Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English

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


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

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

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

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

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

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

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

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


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

Scope of this request page:

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

Templates:

Shortcuts:

See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oldest tagged RFDs


Contents

April 2017[edit]

cost a pretty penny[edit]

SoP, pretty penny, can also "make", "earn", etc. Equinox 20:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Um, that would include the translations, ones that don't appear at pretty penny. I like the Spanish one, cost a testicle and a half. DonnanZ (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Those aren't direct translations for "cost a pretty penny" but general idiomatic equivalents of "cost a large amount". bd2412 T 22:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Not that I disagree with your basic point, but translations are "general idiomatic equivalents". Ƿidsiþ 06:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
        • A synonym is cost an arm and a leg, which went through the indignity of an RFD in 2009, and got redirected to arm and a leg. An arm and a leg are two different things, and the idiom only makes sense in full. We don't need a repeat of that disaster. DonnanZ (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
In other words, keep this entry in its present form. DonnanZ (talk) 08:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect to pretty penny. DCDuring (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect or keep. The definition line could be changed to "To be [[expensive]]; to cost a [[pretty penny]]". The entry is in http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/cost+a+pretty+penny, where it seems to have two entries, one marked as "Farlex Dictionary of Idioms. © 2015 Farlex, Inc, all rights reserved", another one marked as "McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs. © 2002 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc." The full phrase is in Macmillan[1], but most OneLook dictionaries only seem to have "pretty penny": a pretty penny at OneLook Dictionary Search (Merriam-Webster, Oxford Dictionaries, Collins, Dictionary.com), cost a pretty penny at OneLook Dictionary Search. I seem to like these longer phrase entries with a verb; they seem more natural to me (like cost an arm and a leg). However, I'll grant there is some force in the argument for deletion, including there being other verbs used: cost a pretty penny, pay a pretty penny, make a pretty penny, earn a pretty penny at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
    Switching to "keep" per DonnanZ: The entry makes a better translation hub "as is", e.g. for Spanish: costar un ojo de la cara (cost an eye of the face) and Russian: влететь в копеечку (fly into a copeck), ударить по карману (strike the pocket). Once you reduce the entry to "pretty penny", you lose the ability to map the associated verbs as well, which, for Russian, are "fly" and "strike"; in fact, you cannot map "pretty penny" to "pocket" at all. Redirection is still better than deletion, but I want the entry to be kept. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect to pretty penny. The reader won't be shocked to land there, and will immediately figure out what the entire idiom means. Might as well do the same with make a pretty penny and earn a pretty penny. bd2412 T 02:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Redirected and put quotes there too --Otra cuenta105 (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Unstriken: let this be closed by someone who is not Wonderfool. Furthermore, it is not clear that "redirect" is the winning option. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Our general practice, where the idiomatic part is "pretty penny" and several verbs can be used with it, would see us redirect this. I'm sympathetic to the argument that many translations include verbs ... but they seem to be verbs meaning "cost" and the nouns seem to be used with other verbs in those languages, too; for example, "ein hübsches Sümmchen verdienen" (make a pretty penny) exists in German, not just "ein hübsches Sümmchen kosten". If we redirect this and there are languages that only have idiomatic constructions for some of the collocations, like if something could only coûter bonbon and you couldn't also gagner bonbon (which, however, it seems you can?), then we should give those translations (e.g. coûter bonbon, with the verb) in the translations table at [[pretty penny]] with a {{q|"cost a..."}} translating the verb.
I say redirect, for consistency, as long as we're just talking about this entry. But we should probably rethink our overall approach to idioms, because we also have issues with idioms that are mostly negative but sometimes positive and therefore lemmatized under the positive form, but not necessarily any more guaraneteed than this entry is to be translatable into other languages in that form. We should perhaps begin to allow more forms of idioms (e.g. noun-only like pretty penny and verb-including like cost a pretty penny, positive like say boo to a goose and negative like wouldn't say boo to a goose) to have prominently cross-linked entries and translations tables... - -sche (discuss) 22:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
If there is no further discussion on this, I intend to re-close it as redirected. bd2412 T 17:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

be in on[edit]

SoP, be + in on. It's hard to find it without be, but it seems perfectly possible that it could be used with e.g. wish or announce. Just found this: "Although more entrepreneurs wanted in on their success, only four Top Hats were ever opened." Equinox 02:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I think also get in on, bring in on, let in on, and probably slangy synonyms for most of the above. DCDuring (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as SOP to in on. bd2412 T 19:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
What about a redirect to in on? Admission: OneLook dicts have "in on" but not "be in on". --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • A redirect to in on would be fine with me. bd2412 T 18:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep or, if that fails, redirect to in on. "be in on something" is in Macmillan[2] and idioms.thefreedictionary.com[3]. dictionary.com[4] redirects be in on to in on; Longman[5] has "be/get in on something"; Collins English to French Dictionary[6] has "to be in on sth". If we try to reduce it even further, we may go to in since on is just a preposition, like "of" in "knowledgable of". We have let in on and get in on. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
"Be in on", "get in on", "let in on" and "want in on" are all very common. Theoretically we could handle them all with our existing entry "in on". But the phrases do seem idiomatic. Eh, redirect, I guess. - -sche (discuss) 22:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

September 2017[edit]

Flash[edit]

"(comics) A superhero". Equinox 19:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  • I don't know, we have Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. bd2412 T 01:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I expanded that definition now. I'd say keep. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Citations meeting WT:FICTION would be useful here. bd2412 T 00:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Isn't it a matter of WT:RFVE with consideration of WT:FICTION? If it gets attesedt, it get's keeped; if it doesn't get attested, it get's deleted.
        If it was a matter of wording, wouldn't it belong to WT:RFC? -84.161.44.190 00:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
The definition still needs refinement because several characters, e.g. Superman, have superspeed but are not the Flash. However, keep as an RFD matter (per bd's point), and send to RFV if there's a question of whether or not it meets FICTION. It probably does. - -sche (discuss) 23:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

risk tolerance[edit]

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

Maybe, but the term is almost exclusively used in business/finance/behavioral economics with a definition like: "the extent to wish a decision-maker, such as investor or businessperson, is willing to accept more risk in exchange for the possibility of a higher return". DCDuring (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I haven't yet found a definition of tolerance that fits this, though "willingness or ability to tolerate (something)" would seem adequate. But such a definition is not to be found in most references at tolerance at OneLook Dictionary Search. Oxford has "The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with." DCDuring (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
The normal definitions of tolerance don't encompass the idea of a tradeoff between risk and return. DCDuring (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

be on about[edit]

= be + on about. Possibly worth a redirect. Equinox 22:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Redirect. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Harmless. bd2412 T 16:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep; "on about" seems usually combined with "be"; the fuller phrase is in dictionary.cambridge.org[7] and oxforddictionaries.com[8]. Furthermore, this could be also rendered as (be on=talk) + about. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Redirect to "on about". - -sche (discuss) 23:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

F0[edit]

EF0

Also F1, F2, F3, F4, F5 and EF1, EF2, EF3, EF4, EF5. Should just be explained at F and EF, rather than having entries for individual values on the scale. Equinox 16:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Clear delete --P5Nd2 (talk) 11:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Defined as "A rating of 0 on the Fujita scale" where Fujita scale is a scale for rating tornado intensity. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
  • delete - and explain in F and EF as per Equinox. John Cross (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Weak delete per Eq. - -sche (discuss) 23:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete per proponent. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

1/4 d[edit]

A farthing. It's a quarter of a penny, hence 1/4 + d. Not really a lexical unit. Equinox 18:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

It would be like saying $0.01 is an abbreviation for penny. --WikiTiki89 19:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
As a matter of interest, what would penny farthing be as a fraction? 1 d 1/4 or 1 1/4d? All the farthings had disappeared by the time I got to the UK. DonnanZ (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
1 1/4d. See £sd#Writing_conventions_and_pronunciations. Equinox 21:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Of course, same as with elevenpence ha'penny (11 1/2d). DonnanZ (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm inclined to say keep this, but remove the space. But there is no corresponding entry for halfpenny 1/2d or 1/2 d though. DonnanZ (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
How do you see it as inherently different from, say, 9d for ninepence, or £3.27? Equinox 23:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
It's hard to know where to draw the line. There are entries for 1D, 1/d and 1-D, but not for 1d (old penny) or indeed 1p (new penny), nor for /- (shilling) or 21/- (guinea). Forget about £9.99 etc. DonnanZ (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
One solution would be to add abbreviations to say ninepence (9d) or elevenpence (11d) which should show up if anyone is looking for them. DonnanZ (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Delete. - -sche (discuss) 23:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete per proponent. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

October 2017[edit]

academic institution[edit]

academic + institution? Pinging the creator, @Dan Polansky. --Barytonesis (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Per the entry, the point seems to be that this applies to "higher education" (e.g. university) but not to something like high school, even though that is also academic. Equinox 23:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Keep DCDuring (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I created that in Feb 2008, at which time I was a bit over 1 year Wiktionary-old, and I don't know what I thought at the time. In any case, above, Equinox makes a good point. On a different note, from the definition ("educational institution ...", a research-only institution does not pass as "academic", right? I think the definition would benefit from exemplification and counter-exemplification. I don't know whether the definition is right; I took it from WP, as indicated in the creation edit summary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Move to RfV. It is not clear to me that the English-speaking community as a whole excludes high schools from the definition. I have found uses that exclude trade schools, but include "college-prep" high schools, some that include all high schools. I wouldn't be surprised to find definitions that excluded professional training programs, such as in business, engineering, law, nursing, teaching, and medicine. The use of the collocation seems quite flexible.
It may be difficult to find usage citations that unambiguously support a non-SoP definition. DCDuring (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I've heard this term used in regular parlance to mean a whole host of things: including high schools, excluding high schools, excluding everything except colleges, including trade and professional schools, excluding the same, etc. I've heard it include all schools even, and even administrative centres of education. There may be a slight tendency to favour colleges and universities above other academic institutions types of schools and academic centres with this term (I even unconsciously used it there in a broad sense), but it's nowhere near systematic, and therefore can only be SoP in my thinking. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
If we can show that the term is sometimes used to include high schools, then documenting this in the entry is a lexicoservice to the user. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

November 2017[edit]

Rolling Stones[edit]

How is that dictionary material? --Barytonesis (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll admit that the quotation points to a genericized usage, however. --Barytonesis (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Then we need an entry for Millard Fillmore because the following is just one of many instances of its use:
  • 1985, Randy Roberts, Papa Jack: Jack Johnson And The Era Of White Hopes[9], page 43:
    He was the Millard Fillmore of the boxing world.
Some more:
  • 2001, Joe Queenan, My Goodness: A Cynic's Short-Lived Search for Sainthood[10], page 32:
    The first is Pericles, the mighty Athenian king, widely viewed as the Fiorello LaGuardia of his time.
  • 1905, William Watts Hart Davis, A Genealogical and Personal History of Bucks County, Pennsylvania[11]:
    One of Mr. Nightingale's admirers recently spoke of him as the "Zachary Taylor of the Baptist ministry."
  • 2006, Mike Davis, City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles[12], page 190:
    Even in 1978, when the Assembly (AB 283) flatly ordered Los Angeles to bring its zoning practices into conformity with its General Plan, Mayor Bradley — acting like the Orville Faubus of pro-growth — encouraged the Planning Department to malinger in heroic fashion.
IOW, IMO, Delete, unless we really do want to become a short-attention-span encyclopedia. DCDuring (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
For a really funny list of many more, see this passage in Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking, by Douglas Hofstadter and Emmanuel Sander. DCDuring (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
We have an entry for Beatles, and a number of other Proper Nouns for people, e.g. Cicero, Homer.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Agree with the point about the usage example. This kind of "the X of Y" is a standard pattern of English usage that can be used with essentially any proper noun X. Mihia (talk)
Delete for the reason given by Mihia. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Delete as currently defined (the band). I don't like the "Beatles of the 21st century"-type entries either but we do seem to have a historical consensus of inclusion; I have raised such entries for deletion before and been disagreed with. Equinox 14:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Keep, but alter the definition to cover the genericized use. When something is called the "Rolling Stones" of some field, the relevant point is not that they are a successful and long-lived band, it is that they had that "bad-boy" image, in contrast to the more innocent image of the Beatles. If someone looks up a proper noun like this in the dictionary, as opposed to in an encyclopedia, it is because they want to know what you mean by "the Rolling Stones of voice-over artists." The current definition does not answer that. Kiwima (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I myself am very curious about what might be meant by "the Mussolini of mulligatawny". I don't think a dictionary can or should address that. DCDuring (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
By that token we would have to include in the dictionary virtually every proper noun in existence and explain each of their potential attributes or associations. Mihia (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Re: "virtually every proper noun in existence": Far from it. A fraction of all proper names has this kind of "the X of Y" usage attested. And we could set a higher threshold for the number of such uses attested, if required, to limit the volume of included items. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
For standard patterns that are used ad hoc, the issue of attestation is not very relevant. Mihia (talk)
There might be grounds for altering CFI to include such proper names that have attestable derived terms (Homeric, Ciceronian). DCDuring (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I have heard worse ideas. Equinox 03:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Governed by WT:NSE, and thus, up to editor discretion. As for "Millard Fillmore", that is excluded by current CFI: "No 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." The "X of Y" pattern is a usual construction, sure, but far from every attested proper name has such usage attested, and therefore, the pattern does provide a filter, an element potentially usable in guiding inclusion and exclusion of proper names. Returning back to "Millard Fillmore", google books:"the Millard Fillmore of" finds 24 hits in total but not all independent. By wading through google books:"the Rolling Stones of", I find more relevant usages (and many irrelevant ones). --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Here's the Rolling Stones of, the Beatles of, the Bee Gees of at Google Ngram Viewer; "the Bee Gees of" is not found there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per "the Rolling Stones of" pattern; the pattern serves as a useful filter, preventing an overflood of similar entries: e.g. "the Bee Gees of" is not found above. More notes from me are above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Delete per DCD. - -sche (discuss) 23:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

right man[edit]

