edit]

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

I can't remember now, but I wouldn't rule it out, it has the same definition as blue movie. This term would be rather dated and I think this needs to go to RFV, to see if anything can be found in Google Books. DonnanZ (talk) 07:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
It's attestable, though it doesn't seem particularly common. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Delete: film is predominantly used in British English as opposed to movie in American English. However even in British English you would refer to a blue movie as a set phrase and not a blue film. -Stelio (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

politically correct[edit]

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

I disagree. The definition says "conforming to the correct political positions", but that seems more an attempt to explain how that sense of the word developed from a more literal meaning, rather than being itself a good definition. What does "correct political positions" even mean? So keep. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
"The correct political positions" means the party line, doesn't it? Equinox 19:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Maybe that should be included in the definition. I still think it's non-SOP though. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per Andrew Purplebackpack89 15:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep and delete first part of def, which is not clear at best; the second part of def "following the official policies of the government or a political party" is a perfectly fine definition by itself. (If indeed that is what it means, which I am not so sure about); but in any case there needs to be a def for these early uses - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

letter art[edit]

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

Keep. What part of letter and art can convey the meaning "to form a picture"? ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Keep. I wasn't sure what it even meant until I looked it up. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

petrol engine[edit]

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

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

signed Mass card[edit]

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

Me too. You probably have to be a Roman Catholic to appreciate the difference. DonnanZ (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Anything to do with the sale of indulgencies? SemperBlotto (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Roman Catholic weighing in. It seems SOP to me (a Google search yields terms like "stamped Mass card" and "pre-signed Mass card" which support that conclusion). And no, it's not directly related to the sale of indulgences, but the latter was the distortion/development of a similar practice. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
That was an implied delete, in case it wasn't clear. @Donnanz, SemperBlotto, what say you? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I will abstain, not being a Catholic I know nothing about it. DonnanZ (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Keep. (Both are my original entries). I can't see any definition of sign that matches the description. It's not a signature that is added to the card, it's a stamp, indicating that a donation has been made to the parish.--Dmol (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, there's "To seal (a document etc.) with an identifying seal or symbol" along with "To validate or ratify (a document) by writing one's signature on it," which could make it clear enough. There could well be a sense missing from "sign" as well. I'm willing to defer to your judgement, however and change my vote to a tentative keep. I noted above, however, that "stamped Mass-card" exists as well, so "signed Mass card" seems to be more of an imprecision in language than anything. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Also a Roman Catholic--I concur with @Andrew Sheedy's initial thoughts--there isn't really much to a signed Mass card than signed + Mass card. The fact that "unsigned Mass card" is in use is indicative of this. Dmol's thought gives me pause, but they can in fact be signed or stamped--the method of validation is irrelevant. I think, as Andrew said, that it's just imprecise language. Another example: we sign a check to validate it, even if "signing" means a secretary stamps it. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete per the above. Per utramque cavernam 12:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm making my vote explicitly delete, per the above discussion. BTW, SanctMinimalicen, I didn't get your ping. Make sure you re-sign your posts if you add a ping, because it's adding those tildes that activates it (assuming that's why it didn't work). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
@Andrew Sheedy Oops--I didn't realise that. Thanks for letting me know! -SanctMinimalicen (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

bad loser[edit]

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

Keep. It's a set phrase that means more than just bad + loser. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Keep. I prefer this to sore loser as a term. DonnanZ (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

nowhere else[edit]

anywhere else[edit]

everywhere else[edit]

somewhere else[edit]

anyplace else[edit]

anybody else[edit]

someone else[edit]

anyone else[edit]

everyone else[edit]

anything else[edit]

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

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

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

copious free time[edit]

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

The definition seems slightly different from the SoP interpretation. This phrase puts me in mind of real soon now, maybe because they are both sort of SoP, or maybe because they are things that nerds who wrote RFCs are likely to say. Equinox 03:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I see nothing in this other than sarcastic use, which could equally well be applied to any similar phrase such as "vast amounts of free time", "endless spare time", or whatever else anyone cares to come up with. Mihia (talk) 13:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Delete. It's either spoken in earnest (which is directly SoP), or in sarcasm, which is just an ironical use of SoP. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
To me it seems like an idiom...? Gryllida 01:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete. I think this started with Tom Lehrer's remarks introducing the song "It Makes a Fellow Proud to Be a Soldier" on An Evening Wasted with Tom Lehrer. I think he was trying to make fun of the low-brow language used by the officers he served under in the US Army by paraphrasing what they said in incongruously high-brow terms. The phrase sounded rather odd, so other people used it when they wanted a similar effect. I don't think that makes it a lexical unit, any more than quotes like "That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard" (in imitation of Groucho Marx) are. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

geographical area[edit]

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

I would prefer to keep this in preference to the other one. It is a possible translation target; yes, I know there are none at the moment. DonnanZ (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

interface description language[edit]

interface definition language[edit]

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

Delete both, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 11:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

not have the faintest idea[edit]

A common collocation, but does it warrant an entry? Per utramque cavernam 10:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

not have the faintest is a slightly shorter form. DonnanZ (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Or even I haven't the faintest. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz:
How is she doing?
- Not the faintest clue.
"I haven't the faintest" feels like an unfinished sentence to me, probably used to express confusion, like what the. Alexis Jazz (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
It's just a clipping, a shorter way of saying it. "I haven't the faintest" would normally be an answer to a question. DonnanZ (talk) 07:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I suppose that happens, I personally can't recall hearing it often though. When it comes to clippings, I think "Not the faintest clue/idea." is more common. And "Not a clue." is even shorter. And no idea is even shorter than that. I'd stick to not have the faintest (existing entry) in this case. Alexis Jazz (talk) 08:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@Donnanz, Chuck Entz: Can you cite the clipping? I was unable to. Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English#not have the faintest Alexis Jazz (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Compare to foggiest and have the foggiest, and note the redirects pointing to the latter page. That seems a fine approach to use for "faintest" as well. -Stelio (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Model entries for faintest and have the faintest after foggiest and have the foggiest, respectively, as Stelio mentioned. I don't think that any of the forms of "Have the faintest/foggiest idea/clue/notion/etc. [about something]" warrant an entry, as they are essentially SoP. They can simply be referenced in the etymologies of faintest, foggiest, have the faintest and have the foggiest. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
(Though honestly it may be more useful to make the phrasal verbs negative, i.e. not have the faintest and not have the foggiest. Either way would work, I suppose.) --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

physically attractive[edit]

physically + attractive. Per utramque cavernam 18:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

no idea[edit]

The noun. I am open about this, but I don't think it is a noun in its own right. A verbal phrase "to have no idea" would be better, I think. Searching on Oxford for "no idea" brought up this however. DonnanZ (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@SemperBlotto DonnanZ (talk) 08:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete the supposed noun sense – not a noun phrase but a determiner (no) and a noun (idea). — SGconlaw (talk) 09:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • dunno SemperBlotto (talk) 09:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
It was your entry... DonnanZ (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete the noun sense, leave the interjection. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete the noun sense--seems like a misanalysis of the phrase "to have no idea". --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as per SanctMinimalicen. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

dead simple[edit]

= dead#Adverb + simple. The adverb section of the entry for dead has a pretty good set of definitions and usage examples. DCDuring (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Apparently we need an entry for πανεύκολος (panéfkolos, dead simple). Or does it just mean "very simple"? Is it only used informally, as dead simple would be? DCDuring (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, πανεύκολος (usually as the neutral πανεύκολο) does indeed mean "dead easy" (which is a far more common phrase than "dead simple" in the UK) or "very simple". In my experience it's not exclusively informal in everyday usage. But I'll ping @Sarri.greek as someone who has had a more formal education in Greek, to confirm or correct me. -Stelio (talk) 09:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you @Stelio:. απλούστατος is used both formally and informally: = highly simple, simplest & dead simple. Same for πανεύκολος= very easy & dead easy. ευκολότατος on the other hand is more formal. @DCDuring:, because my English is not good, I like to see examples for such expressions: their context, their formal equivalents. They are difficult to translate. And they are so many! sarri.greek (talk) 03:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
@DCDuring: doodsimpel can be used in fairly formal conversations. Alexis Jazz (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I would find it interesting as a translation hub. If entries for Greek or Esperanto are made, there will be no way to link them because non-English entries are not allowed to have translation tables. I thought this would also exist in German (toteinfach), but I find little use of that. Alexis Jazz (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Not everything needs to be linked to from English entries. Per utramque cavernam 07:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I think it is telling that no one thinks we need an entry for [[very simple]] because it would be a translation target, even though it is much more common than dead simple. Isn't this just for the dead obvious reason that dead is less common than very and actually has to be looked up to determine that it has adverbial usage with meanings other than the common adjectival one and the various derived metaphorical meanings? It is maddening to me that some believe that every spelled-solid term in any FL needs to have a corresponding single English entry no matter how utterly transparent the English multi-word expression may be. DCDuring (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
@DCDuring: in which language is very simple a single word? Not Dutch, because that's heel simpel (or heel eenvoudig). If translation tables are allowed to be added to all FL entries when there isn't an English entry to serve as a translation hub, that would be fine with me too. Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
To respond with another question: Why does English Wiktionary have to act as if [[dead simple]] is worth an entry merely because there are languages that have that as one possible English translation? DCDuring (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@DCDuring: I'm not sure I understand. Doodsimpel is dead simple, literally. Alexis Jazz (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
So what? In English dead simple = dead + simple and is synonymous with very simple. DCDuring (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 03:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete per proponent, but the relative frequencies of dead easy - dead simple in UK vs. US English should be documented on dead, methinks (i.e. I'd want to know what Stelio said above). Per utramque cavernam 10:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

pastry shop[edit]