If it exists at all - bad caps, bad plural. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

keep. It does exist (see supporting cites), and with this capitalization. Kiwima (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

"If it exists at all" sounds like a matter for WT:RFVE. "bad plural" sounds like a matter for WT:RFC (bad plural created by template {{en-noun}}). "bad caps" sounds like a matter for WT:RFVE or WT:RFC. I can't see any RFD relevant argument (like SOP, or maybe non-standard SMS/chat/internet mis-capitalisation which could be a reason to delete non-capitalised English proper nouns). 84.161.6.246 04:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Keep if attested wth an idiomatic meaning, which it apparently is, although I can't make sense of it. - -sche (discuss) 23:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

public sector[edit]

Rfd-sense: The three definitions look redundant to me. I would want to combine them into one. Most of the "competition" on OneLook seems to be happy with one definition. Only Collins has two definitions, one of which is tagged "British":

Oxford: The part of an economy that is controlled by the government.
Collins: part of a country's economy which is controlled or supported financially by the government.
Collins (British): the part of an economy that consists of state-owned institutions, including nationalized industries and services provided by local authorities
Cambridge: businesses and industries that are owned or controlled by the government.
Dictionary.com: the area of the nation's affairs under governmental rather than private control.
MacMillan: the industries and services, for example schools, that are supported by tax money and controlled by the government of a country or an area

--Hekaheka (talk) 12:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I also can’t tell the difference between the three senses. We can merge them all, unless someone can find some usage examples that apply to each sense and not to the others. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the above. I see no worthwhile distinction. I also question the "Any government" part of sense 1. I don't really think of the actual government as being part of the "public sector". Do other people? Mihia (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@Mihia I think the cabinet/administration isn't considered part of the public sector, but the government apparatus generally is. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I would also support a merging of the three senses. It would be difficult to find attestations which clearly demarcate them. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Delete senses 2 and 3, remove "and deliver public services" from sense 1 and that should cover it nicely. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Merge into one sense, assuming no one can show quotations that support there being multiple definitions. Senses were added by User:Iudexvivorum (diff), who is now Judexvivorum (talkcontribs). --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

research gap[edit]

Not really idiomatic, in my experience, just a gap in the research that's been done. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Keep - the concept is totally essential to academic research and thus highly salient, and is refined/scoped in the way the definition is written - which is a bit clunky, so I will work on it.- Sonofcawdrey (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Delete. One can say "gap in the research", "gap in the field", "gap in the literature", etc. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Sonofcawdrey: Your argument seems to be about the concept, but should be about the term. That the concept is important doesn't mean that the term is (from a lexicographical point of view).
To me "research gap" seems to be sum of parts (SOP). -84.161.6.246 04:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but the term in question is the general term for the concept (e'en though there are other ways of expressing it), and the concept is more than SoP in that it is not just any gap in research, but one of enough significance to warrant research.- Sonofcawdrey (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete. I'm sympathetic to Sonofcawdrey's argument, but I don't think a matter of degree is enough in this case to warrant this as a separate lexical entity. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 02:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete per proponent. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:32, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Delete. --WikiTiki89 12:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

expiration date[edit]

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification#expiration date.

Rfv-sense "human being". Sure it could be applied to human beings, but also to cats, dogs, etc. Does it warrant a separate sense? – Jberkel (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

This one is easily cited. I suggest you move this to requests for deletion... Kiwima (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Now that it is moved: I think the first definition could pretty easily be reworded to cover this case as well - it is the date at which something or someone expires - whether by becoming worthless, degrading past the point where it should not be used, dying, etc. Kiwima (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The second definition is incomplete anyway; I've read many times the phrase "woman's expiration date", which means "the moment when she ceases to be attractive on the sexual market" (it's a reference to her sexual lifespan, not simply her lifespan) --Barytonesis (talk) 10:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Delete/merge into the first definition, and expand it to also cover sexual expiration dates, per Barytonesis. - -sche (discuss) 22:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

December 2017[edit]

Gibson[edit]

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

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

-sion[edit]

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

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

Delete unless there are examples of this being added to terms where the root/etymon does not have the s. (Strictly speaking, that's an RFV question.) - -sche (discuss) 23:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

XMLHttpRequest[edit]

Pretty much a class name or library name, like (to take a few random examples from the .NET Framework, out of thousands or millions) StringBuilder or HttpRequestException. In other words it's computer language akin to keywords and commands etc. which we exclude. Equinox 00:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Delete. It could lead to far. It does not even look like English with that spelling, but coders code-switching to computer language. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 08:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Keep It's also used in Ajax and it's an object. I think the acronym XHR is enough reason to keep. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 12:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Is there any actual policy saying "having an initialism means we must keep the expanded form"? I am happy with the useful entry ZWNJ but I would not want an entry for zero-width non joiner. Equinox 07:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom (Equinox). --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Delete. - -sche (discuss) 23:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

get one's back up[edit]

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

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

Icehouse[edit]

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

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

January 2018[edit]

webside[edit]

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

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

what was someone thinking[edit]

what was someone smoking[edit]

I don't think this falls within the scope of a dictionary. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Per utramque cavernam First of all, they're quite common phrases. Second of all, I don't believe you can deduce the meaning of the phrases from what+were+they+thinking, and certainly not what+were+they+smoking. If you can tell me how this can be labelled as SOP, I'm all ears. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
In my view, the fact that "what were you thinking...?" doesn't simply mean "what were you thinking...?" (a neutral-tone question) hasn't much to do with lexicology; it's a semantic/pragmatic phenomenon. It doesn't operate at the level of the lexicon, but at a higher level, that of context.
I'm slightly more hesitant for "what were you smoking...", but I suspect it's not really a lexical phenomenon either.
Sorry, my answer is very vague; it's more of a feeling at the moment. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Feel like we should probably keep the "smoking" one, because the set of people who would say "what was Bob smoking?" doesn't overlap much with the set of people who actually smoke drugs. A similar phrase is the "X is Y on acid!" thing, which again has nothing to do with the drug (and I, as someone who has never taken acid, might well use the phrase, and know what it means) but has entered popular culture. Equinox 08:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Extra babble: I periodically look at the OED's quarterly "what's new" lists and some of the most interesting ones are phrases like this. They sometimes look a bit silly when you abstract them to the "one does this" level. I would rather that we have this is me than that we omit coverage because the lemma is ugly. (Still waiting for the WikiGrammar project too!) Equinox 08:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep "...smoking", delete "...thinking". —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 08:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, keep "smoking" per Equinox, delete "thinking" per Utramque cavernam. Our !votes sound like "superliminal messaging" for a tobacco company, haha: keep smoking, delete thinking... - -sche (discuss) 16:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep: The nomination rationale is not specified in terms of WT:CFI. As for the implied sum-of-parts claim, you cannot translate "what was someone thinking" word-for-word into Czech and get a useful translation; it seems something more is going on than the sum of parts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Keep both, since they're not SOP. They're both set phrases and idiomatic. PseudoSkull (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

wine legs[edit]

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

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

February 2018[edit]

absolute power[edit]

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

Yes, delete for that reason. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously not literally "absolute" (i.e., godlike). Also a set phrase. bd2412 T 21:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't get this. absolute is used in its literal/etymological sense of "unfettered, unchecked". It doesn't mean "godlike". --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
      • What is it about the phrase "absolute power" that tells you which sense of "absolute" is meant? bd2412 T 22:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
        • Reason? Anyone, by looking at the 21 "different senses" at absolute, can discern the overarching etymological idea of "unfetteredness", and deduce that "absolute power" means "power that is untied, unconstrained, unbound, unlinked", etc. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
          • Hardly so. I certainly, from looking at all the senses, cannot discern any overarching etymological idea of "unfetteredness". And I don't see why I should even try to do so; when looking for semantics, I don't care about etymology, as I should not. If this is a sum of parts, it is a sum of parts with respect to some of the 21 senses. The required sense seems to be the subsense "Having unlimited power, without limits set by a constitution, parliament, or other means; independent in ownership or authority." The subsense does not match perfectly for syntactic reasons; it is formulated to fit the phrase "absolute monarch" or the like. From the usability standpoint, it does not help that someone ordered the absolute entry chronologically, so you have to wade through obsolete and archaic senses to find the most commonly used senses. The entry looked sane in this revision (2012) before someone reworked it to be more like OED, for which there is no consensus as per Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2012/December#Positions_of_obsolete_senses. Merriam-Webster[13] has a sane entry, and its exemplifications of the adjective in adj-noun phrases are excellent; so does AHD[14]. Sorry for the digression.
          • As to whether we should have "absolute power": its use of "absolute" is in the same sense as "absolute monarch", "absolute ruler", and "absolute monarchy". It reminds me a bit of Talk:free variable. If a user enters "absolute power" in the dictionary, they will be better served by the entry in that they do not need to search among the clutter that is now in absolute. Nonetheless, abstain. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
            • Yep, you're right. Just ignore our crappy/nonsensical entry absolute, look up that word in any other dictionary than ours, and you won't have any trouble understanding absolute power. In other words, the entry absolute power is currently somewhat helpful only because the entry absolute is completely unhelpful. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. I recognise this as a set phrase. John Cross (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. We don't keep set phrases merely because they are set. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't seem strongly lexicalised to me. And other dictionaries don't have it. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a bit more specific than just [[absolute]] + [[power]]. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 13:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The fact that absolute power is only sometimes godlike seems like a pragmatic rather than a lexical issue, like an absolute monarch/absolute ruler may rule only a single country or lack the power to revive the dead and reverse the flow of time, the way they could if "absolute" truly meant "godlike", and a brown car may not be entirely brown (the turn signals might be yellow, etc), and so on. - -sche (discuss) 19:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I heartily agree with that. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. SOP. -- · (talk) 07:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not even a set phrase. absolute control, absolute rule, absolute supercalifragilisticexpialidociousness. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. As per PseudoSkull. Also, there's this. Not that it helps at all, but I figured it might be useful to bring it up. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

pearl necklace[edit]

SoP. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep, the second sense is clearly idiomatic, since it describes neither literal pearls, nor a literal necklace. The first sense could be converted to an &lit, but I think there is still some room for idiomacity in the fact that the phrase describes a string of individual pearls, not a necklace carved from a single pearl. bd2412 T 14:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep the second sense; convert the first sense to an &lit, optionally retaining a short "definition" after the &lit as some entries do. To bd's point I would counter than one can speak of "diamond earrings" or "ruby necklaces" that are also set with diamonds or rubies rather than fashioned exclusively from those stones, and "steel airplanes" that are only principally steel, and so on. - -sche (discuss) 16:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
    But can one call an airplane steel if virtually the only steel is in the landing gear? DCDuring (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
    That's the fallacy of the heap, no? An X(steel, oak, wood, jade, glass) Y is not usually going to be all X, but how much and in what ways is going to depend on the Y, and reasonable people are going to disagree on the dividing point, and probably with themselves on different days. Usually an X necklace uses X as the decorative, not structural elements.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Convert first sense per -sche (and obviously keep second sense). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep 2nd sense; I prefer the 1st sense "as is", without &lit. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dan Polansky, Google Images suggests that this is more commonly associated with a necklace consisting of multiple pearls than with a pearl pendant. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
    • In that case, we should probably tweak sense one to indicate a string of pearls, or multiple pearls strong together into a loop. bd2412 T 22:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
      I don't think that is necessary, many of them didn't form single loops or strings. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah, have to Keep due to sense2. Genuine Urban Dictionary material, this. -- · (talk) 07:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

RFD kept. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

under one's hat[edit]

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

It could be a redirect. DCDuring (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Right, Change to redirect. -- · (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Merriam-Webster has a "keep under one's hat" entry[15]. under one's hat at OneLook Dictionary Search finds Merriam-Webster.com, Wiktionary and dictionary.com[16], 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)

I need a guide[edit]

I request undeletion of this phrasebook entry. google books:"I need a guide" phrasebook finds the phrase in multiple phrasebooks. Thus, it should be kept using the lemming heuristic for phrasebook, which says, keep an English phrasebook entry if it is attested and is present in at least three independent phrasebooks. Admission: The heuristic is not part of formal policy, which is in WT:CFI#Idiomaticity, and says "Phrasebook entries are very common expressions that are considered useful to non-native speakers. Although these are included as entries in the dictionary (in the main namespace), they are not usually considered in these terms." --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Let me note that this never passed a deletion request, from what I can see, so this is the first request for deletion of the entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Restore as a typical phrasebook phrase. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Restore per Dan Polansky's rationale. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Restore - as per reasoning above. John Cross (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Meh. I've grown quite sensitive to the lemming argument, but I still think many of these phrasebook entries are useless, including this one. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Keep as useful for a (possibly colonial) phrasebook. Ha. I've expressed my feelings about splitting phrasebook out of mainspace before, but that's orthogonal. Equinox 06:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

gay pride[edit]

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

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

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

We do have an entry for Pride as a specifically-LGBT pride event. Lowercase pride is attestable as an alt form of that, and could be made a subsense of whatever general sense covers these terms. Then the combination of the general sense of "pride" and such an LGBT-specific sense would probably cover most of those, covering general "pride parades" (including ones that happen to be for specific things), LGBT-specific parades that are just called "pride parades", and use with other designators, like "Arab pride parade". (I wouldn't mind redirecting them to the relevant [super-]sense of pride, though.) - -sche (discuss) 17:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Abstain. You can definitely have X pride for anything, but this seems to have been one of the earlier ones, or the first one: if we start with web site, and in 50 years there's only site, should we delete web site? Equinox 06:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • A long time ago, but wasn't it Gay Pride (along with Lesbian Strength, and ...) which predated Pride (in the 80s in London at least)? Did the names become genericised along the way, like hoover, or did the gay et al "trade marks" grow out of pre-existing generic phrases? If the latter, that particular meaning may have become non-SoP. --Enginear 23:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

ghost from one's past[edit]

SOP? @Suzukaze-c --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

SOP with which sense of ghost? I don't see any fitting sense, hence it doesn't appear to be SOP. -84.161.27.215 20:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Isn't a ghost simply "something that haunts"? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Keep. I see it as an idiom. -- · (talk) 07:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Keep; even if it's not directly idiomatic, the phrase is highly set. PseudoSkull (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Weak keep (as a redirect) but move, IMO. Comparing "ghost from his past", "ghost from the past", "specter from the past", "spectre from the past" (specter/spectre "from his past" was too rare to plot), I find that "ghost from the past" is most common, so I think that should be the lemma. (Even if we still want a possessive as the lemma, I think it should be "someone's" since we normally use "one's" as a placeholder for the first person, right? but as those ngrams show, this often refers to other people.) The ngrams also show that the wording is a bit variable, but it does seem idiom-like. - -sche (discuss) 23:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

white supremacy[edit]

black supremacy[edit]

Arab supremacy[edit]

Jewish supremacy[edit]

racial supremacy[edit]

heterosexual supremacy[edit]

white Christian supremacy[edit]

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

Delete. These, being short, sound good as titles of Wikipedia articles; that doesn't make them lexical and entryworthy. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Delete them, except white supremacy. There was also European supremacy at one time. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Keep white supremacy per Dan Polansky. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete 'em all. -- · (talk) 07:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Got some reasoning but I'm tired. Will share on demand. Equinox 06:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Keep white supremacy with the use of lemming heuristic. I feel that especially "white supremacy" is something of a unit, based on the use I heard in U.S. media. And when I look at white supremacy at OneLook Dictionary Search, I see it in multiple dictionaries including Merriam-Webster. The other supremacies appear to be something of snowclones, where "white supremacy" would be the parent of them all. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Sum of parts. Nicole Sharp (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete all as sum of parts as well. I think, in accordance with on what Dan said, that there is snowcloning afoot here, but I don't think that even though a term is a parent of a snowclone that it necessarily merits its own lexical entry. Maybe create a snowclone and note that white supremacy is the likely parent? --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    @SanctMinimalicen: But how do you make the snowclone accessible to the reader? Wouln't it be better to keep "white supremacy", redirect the others to it, and, in white supremacy, make a usage note stating that this has been snowcloned into X, Y, Z? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    @Dan Polansky: I definitely see the merit to that as well. I'm feeling a tension here between the ideals of usefulness and proper accuracy of lexical inclusion...my natural bent is towards the latter but the former certainly has weight. I noticed that on the entry for supremacy, sense three is pointing at what we're discussing. Could we make a usage note there that directs the readers to the "white supremacy", etc., snowclones? That might reconcile the two ideals I mentioned. Additionally, we could perhaps redirect "white supremacy" to "supremacy", where they would find the usage note and thereby the snowclones. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

transitive-verb[edit]

We don't do that, right? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

We do do that, a lot: at-sign, open-book, criminal-law, shoulder-blade, sea-urchin. DTLHS (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I would prefer to delete these, for reasons discussed at least twice before. There are many of them though; one user (Msh210? someone beginning with M, anyhow) was fond of creating them. Equinox 03:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
He's the one who created that entry, in any case. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Keep. Still not SOP. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull: How so? Why do you want to keep this if we already have transitive verb? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@Per utramque cavernam: Because there's a hyphen, which makes it a different entry. Plus, it's not like it can't be classified as anything. Attributive forms should be considered as lexical as adding plurals, whenever attested, IMO. Also, if we're going to have an RFD discussion like this, we really should be going a step up and having a BP discussion or something to bring a very clear consensus to deleting all or almost all attributive forms of noun phrases. But I really don't see any problem with these entries personally; I've seen them quite a lot across enwikt, so there seems to at least be some consensus for having entries like these. It wouldn't be fair to just go as far as deleting this one and leaving all the rest, or even just this one and the 5 others mentioned above; that is, if they should be deleted. In such a discussion, I'd oppose, but still it's just my recommendation to the other members of this discussion. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
"there's a hyphen, which makes it a different entry" is PRECISELY as silly as wanting entries for "dog" and "Dog" because sometimes it's at the start of a sentence. We have had this argument 99 times. Try to keep up. Equinox 19:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
And furthermore the "there are lots of these entries so it isn't fair to delete one" is the same structure of argument as "Hitler killed lots of Jews so it isn't fair to save one". (I SAID STRUCTURE. I'm not a Nazi. See analogy.) That's no argument at all. Equinox 19:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Do we delete alternative spellings in any other cases? AFAICT we only do so for cases where general rules (like, "capialize all Nouns" or "Capitalize the start of sentences.") sometimes result in capitalization, but not in cases where a particular form is capitalized (or spelled with a hyphen) regardless of its position in the sentence, etc... right? Or are there other cases where attested alternative forms (which are not alleged to be uncommon misspellings) are deleted? - -sche (discuss) 20:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
My point was that there is not a clear enough consensus to delete these kinds of entries, period. We need to work harder to gather a consensus on these entries as a whole rather than just one or five of them. You don't want one attributive-form entry to be deleted per discussion and one very similar one to be kept per discussion on the same rationales, because of different people signing, etc., right? Yeah... we need a universal consensus for this. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay, well I would certainly vote for removing these, because I see the process of forming the hyphenated attributive form from the spaced "normal" form as entirely mechanical. There aren't any irregular cases; it's not like the past tense of a verb where you sometimes have historical oddities like "sang", or noun plurals like "children". But I find administrivia incredibly tiresome and I am bad at it. If there is enough consensus to zap these then I assume someone else might set it up. Equinox 20:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
-sche: I don't see how anyone can ingenuously call X an "alternative spelling" of Y when X and Y are the same except for spaces vs. hyphens. It's not spelling! And it's not an "alternative form" in the way that we usually use that, because the hyphenated form has its own specific usage (attributive) that mostly isn't acceptable for the "normal" usage (e.g. object of verb). I may have misunderstood what you are saying but unless we are prioritising Wiktionary templates over the language itself I don't get it. Equinox 20:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, we have a lot of entries like this. msh210 created a lot, but even I've created some. I wouldn't often go out of my way to create them, but if they're attested, I don't see grounds for deleting them; attested alternative forms, unless they are e.g. rare misspellings, are always allowed. The most you could do would be argue that it should say more broadly "alternative form of" instead of "attributive form of", but that seems less informative (unless, in the case of some specific entry, the hyphenated form is usually used in non-attributive ways, meaning it is just an alt form), so I would keep the entry as-is. - -sche (discuss) 18:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
How would this specific example be used in a sentence? I think it should be RFV'd at least. DTLHS (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I placed it to WT:RFVE to see whether this is attested in the first place. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I found one occurrence in less than fifteen seconds: transitive-verb sentence; I suspect it will be easy to cite. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
transitive-verb pattern. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, not so easy to cite after all. This, maybe? Anyway, I actually think it's beside the point. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
As I suggested, I started a new discussion for most English entries using Template:attributive form of below. I kindly ask that you please focus your RFD attention there. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

action at a distance[edit]

SOP. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Per utramque cavernam Can you do me a favor and explain why you think this is SOP? "without touching one another" isn't directly synonymous with "at a distance"; "at a distance" means "far away from" AFAIK. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
And so as such, keep. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. The meaning is not obvious to most people. In many, if not the vast majority, of usages it's a technical term. -- · (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes called spooky action at a distance (we also have that entry). Equinox 01:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
No, that's a different concept. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Do you think the terms are etymologically related (i.e. one influenced by the other)? PseudoSkull (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, obviously. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge No, not "obviously", because I did not know the context, and this is a dictionary so these things should be made very clear at their entries. For instance, if spooky action at a distance came from action at a distance, the header should say spooky action at a distance rather than spooky action at a distance. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull, indeed it should. I have now edited the page to link it properly. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, more specific than its parts. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 11:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. This actually has multiple senses in physics. Nicole Sharp (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

RFD kept. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

All English attributive forms (with hyphens) of noun phrases[edit]

See the RFD discussion for transitive-verb above. To see many other examples of entries like this, see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:attributive form of. The discussion refers only to attributive entries that are based on related entries with no hyphen; i.e. transitive verb used attributively is transitive-verb. If a noun phrase is only used attributively, then it does not apply to this discussion.

Some people believe these should be deleted, and some seem to believe they should be kept. However, I believe this separate discussion should be going on instead, since we shouldn't just delete (or keep) a needle in a haystack, but instead we need to gain a consensus about whether or not any of these entries should be kept or deleted. Perhaps this discussion should even be moved/also discussed at the Beer parlour, or maybe should even get its own formal vote, idk. But this is a start, anyway. This discussion could even result in adding to the wording of our criteria for inclusion.