Translation hub but translations refer to another entry? The single word does not seem attestable, so cannot COALMINE either. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 20:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

  • I must confess I have never heard of a pastry shop, patisserie yes. In fact I think patisserie is preferred in English. So if this is unverifiable, delete I think. DonnanZ (talk) 09:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
On second thoughts, it may be better to send it to RFV. DonnanZ (talk) 10:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Well no, because it's SOP. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 13:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
You will find other so-called SoP terms at shop#Derived terms, so that argument doesn't hold much water. The more pertinent question is whether the term is actually used or not, which is why I suggested RFV. DonnanZ (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Easily verified via Google Books. It seems slightly dated. Today I would expect "bakery", "cake shop", or "patisserie". Equinox 18:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it does hold water, because those entries pass via WT:LEMMING, which can be easily verified with OneLook. "pastry shop", however, does not. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 18:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps the term should be mentioned in a user note for the "patisserie" entry? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
The definition for patisserie reads "pastry shop" already, not "a shop that sells pastries". But being dated, as Equinox suggests, doesn't surprise me. DonnanZ (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
...which is bad anyway, since pastry shop itself has no gloss and is simply a translation hub. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 19:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I fail to see how it can be a translation hub (without a definition) when the creator decided to redirect translations to patisserie anyway. A bit contradictory. DonnanZ (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I have revised patisserie, and turned pastry shop into a synonym, scrapping the translations hub, which was pointless. It could still do with some quotations though, @Equinox? DonnanZ (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

go to the bad[edit]

SOP. 2602:252:D2B:3AA0:B56D:C433:141:B84B 00:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Not really any more SOP than "go bad", is it...? Equinox 00:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Is it used in a different way to go bad? Would quotations be useful? DonnanZ (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Keep, idiom. Per utramque cavernam 11:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Move to to the bad, since there are several other constructions. Ƿidsiþ 11:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


Specific proprietary database system; not a household word, and something for Wikipedia, I would think. Similar "terms" (products) that we don't have might include MySQL, Hadoop, Access, FoxPro, dBase, and so on. Equinox 17:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Not arguing the deletion but just want to correct that InnoDB is free software, while being dual licensed under GPL *and* a possible proprietary license if a company needs it. C0rn3j (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Per utramque cavernam 09:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

pastry flour[edit]

SOP. 01:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

(Definition: "a low-protein flour designed for making pastry.") I created this from a request list somewhere, probably WT:REE. Feels a bit like cooking sherry: in theory any sherry a person uses for cooking could be a "cooking sherry" but in practice it's a particular kind. Feels specifically less SoP than something like birthday cake! Equinox 01:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
There are legal standards in the US as to what you can sell as pastry flour. It doesn't matter how great it is for making pastry- if it doesn't meet the standards, it's not pastry flour. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Keep per above. It's perhaps not always NSOP, but I think it's specific enough to merit an entry. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Keep per lemmings. DCDuring (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018[edit]

pounce on[edit]

Isn't this sense already covered at pounce? --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Not exactly. We have the literal form of attack (like a cat does), and the figurative seizing on an opportunity, but not the figurative attack that seems to combine these senses. I'd say merge into pounce by adding the relevant sense. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete per SanctMinimalicen. DCDuring (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


I'm all against double-barrelled surnames. You all should be too. --New WT User Girl (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

🤦 Delete. Per utramque cavernam 20:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete both French and English entries. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
weak keep if we have surnames then we should either have all or require that the name is reasonably comm e.g. over 1,000 people have that name. John Cross (talk) 09:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Probable keep. I am a long-standing advocate of "all words in all languages". If we allow Jean-Paul then we should allow this. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
A possible difference is that certain pairs of given names are historically used together in certain orders (Jean-Paul but not Paul-Jean? Marie-Ange but not Isabelle-Ange). Surnames can combine any old way. Equinox 16:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. I work on sortname redirects on Wikipedia. Right now, I'm doing those for people with the given names "David" and "Anthony", which are relatively small samples of all given names. I have gone through the C's, so the double-barelled surnames remaining for this selection include:

Since these are surnames of notable individuals, every single one of these would likely meet the criteria for inclusion based on usage in reliable sources, and this would represent less than a tenth of a percent of double-barreled surnames. We don't even have the individual surnames from all of these combinations. With few exceptions, including double-barreled surnames would be a fools errand. bd2412 T 13:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Im on it, BD. Easiest way to make buttloads of new entries ever (sans bot) --New WT User Girl (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Literally the only purpose of the hyphen is to show that both words are part of the last name. Lexically, it's two separate words. I think we should treat these the way we treat hyphens in attributive noun phrases like "fourteen-year-old boy" or "elephant-dog-monkey monster" (that's the best I can come up with at the moment). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete all of this sort, as per Andrew. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Triple-barrelled surnames are also known. Thankfully these are rare. DonnanZ (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete; I agree these are lexically two words, like Andrew Sheedy says, and even the combination is not notably fixed the way given names can be (as Equinox says). And very many, perhaps functionally almost any, common surnames will be found to be combined with other surnames common in the same area, as BD shows. - -sche (discuss) 16:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete such surnames. The analogous toponyms are distinguishable. DCDuring (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


I understand the reasoning that the entry should exist just to illustrate the pronunciation, but that seems to be clear anyway. This is a proper noun that is not in common use as a household name. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 18:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The pronunciation can go in the lede of the Wikipedia page. —Suzukaze-c 19:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Per utramque cavernam 10:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


Not a suffix; similar case to Talk:-dimensional. The form 20-tuple can be explained in a usage note at tuple. Equinox 03:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Per utramque cavernam 13:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Abstain. Per utramque cavernam 19:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
It appears to be a valid suffix, reference added. It looks like a keep to me. DonnanZ (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
According to Oxford, tuple is derived from -tuple. DonnanZ (talk) 09:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Weak keep. I prefer the idea of putting a usage note on at tuple, but that doesn't seem right with regards to the development of the word: as DonnanZ mentioned, it seems pretty clear (and authoritatively backed) that the extrapolation of -tuple from such words as quintuple to peg on to other numbers was first, and the word only later gained independence. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Keep per Donnanz. DCDuring (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Keep per Donnanz. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Do note that the Oxford etymology doesn't claim that tuple is derived from the nominated sense. I doubt that it is controversial that this sense of -tuple (A tuple (finite sequence of terms) containing the specified number of terms) came from tuple, which derives from the apparent suffix -tuple in the adjectives and nouns septuple, octuple, centuple, etc. So that argument is neither here nor there. Therefore, delete this sense. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 07:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Just not buying the idea that that isn't a suffix, sorry. Purplebackpack89 03:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

kindergarten tactic[edit]

grade school tactic[edit]

elementary school tactic[edit]

And grade school tactic and elementary school tactic. Following up from Wiktionary:Tea_room/2018/January#elementary_school_tactic,_grade_school_tactic,_kindergarten_tactic. Equinox 03:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Per utramque cavernam 13:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete all, unless someone can come up with a good reason for keeping them. Not even directly linked to grade school and elementary school. DonnanZ (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete. As much as I like these, they seem just to be metaphorical uses of elementary school, etc. + tactic. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
You like them? Are they terms (commonly) used in American English? DonnanZ (talk) 08:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I do like them: I think they're comical. And I've definitely heard kindergarten tactic and elementary school tactic used in this way (the term grade school is uncommon in my region). I don't think they quite qualify as "common", but they're certainly not rare, in my experience. Perhaps somewhere in the "unusual" zone. But they'd be understood by most people even so. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Hmm. Maybe not understood by British readers. DonnanZ (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I meant most people in my area. Sorry, I worded it unclearly. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete this (and so many other similar phrases that use a noun metaphorically). DCDuring (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

mud over[edit]

mud up[edit]

mud down[edit]