Pinging everyone from the transitive-verb discussion as of the time of this post: @Per utramque cavernam, @DTLHS, @Equinox, @-sche, @Dan Polansky. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Keep, that's my vote for now. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Yuk. clothes-maiden, inverted-snobbery, peat-moss and rugby-boot are some crappy entries and should be deleted. The rest may well be equally crappy and deletable. --Otra cuenta105 (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Keep. I don't see a justification for deleting these anywhere in our WT:CFI, and I don't see a good reason to add such a ban. In particular, we not only include many alternative forms that are regular / predictable, like -ise/-ize variants, but AFAICT we always allow attested alternative forms that are not perfectly predictable (is there anyone who wants to delete those?) and some terms are sometimes hyphenated and sometimes not, so the idea of including those hyphenated spellings that are attested in non-attributive positions (as we also already do), but not ones attested only in attributive positions, seems weird. Compare my (and others') comments about the specific case of transitive-verb, discussed above. - -sche (discuss) 20:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@-sche I don't see why you've been comparing attributive forms to alternative forms. An alternative form is something like standardize being changed to standardise; a different spelling of the same word. But transitive verb being changed to transitive-verb implies a different usage of the word; a different way that the word is inflected. So, I am confused by your posts on this subject, and I think others are too for this reason. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull, Equinox: I'm sorry I haven't made myself intelligible. What I mean is: there are cases where a hyphen has nothing to do with attributiveness, it's just an alt form, e.g. most or all instances of co-operative, hara-kiri, trans-woman, buck-hoist and non-believer aren't attributive, those are just other spellings of cooperative, harakiri, trans woman ~ transwoman, buck hoist ~ buckhoist, and nonbeliever. And AFAICT, this proposal wouldn't delete those hyphenated entries. It seems silly to me to allow those but ban transitive-verb, especially because, although transitive-verb is mostly attributive, enough citations seem to exist for it to meet CFI as a simple non-attributive {{alternative form of}} (like co-operative etc), so the entry is still going to exist (just with a vaguer definition), unless you want to make a second change to CFI to also ban non-attributive alternative forms that just happen to have hyphens in them. And this will be true of many hyphenated spellings, so we'll still be documenting most of them, just under the less informative definition "alternative form of" (rather than "attributive form of", or what it should perhaps be changed to, "alternative, chiefly attributive, form of") and with citations of non-attributive use that mislead people as to what the main occurrence of them is. That seems silly to me. - -sche (discuss) 19:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Whom will this serve, apart from some misguided god of "all words in all languages"? It's a perfectly regular (AFAICT) spelling rule, and I don't see why a dictionary should feel the need to document that; it's not lexical information.
Or should we run a bot to create all the possible combinations? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The above does not seem to bear any relation to WT:CFI; in particular, the last question ignores WT:ATTEST. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Good points. Please let me strike my second sentence. About the first: diff --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Am inclined to delete. I don't see it as comparable to -ise/-ize because those are variant spellings and not in any way mandated by the grammar. Equinox 01:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm changing my vote; delete. These are not separate lexical entities, but are a grammatical feature. They are inflected the same way for every noun phrase. Unless someone can convince me that there are exceptions to the grammatical rule of inserting hyphens to use attributively, then go ahead and tell me. Even if that were the case, such an exception would probably be rare enough to merit its own entry without having entries for all the other ones. The pattern is predictable, and a dictionary does not need to document every single case.
Now, to be fair, the grammatical rule to always insert a hyphen when attributively using noun phrases isn't one that seems to be super well-known, in my experience. You'll probably see sources from lots of unprofessional writers that have attributive noun phrase usage in their writings and don't use a hyphen. That's a lot like what I just did in the previous sentence. You see the point, right? So, technically, nouns can attestedly be used either way, though the first is proper. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Keep per -sche: We have the practice of treating the hyphen as significant for the choice of the lemma: we have apple-tree (noun, not attributive form) and apple tree as separate entries. Therefore, transitive-verb is a lemma different from transitive verb. It is predictable, sure, but so are many trivial derivations such as -ness derivations. On a process note, this fits RFD poorly. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment: This diff is an example of how hyphenated attributive forms have been dealt with differently in other situations. I removed it, since it was still redundant, but an entry is not the only answer. Perhaps the grammatical rule needs to be mentioned somewhere in our appendix or something (and maybe it already is; I'm not all that familiar with the contents of the appendix myself). PseudoSkull (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Keep: We are happy to have separate entries for inflections where the alpha characters change, eg wedge and wedged. We are also happy to have separate entries where a space character is added, eg buckhoist and buck hoist. It seems to me logical that we should also be happy with separate entries when a hyphen character is added, or when a hyphen character replaces a space character. The advantage of logic is that computers prefer it (and are likely to for a while yet). The disadvantage, of course, is that much of the beauty of English (our core language) is illogical.
<hijack> Comment: The reason I am mildly in favour of "keep" is that I have a long-term aim/dream that eventually every citation will be applied to the exact spelling of the headword, rather than all being gathered under the lemma, as is general practice at present. (That will at least allow us to stop worrying about whether adjectives/adjectival phrases are comparable or not -- if somehow the phrase "totally ridiculous" unfortunately survives, we will at least be able to list "totally ridiculous (superlative not attested)". I believe it will be found to have other advantages too, though perhaps it is too logical by half. It's way in the future, not least because I don't have the time to champion it at present, but it's just to let people know that I have it in mind; so if there is ever a discussion on changing CFI to allow rare misspellings, or to disaggregate idiomatic phrases into eg "hold onto my/your/his/her hat" I'll be arguing for doing so (though hopefully by then, someone will have found a way of minimising the extra complexity this would cause). I've mentioned this here, rather than starting a new BP topic, because I doubt I'll have time to follow up any comments for the next few weeks, but it's just a statement of a long-term aim which is peripherally relevant to this vote. So if it excites anyone, start a BP topic yourself, and I'll try to contribute as and when. Otherwise, it will have to wait.</hijack> --Enginear 01:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
The reasoning is that the meaning of the spaces-become-hyphens version is trivially obvious given the existence of the spaced version. You can't really view putting a d on wedge to get wedged as a typographical transformation, given the existence of e.g. have/had instead of haved! IMO it's comparable to how we don't make an entry for "Dogs": it's a trivial transformation from "dogs" used in certain positions (start of sentence). Equinox 01:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

osthya[edit]

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

See also Talk:mahā.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

implicitedly[edit]

This is a very rare error; Ngrams shows it to be somewhere roughly on the order of twenty thousand times less common than "implicitly". (On the other hand, some people might feel that misconstructions (where a morpheme has been added to a word where it does not belong) are more includable than simple misspellings like, say, implicitely. So, discuss.) - -sche (discuss) 18:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Keep - seems to have a long history in Google books - back to 19thC. Enough worthy cites there to satisfy CFI. It's comparative rareness is not really a factor, not if we want to include every word in every language. A usage note would be useful.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

However, CFI explicitly (or explicitedly;) says "Rare misspellings should be excluded". - -sche (discuss) 05:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Righto, forgot about that criterion, tho' must have read it before. Change my vote to delete - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 06:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as a rare misspelling. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as a rare misspelling. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Abstain. As -sche said: I wouldn't call that a misspelling but a misformation/misconstruction, and am tempted to count it as a new word. Perhaps {{lb|en|nonstandard}} {{synonym of|lang=en|implicitly}}? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Though I initiated the RFD, I'm tempted to change my position to abstain. Perhaps it's a misspelling by someone assuming /ɪt/~/ɪd/ meant -ed, and not thinking through that adding -ed to -it would make /ɪtɪd/; compare impliced (20 BGC hits), implicedly (2). Even if it's a misconstruction, I'm not sure rare misconstructions are any more includable than misspellings, especially since we delete rare misspellings (intentional uses of a spelling that's wrong, whether or not the user knows it's wrong), not just typos (unintentional uses of a wrong spelling/form, especially identifiable when the author uses the expected spelling elsewhere). Paging through the Books results, ~150 books use "implicitedly", only 6 use "implicitedly" "implicitly", so, the spelling seems to be intentional; but again, we delete even intentional misspellings when they're rare. Bleh. I remain a weak delete at this point. - -sche (discuss) 16:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. DonnanZ (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Abstain. The frequency ratio of 20000 provided by -sche above via link to GNV is rather convincing. However, what is not so clear is that this is a misspelling. Indeed, the entry is marked as "Misconstruction". Do we want to keep vanishingly rare but attested misconstructions? For a calibration there is a much better ratio: regardless, (irregardless*600) at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

analysises[edit]

A very rare error, about twenty thousand times less common than analyses per Ngrams, hence/but in the same boat as WT:RFD#implicitedly. - -sche (discuss) 18:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. No reason to keep that I can think of. DonnanZ (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Keep - seems to have a long history in Google books - back to 19thC. Enough worthy cites there to satisfy CFI. It's comparative rareness is not really a factor, not if we want to include every word in every language. A usage note would be useful.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

However, CFI explicitly (or explicitedly;) says "Rare misspellings should be excluded". - -sche (discuss) 05:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Keeping my vote with "keep" for this one - seems to have been once used as a legitimate plural. In any case, not a misspelling. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 06:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as a rare misspelling. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as a rare misspelling. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, it seems to have been a genuine rare alternative plural used by native speakers in the 19th century, especially in the US. [17] [18] [19] ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    On one hand, that's a fair point. OTOH, paging through Google Books, the number of hits for "analysises" "analyses" seems to closely match the number of hits for "analysises", which is suggestive evidence that "analysises" is mostly something like a typo (an occasional unintentional error by people who also use the expected spelling) rather than an intentional (mis- or alternative-) spelling; most of the hits I get for "analysises" -"analyses" are by Chinese authors (not native English speakers?); and as I noted about #implicitedly, we delete even intentional (i.e. non-typo) misspellings when they're rare. Still, I'm almost persuaded to change my position to abstain. I wonder if we could find spoken examples of this form. - -sche (discuss) 16:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    I agree that most of hits from the 20th and 21st century are errors by non-native speakers. For me the question is about when sg. -is, pl. -es became a common type in English. "Analysises" doesn't seem to appear before the 19th century but I get the impression that plurals of "analysis" weren't very common before that either. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
    Meh. (Although I am the nominator,) I'm changing my position to abstain. (But, to be clear, the RFD discussion should proceed; I don't think it's proper to "withdraw" an RFD that other people have !voted on.) - -sche (discuss) 03:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

magnetic declination[edit]

We have a relevant sense at declination, making this SOP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Hmm. As declination has several meanings, I'm inclined to keep this one, but improve its definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep using the lemming heuristic: magnetic declination at OneLook Dictionary Search includes Merriam-Webster, AHD, and Collins. Admittedly, M-W has ": declination 6", a kind of soft redirect. I think our readers are better served with the definition now provided by SemperBlotto. Incidentally, I seem to have looked this up recently, under "magnetic declination". --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a very specific term that is not a sum of parts. Nicole Sharp (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. 86.143.4.133 15:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

magnetic compass[edit]

A compass that is magnetic. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Flowery wording does not stop it from being SOP. - -sche (discuss) 18:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
WT:FLOWERY, anyone? Equinox 21:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it can be established that the term "magnetic compass" is older than "compass" in the relevant sense, as the entry implies by saying that "compass" is a shortening of "magnetic compass". If that's the case, then "magnetic compass" passes the WT:JIFFY test. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 22:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - other dictionaries have it. John Cross (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
    I have noted the other dictionaries in the references section. One sense of "compass" means a magnetic compass. The term 'magnetic compass' functions as a retronym as it distinguishes the magnetic compass from solid state compasses etc. We should accept this just as we accept analogue watch. John Cross (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
    See also Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-02/Allow retronyms John Cross (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep with the use of lemming heuristic: magnetic compass at OneLook Dictionary Search includes Merriam-Webster and more. There is also a chance (not certainty) that this could pass WT:JIFFY test mentioned by Mahagaja. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. --WikiTiki89 15:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sum of parts for a compass that uses magnetism. Nicole Sharp (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. 86.143.4.133 15:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - The OED have it, but what do they know. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. It has two separate senses, for goodness sake. Ƿidsiþ 05:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

toneless final syllable variant[edit]

This looks SOP and encyclopaedic, not lexical. No idea about the Chinese 重·次輕詞語 (of which it's the English translation) though. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Delete. This is not a translation for 重·次輕詞語, which is also SOP. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a distinct concept that needs specific definition- the standard wording of wiktionary articles to describe the condition of multiple pronunciations with no meaning change is toneless final syllable variant- expand the pronunciation box at the 聰明 page for an example. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: This is not the same as 重·次輕詞語 (though here in Wiktionary it seems to serve a similar function). "toneless final syllable variant" is literally a variant pronunciation in which the final syllable is toneless/neutral tone. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
created a new page at 重·次輕 --Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

connected[edit]

Sense "related by marriage or kin". Some rewriting might be in order, but I think this is just a specialised use of the most general sense of "having relationships". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Delete per proponent. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

true believer[edit]