I'm starting to get really tired of all these recent phrasal verbs. How is mud over not covered at the verb section of to mud already? I also nominate mud up, mud down for deletion and a thorough verification of all the phrasal verbs added by anons lately. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Never heard of it. Tentative delete. DonnanZ (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I have added the other two at the top. I must confess I haven't heard of any of them. DonnanZ (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete all. There's nothing unique about these--they're just mud (verb) with up (adv sense 13), down (adv senses 14-15) and over (sense 1). --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I am somewhat curious as to whether these forms exist in common usage at all. Equinox 03:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, the one that seems the most likely to me is mud up--maybe something like "The boy came in from the back yard all mudded up"--but in reality that just sounds like an example of the American habit of using everything as a verb. And in any case, "muddied up" would be the more likely option, it seems to me. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. We Americans DO have a habit of being creative in converting nouns to verbs. DCDuring (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete all. But many so-called phrasal verbs have similar problems, including some legitimate phrasal verbs that have questionable definitions. Phrasal verbs seem to attract advocates who seem to love expanding what they call phrasal verb. DCDuring (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above. Per utramque cavernam 09:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

crooked smile[edit]

Seems SOP. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 15:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Not linked to smirk, but is a smirk a crooked smile as that entry suggests? DonnanZ (talk) 09:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I think this probably should be deleted. DonnanZ (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 09:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I would say delete. Moreover, the definition isn't useful or accurate. Some crooked smiles are smirks, but not all of them. Some are just uneven smiles. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 09:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete DCDuring (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 11:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete, it would be SOP if it were defined correctly (which it isn't, at present, as noted above). - -sche (discuss) 04:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

nuisance call[edit]

SOP. 2600:1000:B021:1E76:B548:C4F5:13AA:1496 20:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Keep, it passes the lemming test (see Onelook: Oxford's def doesn't cover everything). DonnanZ (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Keep per above. John Cross (talk) 08:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
It would be reasonable to say that a bad referee makes many "nuisance calls", or a nosy neighbor makes many "nuisance calls" at your door. But this term only applies to one kind of nuisance call, so keep. GaylordFancypants (talk)
Keep DCDuring (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Princess of Manga[edit]

Sort of epithet for a specific person (but not a nickname) - like Michael Jackson being the "King of Pop". Equinox 09:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 07:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete; IMO it's (furthermore) SOP, like Emperor of Japan. The fact that the current Princess of Manga got her (inofficial) title by talent (presumably) and the current Emperor of Japan got his (legally-defined) title by heredity doesn't mean it isn't SOP. - -sche (discuss) 04:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

three-sigma observation[edit]

SOP Kiwima (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete. This is just like a three-mile walk.  --Lambiam 12:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete. DCDuring (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 07:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete. - -sche (discuss) 04:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Per utramque cavernam 11:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

George VI[edit]

It is a well put together entry so I am reluctant to nominate it for deletion. Overall, I feel that the intent of the current CFI is that a complete name associated with one individual only should not be included (for example, Walt Disney [the person]) is mentioned as not being allowed an entry). John Cross (talk) 05:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

  • But this is a "regnal name". His actual name was "Albert Frederick Arthur George Windsor". As its creator, I would prefer this to be kept. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
    • We also have Louis XIV and a few others. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
      • @SemperBlotto Does this mean that the names of the last hundred-fifty-or-so popes are fair game? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
        • Not to mention the names of hundreds (thousands?) of rulers of polities and religious denominations all over the planet. w:George VI (disambiguation) mentions kings of Georgia and Imereti, as well as a catholicos of the Armenian Armenian Apostolic Church. Then there are situations like w:James VI and I who was the sixth king of Scotland and the first in England by that name. As for George VI's actual name being different, that also applies to stage names and pen names. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd say keep. WT:CFI doesn't deal with this directly, only stating that "[n]o individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic. For instance, Walter Elias Disney, the film producer and voice of Mickey Mouse, is not allowed a definition line at Walt Disney." However, this is a regnal name rather than "a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic". I would be in favour of WT:CFI being updated to allow for regnal names. — SGconlaw (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I would say keep. It's worth mentioning that Britain has had only one Queen Victoria, and she is listed at English Victoria. DonnanZ (talk) 08:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I would like to expand it to have a French entry, if only because of the different pronunciations "George sis" instead of "George the sixth". SemperBlotto (talk) 08:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Go for it if it is spelt the same. DonnanZ (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
But that's true for VI in general, surely. It's just how you say six in French! Your argument would seem to support also creating any old person called George just because French people say George differently. Equinox 13:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
On the other hand, when a foreign term (such as double entendre) has been borrowed into English, don't we create an English section for it? — SGconlaw (talk) 06:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
In the case of double entendre, having a French section would be wrong anyway: it's not in use in French, as it makes no sense morphologically.
I suppose that’s a bad example, then. I was trying to think of a term that originates from French but is now also used in English and regarded as an English word. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
But I've been wondering asking myself that question a lot: from what point can we say a word has been genuinely borrowed in English, and isn't simply a French word used in running text? Per utramque cavernam 12:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I guess there is no hard and fast rule. I’d say that a lack of quotation marks or italics may point in that direction, but is not conclusive. At the end of the day, if the term appears regularly in English texts and doesn’t seem to be specifically regarded as foreign by the speaker or writer (for example, “e.g.” and “etc.”), it can probably be regarded as having entered the English language. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with that; that's what I had in mind too.
I think something that can help is contrasting the use in different languages: there are some italicised Latin expressions found in English running text I was tempted to label as Latin; then I realised they're not used at all in French (unfortunately I can't give any example off the top of my head). That points towards genuine incorporation in English. But it's a grey area imo. Per utramque cavernam 21:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Replace with {{no entry}} and {{in wikipedia}}. DCDuring (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Replace with {{no entry}} and {{in wikipedia}} or delete. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, or at least replace with {{no entry}} and {{in wikipedia}}. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • To make it explicit, Delete, or replace with {{no entry}} and {{in wikipedia}}. As I pointed out above, there can be literally dozens (see w:John I) of senses in one entry- not just kings but bans, burgraves, caliphs, catholicoses, counts, dukes, electors, emirs, emperors, khans, maharajahs, margraves, malietoas, nawabs, nizams, pashas, popes, princes, rajas, shahs, wālis, and holders of a number of other titles. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I think we decided some years ago that the "slippery slope" argument didn't hold here. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per utramque cavernam 07:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ƿidsiþ 11:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Replace with {{no entry}} and {{in wikipedia}}.John Cross (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete or soft-redirect to WP per Chuck Entz. This is a "disambiguated" name of a specific individual, like the example of "Walt Disney" (which uses a last name rather than a regnal number); I don't buy the argument that his also going by "Albert Frederick Arthur George Windsor" makes it any more includable: I would vote to delete [[Bill Clinton]] too, if it existed and were defined as referring to Bill Clinton, even though his legal name is "William" not "Bill". - -sche (discuss) 20:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
    One thing I've noticed is that the "keep" votes are almost all from or living in England. I suspect that there's a tendency to see British monarchs as not just individuals, but also as a piece of their history, a national symbol and a branch of the government. Part of the reason for my long list of other titles was to try to show the forest hidden by the trees that are a major part of the English landscape. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep using WT:LEMMING or similar: "George VI" is in oxforddictionaries.com in "George"[39], AHD[40], and Collins[41]; even MW has that is their George entry[42]: search for "biographical name" in MW. WT:NSE leaves discretion in this case, which it does not in the Walt Disney case. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

academic discipline[edit]

academic + discipline. See also talk:academic institution. Per utramque cavernam 16:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete, SoP. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


We don't have Walmart, Tesco, Walgreens, Hooters or Lidl so why should we have this? --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

  • "all words in all languages"? SemperBlotto (talk) 04:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Not a genericized trademark > delete. Per utramque cavernam 08:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete for the reason given by PUC. Don't think WT:BRAND has been satisfied in this case. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • That doesn't alter the fact that I didn't know about Winn-Dixie. Maybe we should include retail chains. Abstain. DonnanZ (talk) 08:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per PUC. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Replace with {{no entry}} and {{in wikipedia}}. DCDuring (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete / or Replace, whatever. Fay Freak (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete / soft-redirect to Wikipedia, per DCDuring. - -sche (discuss) 20:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Abstain. First off, the nomination does not refer to WT:CFI or any CFI-based rationale as formulated; it rather makes some form of extrapolative argument. To amend this, let us assume the nomination refers to WT:CFI#Company names; then, let me point out that the section of CFI has no consensus. That said, I admit that multi-word company names are more liable to deletion than single-word company names. By contrast, I support inclusion of Walmart, Tesco, Walgreens, Hooters and Lidl as company names. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


I find this heading very confusing. Is the Delete entry actually nominated for deletion? And if so, what is the rationale? Or is the section heading an ill-formatted attempt at requesting deletion of the entries below? This, that and the other (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

fast forward[edit]

  • Keep Cambridge Advanced Learner's has it. One can find uses like (He set the fast forward to 2x but quickly realized that wouldn't fit his time frame.) —This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talkcontribs) at 02:51, 18 August 2018‎.
Yes, keep, Oxford has it too. DonnanZ (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
In that case, are you suggesting that we keep all the noun button senses? If not, we need some sort of way of distinguishing between those that should be kept and those that shouldn't, and right now I'm not seeing one. Note that, in theory, every key on a keyboard and every button on a device could have a noun sense (for example, "She hit the H on the keyboard repeatedly" – does that mean we should add the noun sense "A key on a keyboard that produces the letter h or H when pressed"?). — SGconlaw (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I looked at some of the others and did not find clear use as a noun for them. IOW, I used citations of collocations like '(PREP) DET rewind(s)' to determine noun use. I thought that attributive use (eg, play button) did not by itself justify calling it a noun. As much as I sympathize with the desire to simplify by going after classes of words, I think that individual words are normally the units to be included or excluded. DCDuring (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
@DCDuring: I don't think this is really a situation of verifying individual terms. I have no doubt that the terms are verifiable. It is more like our "Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Numbers, numerals, and ordinals" policy. In that case, we decided that, as a matter of policy, "[n]umbers, numerals, and ordinals over 100 that are not single words or are sequences of digits should not be included in the dictionary, unless the number, numeral, or ordinal in question has a separate idiomatic sense that meets the CFI". Similarly, is it desirable for us to create a noun sense for any word that might conceivably be the label for a key on a keyboard or button on a device? I don't think so. (Note that fast forward has a separate verb sense which is not challenged.) — SGconlaw (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
The attestation would be of noun use with the definition in question, using grammatical tests: does it form a plural, accept modification by determiners, serve as a subject and an object of a verb and as an object of a preposition. I don't think it's necessary to do an RfV, but such attestation provides a fact base for decision-making. If you believe that our past practice of doing such attestation and grammatical testing (eg, for adjective PoS) is wrong in this and similar cases, it might be worth bringing it up at BP.DCDuring (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not saying that noun use doesn't exist. I agree it does. My point is that we should decide as a matter of policy whether, despite such a sense existing, we should be including such usage in the Wiktionary. Potentially every key in a keyboard and every button on a device could be used in a noun sense (e.g, H: "A key on a keyboard producing an h or H when pressed"; start: "A button on a machine that causes it to begin operating when pressed"). That doesn't mean we should then add such senses to the Wiktionary, just as we decided that we would exclude:
  • numbers above 100 lacking any other idiomatic sense; and
  • senses along the line of "an occurrence of the word [word]" (see, for example, "Talk:selah"), because potentially any word can be used in this way.
SGconlaw (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I think we need to make a distinction between a fast-forward mode and the fast-forward button. "He set the fast forward to 2x" can only refer to the mode, not the button. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree that the mode should be listed as a noun sense. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)



pause, Pause[edit]


  • Keep per rewind at OneLook Dictionary Search and usage like Without even glancing at the paper, I jammed it into my pocket and hit the rewind. —This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talkcontribs) at 03:03, 18 August 2018‎.


Following the deletion of the noun sense of eject which is merely the label of a button on a device, I nominate these co-ordinate entries or noun senses for similar treatment. Please feel free to add other entries, if any. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete all per multiple previous discussions. Equinox 11:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete all (see Talk:eject for rationales). - -sche (discuss) 04:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


Another button. "A button (of a joypad, joystick or similar device) whose only or main current function is that when it is pressed causes a video game character to crouch." I've never heard of a device with a designated crouch button on it, so this would purely be something defined by individual games. Equinox 17:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of button symbols[edit]

Comment: Would the symbols (the square, the two triangles, etc.) merit inclusion? Purplebackpack89 03:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Just putting your comment into a new subsection to keep it separate from the deletion discussion. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Keep all that are attestable. There may be quite a lot of them, but unlike numbers there is not an infinite number of buttons. But to me, "hit the delete" is a commonly heard phrase, and delete here is clearly a noun, and the sense is simply not covered by the verb definitions (though separate entries for capitalised forms seems unnecessary to me: even though most keyboards conventionally spell them that way, I believe this is just a case of using title case as though the labels are the first word in a vocative sentence). Also, these real-world referents will never have entries such as "tab key" or "delete button" in Wiktionary since such are SOP, so they'd never get in. Yet we frequently refer to these keys, so defs for their names seem useful as they are part of the language. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

To me, "Hit the delete" hardly makes sense. "Hit delete" makes sense, and though I'm sure many people would write it that way, I wonder whether strictly speaking it is correctly written, or whether strictly speaking "Delete" should be capitalised and/or put in quotes or something. The same goes for various other buttons: "Press play", "Press rewind", "Press eject". If these are accepted as correct usage then all these "button" definitions should be kept in my opinion as the nouns are clearly used in a distinct sense. Common sense, rather than blind adherence to attestation rules, should determine which to include, in my opinion. I do not think we need to be troubled by the "wibble" button which is present on some obscure console just because three people on a gaming site wrote "Press wibble". Mihia (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

in no time at all[edit]

in no time + at all. Per utramque cavernam 15:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

redirects left by moving appendices[edit]

I've been informed that redirects are not appropriate here at WT, so that the links left behind when I recently moved e.g. Appendix:Swedish phonetic alphabet to Appendix:Swedish spelling alphabet (since it is not phonetic, despite common usage, and there actually is a Swedish phonetic alphabet). I was going to clean it up with AWB, but it looks like I don't have approval to operate that here. So, could someone clean up the links, or direct me to where I can get approval?

kwami (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Redirects in the appendix namespace are fine. DTLHS (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. That solves it. kwami (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Closing as handled as per above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

in someone's wheelhouse[edit]

We have exactly the appropriate sense of wheelhouse, with usage examples of this phrase.

There are other prepositions that can be used with this figurative sense of wheelhouse (outside, out of, within, into, (right) up, from) and it can be used with PPs using of (this subject fell squarely in the wheelhouse of Congress)

This and some of the other PP's might make good redirects, especially to the specific definition, though the search engine alone would find the wheelhouse entry.

I rest my case. DCDuring (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

fire (Interjection 1)[edit]

Rfd-redundant: "A cry of distress indicating that something is on fire, or that there is a fire"

AFAICT it is only relative frequency grounds that distinguish this from, say, shark#Interjection or grenade#Interjection or gun#Interjection (none of which have such a definition. DCDuring (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Weak delete per nom; I'm open to reconsidering if there are more idiomatic translations (would the French yell "ours!" or "au ours!" if they spot a bear?) or other arguments for keeping. DCDuring makes a compelling point that you can do this with many words for threats; US police semi-notoriously yell "gun!" anytime they spot something that could be a gun, people yell "bomb!" if they spot a bomb, "bear!" if they spot a bear, etc. But then, isn't sense 2 in the same boat? You yell "fire!" to command people to fire, like you yell "halt" to command them to halt, or yell "go", or in these very discussions "keep" or "delete". Hmm... - -sche (discuss) 05:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
@-sche: au ours doesn't work phonetically, it would be à l'ours :p. But no, neither "ours !" or "à l'ours !" is used; I'd say "attention, un ours !" or something like that.
And I wouldn't say "bombe !" / "à la bombe !" or "fusil !" / "au fusil !" either. It's not productive in French. Per utramque cavernam 11:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


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

Moved this from above. Per utramque cavernam 11:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I cannot see any basis on which this particular imperative should have a separate entry. It could be "Run!", "Jump!", "Stop!", "Duck!" or anything. There seems nothing special about "Fire!". Therefore delete. Mihia (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Böhmische Dörfer and Böhmische[edit]

The header is incorrect, correct would be bömische Dörfer —This unsigned comment was added by Rasmusklump (talkcontribs).

Both speedied, since entries already existed at the correct capitalization. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Böhmische could be is correct as (a) a substantive (or a form of the substantive Böhmisch) meaning "the language of the Bohemian people, vulgo Czech" and (b) an adjective form, an inflected form of Böhmisch, alternative form of böhmische, used in some spellings before ~1902 (also in Adelung (zeno.org)).
Böhmische Dörfer would be correct as a variant before ~1902, e.g. Adelung gives this form (zeno.org), and could be correct as a spelling reform variant after ~2017 ($ 63 2.1, 2.2).
Thus: It's a matter of WT:RFVN and not of WT:RFD. - 14:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
It was incorrect as it was, and the practice is to delete a new entry with problems at the creator's request if no one else has contributed to it. You are, of course, welcome to recreate it as a valid entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

semantic relation[edit]

A relation that is semantic, isn't it? DCDuring (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. I usually call these "sense relations", but "semantic relations" seems to be a synonym. But, neither term refers to any relationship that is semantic in nature, for exmaple break and broken are semantically related, but their relationship is not one of the "sense relations" which are a restricted set (the -nymys). That's how the term is used in linguistics, anyhow.- Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per Sonofcawdrey. Let me add that the Hyponyms section (inaccurately so called) further reinforces the meaning of the term to the reader, and thereby fills a dictionary function. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

dynastic war[edit]

dynastic (sense 1) + war (senses 1 & 2, possibly also 3); the part "international conflict by military, diplomatic and/or other means" is something of a misdirection, because the means are primarily military.