It seems like SOP to me: true (sense 4, also 5?) + believer (one who believes). If it is kept, the current senses are probably too narrow. This can also be used for anybody who is enthusiastic or zealous about any belief or proposed action ("a true believer in pivots to video") or holds unfashionable beliefs. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Abstain. It sure seems SOP, but it's a set phrase at the very least. When I use it to refer to a certain religious individual, I don't mean that the others don't believe in the religion just as much as he does, but that he's a zealot who can never examine his own beliefs. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The sense which pertains to true-believer syndrome seems idiomatic; someone could be a true (senses 4-5: loyal, faithful, genuine) believer in e.g. string theory or the existence of an axis of evil, but shift their view if strong evidence subsequently came to light that it was wrong/impossible; whereas, a "true believer" is defined by not changing their view even in the face of conclusive proof that their view is bogus. So, clean up and keep sense 2. But sense 1 is just an &lit. - -sche (discuss) 19:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep using lemming heuristic: true believer at OneLook Dictionary Search shows this is in Merriam-Webster. I think substantive arguments can be made as well, but the point of lemming heuristic is to spare us the effort. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • &lit sense 1, keep sense 2. PseudoSkull (talk) 07:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Undeletion of brush one's teeth[edit]

The deletion discussion for this was really in comb one's hair, but not many comments were made on this entry specifically. The reason I disagree with this particular entry's deletion is because "brush one's teeth" always implies the use of both a toothbrush and toothpaste, without it saying either of these things in the idiom. Besides just its idiomaticity, the amount of usefulness of this verb-phrase for translation purposes is quite massive. If you pick apart brush + one's + teeth, you could guess that that could mean brushing it with anything, such as a hairbrush, and there's not even an implication of using any antiseptic either, which would be the toothpaste, so you're left assuming that to brush your teeth, you use a hairbrush and nothing else. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

No, some people brush their teeth with water only, or with a chewstick. Equinox 22:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
@Equinox Then maybe I'm just too used to the Western world. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Could an entry say "especially with a toothbrush and toothpaste."? PseudoSkull (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I think we should have it as a translation target at least. Very important to learners of foreign languages IMO, where the phrase is not always translated literally. Wyang (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Restore. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
The translation target reasoning seems applicable here (for once!). For example, Persian مسواک زدن (mesvâk zadan, to brush one's teeth, literally to hit the toothbrush). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, in Vietnamese you hit your teeth instead: đánh răng (literally to beat the teeth). :) Wyang (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Μετάknowledge has provided a link to the deletion in Talk:brush one's teeth. Should comb one's hair also be used as a "translation target"? I have restored and edited brush one's teeth with some translations for now and added to Category:English non-idiomatic translation targets. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Restore as a translation hub (translation target), per Persian example of Metaknowledge, per Vietnamese example of Wyang, and per Czech "čistit zuby" (clean teeth) and Russian "чи́стить зу́бы". The entry could be more palatable to some if it contained a label "translation hub"; I prefer translation hubs to have normal definitions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky I don't think this particular term is fully SOP in English though, since it as a term implies a lot in many cultures. The methods Equinox mentioned for brushing one's teeth are ones I've never heard of, as a person living in the US. My dentist would kill me (metaphorical) if I told him I only brushed my teeth with water. I think it's one of those borderline SOP cases, but still, I think it should be fully kept, and not specifically designated a translation hub. Normal entries get translations anyway. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, I believe this is idiomatic, although it's a little weak because clean one's teeth is also used. Ƿidsiþ 18:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep for the translations. But the definition is right to say "especially using..." because brushing one's teeth without toothpaste (or even, with something other than a toothbrush) is still, on a lexical level, brushing one's teeth. See google books:"brushed my teeth with a" and Kesha for some creative possibilities... - -sche (discuss) 19:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Undeletion of comb one's hair[edit]

Can this have a similar translation target treatment to the above? It may be even more idiomatic in some languages, cf Russian, расчёсываться impf (rasčósyvatʹsja), расчеса́ться pf (rasčesátʹsja), German sich kämmen but this can possibly go to comb#Verb. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be a fit translation for Czech učesat se; and Russian is mentioned above. But I am not sure. Can you say "I have to comb" and mean "I have to comb my hair" by it? Does at least "I have to comb my hair" sound idiomatic, something one would say once in a while? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

car wheel[edit]

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

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

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

Thanks. In Talk:car door, there is a RFV discussion from 2006. That was RFV. Time to send car door to RFD, I think. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

bond for general purposes[edit]

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

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

oath[edit]

Sense: "(law) An affirmation of the truth of a statement." The same as sense 1, in a legal situation. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete. The entry needs other cleanup / rewording, too. - -sche (discuss) 19:35, 17 March 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)

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[20]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

baby show[edit]

kid show/kid's show[edit]

adult show[edit]

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

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

March 2018[edit]

-ogony[edit]

Useless; we can use the -o- interfix + -gony when necessary. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

A {{suffixsee}} test doesn't reveal any entries using it. I think it can be deleted. DonnanZ (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

This reminds me of a discussion on de.Wikt about whether the verb suffix -ieren should have an entry, or just be considered -ier + -en. (de.Wikt decided "no", we've so far decided "yes" in that partcular case.) I wonder if it would be useful to make this into a hard or soft redirect to "-gony". I only see an underwhelming two books mentioning it as a suffix, both by a Helen Buss Mitchell. - -sche (discuss) 20:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
@-sche: I personally think we aren't segmenting enough, and give a wrong picture of the variety of derivational processes. Does English really have 700 different suffixes?
For instance, I'm not fond of "semantic" suffixes (things like -κλῆς (-klês)), and think we should stick as much as possible to grammatical/morphological suffixes (which serve to switch from one POS to another, basically); we should make heavier use of composition instead. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete or redirect to -gony. - -sche (discuss) 18:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

kit[edit]

The adjective. DonnanZ (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

  • This is a question of attributive use of nouns, right? Sort of the silk problem mentioned down the list, but without the etymological complication. If so, I would agree with delete. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's not an adjective. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

baby on board[edit]

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

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

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

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

dustbowl[edit]

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

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

light roller[edit]

heavy roller[edit]

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

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

mortality rate[edit]

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

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

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

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

Standard Estonian[edit]

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

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

mechanical mouse[edit]

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

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

gay couple[edit]

  • Currently a translation-only entry, created by @Daniel Carrero. I don't see many translations here that are not either slang (and therefore poor translations of the entry) or easily interpretable compounds. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
    • A slang translation is better than nothing. In countries with low LGBT visibility, these terms will probably eventually enter the mainstream lexicon. Anyway, two bisexual men in a relationship can still be called a gay couple. It's an idiomatic term actually. See gay bar, gay marriage, etc. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Keep per Tooironic. But I believe it's not actually idiomatic. The entry gay has this sense: "Being between two people of the same gender or the same sex, especially between two men." Examples given: gay marriage, gay weddings, gay sex, gay acts (?). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Other possible examples of that sense: gay kiss, gay love, gay romance, gay love story, gay relationship... Still, as said, keep gay couple as a translation-only entry. This is comparable to married couple. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
          • But it's not, at least with the current state of the entry. married couple has translations like 부부 (bubu) that justify it being a translation target. I would change my mind on this entry if it had several translations of that type. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @People who want to keep this entry: should straight couple also have an entry? - -sche (discuss) 04:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Or lesbian couple. I will abstain as I regard the whole concept of being gay (especially men) as rather disgusting. DonnanZ (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete unless more idiomatic translations like the Chinese ones are forthcoming. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 12:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is clearly a sum of parts. Otherwise we will need heterosexual couple, lesbian couple, etc. Translations for "gay couple" and other such LGBT terms and phrases should instead be listed in an LGBT phrasebook. Nicole Sharp (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete / redirect to "married couple" (for the benefit of anyone looking to add translations). I will reconsider if more idiomatic translations come out, but still lean towards deletion because if this and/or husband and wife/man and wife (discussed below) is deleted, the translations can go in [[married couple]] with a {{qualifier}} IMO. - -sche (discuss) 19:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete, SOP and I'm not convinced that it'll be a useful translation hub. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Abstain. The only translations suitable for translation hub criteria is Chinese, and one translation does not do for hub (Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-03/Including translation hubs). gay couple at OneLook Dictionary Search finds nothing. Seems sum of parts. What gives me a bit pause is that, when seeing gay couple, I first thought that to be a pair of male homosexuals, but that may be just me. One might claim that the term "gay couple" excludes a pair of a male homosexual and a female homosexual who just happen to be together in a lift, which makes it more than a sum of parts, but I do not find that very convincing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Appendix:Relationships[edit]

I propose that all of the current definitions and translations for the sum-of-parts articles gay couple, married couple, husband and wife, etc. be ported into a new page, Appendix:Relationships, and the sum-of-parts entries be deleted from mainspace. This can act as the translation hub needed for the many terms used to describe human sexual and romantic relationships around the world, not all of which may be valid as mainspace entries. Nicole Sharp (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

married couple[edit]

  • Delete as sum of parts, per discussion for gay couple. Nicole Sharp (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I would keep this, if not just for the translations. A gay couple may or may not be a married couple of course, which is why the entry doesn't say it's a man and woman as a married couple (but it normally is). DonnanZ (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep as a translation hub. In particular, I think this can also house {{qualifier}}-ed translations that mean "gay couple" or "straight couple"/"husband and wife" if either of those entries is deleted. - -sche (discuss) 15:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
    • It passes the lemming test anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
    • "Translation hub" seems a poor excuse to keep a sum-of-parts entry, unless there is a specific Wiktionary policy for this. There are a lot of non-English terms that do not translate directly into English, and would require sum-of-parts entries like this. A word translating into English as "married couple" could also presumably be translated as "married pair," "couple who is married," etc., all of which can be defined using the individual parts, without needing a new English Wiktionary entry. Such translations are best organized instead in a Wiktionary multilingual phrasebook of terms for relationships. Nicole Sharp (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
      • The argument that something should be kept as a "translation target" or "translation hub" is moderately often encountered at RFD in cases where something is a single word or unexpected phrase in a lot of languages, especially ones which would not otherwise use single words for sum-of-parts compounds. There was some support for adding it to CFI, but as far as I recall there's no overarching policy one way or the other and the community makes case-by-case decisions. (I don't always agree with everything that's kept, but I imagine other people don't always agree with everything that's deleted, c'est la vie.) Dan Polansky can probably say more about it. - -sche (discuss) 16:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
        • In theory, I would support this as Wiktionary policy, except that in highly synthetic languages (such as German or Nahuatl), there are very large number of one-word terms that would cause a very large number of unnecessary English terms being added. I never liked Wiktionary:SOP in the first place though. The more inclusive the better in my opinion, but consistency is important. Nicole Sharp (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • If married couple is a valid entry, then we also need to add unmarried couple. Nicole Sharp (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Do we, though, or is that a slippery slope fallacy? Is it as common a phrase and does it have as many idiomatic translations? - -sche (discuss) 16:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
      • It would be needed both as an antonym, and also as a synonymous term for such phrases as "living in sin." However, I propose that all of these sum-of-parts terms just be ported into Appendix:Relationships instead. Nicole Sharp (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
        • There are many idiomatic terms whose antonyms are SOP, and can be listed (in married couple) as "unmarried couple" without having an entry. AFAICT languages are less likely to have idiomatic translations for "unmarried couple" than "married couple", and the term is less set, so it has less merit and we needn't slide down any slopes towards it. - -sche (discuss) 18:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. The translation argument is imo important. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, SOP, and I'm not convinced by the translation hub argument here; it's slowly getting out of control. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep as a translation hub: Czech manželé, Spanish matrimonio, and more. A vote is at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-03/Including translation hubs, designed to keep some translation hubs while preventing overflood. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Comment: Has anyone heard the idiom sound like a married couple? PseudoSkull (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

husband and wife[edit]