It doesn't seem to pass the lemming heuristic based on Onelook. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

spoiled brat[edit]

spoiled + brat Per utramque cavernam 11:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete (as Talk:absent-minded professor should have been!). Equinox 11:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I suspect the def is wrong too: "a child who always gets what they want" but is truly thankful and humble would not be a spoiled brat. Equinox 11:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
"A child who always gets what they want without being grateful", a spoilt brat probably wouldn't admit to being a spoilt brat. DonnanZ (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete. - -sche (discuss) 05:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Feels inclusion-worthy, but I don't know which card to play. brat,spoiled brat+spoilt brat at Google Ngram Viewer may explain why this may feel so: brats are rather often spoiled, on the phrase level. It might be the case of lexicalized pleonasm, or set-phrasey pleonasm? Whatever. Interestingly, there is W:Spoiled child mentioning "spoiled brat", which of course has almost no force. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
    Lately I've started to feel that one of our weaknesses, especially for English language learners, is that we don't cover collocations very well. (How would a reader of our dictionary know, for instance, that "create opportunities" is much more common than "make opportunities"?) I think "spoiled brat" is sum-of-parts, but it's a very common collocation, and it would be nice if our dictionary signaled that to the reader somehow. Maybe an example sentence at spoil or brat would be enough. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
People, such as myself, have suggested that a collocation namespace, or a section in entries for collocations, should be created, but unfortunately this hasn't garnered enough support to become a reality. The unfortunate consequence is that we keep barely-NSOP phrases and delete others that are barely SOP. Hopefully one day we'll figure out a way to include them without violating CFI (we will never serve non-native speakers well, or be a decent translation dictionary until we do!). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

stop to think[edit]

IMO pretty transparent and should therefore not have an entry. --Robbie SWE (talk) 06:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete. It's not an accurate definition, and it's SoP. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete per StMin. Equinox 23:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete per PUC. - -sche (discuss) 05:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep: We don't say it in Czech, and therefore it is general:idiomatic, while not enwikt:idiomatic. Furthermore, it is ambiguous (does it mean "stop thinking?"), and is in Merriam-Webster[43] (WT:LEMMING), which marks it as an idiom. The reader better off with the entry. The definition is somewhat inaccurate, it seems, and could be fixed along MW lines. stop to ponder and stop to consider result from synonymous replacements, and such is expected to work. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
    I don't think it's ambiguous. Verb + to-infinitive and verb + ing-form generally have different meanings in English (compare the difference between "I regret doing something" and "I regret to inform you"). "I stopped to V" means "I stopped doing something else so that I could V", not "I stopped Ving". As a side note, the definition doesn't seem quite right to me either—"stop to think" doesn't mean "consider" but rather "stop to consider something". —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
    Thank you, my mistake about the ambiguity. Out of curiosity, I checked stop to work, stop working at Google Ngram Viewer. The other points stand, I think. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
    The M-W definition is "to take a moment to think about something", which seems pretty close to SOP to me. The phrase "stop to consider" can be used with roughly the same meaning as "stop to think" (though of course "consider", being transitive, requires an object). "Stop to ponder" sounds slightly less normal to me, but I think that's because of the meaning of "ponder", which implies slow, drawn-out thinking. The fact that you don't say it in Czech is interesting, but the phrase still seems SOP to me, especially when I stop to consider the example of "stop to consider". Delete. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

wild animal[edit]

wild + animal? Per utramque cavernam 11:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

bad to the bone[edit]

bad + to the bone? Per utramque cavernam 12:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, pretty SoP if you ask me. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Sum of parts. Delete. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect to to the bone Purplebackpack89 20:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect or maybe even keep. (to the bone * 0.1),* to the bone,bad to the bone at Google Ngram Viewer is where I looked. The part "* to the bone" makes GNV show particular collocations, most of which seem to use the literal meaning of "to the bone". If "bad to the bone" is one of the more common uses of "to the bone", it would be better to have it at least as a redirect; what are other other uses of this sense of "to the bone"? In any case, we don't say this in Czech (*špatný až na kost), but we say "promrzlý až na kost" (chilled to the bone). Admission: "to the bone" is in MW, while "bad to the bone" is not. On the other hand, chilled to the bone is in Farlex Dictionary of Idioms[44], McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs[45], and Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary[46]; M-W has "chilled to the bone/marrow"[47]. You might ask what "chilled to the bone" has to do with anything, and my point would be that "chilled to the bone" could also be SOP-deleted by reference to "to the bone", but other lexicographers do not deem it a good idea, and nor do I. The entry might also prove to be a worthy translation hub, but that card cannot be played yet since there is only one translation. The question still remains: how does "to the bone" actually collocate? It is entered to mean completely, and while actions can be "completely unreasonable", they do not appear to be google:"unreasonable to the bone". Chances are "to the bone", in the idiomatic sense, collocates with only few select adjectives and verbs. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


"(used in certain set phrases like Jew's harp, Jew's harpist and Jew's-trump)". But if not used alone in this way, should not have an entry for this fragment. Equinox 20:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

agreed. if only as a fragment then delete Leasnam (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete per Equinox. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete, a WurdSnatcher entry. DonnanZ (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
The header on some entries may need changing. I have altered Jew's harp. DonnanZ (talk) 10:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Leasnam (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete as SoP: Jew + 's. — SGconlaw (talk) 09:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete per proponent. Per utramque cavernam 10:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


Is this an actual suffix? We already have malacia. Per utramque cavernam 11:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I doubt it. DonnanZ (talk) 09:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, the things attached to it are the affixes, it seems to me. This is the base noun. Delete. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

address using the formal pronoun[edit]

This reminds me of the recent discussion about teacher's desk in a classroom; do we allow that kind of titles for translation hubs?

Anyway, I think we can use you and thou (the verb sections) instead. Per utramque cavernam 16:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The verb entry at you is a good place for this, and anyway already has more translations. No reason to keep this, so move whatever translations necessary over to you (verb) and delete.
It admittedly is complicated by the fact that "you" is both formal and informal in English now, but I don't think that is a reason not to use this attestable verb form as the translation hub instead of this wordy entry. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. The content looks fine, but it needs to go under an entry title that people would actually search for. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I would search for like vouvoyer and hope to find a link... I bet nobody has said you#verb for 200 years 01:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a good point. Whatever we do, entries like vouvoyer and ustedear should link to the entry that houses all the translations. My inclination is to delete this entry and centralize the translations at you, though I'm open to hearing arguments for why we should have this translation hub instead. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete, after moving any useful content. Update entries in other languages to link to you#Verb, per Granger. - -sche (discuss) 05:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


and Jews' and jews' -- as per Jew's above. Equinox 01:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Yep, delete them all. DonnanZ (talk) 09:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete Leasnam (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete, same as above. Per utramque cavernam 10:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, delete. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)



Two more. In the same boat? - -sche (discuss) 22:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)





Four more. Equinox 18:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


Adjective sense 1: "Made of brick(s)"; a brick chimney, a brick wall. Standard attributive use of the noun. Per utramque cavernam 08:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, delete that sense (or refer users to the noun), leaving the "extremely cold" sense. The translations can be moved to the noun. DonnanZ (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete sense. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Comment. I think these "substance" words are among the most difficult to judge. Collins Dictionary gives adjective senses "built or paved with brick" and "like brick", but it seems to contradict itself as it also gives "a brick house" as an example of noun modifier use. American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language lists an adjective sense but gives no definition or examples. Chambers Dictionary is perhaps the clearest: "adj 1 made of brick or of bricks • a brick wall. 2 (also brick-red) having the dull brownish-red colour of ordinary bricks." Several other dictionaries that I looked at do not list a separate adjective sense. For my part, I wonder how e.g. "this house is brick" is explained if "brick" is not an adjective. Mihia (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I'd say "brick" is definitely an adjective in "this house is brick" (in which case the section should be kept and completed), but is that sentence grammatical? Per utramque cavernam 20:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it's grammatical. Well it certainly is to me, anyway. See also GBS [48].
Not sure I agree. What about "this house is pure brick", or "this house is 18th-century brick"? For me, "this house is brick" seems to be using an uncountable noun. Equinox 22:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
If I have some water in a glass, for example, then I can say "this is water". It actually is water. I question whether a house actually is brick in the uncountable noun sense. I think it is of brick, or made of brick, in the uncountable noun sense. However, this can be a hair-splitting point. Mihia (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
But you can't say "the glass [of water] is water" (which would the equivalent of "the house is brick"). Maybe "my wedding ring is gold" would be a better example: I don't know how we would choose how to analyse "gold" there, but again because it could be "pure gold", "fake gold", or "18th-century gold" I'd go for the noun. Equinox 00:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I think this is explicable by a conflation of predicate adjectives and grammatical ellipsis. On one hand, we have predicate adjectives: "The wedding ring is gold[en]", "The house is brick[en]." (I've added the endings for clarity.)
On the other hand the semantic content is parsible as "The house is [of] brick", "the wedding ring is [of] gold", with textbook ellipsis allowing us to drop words we don't need, where the terms "brick" and "gold" are part of an understood prepositional phrase. When we say "The house is brick" or "The ring is gold", it seems to me that we are in effect using both of the above syntactic understands, and that the words "gold" and "brick" are simultaneously and ambiguously both adjectives and nouns. The addition of other parts to the sentence (e.g. "The house is pure brick") tips the scale one way or another where it is no longer so ambiguous. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Does that mean (I'm asking this neutrally, not as a passive-aggressive contradiction) that you would support adjective senses for things like rubidium, polyvinyl chloride, and polyester (lol already got polyester)? Equinox 01:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I believe you are correct that "The ring is gold" is interpretable either as saying the ring is a substance or that the ring is made of a substance. However, I find "The house is brick" harder to interpret in the first way, because of the "more complicated" nature of its construction. Mihia (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, you could say: "this glass is water, and this glass is vodka". As for brick, you can say "the houses in her neighborhood are red brick". Here in California, one is more likely to see brick referred to as unreinforced masonry, which is a Very Bad Thing if you're standing next to it during an earthquake. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I notice we have an adjective section at fire: "That shit is fire, yo!". Now that I've read Equinox's comments above, I'm not so sure either that or "The house is brick" are sufficient proof that we're dealing with adjectives (could we say "That shit is pure fire, yo!"?). Per utramque cavernam 08:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018[edit]