  • Sum of parts, per discussion for gay couple. Nicole Sharp (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • This has been RFDed twice before. Arguments previously made for it: it's a set phrase (fixed order), it's one word in a lot of Asian languages (so it's a translation target/hub), it doesn't refer to a husband and (somebody else's) wife, but rather a married couple, but it is a more frequent term (see Ngrams) and also a semantically different term from "married couple". Arguments previously made against it: despite setness it is not an idiom; the ordering is cultural, not necessarily linguistic; translations can go in [[married couple]] (with a qualifier to note if they're restricted to an opposite-sex married couple). - -sche (discuss) 15:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Many of the translations look like they would fit better in [[married couple]] because they seem to literally mean that. The Czech one apparently means "husbands" but apparently idiomatically means either a man and wife (quite unexpected and hence a useful translation if accurate!) or two (gay) married husbands (which IMO would make the whole thing a great {{qualifier}}ed translation in [[married couple]]). - -sche (discuss) 15:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
      Yes, you are right, although the literal translation of Czech manželé is "husbands", it is much more often used in the sense "husband and wife" or "married couple". --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
    • You can say the same thing about husband and husband, wife and wife, etc. though. Are the two husbands married to each other, or is it just two husbands not married to each other? This is entirely from context, and they do not necessitate their own dictionary definitions. Nicole Sharp (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Also note that you will then need to create additional entries such as husband and wife and wife for polygamist marriages. Clearly a sum of parts. Nicole Sharp (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
        • No, most of the arguments don't extend to "husband and husband", which is about 2000 times rarer than "husband and wife" and used going back to the 1800s at nearly the same frequency as in the present day, which strongly suggests it's usually not a set term for a married same-sex couple but rather a chance instance of "[...husband] | [and husband (to, etc)...]" (indeed, looking at the books, they are strings like "relations of wife to husband and husband to wife are expounded..."). ("Wife and wife" is similar; see Ngrams.) It also remains to be demonstrated that the arguments about translations would apply to "husband and husband". However, I see no reason not to redirect husband and husband and wife and wife to gay couple if that entry is kept (and to redirect straight couple to this entry if it is kept). Your argument about husband and wife and wife is a clearly slippery slope fallacy; checking now, I don't even see enough hits to think that it would meet WT:ATTEST. - -sche (discuss) 16:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
          • Unfortunately, these kinds of arguments based on usage are very politically sensitive. "Husband and husband," "wife and wife," etc. would of course be rare in jurisdictions where this is or was illegal (including the USA until recently). A quick Google Search though clearly shows these terms in use in the same context as "husband and wife." Even so, as a minority, there are less LGBT people than there are cisheterosexual people, so such terms will always be used less than their heteronormative equivalents. But attempting to exclude LGBT terms because they are less popular is a discrimination that cannot be tolerated on Wiktionary. Nicole Sharp (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
          • Also note that wife and wife refers to a lesbian couple (not a gay couple) who are also a married couple. I say to delete all of these terms as sums of parts. Nicole Sharp (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • With three RFDs in just on two years this must be breaking a record, I voted "keep" last time and I'm voting keep again. I think it needs protection against further RFDs if it survives yet again. As most users should know, I am quite liberal regarding SoP terms, and there's many I would like to create, but I'm already in trouble with electroshock weapon. However I do not see the need for other entries that Nicole mentioned, which strike me as arguments for the sake of it. I think an entry husband and wife is quite sufficient. Funnily enough Oxford has an entry for husband-and-wife as an adjective, which we don't have. DonnanZ (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is not a sum of parts, because there are many many people who are husbands or wives and they still do not make husband and wife relationship together. The translation argument is imo also important. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per the arguments in favour of it, above, including light idiomaticity, translation target-ness, and the lemming argument (Merriam-Webster has it). (And if gay couple passes, create a hard direct from straight couple to this entry, for the sake of anyone looking to add translations.) Incidentally, Cambridge has "as husband as wife" defined as "in the manner of..." an opposite sex couple, presumably to cover "lived|behaved as husband and wife" which however seems transparent. - -sche (discuss) 19:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep for the third time in RFD; see RFD discussions at Talk:husband and wife, last closed in August 2017. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, per the lemming principle and as a translation target. The discrimination argument doesn't apply to those. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

man and wife[edit]

  • Presumably this should be discussed alongside husband and wife, above. I've added trans-see so we don't end up with translations at both. One could hard- or soft- redirect to the other (or they could both, along with [[straight couple]], redirect to [[married couple]], where any opposite-sex-specific translations can have {{qualifier}}s). - -sche (discuss) 15:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I didn't nominate this one due to the use of "man" to mean "husband," so I wouldn't view that as a sum of parts (since "man and wife" is not a man and a wife). I am not sure what terms are used for gay marriage ceremonies, e.g. if man and man (to mean husband and husband) should also be added. Nicole Sharp (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak keep (as nominator — i just nominated the term because I think it should probably be discussed alongside husband and wife), on the grounds that it's at least as idiomatic as "husband and wife" if not more so, and that entry has been repeatedly kept. - -sche (discuss) 19:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep for the same reason as "husband and wife", it is idomatic. I am a man, my female neighbour is married, so she is a wife. Despite this we are not "man and wife". --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Abstain. We do not needs this as a translation hub: we have husband and wife for the purpose and per man and wife, husband and wife at Google Ngram Viewer, husband and wife is more common. One could argue that "man and wife" is not a pair of two objects one of which happens to be male and another one happens to be a married female; I am not sure this is fully convincing for idiomaticity, though. man and wife at OneLook Dictionary Search does not find the traditional lemmings. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

personal data[edit]

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

Delete, I think. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep. 86.138.231.153 11:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Why? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom, not a particularly suitable translation target. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep. It sounds like it is 'sum of parts' but it is really a legal term that has entered common usage at least in the UK public sector - it really means any information, truthful or otherwise, relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (usually a living person). When used correctly the term would exclude data about a person who was not identified or identifiable. It includes opinions which not everyone would consider to be data. I appreciate that this is quite a subtle distinction but I think it is worth making. John Cross (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • On WP, W:Personal data redirects to W:Personally identifiable information. The PII is there defined as "information that can be used on its own or with other information to identify, contact, or locate a single person, or to identify an individual in context". If "personal data" is used to mean the same thing, then it is not a sum of parts, IMHO. That would require replacing {{translation only}}, currently in the entry, with an actual definition. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
The meaning of 'personal data' in Europe is strongly influenced by the Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC) and associated legislation (e.g. in the UK, the Data Protection Act 1998). It is comparable to PII in US privacy law. John Cross (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

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[22]. Also in Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 9th edition. © 2009, Elsevier[23]. These are not the typical lemming-heuristic dictionaries, but they do give me a pause. Are our users really better off when the entry is deleted? --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. They won't be misled into thinking that "pharmalogical agent" has an idiomatic sense that it doesn't have. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep then. 86.138.119.226 17:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Why? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

low-priced[edit]

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

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

paper book[edit]

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

  • Abstain for now. I am sure Semper is up to something, and I respect him for that. DonnanZ (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Semper is certainly up to something, and that something is creating a SOP entry that nobody would think to look up. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. - -sche (discuss) 18:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as bad-faith politics. I don't care whether this entry should exist or not. Creating it in response to an ongoing vote is fucking tacky. SB I thought better of you. Equinox 23:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't find this SOP. And I don't agree that no would would ever look it up. Quite the contrary.- Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Abstain. I personally call them printed books. "Paper book" just seems so ridiculously redundant. And there is such a thing as e-paper also. Nicole Sharp (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
    Keep, there are now two additional senses, so I think this is sufficiently distinctive. There is also at least one occurrence of "book in newspaper format" on BGC. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, SOP. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
    • To clarify: per Metaknowledge below, delete the second sense only. Use {{&lit}} seems acceptable, but I oppose having a full-fledged definition: "well, since we'll have an entry anyway, we might as well keep that sense". --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • paper book at OneLook Dictionary Search shows Merriam-Webster[25] has two legal definitions; these are not what we have now, that is, a book like it used to be before electronic books. Legal definitions are also in A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.[26]. If someone adds more definitions, we could unambiguously keep the entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
    Keep the entry since there is now a second definition. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, especially per Dan. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The disputed sense has three citations. How many more do you want? Keep SemperBlotto (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
    This is RFD, not RFV. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Now that there is another definition, I have made it into an rfd-sense (when the RFD was started, there was only the one sense in the entry). The existence of the entry as a whole and the sense in question in particular are independent, so I would not consider @Dan Polansky's vote to be countable here unless he clarifies his position on the sense in question. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
    Keep the sense of "A traditional hardback or softback book, as opposed to an e-book" as well. What could be done is replace it with {{&lit}}, but I am no fan of that template, finding it user unfriendly. Elsewhere, Andrew Sheedy writes '"Paper book," if e-books, etc. didn't exist, might be taken to mean a paperback book, or a book made entirely of paper. As with many retronyms, the term would likely have been confusing had it been introduced before other types of books were introduced.' In M-W[27], there is entry "paperbook" defined as paperback, which reinforces Andrew's idea that "paper book" might otherwise be understood to refer to paperback. A next move in the game would be for someone to attest paperbook, and see whether coalmine could apply. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak keep John Cross (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

apple-bearing[edit]

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

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)

villegiatura[edit]

There is no word corresponding to villegiatura in English. --Les Yeux Noirs (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

This seems like a WT:RFV question; the spelling does seem to be attested, especially in older texts but also in some modern ones, and apparently also in Italian. - -sche (discuss) 19:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • (villegiatura*4), villeggiatura at Google Ngram Viewer suggests the allegged misspelling villegiatura is four times rarer than the alleggedly correct spelling. Unless Ngram contains some mistake, the spelling is attested. The spelling should not be deleted since we keep common misspellings per WT:CFI#Spellings. It could be marked as a misspelling, but the frequency ratio of 4 does not recommend that to me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: this form was claimed to be a misspelling; if it were claimed to be a rare misspelling, that would have been be a discussable RFD rationale, but it also would have been wrong: the spelling is attested so commonly that, if it is not simply an alternative spelling, it is at least a keepable misspelling. - -sche (discuss) 17:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

-zoan[edit]

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

Wow, the (early) edit history is weird, displaying the unlinked text "imported>SP-KP‎" in the space where the username of the creating editor should go. - -sche (discuss) 02:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
It is the username of the creating editor- with the prefix "imported>" tacked on. That's how they must have handled edit histories of interwikis in those days. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete. As mentioned above, this is not a true suffix. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm conflicted: on the one hand, this is obviously bogus. On the other hand, it would be nice to have someplace to explain the invariant pattern of individual members of taxa with translingual names ending in -zoa being called by an English name ending in -zoan. This is the same as with the taxonomic sense of -phyte (which also has other problems) and -phyta. Then there are -ids, -ines and -forms, as well as -aceous adjectives. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

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: [29], [30] (messy, 3 hits for "cardoor(s)" and 2 for "car door(s)"), [31], [32] ("car door" could be a less common variant), [33] ("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)

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)

fault tolerance[edit]

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

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

money[edit]

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

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

all-pervading[edit]

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

all-engrossing[edit]

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

all-grasping[edit]

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

all-destroying[edit]

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

all-abounding[edit]

As above. I just added additional citations to bring Citations:all-abounding up to the requisite three. I haven't listed terms like coal-box that seem like they pass Coalmine. - -sche (discuss) 19:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

candle-wick[edit]

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

What's this supposed to mean? A wick of a candle, or the fabric candlewick? DonnanZ (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
From Citations:candle-wick, it seems to always be the wick of a candle, but perhaps the existence of candlewick "coalmines" it in. Sorry, I should've linked the citations pages of all of these. - -sche (discuss) 19:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it does. COALMINE allows one-word uncommon spellings to shoe in multi-word common spellings, but google books:"candle-wick" seems to be less common than google books:"candle wick" which is less common than google books:"candlewick". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not keen either. I would prefer candle wick. DonnanZ (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

close range[edit]

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

Yes, Oxford lists it. DonnanZ (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Support creating this. Merriam-Webster has it. [40] John Cross (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

ever-gentle[edit]

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

ever-moving[edit]

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

Add, it looks like this passes COALMINE. [42] [43] [44] [45] ←₰-→ 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)

ever-varied[edit]

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

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

ever-watchful[edit]

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

It doesn't pass the lemming test, but it's reasonably common, with or without the hyphen, and verifiable on Google Books. DonnanZ (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Minus the hyphen bit, you could say the same for "like four of the"... Chuck Entz (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not so sure the un-hyphenated form is actually citable: John Cross tried to find citations of it here, but they all actually used a hyphen which Google's OCR was just omitting. - -sche (discuss) 04:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry. I will have another try. John Cross (talk) 06:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I may have been misunderstood, I meant without a hyphen as "ever watchful", everwatchful naturally never entered my mind. Keep this one anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 09:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep - everwatchful appears to be a word. John Cross (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Probably in American English, but not British. DonnanZ (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

shower shoe[edit]