An area of law. The def given seems to be just the plural of tort, so it's a bit like somebody saying they study orchids or work in propellants; the singular should suffice to explain. Equinox 14:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

  • In law school, every student is required to take a course called "Torts", with a textbook titled "Torts" (or "Prosser of Torts" or "Farnsworth on Torts"). However, these same students are also required to take a course called "Contracts", and we don't have a sense for the area of law at contracts, because it is covered at contract. I disagree that this is plural only. The field can be referred to as "tort law". Therefore, delete this sense. bd2412 T 19:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 19:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom. DCDuring (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete for the nominator's reasons. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


Adjective: commuter (not comparable)

Typically of an aircraft, train etc., designed for use by commuters.

I doubt that any citations can be found that support this as being in the adjective word class. The attributive usage is consistent with it being in the noun word class. DCDuring (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Delete, unless citations supporting adjectival use are found (compare Talk:cookie-cutter). Per utramque cavernam 11:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete, it is used as a noun modifier, but is not an adjective. DonnanZ (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete per above. Not an adjective. Mihia (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 20:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete. --Robbie SWE (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

white supremacist[edit]

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

Thanks, I was just about to bring that up for discussion myself. :) It seems to be the only "supremacist" term with an entry, besides "brown supremacist" which I mentioned above. - -sche (discuss) 01:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep if white supremacy is kept.  --Lambiam 13:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC) — Motivation: easily attested in durably archived sources since at least 1991 and clearly in widespread use; not SOP, since a white supremacist is not a supremacist who happens to be white. So it meets our CFI.  --Lambiam 08:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Split from the discussion about white supremacy (which can be closed) above: Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English § white supremacy. This one needs further discussion. Per utramque cavernam 10:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

lapse rate[edit]

NISOP: lapse [sense 6] + rate, as per the previously-deleted mortality rate. -Stelio (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep it is in other dictionaries. John Cross (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

defined benefit pension plan[edit]

NISOP: defined benefit + pension + plan. -Stelio (talk) 09:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

defined benefit pension scheme[edit]

NISOP: defined benefit + pension + scheme. -Stelio (talk) 09:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


Following on a similar discussion at Wiktionary:Tea_room/2018/September#tiru, determining that that term is not English, I would like to nominate the entry at mahā#English for deletion, on the grounds that this is also "clearly never productive in English", and is also not English. There was considerable discussion about this term in the past, as recorded at Talk:mahā. Said discussion included a refutation of the various citations intended to support the validity of the term's English-ness listed at Citations:mahā#English_citations_of_mahā, pointing out that none of the provided citations actually supports that position.

Looking forward to a thoughtful and reasoned discussion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I've already perused the mahā talk page several times in the past, and I'll issue a tentative delete: just as I do not believe osthya to be an English word, I don't believe this to be an English word. But we'll see.
The problem is that (in my view) quotations such as "All are classed among the eighteen mahā or ‘great’ purāṇas." or "hence in spite of its labio-dentality, it came to be listed as an oṣṭhya sound." are useless for our purposes: they cannot be used to attest the words in English, nor can they really be used to attest the words in Sanskrit. They simply aren't quality quotes / good for anything. Per utramque cavernam 16:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete the adjective. Abstain on the noun sense. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep in some form. This is a word that appears in print often enough that a reader may want to learn what it actually means. There are a small but concrete number of instances of this word appearing in English running text which are presented without italics or other formatting to distinguish it as a word in a different language. We should not delete words based on catch-22 reasoning, which seems to presume that words are bad, and should be eliminated from the dictionary if we can find a technical reason to justify their removal. Rather, we should consider how we can help readers define words they may reasonably come across. bd2412 T 13:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I have no judgment on words being "good" or "bad", that is entirely beside the point.
I am also not pushing to "eliminate" words from Wiktionary. I am much more concerned with accurate description.
As stated before, I am fine with the existence of an entry at [[mahā]]. What I am nominating for deletion is [[mahā#English]], and as noted at [[Talk:mahā]], those (exceedingly few) instances of mahā in running text without any gloss or special formatting are also in works that treat a broad array of Buddhist- or yoga-related terminology the same way: essentially as untranslated Sanskrit sprinkled through the body of the text. If inclusion in an otherwise English sentence, without regard for context or domain, is our only criterion for "English-ness", then it follows that we must also create English entries for ... a truly vast array of terms, so many that the significance of the "English" language label would be severely diluted. That, I argue, would do our readers more of a disservice. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I would welcome your proposal of what form this entry should take, if [[mahā#English]] (which is currently the entire entry) is removed. bd2412 T 19:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
In the past, the idea was floated (perhaps even by you?) to have romanized Sanskrit entries. I still support this option, as we also currently have for Gothic, Japanese, and Chinese (and perhaps others too). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
It was. I am not opposed to having this presented as something other than an English term. My concern is that different groups of editors will oppose different solutions, so that the end result is no solution, and the benefit to the reader of knowing what "mahā" means will be lost. I would prefer a process to determine how it should be included, rather than one which risks excluding an attested term from the dictionary entirely. bd2412 T 00:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, I don't share the assumption that there must be an entry here if this string appears in print. Even a remit as broad as "all words in all languages" is not "all representations of all words or portions of words". There are enough works on German and its dialects that contain blocks of text transcribed in IPA or even other pronunciation systems that I could probably "cite" words like zaɪn or diː or ʃə, but I don't think we need an entry at [[zaɪn]] or [[diː]] or [[ʃə]]; the entries at [[sein]] and [[die]] and [[-sche]] cover the words as they exist in the language to which they belong. In this case, it's arguable (there is a case to be made) that there should be (soft) redirects of sorts at romanizations for Sanskrit as there are for Gothic, but I don't share what seems to be the underlying assumption. - -sche (discuss) 01:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
You say, "I don't share what seems to be the underlying assumption." Could you unpack that? What underlying assumption? (Honest question, I feel a bit confused and am seeking clarity.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
(I hope this doesn't sound curt,) Would it clarify things if I said the clause you quote, from the last sentence of my comment, is merely restating my first sentence? The assumption I'm referring to is the assumption (embedded in bd's comment about "what form this entry should take") that there should be an entry at this title because (quoting again) "this is a word that appears in print often enough". - -sche (discuss) 04:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete the adjective as it stands, or (if kept at RFD) send to RFV to seek better citations, as every one currently under the adjective section is inadmissable: under the first sense the 1980 and 2014 Shiva cites clearly set it off as a foreign language term, the 2012 cite doesn't use this spelling (in addition to other problems), the 2013 cite doesn't seem to be an adjective (in addition to other concerns), the 2014 Mohr cite is clearly a mention of a foreign language term and not a use, and not even a mention of this adjective but rather of a prefix with a hyphen; the cites under the second adjective sense suffer similar problems. It is also very questionable to use even a valid use of a compound word as an argument that its elements are also independently English; as I wrote recently in the Tea Room, the ability to say "I visited Bad Kreuznach and Bad Kissingen" doesn't in and of itself make "Bad" an English word meaning "spa" (although someone may now seek out better citations which do). Use in collocations that aren't viewable as wholesale borrowings/transliterations, e.g. "a mahā leader", "the mahā teachings of the ascetics", would be more convincing evidence of the existence of "mahā" as an English word. It is concievable that the string might exist as an English word the way e.g. verboten does, but it would need to be demonstrated. Abstain for now on the noun. Some investigation should be done to determine if the noun (or adjective) is more commonly spelled maha. - -sche (discuss) 19:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
@-sche, @Μετάknowledge: regarding the noun form, we currently only have one citation given for the purported noun sense, from the work Luminous Essence: A Guide to the Guhyagarbha Tantra. As can be seen here, if Google Books search is working correctly, the term mahā only appears five times in this whole book, in three separate sentences (formatting kept as in the original):
  • This is also the reasoning behind the subdivisions of the Nyingma School's mantra scriptures, such as the classification of mahāyoga into three parts, starting with the mahā of mahā. -- page 3
  • The Tantra of the Secret Essence is the ati of mahā, which is the same as the mahā of ati in terms of the three divisions of the great perfection. -- page 5
  • The liberating paths of the supramundane vehicles explained above can also be classified into nine vehicles: the three vehicles that guide through renunciation (the vehicles of the listeners, self-realized buddhas, and bodhisattvas), the three vehicles of Vedic austerities (krīya, ubhaya, and yoga), and the three vehicles of mastery in means (mahā, anu, and ati). -- page 23
The book's topic appears to be esoteric Tibetan Buddhism. No definitions are given anywhere for the terms mahā, ati, anu, krīya, or ubhaya. Yoga I only know as the common exercise practice of stretching and controlling one's breathing and posture; if it has any other meaning in this book, that is wholly lost on me. I would argue that these terms are untranslated Sanskrit, used on the assumption that the intended audience is sufficiently familiar with the Sanskrit terminology.
Considering the overall context of the work -- the subject matter, the intended audience, usage of other esoteric terms -- I would argue that this work is using untranslated Sanskrit as Sanskrit and not as English, and that this is thus not a useful citation to show use of an English term. And without this one citation, we have no citations at all for the noun sense, and should therefore strike that from the EN entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
If that's the case, I recommend you RFV the noun sense. By the way, I also support romanisation soft redirects for Sanskrit. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

get old fast[edit]

SOP. Per utramque cavernam 19:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me there's something about this phrase that make it a unit, but maybe it's the "get" part. I wouldn't say "Those corny puns are old" to mean they are tedious, I'd probably say "...have gotten old" 19:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, indeed SOP. Corny puns (and corn buns) may also become stale quickly. My grandpaw is getting old fast now, but he sure ain’t getting more mellow.  --Lambiam 07:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Given that sense #5 of old is "Tiresome", example "Your constant pestering is getting old", and assuming that this sense can be used generically, delete. Personally I have never heard of this meaning, and I would be able to understand the example only by guessing at the usual effect of constant pestering, or by vague association of "old" with "stale" and similar concepts. Could it be specifically AmE? Mihia (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
"Get old" exists with same meaning; "fast" only means it's happening quickly; delete as SoP. Equinox 20:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete Leasnam (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Abstain. There may be something in this. The older you get the faster it happens. I was talking to one of my neighbours the other day who suddenly looks a lot older and more doddery, but he is 80 now. But I see that isn't what the entry is about. Doh. DonnanZ (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete per Eq. - -sche (discuss) 17:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete also per Equinox. --Robbie SWE (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

yell silently[edit]

The first deletion request was inconclusive. SOP. Per utramque cavernam 10:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Keep, per msh in Talk:yell silently: "I assumed on seeing the nomination that the phrase meant to quietly talk in a rebuking tone of voice. Bgc does not seem to have it that way: all its hits for the phrase are either for our current definition (to have a strong but unarticulated emotion) or ambiguous. So keep as undecipherable from parts." From my perspective, we do not say this in Czech and I would not know I can say this in English to the effect described in the entry. The fact that this is not literal speech is of note. However, yell silently, yell quietly, scream silently at Google Ngram Viewer gives me a pause: the term seems rather one-off and therefore possibly a non-lexicalized rhetorical construction, in this case oxymoron. screem silently gives less doubt. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

must needs[edit]

As an IP noted on the talk page, this is SOP. Per utramque cavernam 20:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. It is an obsolete set phrase which readers are likely to come across in old literature. Due to its obsolescence, it will be difficult for readers to understand the meaning by looking up the individual terms. bd2412 T 13:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per BD. - TheDaveRoss 13:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Mihia (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per all above Leasnam (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per BD. - John Cross (talk) 05:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. I believe the expression "must needs" must needs be kept. The expression continues in use, and is a useful one to have present in Wiktionary. I just looked it up there myself.Nihil novi (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm flabbergasted by the amount of support BD's comment has garnered. "it will be difficult for readers to understand the meaning by looking up the individual terms." > says who? Why would a reader be unable to go to the needs entry, and make sense of must needs by himself? Per utramque cavernam 07:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Might the lemming test apply? I note that the entry does not appear in the Merriam–Webster or OED, but perhaps other dictionaries have it? — SGconlaw (talk) 10:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I always wondered where on Wiktionary this usage is noted, because I had not found out how this phrase should be analyzed. Now we see that many are not sure, hence it has not been included. I would be content though with having an extra entry at needs and hard redirecting the formations with must; this is what I do: it’s so when a word exists only in phrase but the phrase does not have a canonical composition, just appears frequently with certain verbs so people look it up with and without extra words, so with кур (kur), which is used as дѣлать кому-то куры (dělatʹ komu-to kury), дѣлать кому-то куръ (dělatʹ komu-to kur), строить куръ (stroitʹ kur) … (guess the rest). But the thing is SOP albeit set phrase. Fay Freak (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Redirect or delete and add usage notes to "must" and "needs". I remember looking this up on Wiktionary a couple years ago, and I didn't even think to look at "needs," but once I did, it made sense, and I have since encountered it outside of the phrase "must needs." If we had the structure for it, I would definitely support keeping it as a collocation, but as it stands, it's simply an SOP phrase. Note also the Tea Room conversation, where the phrase "needs must" (meaning the same thing) is addressed, further indicating that "must needs" is SOP. (However, I could be convinced that it should be kept on the grounds that "needs" became obsolete long before "must needs," if that is in fact the case). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
The fact that "needs" can be used not only in either order here ("needs must", "must needs") but also in other expressions like "wilt thou needs be a beggar" as pointed out in Wiktionary:Tea_room/2018/September#needs_must, suggests that this is indeed SOP. Redirecting it to the relevant sense of needs seems like a fine solution. - -sche (discuss) 17:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Redirect to needs. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Notwithstanding the possibility of redirection or the mention of a phrase at the entries for its constituent words, I believe that generally speaking we should have separate entries for set phrases that are likely to be significantly difficult to understand from the definitions of their parts, even if strictly they are SoP. I would say that "must needs" is likely to be significantly difficult for most modern readers to understand from "must" and "needs", and should therefore be included if it is deemed a set phrase. However, if it is determined that "must needs" is not a set phrase after all, but just a regular usage of "needs", then obviously this argument would not apply. Mihia (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment. Once upon a time the adverb needs was used with some regularity, but always in combination with either the verb must or the verb will. For another example of the latter, take Genesis 19:9 in the King James Version: “And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them.” But the combination with will appears to have become obsolete towards the end of the 19th century, when it was already archaic. If, in present-day use, the adverb needs can only be used in combination with the verb must, one can hardly consider that combination to be SoP. The correct analysis is not at all obvious. I do recall my kind of a doing a double take the first time I ran into the collocation. I thought this was a typo or other error left by sloppy editing. Only when I encountered it again did I realize I needed to look it up, which was not easy at the time – Albert Arnold Gore Jr. had not yet invented the Internet. As can be seen from the discussion at the Tea house, even experienced Wiktionary contributors may think that needs in this combination is the plural of the noun need. And it looks like they were not the only ones; there is also the collocation must of needs, which appears to mean the same, but here I analyze the adverbial clause as the preposition of + the plural noun needs. The most likely explanation is that in the historic development of was inserted to fix a collocation that felt grammatically wrong, because it was no longer understood what part of speech needs was.  --Lambiam 22:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
@Lambiam, I'm curious about the collocation "will needs be" in the example you gave. I'm also used to the expression, "if needs be", which I've always understood as the "needs" being the plural noun again, as a kind of archaic grammar for "if there be needs". But parsed as an adverb, it would presumably work out to "if it be necessary". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Next to if needs be there is also the more common if need be. [Aside. I place you as a speaker of American English, but I thought the version if needs be is predominantly British English.] In these expressions, be is in the (archaic) subjunctive mode, just as in if truth be told, underscoring the hypothetical character of the clause. In either case, I too analyze need(s) as being the subject, a singular or plural noun. Interpreting needs as an adverb and replacing it by a synonym leaves us with the ungrammatical *if necessarily be.  --Lambiam 10:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
@Lambiam: Re: AmE / BrE, I grew up on the US east coast, of family that has been in the US for generations. That said, as with language and families in general, I know there are a few oddities in how my family uses the language, including oddball dialect like snit to refer to any tiny amount (a sense missing from our entry) and shinta (never seen it written, nor heard it from anyone other than family) to refer specifically to the two mostly-crust end-slices of a loaf of bread, both probably from or cognate with standard German Schnitte (slice).
Re: needs as an adverb in needs be, I grant that a simple replacement with adverb synonym necessarily doesn't parse as terribly grammatical, but then neither does needs must, where the needs has been explained as an archaic adverbial. Perhaps this is due to diachronic shift in usage patterns, and what looks (from a modern perspective) like omission of it: if needs beif [it] necessarily be. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
If the word needs in the phrase needs must, when standing on its own, is interpreted as an adverb, the phrase is ungrammatical: where is the subject of the verb? However, as I argue at the Tea room, the phrase is elliptic for He needs must go when the devil drives. (See also here.)
As to if need(s) be, if the phrase is a later variant of if it need(s) be, one should expect that longer form to show up earlier than if need(s) be. However, that appears not to be the case. Here are a few early occurrences of if need be:
  • 1602: A Discovrse vpon the Meanes of VVel Governing, an English translation of Discours sur les moyens de bien gouverner by Innocent Gentillet, also known as the Anti-Machiavelli;
  • 1635: An Answer to the Unjust Complaints by John Paget, a pamphlet (called a “broadside” in Wikipedia) against John Canne;
  • 1691: The Forerunner to a Further Answer, a pamphlet against Calvinism by Thomas Grantham, in which it is used parenthetically in the title.
We also find the variant if need shall be here, in 1659. Here the insertion of it does not work: *if it need shall be. That said, if it need be is perfectly grammatical and can be expected to be found used in its own right, as it is here, in a 1652 book on orcharding.  --Lambiam 22:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not convinced enough to make it a keep vote, but I wasn't aware this was SoP until it was pointed out. It's always been a strange "set phrase" to me. Equinox 23:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
comment: the following, on GBC, each have greater than 1k (and some closer to 100k)
  • must needs go
  • must needs do
  • must needs become
  • must needs choose
  • must needs form
…and of course, must needs be with upwards of 1.6 million. But just to check: …go, …do, and …be all are found on Google News, published within the past few weeks. It does not seem to be an archaic or obsolete set phrase. - Amgine/ t·e 00:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Any recent instances that you found will be quotations or deliberate archaisms. Remember also that the large counts that you see at the top of Google's results pages are just Very Large Random Numbers™. Mihia (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
In what way does that change the modern use into "archaic or obsolete"? Sure a set phrase is used to invoke a mood or semblance, because it is recognized by the [modern] audience as doing so. - Amgine/ t·e 02:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, I said "archaism", which is a bit different from "archaic or obsolete", but different again, I would say, from true modern usage. Mihia (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Let me put it another way: if modern readers understand the phrase, and it is in current use (however qualified that use), should it not be in Wiktionary? - Amgine/ t·e 21:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Some relevant {{R:GNV}} searches: must needs do, must needs become, must needs choose, must needs form at Google Ngram Viewer; must needs, will needs, needs must at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