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

Seems like it passes the fried egg test. DTLHS (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't even know what a shower shoe is. DonnanZ (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
It's a shoe you wear in the shower, especially a communal shower in a school or military dorm, to avoid putting your feet on the potentially gross floor. For practical reasons it is usually a rubber/plastic flip-flop or slipper, which arguably makes it idiomatic like fried egg, as DTLHS says. - -sche (discuss) 20:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah OK, definitely entry-worthy. DonnanZ (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep all. Ƿidsiþ 13:47, 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)

clinically proven[edit]

clinically + proven. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete. I'd forgotten I made this. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Move to form with a hyphen. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I thought modifiers with a word ending in -ly don't take a hyphen? — SGconlaw (talk) 06:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
They shouldn't. DonnanZ (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
In that case, delete. — SGconlaw (talk) 09:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I think that could only happen if it's part of an attributive noun phrase, like "clinically-proven-method instruction", which is not relevant to "clinically proven" or "clinically-proven" and which shouldn't be included either. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete this entry as well as all hyphens after -ly adverbs. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 14:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

By the way, a very similar case, critically acclaimed, was deleted recently. Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep as a translation hub. Czech klinicky ověřený is of value since the word for word translation would be *"klinicky dokázaný", by my first impression; German klinisch getestet is the usual translation, where the Google translate yields much rarer "klinich bewiesen". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
    Another German translation that seem often used in Google books is klinisch geprüft. In any case, why should our users do the research themselves when we can find the best translations for them? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
A good point if translations are not what one would expect. DonnanZ (talk) 08:50, 5 April 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)

J-shaped[edit]

Tagged but not listed. Note that we decided to keep other similar entries. John Cross (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  • @SemperBlotto RFD-tagged it when he created the entry. I wonder whether it was a slip-up. DonnanZ (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I was probably stoned at the time. Keep all. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
It is silly to delete them one by one when we have a full set and some kind of existing consensus. OTOH I feel there is something blatantly SoP about these: if I said "ᓴ-shaped", you might not know what ᓴ is but you can tell what it means because the shape is literally in front of your eyes. Equinox 06:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I will start by conceding that these do follow a predictable pattern. If you emailed me about a"ᓴ-shaped" walking stick, I would know what you meant. Without prior knowledge:
  • I would not be able to distinguish between h-shaped and H-shaped.
  • I would not know that F-shaped could mean shaped like the mirror image of an "F".
  • I certainly would not know about the sense of U-shaped where the "U" is a broad-based "U".
Note also that Duden has L-förmig, S-förmig and X-förmig.

John Cross (talk) 06:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I'm gonna vote against these, but to be fair "I would not know that F can be mirror-F" is a pathetic argument. That's like saying you can't recognise a triangular thing as a triangle if I turn it upside-down. It is understood by us, as beings in a 3D world, that shapes can be rotated. Equinox 07:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I am pleased that you are not planning to vote against these. You obviously don't have to agree with me but I would not want anyone to think I was making poor arguments at least not deliberately or due to a unreasonable lack of care. I take your point that many objects can be rotated in the 3D world. I was coming at this from a different perspective. I was really trying to say that it would not have occurred to me to add the mirror-image point to the definitions had someone else not done so (it may be incorrect but if it is correct then it is important to the definition). Sometimes we impose the language of the 2D world on the 3D world when we say for example we might talk about a square-based prism, a triangular work surface or a circular stain. It turns out that some poles have a G-shaped base.[46] You could break the base off and flip it but then it would not be a base. You could dig up an F-shaped flower bed and change it to be another shape but it is not a trivial task. John Cross (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Note that I have made a list of other dictionaries that have entries for terms of the form *-shaped. John Cross (talk) 08:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

K-shaped[edit]

Tagged but not listed. Note that we decided to keep other similar entries. John Cross (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

We do have heart-shaped, bell-shaped, mushroom-shaped, egg-shaped etc John Cross (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
The FreeDictionary.com has pumpkin-shaped[47] and bowl-shaped[48] and bottle-shaped. I could not find horseshoe-shaped in an online dictionary. John Cross (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
"egg-shaped: Having the shape of an egg" pretty much makes my point for me. To the extent (which may be debated) that the others contain additional content beyond "shaped like the thing mentioned", they do not fall into my category. Mihia (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Whatever there is that's specific to a given letter and not predictable should be covered in the entry for the letter. After all, it's a simple matter to substitute "that's in the shape of a k" or "that has the form of a k" or "that looks like a k" or "that's reminiscent of a k", etc. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
If I understand your point correctly, I agree with you. If someone can come up with any worthwhile additional information for K-shaped beyond "Shaped like the letter 'K'" then it should be kept. Otherwise it should be deleted. (I do not count "or its mirror image" as "worthwhile".) Mihia (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

critical acclaim[edit]

Same ink as critically acclaimed, which was deleted recently. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete per previous consensus. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete for the nominator's reason. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

what kind of[edit]

This is not lexical.

By the way, I suggest redirecting this to what kind, or the reverse. (nvm) --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

It's just incomplete. Delete. Equinox 22:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete. This is a fragment not a phrase. Mihia (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Deleted. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:46, 25 April 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)

man-on-man[edit]

woman-on-woman[edit]

girl-on-girl[edit]

boy-on-boy[edit]

gal-on-gal[edit]

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

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

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)

be bored to death[edit]

be + bored + to death. See also Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/English#bleed_to_death. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 09:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, I think. I see this as different to "bleed to death" because of a literal vs. figurative usage of "to death", and more in the vein of other usages like "He talked me to death.", "I love her to death." or "That company worked me to death." That said, both senses (literal and figurative) are attested in the definition, so the SOP still seems to apply. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete. We wouldn't create "be bored" either. Equinox 21:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete. to be being extremely bored PseudoSkull (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete Bad entry title - would probably be OK at bored to death. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
At the least, move to bored to death. Now, what are the redeeming qualities of bored to death? It is in http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Bored+To+Death, in McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs, 2002, but idiom dictionaries are not the typical lemmings. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete or move, bored to death or bore to death seem better lemmas. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

JBiebs[edit]

I ask that this be restored. It was deleted via RFD now archived at Talk:RPattz. The only pro-deletion comment concerning JBiebs is "Cannot find any clause or section of CFI which might justify this entry." The term seems attested, and is governed by WT:NSE. Consistent with Talk:RPattz#RFD discussion: August 2017–March 2018 and the results of Talk:J-Lo, this should be kept. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Suggest collecting some citations on the citation page for verification first. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Unstriking: Let's finish the discussion here in RFD, now that we have attesting quotations at Citations:JBiebs; we will need more votes combined with comments. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Restore. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 12:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Restore. I hadn't even seen Talk:J-Lo when I commented that J-Lo and A-Rod (and K-Fed, which we don't yet have) provide precedent for JBiebs. Khemehekis (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

sexually mature[edit]

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

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

accidentally a word[edit]

"(humorous) To unintentionally omit a word." It seems that what is being described here is a grammatical practice (humorously omitting an element of the syntax in order to emphasise an omission of another kind): you can, for example, find deliberate uses of "I accidentally a sentence" in Google. Whatever this is seems more suited to something along the lines of Appendix:English snowclones: it is grammatical, not lexical. I can't imagine any user looking it up, either. Equinox 02:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - it is just a play on words. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete - SOP, make a new sense at accidentally. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I was actually going to comment if accidentally a has lexical potential, though perhaps expanding accidentally would suffice. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 16:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete. No argument about this one. DonnanZ (talk) 09:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

be one[edit]

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

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

computer game[edit]

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

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

to-gloried[edit]

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

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

level[edit]

Sense:

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

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

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

kill it with fire[edit]

Not sure this needs to be deleted, but it is sum of parts and merely special for the context it is used in, which, given the quotes, does not seem notable. But I have an aversion against phrase book entries in general, so take this with a grain of salt. Etymology section does not apply, the true sense is verbatim (if metaphoric), but origin is what's needed ... Rhyminreason (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems special. Fire isn't relevant to the way it is used. Nobody says "kill it by stabbing!" Equinox 22:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
@Equinox You say that phrase a lot. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep, it's quite idiomatic. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Just a bit of creative exaggeration that's got slightly popular. You also see nuke it from orbit quite a lot. Ƿidsiþ 14:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Is the word "it" an essential or invariable part of this expression? Mihia (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep: this is a relatively common metaphor, and not really sum of parts, as the intention is usually not to literally burn the item in question. GKFX (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep. Nominator does not understand how the CFI work (origin is irrelevant). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

distributive property[edit]

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

sinusoidal function[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[49].--Dan Polansky (talk) 07:34, 21 April 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)

Righteous Among the Nations[edit]

I'm not sure this is dictionary-worthy. It's basically the name of a specific award. --WikiTiki89 14:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep. It's used very differently than most awards in terms of grammar: as an adjective and as a noun referring to that person. Even were that not to be the case, we do have Nobel Prize. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep. Per Metaknowledge. John Cross (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep, for the same reasons. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Abstain. For: could be useful for the translations + we have Nobel prize. Against: I'm not sure it's dictionary-worthy. Puzzled: I don't quite see how its being "used very differently than most awards in terms of grammar" is relevant. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Ulster[edit]

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

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

eidetic memory[edit]

make all the difference[edit]

SOP; redirect to make a difference. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep, decidedly different phrase from "make a difference", which can refer to making any difference. To make "all the difference" is to be the one specific thing that tips the outcome. bd2412 T 22:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree that it is distinctly different from ""make a difference"; it also often comes in the form "Make all the difference in the world". --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep using WT:LEMMING: M-W[50]. The point bd2412 makes above seems good as well. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

blanket[edit]

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

A possible keep, shown as an adjective here. DonnanZ (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
But it doesn't pass the tests for adjectivity. You can't say "**this ban is blanket" or "**a very blanket statement", for example. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
No it always seems to be attributive, found a couple more refs where it is listed as an adjective, Cambridge and Collins. It appears to be figurative usage of the noun; even the noun can be used figuratively, e.g. wet blanket. I'm not sure about blanket bath, which needs an entry (an all-over wash given to a person confined to bed); whether it's a literal or figurative sense I don't know. DonnanZ (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep the adjective section using the lemming heuristic: M-W[51], Macmillan[52], oxforddictionaries.com[53], dictionary.cambridge.org[54]; Collins[55] says "adjective [usually ADJECTIVE noun]", which I don't know that that means. On a marginal note: these dictionaries used to have such beautiful websites, before this pernicious tabletty design fashion came. Wiktionary still keeps its beautiful design free from locked in top search bars. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
So we're just going to propagate the mistake of other dictionaries? In fact, I'm not even convinced this a genuine mistake on their part; rather, it looks like an intentional shortcut, to avoid having to explain why it can't be an adjective (their websites aren't really suited to that). As we're more linguistically minded, do we really want to do that too?
Collins is probably saying, like the others, that this "adjective" is always found before the noun it qualifies. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 07:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: Please see this revision for what I think would be the best solution. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 07:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Not my favorite; keep as is. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
How do you know it's a mistake? There is no ultimate test of adjectivity in English: obviously, not all adjectives are comparable, forming comparatives and superlatives. Note that the etymology of the word seems to be adjectival. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
There might be no ultimate test of adjectivity, but that this word passes none of the usual ones (as I said above, I don't think you can say "**this ban is blanket", nor "**a very blanket statement"; and you certainly can't say "**blanketer/**blanketest/**more blanket/**blanketly" (edit: actually you can, which seriously undermines my point...)) seems like a pretty good indicator that it's not an adjective. If I'm wrong, please show me why.
As for the etymology: that the word is of adjectival origin is irrelevant. Or are you arguing that that sense of blanket is actually a remnant of that? I very much doubt it, but again, I'm willing to be shown otherwise. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I delegate the lexicographical research to lemmings in this case. I do not have access to their internal records and deliberations. I point out again to there being no conclusive test of adjectivity since non-comparable adjectives exist. In Czech, the situation is very different: there, adjectivity is seen from the surface morphology. Thus, lumbální looks like an adjective and inflects like an adjective, and is non-comparable. In English, adjectivity is more difficult to recognize. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep. Equinox 10:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I had a go at adding missing derived terms, and found it difficult in some cases to separate between noun and adjective, so in the end I lumped them all together. Perhaps another editor can do a better job. DonnanZ (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

poly theistic[edit]