I think "fortnight" in "Wednesday fortnight" is either a noun or an adjective, but not an adverb. If it is an adverb, that PoS should be added to "week" Helenpaws (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

If evening isn’t an adverb this is neither. It is to be understood as an accusativus mensurae, adverbial accusative Indo-European languages use often for time and space. Sometimes one creates these for Arabic but I tend to do not because it is regular use and not lexical, no kind of conversion has taken place usually. Remove because of the analogy. We could add adverb senses to night etc. else. Also remove in the other day, Friday, Tuesday and everywhere else where it can be spotted. I have been surprised to find that it is found as an adverb sense in Tuesday. Now I find mid-March … oh no. Nobody ascribes adverb quality to März despite German uses the month names without “in” (not “in March 2018” but “März 2018”; and we can also say “den März 2018” though this is usually too much to be said; but point is these all aren’t adverbs lexically). Fay Freak (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
If you're making an analogy between "Wednesday fortnight" and "Wednesday night/evening", I see these as rather different. The latter is a night/evening, while the former is not a fortnight. This makes the classification as a noun more straightforward in the latter, in my opinion. Mihia (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Not an adverb nor an adjective, delete. I moved the quote. DonnanZ (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)



Two more keys, along the lines of the rewind etc. buttons discussed recently. We already explain function keys at the F entry. (As a minor point of interest, some keyboards have F0 and/or go higher than F12.) Equinox 20:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

  • I looked at F, and it only explains F1. F1 doesn't say much, and F5 doesn't explain what it does, i.e. refresh the page. So there's a lot of missing info anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
What it does is entirely dependent on the particular operating system. DTLHS (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, not all browsers use F5 to refresh the page, and computers like the BBC Micro had an F5 key before the Web even existed. In many programming tools F5 means run/start the program. We can't hope to "define" all that. Equinox 23:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-dictionary material. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Abstain. DonnanZ (talk) 09:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Sinitic language[edit]

SOP, we have no Indo-European language, Sino-Tibetan language, Uralic language or Germanic language for instance. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 14:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Per utramque cavernam 14:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Keep But we have got Romance language, no? Qhwans (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Maybe we shouldn't, but then again, Romance is more ambiguous (due to romance) than Sinitic is. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 14:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete, SoP, just like Afroasiatic language, Bantu language, Cariban language, ..., Zaparoan language. This should equally apply to Romance language.  --Lambiam 16:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete as SoP: also misdefined: one singular Sinitic language is not "a branch..." Equinox 19:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
More like a twig then? Helenpaws (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, according to the definition given, it is not Sinitic + language since currently Sinitic is defined as "Relating to the group of Chinese languages", and mentions nothing about "a branch of the Sino-Tibetan language family..." ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@Tooironic: As mentioned by @Equinox, the definition at Sinitic language is slightly erroneous. Perhaps the definition at Sinitic can be tweaked to mention the Sino-Tibetan language family. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 12:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete. --Robbie SWE (talk) 06:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

high speed, low drag[edit]

Sum of parts. Adjective sense defined as if it were a noun. Adverb defined as if it were some sort of verb.SemperBlotto (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Fixed that, sorry ... I haven't written a definition for an entry that wasn't a noun in quite a while, perhaps ever. I will be adding attestation later today when I have a bit more time. Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
As for SOP ... that might be true in aviation, but as the attestations I've now added should make clear, it has an idiomatic, metaphorical meaning that would not be obvious just from those component words. Daniel Case (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

track and field meet[edit]

Sum of parts? SemperBlotto (talk) 05:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

  • American English? DonnanZ (talk) 08:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I would say so; delete. You can find "X meet" for other sports: volleyball meet etc. Equinox 11:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete NISoP: track and field + meet. DCDuring (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 06:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

tram route[edit]

Looks like tram route to me. Also, bus route might wanna follow suit --XY3999 (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I would keep it as a transport-related subject. DonnanZ (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure why it being a transport-related subject makes it any more dictionary-worthy. Delete. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Would you also keep "The history of trams in the UK during the 20th century"? That's also a transport-related subject (see if you can find that in the OED...). Chuck Entz (talk) 03:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I would if I had it, I have a few tramway books like "Hammersmith and Hounslow Tramways" (try finding that), and a tram route a few miles away at Wimbledon. I rewrote the definition, I hope it reads better. DonnanZ (talk) 09:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete NISoP: A route for trams. DCDuring (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete: hard to see what else this would mean. If it were a full sentence then perhaps it would be good for a travellers' phrasebook. Equinox 20:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • So this user (with a name like a car number plate) thinks he's doing everyone a favour by nominating this for deletion? Poppycock. DonnanZ (talk) 11:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This feels similar to a COALMINE situation: where we accept one term (e.g. tramway, US English) we should accept alternate forms of that term (tram route, British English). The alternative (without losing information) would be a usage note on tramway, I guess? -Stelio (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing more than "tram" + "route". Mihia (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

main entrance[edit]

Pretty transparent. --Robbie SWE (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 06:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

not the best[edit]

I find it hard to find anything remotely entryworthy about this. DCDuring (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Delete (and it's not a prepositional phrase, is it?). Equinox 15:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Nor is it a negative polarity item, unless this sentence is. DCDuring (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I think this is not the best example of a proper dictionary entry. He-heh. Mihia (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Pointless. Just delete it. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete. --Robbie SWE (talk) 06:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


"Slang, vulgar, chiefly of a penis: Lubricated with vaginal discharge or saliva as a result of sexual intercourse." Discussed recently somewhere. I am guessing this was added by PaM or the like, in his constant efforts to equate men to women, and Christianity to Islam, etc. However, while a woman can get wet (sexually), a man can't (he isn't "wet"; his penis is), so it's "having liquid on it" hence redundant to the normal sense. So I doubt it's actually slang or vulgar either. There might be a case for "get one's dick wet"(?) as a phrase for having sex, but not here. Equinox 21:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete for nominator's reason. — SGconlaw (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. The other sexual sense relating to women should be kept, but this one is straying too far into Urban Dictionary territory. Unlike UD, we do not need to mention every single sexual association that can be imagined for every word. Mihia (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Added in this edit. Not one of the usual suspects. Delete anyway. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, not because of sexual content but because it's included in sense one. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. DonnanZ (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

skimble-skamble stuff[edit]

I think the entry may be sum-of-parts (skimble-skamble + stuff), and that the content should be merged into skimble-skamble. All occurrences are essentially quotations of or allusions to the line appearing in Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part 1. — SGconlaw (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Delete. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


Delete. Chinese given names can be virtually any combination of characters among tens of thousands. ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

So find 3 independent uses? 15:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)