This barely squeaked through RFV, but it looks like an error, and should probably be deleted anyway. Kiwima (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Delete as a rare misspelling. This is what Google is for. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Poly-theistic may be acceptable, but delete this. DonnanZ (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
This entry started its life as a redirect; it should end it as one. Redirect to poly-theistic, in case anyone bothers looking for it. bd2412 T 17:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

royal family[edit]

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

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

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

"Royal house" is used in English as well, totally synonymous with "royal family". That may support what PUC was saying. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Is it? I would say the royal house of the UK is the House of Windsor, which is by no means synonymous with the royal family. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 21:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I suppose not. All of the instances I was thinking of were, but they were limited. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep. konge- (etc.) compounds are derived from king, and can mean royal, not what the inexperienced user would expect. DonnanZ (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Can you call the royal families of Luxembourg, Monaco and Liechtenstein kongehus/kungahus even though they don't have kings? (For that matter, can you call them royal families in English?) —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 10:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
@Mahagaja: It may be fyrstehus in those cases [56], [57]. DonnanZ (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep as translation target. Wyang (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
@Wyang, why did you do this? I think my concern about dumping qualifying and non-qualifying translations in the same place is a legitimate one, and I would like more people to see what I'm proposing. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
It's a Eurocentric split. Wyang (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@Wyang: I don't understand. If some European language had a "non word-for-word translation" (for lack of a better wording), then I'd put it in the first box; the fact that there's none in this specific instance is completely accidental. The point is definitely not to say "look at how Asia/Africa/Oceania/America does it, and how Europe does it". --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
What is a word-for-word translation anyway? It makes no difference- a translation is a translation. The fact is that multiple languages have words that are perfectly valid and includable to refer to "royal family", thus it is a translation target. Sure, in European languages you can have words characteristically thought of as equivalents of English words (e.g. family ~ famille), but most languages don't. Are 皇家, 皇室, 王室, etc. word-for-word translations of 'royal family'? I don't know, because there are no word-to-word correspondences between English and Chinese. The JKV words are borrowed from Chinese, so are they "word-for-word translations"? Wyang (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep using the lemming heuristic (WT:LEMMING): in Collins[58] and Macmillan[59]. As for translation hub (Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-03/Including translation hubs), I have doubts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

blogshop model[edit]

SoP as far as I can see. (Some of the quotations can be transferred to blogshop.) — SGconlaw (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 08:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

cookie-cutter[edit]

This is not an adjective (compare cookie-cuttery, [60]), but an attributive use of the noun cookie cutter (the exact same deal as with blanket, see above); we should format it as the entry for shoulder-blade, or, if we don't want that kind of entries, delete it entirely (see transitive-verb). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 08:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not a term I'm familiar with as an adjective, but I would say keep. Would you RFD off-the-shoulder or well-defined (attributive adjective of well defined) for the same reason? DonnanZ (talk) 09:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
If it is deleted entirely, we need a "sometimes attributive" gloss on cookie cutter at least: this word is often used in an adjectival position whereas many other nouns are not. Equinox 09:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
If it's deleted entirely we should add its idiomatic sense to cookie cutter anyway. I actually think we should keep it, convert it to a noun, convert its first sense to {{&lit}} and add {{lb|en|attributive}} in front of its second sense. That would actually be a useful "noun in attributive use" entry, compared to transitive-verb which is useless as it has no specialised use. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I think I found some good cites uses of it being used predicatively. If these are okay then keep as an adjective – Gormflaith (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
@Gormflaith: Yes, I think these are good. Shouldn't we label it as {{lb|en|nonstandard}} though? It seems clumsy to me, and I'd definitely avoid that type of construction myself and use cookie-cuttery instead, but I'm no native speaker. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
@Per utramque cavernam: I actually think it sounds good, as a native AmE speaker, and "cookie-cuttery" sounds a bit awkward (a place where cookie cutters are made? lol). If any other native speakers could weigh in that would be great – Gormflaith (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
@Gormflaith: I agree (also a native AmE speaker) that "cookie-cuttery" sounds like a strangely delightful place, and sounds very awkward as an adjective. That said, I would never use "cookie-cutter" as a predicate adjective--it sounds at the least very nonstandard, like saying something like "That statement is very blanket." (2014 doge anyone? Wow. Much adjective.) In any case, I would probably use "cookie-cutterish" most naturally. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, thanks. I guess I'm wrong about cookie-cuttery, but my point is that I'd want to properly adjectivise cookie-cutter with a suffix, as you did in cookie-cutterish. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
@Per utramque cavernam: I wouldn't say 'wrong', as cookie-cutter +‎ -y would be in the vein of adding -y to nouns colloquially whenever an adjective is desired (like -ish, -esque and -like, as I mentioned below. It just also sounds like -ery, which gives it the comic effect Gormflaith and I mentioned. :-] --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
@SanctMinimalicen: @Per utramque cavernam: Hmmm... I still think cookie-cutter is what I'd use most naturally. I tried to see if it was dialectal but no dice; the authors are from all over. Also, cookie-cutterish seems unattestable, whereas predicative cookie-cutter is clearly attestable (though this doesn't really prove standard-ness). I'm a-ok with a slapping a {{lb|en|nonstandard}} on there if that's the general consensus, but imo it's a standard construction. – Gormflaith (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Nvm, cookie-cutterish seems to be attestable. But using "is so X", "is very X", and "more X than" for my Google Books searhces, cookie-cutter is clearly more common as a predicate adj.– Gormflaith (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC) (@SanctMinimalicen: I think you accidentally deleted my comment, I've added it back :-) – Gormflaith (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC))
Oops, sorry! My computer went weird when I submitted that last comment (double submitted, page load problem), and somewhere in there I must have accidentally done that. '^^ --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
@Per utramque cavernam: @Gormflaith: Yeah, "cookie-cutterish" is definitely non-attestable perhaps best seen as non-standard--more like a cookie-cutter +‎ -ish nonce word, in the way that -ish, -like and -esque are slapped on colloquially whenever convenient. I'm fine leaving the entry, with or without the 'nonstandard' label given the evidence put forth, but my subjective "feeling" as a speaker is that there is no truly standard predicate form. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
@Gormflaith, SanctMinimalicen: What do you think of the current state of the entry? I've tried to be accurate as possible (at the cost of some redundancy, unfortunately).
I think the only truly adjectival use of the word is when it's in predicate position. In "a cookie-cutter solution", it could theoretically be either, but imo it's etymologically and grammatically better to treat it as a noun in attributive form rather than an adjective. Hence I've added a noun section, and moved the old usexes there; for the adjective section, I've kept only the quotations Gormflaith has provided.
Please reword the definitions, labels and usage notes as you see fit.--Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
By the way, I think we should give blanket the same treatment; there's apparently some truly adjectival use too (as demonstrated by the existence of blanketly), but as here, I think it's a recent and somewhat nonstandard/ungrammatical development (I don't have access to the full quote, but I bet that's what this columnist says here: blanketly itself is nonstandard). Historically I'm pretty sure it was a noun in attributive position before being reinterpreted as an adjective, and our entry should reflect that. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
@Per utramque cavernam: It looks great! Thank you. :-) And I agree with keeping the attributive as a noun, it'd be hard to explain nicely and might be confusing to readers. As for the blanket entry, something similar to cookie-cutter sounds great. (Though for some reason *"That's very blanket" doesn't work for me.) – Gormflaith (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
@Gormflaith: That's interesting, and we'd have to reflect that too. I guess it means that cookie-cutter is further down the path of adjectivisation than blanket, which is still very "nounish".
What proof of adjectivisation do we have for blanket, apart from blanketly? I can find occurrences of "very blanket answer" on Google, but that's not durably archived. Oh, I can find a few occurrences of "is so blanket" on GB. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
@Per utramque cavernam: @Gormflaith: I think the entry looks good--thanks for doing that! I fully agree with the move to attributive noun and the reasoning you gave therefor. I think that blanket can be treated the same way, though I think it substantially more "nounish", as you said, than "cookie-cutter". (Also, cf the discussion about blanket higher on the deletion page. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I oppose calling this sense a noun used attributively. Partly because of the cites Gormflaith lists above, which are clearly adjectival, and partly because the noun cookie cutter doesn't have the relevant meaning. The noun really only means the object used to cut cookie dough; only the adjective has the figurative "one-size-fits-all" sense. Please change it back to ===Adjective===. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 13:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
    • @Mahagaja: I disagree with that. Going by our current quotes, the attributive position clearly antedates the predicative one (which, as I said above, is the only real proof of adjectival use): a quote from 1927, a quote from 1933, a quote from 1969, a quote from 1981. To me, it's a pretty clear clue (not a proof, but a clue) that cookie-cutter is of nominal origin. Now, why is that sense only found there: it doesn't seem surprising to me that the attributive form acquired a specialised metaphoric meaning. I'm speaking of etymology, but even synchronically, does there need to be a strict equivalence of meaning between a noun and its attributive form?
    Plus moving back that sense to the adjective POS doesn't solve anything; you still have to explain where it comes from.
    blanket has the same problem: the noun noun doesn't have the attributive noun's sense. Would you argue too that that alone justifies having an adjective section, even though that assumption is weak on syntactic grounds? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
    The difference between cookie-cutter and blanket is that cookie-cutter does have predicative use and can be modified by adverbs that don't modify attributive nouns, while blanket isn't used that way (or are there cites for things like "this solution is more blanket than that one"?) I see that cookie-cutter now has both: Etymology 1 is a noun and Etymology 2 is an adjective (which is labeled "nonstandard", a label I'd like to see evidence for). I guess that's a compromise I can live with, but it still seems a little silly to me to have sense 2 of the noun labeled "attributive" and then have the exact same sense further down the page listed as an adjective under Etymology 2. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 14:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, but I did write above that I "tried to be accurate as possible (at the cost of some redundancy, unfortunately)." I guess it boils down to whether we want to be practical, in which case we could scrap the second attributive sense, or we want a complete and historically accurate description of the word.
    As for the nonstandard label, we discussed that as well. cookie-cutter in attributive position sounds fine; cookie-cutter in predicative position rubs me and SanctMinimalicen the wrong way, and sounds slightly ungrammatical; we intuitively want to add an adjectival suffix to achieve grammaticality. Gormflaith disagrees with that though. Again, I'm not a native speaker so I defer to y'all on that point. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
    I don't know what variety of English SanctMinimalicen speaks natively, but Gormflaith and I are both Americans and it sounds natural without a suffix to us. I can understand that it might sound odd to someone in whose preferred variety of English even a literal cookie cutter is called a biscuit cutter. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 15:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
    @Mahagaja I think the current version should content everyone. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
    @Per utramque cavernam: Looks good to me--thanks for leading the fixes again!
Also, for the record, I am a native American English speaker as well, as I mentioned above. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

rain gutter[edit]

SoP. It's just a gutter for rain. Also I feel like "gutter" is the usual term; "rain gutter" might be used to specify what type of gutter. Though I guess it can stay as an alt form if somebody makes an entry for raingutter. – Gormflaith (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

In searching for one-word raingutter (which does seem attestable) I was surprised to learn that cars/vehicles can have rain gutters -- used for draining water from skis mounted on a roof rack etc. Therefore our definition about the eaves of a building isn't sufficient in any case. Equinox 00:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure my old Mercedes 230TE had them. DonnanZ (talk) 07:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

popty ping[edit]

Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English#popty ping.

killer box[edit]

SoP. Anon made it; doesn't seem to have an idiomatic meaning either – Gormflaith (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Delete. I couldn't find any usage of it that isn't a product. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Speedily deleted by SemperBlotto on 23 April 2018. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

55373045[edit]

Same killer box anon. Unattestable 1337 afaik. – Gormflaith (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Speedily deleted by SemperBlotto on 23 April 2018. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

People's Republic of California[edit]

See people's republic, sense #2. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 09:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

strictly more than[edit]

Sum of parts strictly more than SemperBlotto (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Same Pokemon anon – Gormflaith (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

nothing more than[edit]

SoP, and anon seems to have some type of Pokemon agenda; see this diffGormflaith (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Deleted (SoP plus bad definition (wrong part of speech)) SemperBlotto (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

paeleoclimate[edit]

paeleoclimatic[edit]

These have both been cited in response to an RFV, but I still contend that as misspellings they are too rare in comparison to the standard spellings paleoclimate/-ic and palaeoclimate/-ic to warrant inclusion. See bgc/ngrams for "-climate" and for "-climatic"; ngrams can't even find enough examples of "paeleo-" to plot. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 06:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)